# What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?



## Coyote

Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:  
_"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."

Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​

Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
_The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*

"There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​

I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.

_When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.

It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.

In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​



Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
Click to expand...


Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​



Isn’t it time that bleeding heart suckers add some credibility to this whining by starting with the condemnation of the piece of shit criminal wetback parents first?
Whatta ya say...seem like rudimentary logic to you?


----------



## HappyJoy

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
Click to expand...


They don't see them as human.


----------



## Coyote

BrokeLoser said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn’t it time that bleeding heart suckers add some credibility to this whining by starting with the condemnation of the piece of shit criminal wetback parents first?
> Whatta ya say...seem like rudimentary logic to you?
Click to expand...


And another one who thinks punishing children is a suitable response.  Way to go dude.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.


----------



## pismoe

its just like the 'anchor baby' deal , mexicans drop an anchor baby and they have the Americans by the nutz .    This variation of the mexican taking their kids to the border is , as i say just a variation of dropping an anchor baby .  -------------------- as the mexican cries and says , you can't separate 'mamasitas' and widdle baby mexicans Coyote .


----------



## HappyJoy

9thIDdoc said:


> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.



How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?


----------



## HappyJoy

pismoe said:


> its just like the 'anchor baby' deal , mexicans drop an anchor baby and they have the Americans by the nutz .    This variation of the mexican taking their kids to the border is , as i say just a variation of dropping an anchor baby .  -------------------- as the mexican cries and says , you can't separate 'mamasitas' and widdle mexicans Coyote .



We can have another debate about birthright citizenship, this is another matter altogether so maybe stick to the topic.


----------



## Coyote

9thIDdoc said:


> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.



The issue isn't allowing or not allowing them to stay.  Read the OP.


----------



## Coyote

pismoe said:


> its just like the 'anchor baby' deal , mexicans drop an anchor baby and they have the Americans by the nutz .    This variation of the mexican taking their kids to the border is , as i say just a variation of dropping an anchor baby .  -------------------- as the mexican cries and says , you can't separate 'mamasitas' and widdle baby mexicans Coyote .




So you are fine with taking young children from their parents and throwing them into our foster care system while they await hearings?  700 kids lost in our foster care network or housed in barracks apart from their parents.  It's sick but you don't have an issue with it.


----------



## Old Yeller

Dem setup.  Show up with any kid,  get a hearing two years out.  Presto! Released into USA.  don't show to hearings.  They can't find all of them w/phony (or none) ID.   Overwhelm the system.  Vote D asap.   the kids?  who knows?  Beaner just need pass to get in.  Adios.


----------



## BrokeLoser

HappyJoy said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
Click to expand...


Unnecessary? Really?
“Parents” get caught robbing a bank...they’re prosecuted and sentenced to years of incarceration...do they forfeit their children to “the system” due to their own actions....or do we send the children to live in their prison cell with them?
Come on people....THINK. This is such simple shit.


----------



## Coyote

Old Yeller said:


> Dem setup.  Show up with any kid,  get a hearing two years out.  Presto! Released into USA.  don't show to hearings.  They can't find all of them w/phony (or none) ID.   Overwhelm the system.  Vote D asap.   the kids?  who knows?  Beaner just need pass to get in.  Adios.



That doesn't make any sense and it's just plain stupid sounding.

Deportations were way up prior to Trump - but they didn't seperate the kids from the parents unless there was suspician the "parent" wasn't the child's real parent.  This new announced change is a departure.


----------



## Coyote

BrokeLoser said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unnecessary? Really?
> “Parents” get caught robbing a bank...they’re prosecuted and sentenced to years of incarceration...do they forfeit their children to “the system” due to their own actions....or do we send the children to live in their prison cell with them?
> Come on people....THINK. This is such simple shit.
Click to expand...


That is not the way the immigration system as worked before.  The children and parents are housed together until they get their hearing.  It isn't a criminal court system.


----------



## HappyJoy

BrokeLoser said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unnecessary? Really?
> “Parents” get caught robbing a bank...they’re prosecuted and sentenced to years of incarceration...do they forfeit their children to “the system” due to their own actions....or do we send the children to live in their prison cell with them?
> Come on people....THINK. This is such simple shit.
Click to expand...


In this case simpleton the parents and children are both in the same boat, now aren't they?


----------



## Old Yeller

Coyote said:


> Old Yeller said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dem setup.  Show up with any kid,  get a hearing two years out.  Presto! Released into USA.  don't show to hearings.  They can't find all of them w/phony (or none) ID.   Overwhelm the system.  Vote D asap.   the kids?  who knows?  Beaner just need pass to get in.  Adios.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't make any sense and it's just plain stupid sounding.
> 
> Deportations were way up prior to Trump - but they didn't seperate the kids from the parents unless there was suspician the "parent" wasn't the child's real parent.  This new announced change is a departure.
Click to expand...

Obammy had crooks cook books.  The only thing "up" was debt.  Beaner drain treasury, vote D.

Jew make ASSumption,   kids match beaner.  no paper,  no sure. All come in free.  Wait slow costly courts.  Who pays?  USA pay.


----------



## HappyJoy

Coyote said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unnecessary? Really?
> “Parents” get caught robbing a bank...they’re prosecuted and sentenced to years of incarceration...do they forfeit their children to “the system” due to their own actions....or do we send the children to live in their prison cell with them?
> Come on people....THINK. This is such simple shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the way the immigration system as worked before.  The children and parents are housed together until they get their hearing.  It isn't a criminal court system.
Click to expand...


That's a very good point. Also, it's not even people trying to enter illegally. Even those seeking asylum legally are being separated.

USA: Routine separation of asylum-seeking families violates international law


----------



## BrokeLoser

Coyote said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unnecessary? Really?
> “Parents” get caught robbing a bank...they’re prosecuted and sentenced to years of incarceration...do they forfeit their children to “the system” due to their own actions....or do we send the children to live in their prison cell with them?
> Come on people....THINK. This is such simple shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the way the immigration system as worked before.  The children and parents are housed together until they get their hearing.  It isn't a criminal court system.
Click to expand...


Welcome to law and order people...this is what shit feels like when you have a POTUS with a nutsack running shit. 
This shit is super simple....DON’T BREAK THE FUCKING LAW and have no worries.
CAUSE AND EFFECT...we learned the shit in third grade.


----------



## HappyJoy

BrokeLoser said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unnecessary? Really?
> “Parents” get caught robbing a bank...they’re prosecuted and sentenced to years of incarceration...do they forfeit their children to “the system” due to their own actions....or do we send the children to live in their prison cell with them?
> Come on people....THINK. This is such simple shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the way the immigration system as worked before.  The children and parents are housed together until they get their hearing.  It isn't a criminal court system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welcome to law and order people...this is what shit feels like when you have a POTUS with a nutsack running shit.
> This shit is super simple....DON’T BREAK THE FUCKING LAW and have no worries.
> CAUSE AND EFFECT...we learned the shit in third grade.
Click to expand...


This helps nobody, we are now losing children in the system as well as separating families that have followed the law who legally sought asylum which may be against international law. 

Here, read this if you're such a 'law and order' kind of guy.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/n...-seeking-families-violates-international-law/


----------



## pismoe

Coyote said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its just like the 'anchor baby' deal , mexicans drop an anchor baby and they have the Americans by the nutz .    This variation of the mexican taking their kids to the border is , as i say just a variation of dropping an anchor baby .  -------------------- as the mexican cries and says , you can't separate 'mamasitas' and widdle baby mexicans Coyote .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are fine with taking young children from their parents and throwing them into our foster care system while they await hearings?  700 kids lost in our foster care network or housed in barracks apart from their parents.  It's sick but you don't have an issue with it.
Click to expand...

--------------------------- SURE , course these widdle babies aren't lost or if lost its the fault of the people that the parents put in charge of their kids Coyote .   And like anyone else in the USA these illegal alien mexicans that have the illegal alien tykes can just get up and move any time they like  Coyote .   Plus since many are illegal alien 'guardians' [chuckle] they don't keep in touch with authorities Coyote .


----------



## BrokeLoser

HappyJoy said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unnecessary? Really?
> “Parents” get caught robbing a bank...they’re prosecuted and sentenced to years of incarceration...do they forfeit their children to “the system” due to their own actions....or do we send the children to live in their prison cell with them?
> Come on people....THINK. This is such simple shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the way the immigration system as worked before.  The children and parents are housed together until they get their hearing.  It isn't a criminal court system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welcome to law and order people...this is what shit feels like when you have a POTUS with a nutsack running shit.
> This shit is super simple....DON’T BREAK THE FUCKING LAW and have no worries.
> CAUSE AND EFFECT...we learned the shit in third grade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This helps nobody, we are now losing children in the system as well as separating families that have followed the law who legally sought asylum which may be against international law.
> 
> Here, read this if you're such a 'law and order' kind of guy.
> 
> USA: Routine separation of asylum-seeking families violates international law
Click to expand...


Oh shit...you whacks are so predictable.
This is where you bring the .0002% in play that nobody gives two shits about to help push your twisted agenda. Nobody good and sane falls for that bullshit anymore...haha
Back to the drawing board huh?


----------



## OKTexas

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​




You're talking to the wrong people. Only congress can address the situation. Border patrol is enforcing the law, congress is working on a law where the whole family can be deported expeditiously but your commiecrats won't hear of it. So don't come crying on our shoulders, tell your party to get off their ass and support a fix.


.


----------



## Tresha91203

You cannot house children in adult detention centers. It is common sense.


----------



## pismoe

BrokeLoser said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unnecessary? Really?
> “Parents” get caught robbing a bank...they’re prosecuted and sentenced to years of incarceration...do they forfeit their children to “the system” due to their own actions....or do we send the children to live in their prison cell with them?
> Come on people....THINK. This is such simple shit.
Click to expand...

-----------------------------------------------   BROKELOSER has it correct !!


----------



## HappyJoy

BrokeLoser said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unnecessary? Really?
> “Parents” get caught robbing a bank...they’re prosecuted and sentenced to years of incarceration...do they forfeit their children to “the system” due to their own actions....or do we send the children to live in their prison cell with them?
> Come on people....THINK. This is such simple shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the way the immigration system as worked before.  The children and parents are housed together until they get their hearing.  It isn't a criminal court system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welcome to law and order people...this is what shit feels like when you have a POTUS with a nutsack running shit.
> This shit is super simple....DON’T BREAK THE FUCKING LAW and have no worries.
> CAUSE AND EFFECT...we learned the shit in third grade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This helps nobody, we are now losing children in the system as well as separating families that have followed the law who legally sought asylum which may be against international law.
> 
> Here, read this if you're such a 'law and order' kind of guy.
> 
> USA: Routine separation of asylum-seeking families violates international law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh shit...you whacks are so predictable.
> This is where you bring the .0002% in play that nobody gives two shits about to help push your twisted agenda. Nobody good and sane falls for that bullshit anymore...haha
> Back to the drawing board huh?
Click to expand...


I think you're making up the percentage but we'll ignore that.

The point of my post is the Trump administration is systematically separating families whether legally or not applying for asylum. In other words, the policy is broad based and probably illegal and as a policy this is new and unnecessary, it's inhumane at it's core. We also don't seem to care enough to even properly track where these kids end up or give two shits about the welfare of the most innocent among us. 

The Trump administration gets away with this because you've been lead to believe that there is an 'invasion' and 'wetbacks' aren't human and should be shot on site if even glancing over at the border. I'd hate to live in your America, hopefully we will never get there.


----------



## Billy000

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
Click to expand...

God you people are stupid. Her point is about the kids who didn’t choose to be smuggled over the border.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unnecessary? Really?
> “Parents” get caught robbing a bank...they’re prosecuted and sentenced to years of incarceration...do they forfeit their children to “the system” due to their own actions....or do we send the children to live in their prison cell with them?
> Come on people....THINK. This is such simple shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the way the immigration system as worked before.  The children and parents are housed together until they get their hearing.  It isn't a criminal court system.
Click to expand...


Oh yes, and most of them attend the hearing, don't they?


----------



## HappyJoy

pismoe said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unnecessary? Really?
> “Parents” get caught robbing a bank...they’re prosecuted and sentenced to years of incarceration...do they forfeit their children to “the system” due to their own actions....or do we send the children to live in their prison cell with them?
> Come on people....THINK. This is such simple shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------------------------   BROKELOSER has it correct !!
Click to expand...


Well, no he doesn't unless you want to incarcerate the family members of those who commit bank robberies. Outside of that this is a classic diversion of juggling apples and oranges.


----------



## BrokeLoser

HappyJoy said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unnecessary? Really?
> “Parents” get caught robbing a bank...they’re prosecuted and sentenced to years of incarceration...do they forfeit their children to “the system” due to their own actions....or do we send the children to live in their prison cell with them?
> Come on people....THINK. This is such simple shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the way the immigration system as worked before.  The children and parents are housed together until they get their hearing.  It isn't a criminal court system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welcome to law and order people...this is what shit feels like when you have a POTUS with a nutsack running shit.
> This shit is super simple....DON’T BREAK THE FUCKING LAW and have no worries.
> CAUSE AND EFFECT...we learned the shit in third grade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This helps nobody, we are now losing children in the system as well as separating families that have followed the law who legally sought asylum which may be against international law.
> 
> Here, read this if you're such a 'law and order' kind of guy.
> 
> USA: Routine separation of asylum-seeking families violates international law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh shit...you whacks are so predictable.
> This is where you bring the .0002% in play that nobody gives two shits about to help push your twisted agenda. Nobody good and sane falls for that bullshit anymore...haha
> Back to the drawing board huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're making up the percentage but we'll ignore that.
> 
> The point of my post is the Trump administration is systematically separating families whether legally or not applying for asylum. In other words, the policy is broad based and probably illegal and as a policy this is new and unnecessary, it's inhumane at it's core. We also don't seem to care enough to even properly track where these kids end up or give two shits about the welfare of the most innocent among us.
> 
> The Trump administration gets away with this because you've been lead to believe that there is an 'invasion' and 'wetbacks' aren't human and should be shot on site if even glancing over at the border. I'd hate to live in your America, hopefully we will never get there.
Click to expand...


Haha...there is far more than an invasion happening. 
Look, it’s just time for you noble folks trying to change the world with other people’s checking accounts to let your nuts drop. What we’ve been doing hasn’t been working...it’s about time that we get stupid aggressive. 30 states and 2,623 counties sent the right guy to D.C. to make it happen.


----------



## Billy000

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


Republicans tend to lack basic empathy for things they don’t directly witness. They don’t have the emotional maturity or complexity of thought for such a thing. As a result, they don’t bother thinking about the well being of kids. They just know brown people have crossed the border and their GOP masters tell them it’s a bad thing.


----------



## pismoe

Billy000 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God you people are stupid. Her point is about the kids who didn’t choose to be smuggled over the border.
Click to expand...

-----------------------------------------------   Depends on the age of the kid  Billy .


----------



## HappyJoy

BrokeLoser said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the way the immigration system as worked before.  The children and parents are housed together until they get their hearing.  It isn't a criminal court system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to law and order people...this is what shit feels like when you have a POTUS with a nutsack running shit.
> This shit is super simple....DON’T BREAK THE FUCKING LAW and have no worries.
> CAUSE AND EFFECT...we learned the shit in third grade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This helps nobody, we are now losing children in the system as well as separating families that have followed the law who legally sought asylum which may be against international law.
> 
> Here, read this if you're such a 'law and order' kind of guy.
> 
> USA: Routine separation of asylum-seeking families violates international law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh shit...you whacks are so predictable.
> This is where you bring the .0002% in play that nobody gives two shits about to help push your twisted agenda. Nobody good and sane falls for that bullshit anymore...haha
> Back to the drawing board huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're making up the percentage but we'll ignore that.
> 
> The point of my post is the Trump administration is systematically separating families whether legally or not applying for asylum. In other words, the policy is broad based and probably illegal and as a policy this is new and unnecessary, it's inhumane at it's core. We also don't seem to care enough to even properly track where these kids end up or give two shits about the welfare of the most innocent among us.
> 
> The Trump administration gets away with this because you've been lead to believe that there is an 'invasion' and 'wetbacks' aren't human and should be shot on site if even glancing over at the border. I'd hate to live in your America, hopefully we will never get there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha...there is far more than an invasion happening.
> Look, it’s just time for you noble folks trying to change the world with other people’s checking accounts to let your nuts drop. What we’ve been doing hasn’t been working...it’s about time that we get stupid aggressive. 30 states and 2,623 counties sent the right guy to D.C. to make it happen.
Click to expand...



Not one bit of your post has anything to do with separating families. It's just boilerplate right wing fantasy.


----------



## busybee01

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​



What makes it even worse is the fact that these children are being terrorized. This is terrorism to the hilt. The people involved need to be held accountable.


----------



## pismoe

its not like these mexicans are normal parents as many western and American parents .     The mexican kids and parent both know the deal on breaking into the USA and both plan the invasion , depending on age  Billy .


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
Click to expand...


You presented a problem and I told you the solution to the problem.  And I'm growing sick of you leftists using children every time you want to get your way.  You want open borders, so use the children.  You want everybody on food stamps, so use the children, you want increased minimum wage, so bring up the children, you want gun control, so use the children, increase tobacco taxes, because of the children, more environmental laws, because of the children. 

Anytime you people can use the children to promote your political agenda, we are supposed to sit back and allow it to happen.  Well if that's the case, I say screw the children.  I'm sick of hearing about the children.  I'm sick of children being used as political pawns to promote a liberal agenda.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Billy000 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God you people are stupid. Her point is about the kids who didn’t choose to be smuggled over the border.
Click to expand...


You mean just like the children of incarcerated bank robbers...and how the piece of shit parents forfeited them to the system by way of their own actions?


----------



## busybee01

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
Click to expand...


You are little more than a terrorist. Your ass needs to be kicked out. You are a animal.


----------



## HappyJoy

busybee01 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes it even worse is the fact that these children are being terrorized. This is terrorism to the hilt. The people involved need to be held accountable.
Click to expand...


Let's see:

_ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun_

_the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"the fight against terrorism"_

Yeah, it fits.


----------



## pismoe

its all a scam using the so call widdle children as RAY says .


----------



## HappyJoy

pismoe said:


> its all a scam using the so call widdle children as RAY says .



Really? There is an actual valid reason for separating children from their parents?


----------



## The Irish Ram

Coyote said:


> You are punishing the children



Their parents are punishing those children, and putting them in harm's way, to reap benefits that  the parents are not entitled to.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

HappyJoy said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its all a scam using the so call widdle children as RAY says .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? There is an actual valid reason for separating children from their parents?
Click to expand...


Yes, it's called a deterrent.


----------



## HappyJoy

The Irish Ram said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are punishing the children
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their parents are punishing those children, and putting them in harm's way, to reap benefits the the parents are not entitled to.
Click to expand...


Actually, many are attempting to either escape extreme poverty or violence to better their own lives but your way sounds so much more dismissive and palatable.


----------



## BrokeLoser

HappyJoy said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes it even worse is the fact that these children are being terrorized. This is terrorism to the hilt. The people involved need to be held accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see:
> 
> _ter·ror·ism
> ˈterəˌrizəm/
> noun_
> 
> _the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
> "the fight against terrorism"_
> 
> Yeah, it fits.
Click to expand...


Haha...here we go with this crazy shit.
LefTard-
Good, patriotic, positive contributing, REAL American = Terrorist
Federal criminals / illegal wetbacks = AWESOME!


----------



## OKTexas

Coyote said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unnecessary? Really?
> “Parents” get caught robbing a bank...they’re prosecuted and sentenced to years of incarceration...do they forfeit their children to “the system” due to their own actions....or do we send the children to live in their prison cell with them?
> Come on people....THINK. This is such simple shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the way the immigration system as worked before.  The children and parents are housed together until they get their hearing.  It isn't a criminal court system.
Click to expand...



You can thank a liberal court for changing that, kids can't be kept in long term detention.


.


----------



## Billy000

BrokeLoser said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God you people are stupid. Her point is about the kids who didn’t choose to be smuggled over the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean just like the children of incarcerated bank robbers...and how the piece of shit parents forfeited them to the system by way of their own actions?
Click to expand...

So you’re equating bank robbers to people who want a better life for their children by crossing a border? God you’re fucking stupid.


----------



## HappyJoy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its all a scam using the so call widdle children as RAY says .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? There is an actual valid reason for separating children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's called a deterrent.
Click to expand...


Border crossings are already at an all time low plus this same new separation policy is being done to those who are here legally seeking asylum. So, no.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Immigrants are not ‘illegal’ until such time as they have been determined by a court of law to have entered the country absent authorization.

Undocumented immigrants are entitled to the rights of due process, equal protection of the law, and a presumption of innocence.

Undocumented immigrants have the right to seek asylum, apply for refugee status, and remain in the country pending approval of that application.

These are facts of immigration and Constitutional law, settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

The problem is there are those who wish to ignore the rule of law and deny undocumented immigrants their due process rights, such as removing from them their children before a determination is made as to their immigration status, as a ‘deterrent’ to immigrants coming to the United States.  

In addition to being wrong and reprehensible, this policy also violates the Constitution.


----------



## busybee01

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You presented a problem and I told you the solution to the problem.  And I'm growing sick of you leftists using children every time you want to get your way.  You want open borders, so use the children.  You want everybody on food stamps, so use the children, you want increased minimum wage, so bring up the children, you want gun control, so use the children, increase tobacco taxes, because of the children, more environmental laws, because of the children.
> 
> Anytime you people can use the children to promote your political agenda, we are supposed to sit back and allow it to happen.  Well if that's the case, I say screw the children.  I'm sick of hearing about the children.  I'm sick of children being used as political pawns to promote a liberal agenda.
Click to expand...


You are the one who wants to make war on children and use them for political purposes. Your kind belongs in the garbage dump of this country with the rest of the trash. You are the one who should be screwed.


----------



## OKTexas

Coyote said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unnecessary? Really?
> “Parents” get caught robbing a bank...they’re prosecuted and sentenced to years of incarceration...do they forfeit their children to “the system” due to their own actions....or do we send the children to live in their prison cell with them?
> Come on people....THINK. This is such simple shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the way the immigration system as worked before.  The children and parents are housed together until they get their hearing.  It isn't a criminal court system.
Click to expand...



It is now, Sessions isn't seeking civil law solutions. He's criminally prosecuting everyone and good on him for doing so.


.


----------



## HappyJoy

BrokeLoser said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes it even worse is the fact that these children are being terrorized. This is terrorism to the hilt. The people involved need to be held accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see:
> 
> _ter·ror·ism
> ˈterəˌrizəm/
> noun_
> 
> _the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
> "the fight against terrorism"_
> 
> Yeah, it fits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha...here we go with this crazy shit.
> LefTard-
> Good, patriotic, positive contributing, REAL American = Terrorist
> Federal criminals / illegal wetbacks = AWESOME!
Click to expand...


It's not just those crossing illegally. Many have legally sought asylum and are still separated. So, yeah, it's a policy of fear and intimidation.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Billy000 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God you people are stupid. Her point is about the kids who didn’t choose to be smuggled over the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean just like the children of incarcerated bank robbers...and how the piece of shit parents forfeited them to the system by way of their own actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re equating bank robbers to people who want a better life for their children by crossing a border? God you’re fucking stupid.
Click to expand...


I think illegals are far worse actually.
Federal criminality = Federal criminal
What else can I teach you Loon?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

busybee01 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are little more than a terrorist. Your ass needs to be kicked out. You are a animal.
Click to expand...


Terrorist?  Do you know what terrorists do to avoid being killed?  They hide behind women.  They strike from nursing homes and hospitals to avoid retaliation.  

If anybody uses terrorist schemes, it's the Democrats.  Quit hiding behind children to get your Fn way all the time.  You claim to be so concerned about children, but have no problem when our tax dollars goes to kill them before they are even born. 

Hypocrites.


----------



## protectionist

Coyote said:


> That doesn't make any sense and it's just plain stupid sounding.
> 
> Deportations were way up prior to Trump - but they didn't seperate the kids from the parents unless there was suspician the "parent" wasn't the child's real parent.  This new announced change is a departure.


The so-called "deportations" under Obama were not deportations. Generally, caught illegal aliens were given "catch & release".  After their immediate release, they simply disappeared back into the population, and did not get separated from their family.


----------



## BrokeLoser

HappyJoy said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes it even worse is the fact that these children are being terrorized. This is terrorism to the hilt. The people involved need to be held accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see:
> 
> _ter·ror·ism
> ˈterəˌrizəm/
> noun_
> 
> _the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
> "the fight against terrorism"_
> 
> Yeah, it fits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha...here we go with this crazy shit.
> LefTard-
> Good, patriotic, positive contributing, REAL American = Terrorist
> Federal criminals / illegal wetbacks = AWESOME!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not just those crossing illegally. Many have legally sought asylum and are still separated. So, yeah, it's a policy of fear and intimidation.
Click to expand...


Fuck your .0002%
Try to stay semi logical.


----------



## busybee01

Ray From Cleveland said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its all a scam using the so call widdle children as RAY says .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? There is an actual valid reason for separating children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's called a deterrent.
Click to expand...


Terrorizing children. People like you need to be shipped off to Guantanamo for the rest of your miserable lives.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billy000 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God you people are stupid. Her point is about the kids who didn’t choose to be smuggled over the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean just like the children of incarcerated bank robbers...and how the piece of shit parents forfeited them to the system by way of their own actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re equating bank robbers to people who want a better life for their children by crossing a border? God you’re fucking stupid.
Click to expand...


Are bank robbers and illegal border crossers breaking the law?  How Fn stupid.


----------



## HappyJoy

BrokeLoser said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God you people are stupid. Her point is about the kids who didn’t choose to be smuggled over the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean just like the children of incarcerated bank robbers...and how the piece of shit parents forfeited them to the system by way of their own actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re equating bank robbers to people who want a better life for their children by crossing a border? God you’re fucking stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think illegals are far worse actually.
> Federal criminality = Federal criminal
> What else can I teach you Loon?
Click to expand...


Right, in your crazy world illegal immigration is worse than murder.


----------



## BrokeLoser

protectionist said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't make any sense and it's just plain stupid sounding.
> 
> Deportations were way up prior to Trump - but they didn't seperate the kids from the parents unless there was suspician the "parent" wasn't the child's real parent.  This new announced change is a departure.
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called "deportations" under Obama were not deportations. Generally, caught illegal aliens were given "catch & release".  After their immediate release, they simply disappeared back into the population, and did not get separated from their family.
Click to expand...


I’ll add....the illegal alien population grew by 2.5 million under the unAmerican Black dude with the unAmerican name.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

busybee01 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its all a scam using the so call widdle children as RAY says .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? There is an actual valid reason for separating children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's called a deterrent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Terrorizing children. People like you need to be shipped off to Guantanamo for the rest of your miserable lives.
Click to expand...


Then send the parents to Gitmo instead of us, because it's the parents that are causing their children harm--not us.


----------



## BrokeLoser

HappyJoy said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> God you people are stupid. Her point is about the kids who didn’t choose to be smuggled over the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean just like the children of incarcerated bank robbers...and how the piece of shit parents forfeited them to the system by way of their own actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re equating bank robbers to people who want a better life for their children by crossing a border? God you’re fucking stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think illegals are far worse actually.
> Federal criminality = Federal criminal
> What else can I teach you Loon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, in your crazy world illegal immigration is worse than murder.
Click to expand...


Nope...just bank robbery.
Pay attention spinner.


----------



## HappyJoy

BrokeLoser said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes it even worse is the fact that these children are being terrorized. This is terrorism to the hilt. The people involved need to be held accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see:
> 
> _ter·ror·ism
> ˈterəˌrizəm/
> noun_
> 
> _the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
> "the fight against terrorism"_
> 
> Yeah, it fits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha...here we go with this crazy shit.
> LefTard-
> Good, patriotic, positive contributing, REAL American = Terrorist
> Federal criminals / illegal wetbacks = AWESOME!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not just those crossing illegally. Many have legally sought asylum and are still separated. So, yeah, it's a policy of fear and intimidation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck your .0002%
> Try to stay semi logical.
Click to expand...


As C_Clayton_Jones has already pointed out, one is not guilty until they are convicted in the eyes of the law. Plus I doubt your percentages are backed up anyway.


----------



## HappyJoy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its all a scam using the so call widdle children as RAY says .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? There is an actual valid reason for separating children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's called a deterrent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Terrorizing children. People like you need to be shipped off to Guantanamo for the rest of your miserable lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then send the parents to Gitmo instead of us, because it's the parents that are causing their children harm--not us.
Click to expand...


No, if we are separating them then it's us.


----------



## protectionist

HappyJoy said:


> That's a very good point. Also, it's not even people trying to enter illegally. Even those seeking asylum legally are being separated.
> 
> USA: Routine separation of asylum-seeking families violates international law


No, it's NOT a good point because due to Obama's catch & release scam (designed to gin up Democrat VOTES), the illegals never went to those hearings. In a typical California courtroom with 200 illegals scheduled to appear, you could hear a pin drop. Nobody there but the court officers.

PS - International law does not guide us.  Obama said he was a citizen of the world.  We are not that. We are AMERICAN citizens, subject to AMERICAN law.


----------



## HappyJoy

protectionist said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a very good point. Also, it's not even people trying to enter illegally. Even those seeking asylum legally are being separated.
> 
> USA: Routine separation of asylum-seeking families violates international law
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's NOT a good point because due to Obama's catch & release scam (designed to gin up Democrat VOTES), the illegals never went to those hearings. In a typical California courtroom with 200 illegals scheduled to appear, you could hear a pin drop. Nobody there but the court officers.
Click to expand...


Stay on topic, we are discussing the separation of families.



> PS - International law does not guide us.  Obama said he was a citizen of the world.  We are not that. We are AMERICAN citizens, subject to AMERICAN law.



We are subject to international laws.


----------



## BrokeLoser

HappyJoy said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes it even worse is the fact that these children are being terrorized. This is terrorism to the hilt. The people involved need to be held accountable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see:
> 
> _ter·ror·ism
> ˈterəˌrizəm/
> noun_
> 
> _the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
> "the fight against terrorism"_
> 
> Yeah, it fits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha...here we go with this crazy shit.
> LefTard-
> Good, patriotic, positive contributing, REAL American = Terrorist
> Federal criminals / illegal wetbacks = AWESOME!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not just those crossing illegally. Many have legally sought asylum and are still separated. So, yeah, it's a policy of fear and intimidation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck your .0002%
> Try to stay semi logical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As C_Clayton_Jones has already pointed out, one is not guilty until they are convicted in the eyes of the law. Plus I doubt your percentages are backed up anyway.
Click to expand...


Like Roy Moore?


----------



## HappyJoy

BrokeLoser said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see:
> 
> _ter·ror·ism
> ˈterəˌrizəm/
> noun_
> 
> _the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
> "the fight against terrorism"_
> 
> Yeah, it fits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...here we go with this crazy shit.
> LefTard-
> Good, patriotic, positive contributing, REAL American = Terrorist
> Federal criminals / illegal wetbacks = AWESOME!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not just those crossing illegally. Many have legally sought asylum and are still separated. So, yeah, it's a policy of fear and intimidation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck your .0002%
> Try to stay semi logical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As C_Clayton_Jones has already pointed out, one is not guilty until they are convicted in the eyes of the law. Plus I doubt your percentages are backed up anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like Roy Moore?
Click to expand...


You're conflating public opinion with the law. Did you know that? I say 50/50 you may not have.


----------



## OKTexas

Billy000 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans tend to lack basic empathy for things they don’t directly witness. They don’t have the emotional maturity or complexity of thought for such a thing. As a result, they don’t bother thinking about the well being of kids. They just know brown people have crossed the border and their GOP masters tell them it’s a bad thing.
Click to expand...



The parents are responsible for anything that happens to the kids, they put them in the situation.


.


----------



## BrokeLoser

HappyJoy what part of that filthy shithole Mexico are you from anyway?


----------



## HappyJoy

OKTexas said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans tend to lack basic empathy for things they don’t directly witness. They don’t have the emotional maturity or complexity of thought for such a thing. As a result, they don’t bother thinking about the well being of kids. They just know brown people have crossed the border and their GOP masters tell them it’s a bad thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The parents are responsible for anything that happens to the kids, they put them in the situation.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Using that logic we could murder the kids in their sleep and completely escape culpability. Your argument is weak.


----------



## HappyJoy

BrokeLoser said:


> HappyJoy what part of that filthy shithole Mexico are you from anyway?



The Arizona part.


----------



## BrokeLoser

2.5 Million Join Illegal Population under Obama


----------



## BrokeLoser

HappyJoy said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy what part of that filthy shithole Mexico are you from anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Arizona part.
Click to expand...


Haha...sure you are.


----------



## HappyJoy

BrokeLoser said:


> 2.5 Million Join Illegal Population under Obama



dumbass


----------



## Billy000

BrokeLoser said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God you people are stupid. Her point is about the kids who didn’t choose to be smuggled over the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean just like the children of incarcerated bank robbers...and how the piece of shit parents forfeited them to the system by way of their own actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re equating bank robbers to people who want a better life for their children by crossing a border? God you’re fucking stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think illegals are far worse actually.
> Federal criminality = Federal criminal
> What else can I teach you Loon?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could teach yourself about basic human decency and the grey morality of the law. It’s not like you give a shit about Wall Street execs for going unpunished with their past  corporate crime. You would rather whine about illegal immigration like a little bitch.


----------



## OKTexas

HappyJoy said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its all a scam using the so call widdle children as RAY says .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? There is an actual valid reason for separating children from their parents?
Click to expand...



You mean from their criminal parents, YES.


.


----------



## HappyJoy

BrokeLoser said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy what part of that filthy shithole Mexico are you from anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Arizona part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha...sure you are.
Click to expand...


I don't lie.


----------



## Old Yeller

Mexico should not send SA trespassers and it's own undesirables to USA border.

Mexico keeps the good ones,  rapes the hot ones.  Trump is proven correct.  

Mexico don't care, why should I?   USA now bankrupt.  Can't afford more problems.


----------



## HappyJoy

OKTexas said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its all a scam using the so call widdle children as RAY says .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? There is an actual valid reason for separating children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean from their criminal parents, YES.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


They aren't convicted of a crime and if they don't demonstrate a threat to their children then their is not a valid reason. It's actually harmful to pull families apart.


----------



## Billy000

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God you people are stupid. Her point is about the kids who didn’t choose to be smuggled over the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean just like the children of incarcerated bank robbers...and how the piece of shit parents forfeited them to the system by way of their own actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re equating bank robbers to people who want a better life for their children by crossing a border? God you’re fucking stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are bank robbers and illegal border crossers breaking the law?  How Fn stupid.
Click to expand...

Stop pretending you give a shit about the rule of law when we know white collar corporate crime rarely goes punished. You don’t care about that because the GOP hasn’t  told you to care about it.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Billy000 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> God you people are stupid. Her point is about the kids who didn’t choose to be smuggled over the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean just like the children of incarcerated bank robbers...and how the piece of shit parents forfeited them to the system by way of their own actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re equating bank robbers to people who want a better life for their children by crossing a border? God you’re fucking stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think illegals are far worse actually.
> Federal criminality = Federal criminal
> What else can I teach you Loon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you could teach yourself about basic human decency and the grey morality of the law. It’s not like you give a shit about Wall Street execs for going unpunished with their past  corporate crime. You would rather whine about illegal immigration like a little bitch.
Click to expand...


Oh the LefTard logic...
Try to excuse criminality with other criminality...GAY!
“Grey morality of the law” 
WTF is that...you Loons sit around in a circle jerk coming up with the craziest bunch of bullshit...hahaha


----------



## OKTexas

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Immigrants are not ‘illegal’ until such time as they have been determined by a court of law to have entered the country absent authorization.
> 
> Undocumented immigrants are entitled to the rights of due process, equal protection of the law, and a presumption of innocence.
> 
> Undocumented immigrants have the right to seek asylum, apply for refugee status, and remain in the country pending approval of that application.
> 
> These are facts of immigration and Constitutional law, settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.
> 
> The problem is there are those who wish to ignore the rule of law and deny undocumented immigrants their due process rights, such as removing from them their children before a determination is made as to their immigration status, as a ‘deterrent’ to immigrants coming to the United States.
> 
> In addition to being wrong and reprehensible, this policy also violates the Constitution.




That's why they're sending extra judges and prosecutors to the border, to expedite the process.


.


----------



## Billy000

BrokeLoser said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God you people are stupid. Her point is about the kids who didn’t choose to be smuggled over the border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean just like the children of incarcerated bank robbers...and how the piece of shit parents forfeited them to the system by way of their own actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re equating bank robbers to people who want a better life for their children by crossing a border? God you’re fucking stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think illegals are far worse actually.
> Federal criminality = Federal criminal
> What else can I teach you Loon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you could teach yourself about basic human decency and the grey morality of the law. It’s not like you give a shit about Wall Street execs for going unpunished with their past  corporate crime. You would rather whine about illegal immigration like a little bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the LefTard logic...
> Try to excuse criminality with other criminality...GAY!
> “Grey morality of the law”
> WTF is that...you Loons sit around in a circle jerk coming up with the craziest bunch of bullshit...hahaha
Click to expand...

Lol god you are stupid. This isn’t hard to figure out. Should we treat someone who steals a candy bar like someone who raped someone? Obviously not. It’s amazing I have to walk you through this.


----------



## HappyJoy

Billy000 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean just like the children of incarcerated bank robbers...and how the piece of shit parents forfeited them to the system by way of their own actions?
> 
> 
> 
> So you’re equating bank robbers to people who want a better life for their children by crossing a border? God you’re fucking stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think illegals are far worse actually.
> Federal criminality = Federal criminal
> What else can I teach you Loon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you could teach yourself about basic human decency and the grey morality of the law. It’s not like you give a shit about Wall Street execs for going unpunished with their past  corporate crime. You would rather whine about illegal immigration like a little bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the LefTard logic...
> Try to excuse criminality with other criminality...GAY!
> “Grey morality of the law”
> WTF is that...you Loons sit around in a circle jerk coming up with the craziest bunch of bullshit...hahaha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol god you are stupid. This isn’t hard to figure out. Should we treat someone who steals a candy bar like someone who raped someone? Obviously not. It’s amazing I have to walk you through this.
Click to expand...


I'm not so sure it's all that obvious to them.


----------



## protectionist

HappyJoy said:


> Stay on topic, we are discussing the separation of families.


 Yes and catch & release, and its effects have much to do with separation of families.  The reason why families are being separated is twofold 1) because the illegals chose to come here illegally, and 2) because they can no longer escape deportation by C & R poilcy.



HappyJoy said:


> We are subject to international laws.


NO we are not. And this is an important point.  Leftists are internationalists, just like communists.  They are, like Obama, "citizen of the world".  But that is FALSE.  We are Americans, not citizens of the world. And where international law and US law clash, there is no contest. US law prevails.  That is how it is.

Anybody who thinks different from that isn't a true American, and they really should leave the US and go to where it is believed that international law is superior to that countries law.

In the USA  >>_ "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States...shall be the *Supreme Law of the Land*"_  (US Constitution, Article 6, Section 2, part 1 - the Supremacy Clause)​


----------



## BrokeLoser

Billy000 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean just like the children of incarcerated bank robbers...and how the piece of shit parents forfeited them to the system by way of their own actions?
> 
> 
> 
> So you’re equating bank robbers to people who want a better life for their children by crossing a border? God you’re fucking stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think illegals are far worse actually.
> Federal criminality = Federal criminal
> What else can I teach you Loon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you could teach yourself about basic human decency and the grey morality of the law. It’s not like you give a shit about Wall Street execs for going unpunished with their past  corporate crime. You would rather whine about illegal immigration like a little bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the LefTard logic...
> Try to excuse criminality with other criminality...GAY!
> “Grey morality of the law”
> WTF is that...you Loons sit around in a circle jerk coming up with the craziest bunch of bullshit...hahaha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol god you are stupid. This isn’t hard to figure out. Should we treat someone who steals a candy bar like someone who raped someone? Obviously not. It’s amazing I have to walk you through this.
Click to expand...


Poor Loon...
There is a FAR greater negative effect for REAL American citizens due to illegal wetbacks. Few are actually affected by bank robbers / robberies. Think once Loon, this is simple shit.


----------



## Billy000

BrokeLoser said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you’re equating bank robbers to people who want a better life for their children by crossing a border? God you’re fucking stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think illegals are far worse actually.
> Federal criminality = Federal criminal
> What else can I teach you Loon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you could teach yourself about basic human decency and the grey morality of the law. It’s not like you give a shit about Wall Street execs for going unpunished with their past  corporate crime. You would rather whine about illegal immigration like a little bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the LefTard logic...
> Try to excuse criminality with other criminality...GAY!
> “Grey morality of the law”
> WTF is that...you Loons sit around in a circle jerk coming up with the craziest bunch of bullshit...hahaha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol god you are stupid. This isn’t hard to figure out. Should we treat someone who steals a candy bar like someone who raped someone? Obviously not. It’s amazing I have to walk you through this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor Loon...
> There is a FAR greater negative effect for REAL American citizens due to illegal wetbacks. Few are actually affected by bank robbers / robberies. Think once Loon, this is simple shit.
Click to expand...

You dumb fuck. Crime among illegal immigrants is statistically low but you believe otherwise because you’re whitetrash. The economy does better with illegal immigrants because of the agricultural industry. You don’t care to learn facts because you don’t give two shits about anyone who isn’t white or straight.


----------



## HappyJoy

protectionist said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stay on topic, we are discussing the separation of families.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and catch & release, and its effects have much to do with separation of families.  The reason why families are being separated is twofold 1) because the illegals chose to come here illegally, and 2) because they can no longer escape deportation by C & R poilcy.
Click to expand...


Catch and release? We're talking about removing children from their parents, moving them to different states and not letting them contact their kids except maybe a phone call every couple of weeks. Then again if the child is too young to talk on the phone then we are talking up to a year w/out contacts. Now we're also losing those kids in the system.



> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are subject to international laws.
> 
> 
> 
> NO we are not. And this is an important point.  Leftists are internationalists, just like communists.  They are, like Obama, "citizen of the world".  But that is FALSE.  We are Americans, not citizens of the world. And where international law and US law clash, there is no contest. US law prevails.  That is how it is.
> 
> Anybody who thinks different from that isn't a true American, and they really should leave the US and go to where it is believed that international law is superior to that countries law.
> 
> In the USA  >>_ "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States...shall be the *Supreme Law of the Land*"_  (US Constitution, Article 6, Section 2, part 1 - the Supremacy Clause)​
Click to expand...


I'm really sure what your post has to do with separating families. I guess you'll grab at anything to justify this policy that we have done to those who sought out asylum or not.


----------



## OKTexas

HappyJoy said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans tend to lack basic empathy for things they don’t directly witness. They don’t have the emotional maturity or complexity of thought for such a thing. As a result, they don’t bother thinking about the well being of kids. They just know brown people have crossed the border and their GOP masters tell them it’s a bad thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The parents are responsible for anything that happens to the kids, they put them in the situation.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using that logic we could murder the kids in their sleep and completely escape culpability. Your argument is weak.
Click to expand...



Many are raped, beaten and yes some killed even before they reach the border. Many are trafficked and sold once they reach the US, brought here by people they aren't even related to. That's why Sessions is insisting on DNA tests, to prove paternity. Many are given to supposed relatives who are illegal themselves, that's why they don't answer when DHS calls to check on the kids. All because the parents or who ever they are are using them hoping to get a free pass to disappear into the population. Sessions isn't giving any more free passes.


.


----------



## HappyJoy

BrokeLoser said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could teach yourself about basic human decency and the grey morality of the law. It’s not like you give a shit about Wall Street execs for going unpunished with their past  corporate crime. You would rather whine about illegal immigration like a little bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the LefTard logic...
> Try to excuse criminality with other criminality...GAY!
> “Grey morality of the law”
> WTF is that...you Loons sit around in a circle jerk coming up with the craziest bunch of bullshit...hahaha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol god you are stupid. This isn’t hard to figure out. Should we treat someone who steals a candy bar like someone who raped someone? Obviously not. It’s amazing I have to walk you through this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor Loon...
> There is a FAR greater negative effect for REAL American citizens due to illegal wetbacks. Few are actually affected by bank robbers / robberies. Think once Loon, this is simple shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb fuck. Crime among illegal immigrants is statistically low but you believe otherwise because you’re whitetrash. The economy does better with illegal immigrants because of the agricultural industry. You don’t care to learn facts because you don’t give two shits about anyone who isn’t white or straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha...poor Billy.
> You are so lost, confused, twisted and WRONG.
> It’s almost sad that a grown man could be so fucked up in the head. Sorry Billy.
Click to expand...



If he's so lost then why are you relying on attacking him instead of having a valid reply to his argument?


----------



## HappyJoy

OKTexas said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans tend to lack basic empathy for things they don’t directly witness. They don’t have the emotional maturity or complexity of thought for such a thing. As a result, they don’t bother thinking about the well being of kids. They just know brown people have crossed the border and their GOP masters tell them it’s a bad thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The parents are responsible for anything that happens to the kids, they put them in the situation.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using that logic we could murder the kids in their sleep and completely escape culpability. Your argument is weak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Many are raped, beaten and yes some killed even before they reach the border. Many are trafficked and sold once they reach the US, brought here by people they aren't even related to. That's way Sessions is insisting on DNA tests, to prove paternity. Many are given to supposed relatives who are illegal themselves, that's why they don't answer when DHS calls to check on the kids. All because the parents or who ever they are are using them hoping to get a free pass to disappear into the population. Sessions ins't giving any more free passes.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


None of this has anything to do with a reason for separating families, if you can't defend the policy then why post at all?


----------



## protectionist

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


No it I NOT EVIL. And you are contradicting yourself.  You asked a question which you yourself answered in your own OP>  You posted >>_ "When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed."
_
This is nothing unusual.  When US citizens are convicted of crimes, and put in prison, their children are separated from them.  We don't hear many sob stories for THESE kids though, do we ?  And unlike the illegal aliens' kids, the American kids have no choice in it.  They MUST be separated. And it could be for decades, or life.  Or the death penalty.

But the illegal alien kids have it better. They can choose to go with their parents.  They are not compelled to undergo separation, as the American kids are.

And the illegals' kids really should NOT have that choice either. They shouldn't be here, because the birthright citizenship they claim is FALSE.  It comes from the 14th amendment, but the 14th amendment was not intended to include the children of foreigners (so stated the author of the 14th amendment, Sen. Jacob Howard)


----------



## OKTexas

HappyJoy said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its all a scam using the so call widdle children as RAY says .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? There is an actual valid reason for separating children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean from their criminal parents, YES.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't convicted of a crime and if they don't demonstrate a threat to their children then their is not a valid reason. It's actually harmful to pull families apart.
Click to expand...



They should have thought about that.


.


----------



## koshergrl

HappyJoy said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans tend to lack basic empathy for things they don’t directly witness. They don’t have the emotional maturity or complexity of thought for such a thing. As a result, they don’t bother thinking about the well being of kids. They just know brown people have crossed the border and their GOP masters tell them it’s a bad thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The parents are responsible for anything that happens to the kids, they put them in the situation.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using that logic we could murder the kids in their sleep and completely escape culpability. Your argument is weak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Many are raped, beaten and yes some killed even before they reach the border. Many are trafficked and sold once they reach the US, brought here by people they aren't even related to. That's way Sessions is insisting on DNA tests, to prove paternity. Many are given to supposed relatives who are illegal themselves, that's why they don't answer when DHS calls to check on the kids. All because the parents or who ever they are are using them hoping to get a free pass to disappear into the population. Sessions ins't giving any more free passes.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of this has anything to do with a reason for separating families, if you can't defend the policy then why post at all?
Click to expand...


Yes, it does. You people are such foul liars.


----------



## protectionist

HappyJoy said:


> None of this has anything to do with a reason for separating families, if you can't defend the policy then why post at all?


The only ones to blame for separating illegal alien families are the illegal alien parents, who made the choice to come here illegally, disrespecting our laws, and us. 

As for the aliens' kids, they have it no worse than American kids of imprisoned (or executed) parents, and they actually have it better, since they CAN stay with their parents if they choose to.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Not only is Trump’s hateful policy repugnant and reprehensible, punishing children for the actions of their parents is clearly un-Constitutional, as the Supreme Court has clearly held over the years (see, for example, _Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co._ (1972) and _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982)).

Not that most on the right care about the rule of law, of course; indeed, conservatives are ruled mostly by their fear, ignorance, and hate – advocating that children be separated from their parents as some sort of ‘deterrent’ to immigration is a sad example of that.


----------



## HappyJoy

protectionist said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> No it I NOT EVIL. And you are contradicting yourself.  You asked a question which you yourself answered in your own OP>  You posted >>_ "When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed."
> _
> This is nothing unusual.  When US citizens are convicted of crimes, and put in prison, their children are separated from them.  We don't hear many sob stories for THESE kids though, do we ?  And unlike the illegal aliens' kids, the American kids have no choice in it.  They MUST be separated. And it could be for decades, or life.  Or the death penalty.
> 
> But the illegal alien kids have it better. They can choose to go with their parents.  They are compelled to undergo separation, as the American kids are.
> 
> And the illegals' kids really should NOT have that choice either. They shouldn't be here, because the birthright citizenship they claim is FALSE.  It comes from the 14th amendment, but the 14th amendment was not intended to include the children of foreigners (so stated the author of the 14th amendment, Sen. Jacob Howard)
Click to expand...


They are being separated before they are convicted.


OKTexas said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its all a scam using the so call widdle children as RAY says .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? There is an actual valid reason for separating children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean from their criminal parents, YES.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't convicted of a crime and if they don't demonstrate a threat to their children then their is not a valid reason. It's actually harmful to pull families apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They should have thought about that.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Before what? Escaping whatever hell they were just to find a better way of life? Or the ones who even go through the proper channels, they are still being separated.

Of course once again, using your logic the United States government could be murdering the kids and you think we would still not be responsible.


----------



## HappyJoy

koshergrl said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans tend to lack basic empathy for things they don’t directly witness. They don’t have the emotional maturity or complexity of thought for such a thing. As a result, they don’t bother thinking about the well being of kids. They just know brown people have crossed the border and their GOP masters tell them it’s a bad thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The parents are responsible for anything that happens to the kids, they put them in the situation.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using that logic we could murder the kids in their sleep and completely escape culpability. Your argument is weak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Many are raped, beaten and yes some killed even before they reach the border. Many are trafficked and sold once they reach the US, brought here by people they aren't even related to. That's way Sessions is insisting on DNA tests, to prove paternity. Many are given to supposed relatives who are illegal themselves, that's why they don't answer when DHS calls to check on the kids. All because the parents or who ever they are are using them hoping to get a free pass to disappear into the population. Sessions ins't giving any more free passes.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of this has anything to do with a reason for separating families, if you can't defend the policy then why post at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does. You people are such foul liars.
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't. Prove me wrong.


----------



## The Irish Ram

HappyJoy said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are punishing the children
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their parents are punishing those children, and putting them in harm's way, to reap benefits the the parents are not entitled to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, many are attempting to either escape extreme poverty or violence to better their own lives but your way sounds so much more dismissive and palatable.
Click to expand...


You forgot to mention that my way is also the correct way.   Beats catapulting your children over the wall,  hoping it gets you in.  How irresponsible of the parents, turning  their own kids into potential meal tickets.


----------



## HappyJoy

protectionist said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of this has anything to do with a reason for separating families, if you can't defend the policy then why post at all?
> 
> 
> 
> The only ones to blame for separating illegal alien families are the illegal alien parents, who made the choice to come here illegally, disrespecting our laws, and us.
Click to expand...


No, it's the actual people who are unnecessarily separating them for the only reason of making them fearful. 



> As for the aliens' kids, they have it no worse than American kids of imprisoned (or executed) parents, and they actually have it better, since they CAN stay with their parents if they choose to.



Um, what? That's the whole point, they are being forcefully separated. 

As far as American kids, they aren't incarcerated at all, so not sure where you're going but that is a stupid argument.


----------



## BrokeLoser

HappyJoy said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> No it I NOT EVIL. And you are contradicting yourself.  You asked a question which you yourself answered in your own OP>  You posted >>_ "When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed."
> _
> This is nothing unusual.  When US citizens are convicted of crimes, and put in prison, their children are separated from them.  We don't hear many sob stories for THESE kids though, do we ?  And unlike the illegal aliens' kids, the American kids have no choice in it.  They MUST be separated. And it could be for decades, or life.  Or the death penalty.
> 
> But the illegal alien kids have it better. They can choose to go with their parents.  They are compelled to undergo separation, as the American kids are.
> 
> And the illegals' kids really should NOT have that choice either. They shouldn't be here, because the birthright citizenship they claim is FALSE.  It comes from the 14th amendment, but the 14th amendment was not intended to include the children of foreigners (so stated the author of the 14th amendment, Sen. Jacob Howard)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are being separated before they are convicted.
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its all a scam using the so call widdle children as RAY says .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? There is an actual valid reason for separating children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean from their criminal parents, YES.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't convicted of a crime and if they don't demonstrate a threat to their children then their is not a valid reason. It's actually harmful to pull families apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They should have thought about that.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before what? Escaping whatever hell they were just to find a better way of life? Or the ones who even go through the proper channels, they are still being separated.
> 
> Of course once again, using your logic the United States government could be murdering the kids and you think we would still not be responsible.
Click to expand...


Bank robbers...a lesser federal criminal are “just trying to make a better way of life” when they commit robbery...no?


----------



## HappyJoy

The Irish Ram said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are punishing the children
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their parents are punishing those children, and putting them in harm's way, to reap benefits the the parents are not entitled to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, many are attempting to either escape extreme poverty or violence to better their own lives but your way sounds so much more dismissive and palatable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention that my way is also the correct way.   Beats catapulting your children over the wall,  hoping it gets you in.  How irresponsible of the parents, turning  their own kids into potential meal tickets.
Click to expand...


Your way is treating people as inhuman. Turning their kids into meal tickets? That's just idiotic. Like most parents they want better lives for their own kids.


----------



## HappyJoy

BrokeLoser said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> No it I NOT EVIL. And you are contradicting yourself.  You asked a question which you yourself answered in your own OP>  You posted >>_ "When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed."
> _
> This is nothing unusual.  When US citizens are convicted of crimes, and put in prison, their children are separated from them.  We don't hear many sob stories for THESE kids though, do we ?  And unlike the illegal aliens' kids, the American kids have no choice in it.  They MUST be separated. And it could be for decades, or life.  Or the death penalty.
> 
> But the illegal alien kids have it better. They can choose to go with their parents.  They are compelled to undergo separation, as the American kids are.
> 
> And the illegals' kids really should NOT have that choice either. They shouldn't be here, because the birthright citizenship they claim is FALSE.  It comes from the 14th amendment, but the 14th amendment was not intended to include the children of foreigners (so stated the author of the 14th amendment, Sen. Jacob Howard)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are being separated before they are convicted.
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? There is an actual valid reason for separating children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean from their criminal parents, YES.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't convicted of a crime and if they don't demonstrate a threat to their children then their is not a valid reason. It's actually harmful to pull families apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They should have thought about that.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before what? Escaping whatever hell they were just to find a better way of life? Or the ones who even go through the proper channels, they are still being separated.
> 
> Of course once again, using your logic the United States government could be murdering the kids and you think we would still not be responsible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bank robbers...a lesser federal criminal are “just trying to make a better way of life” when they commit robbery...no?
Click to expand...


I see bank robbers as a more serious offense, not sure what's wrong with you.


----------



## OKTexas

HappyJoy said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans tend to lack basic empathy for things they don’t directly witness. They don’t have the emotional maturity or complexity of thought for such a thing. As a result, they don’t bother thinking about the well being of kids. They just know brown people have crossed the border and their GOP masters tell them it’s a bad thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The parents are responsible for anything that happens to the kids, they put them in the situation.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using that logic we could murder the kids in their sleep and completely escape culpability. Your argument is weak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Many are raped, beaten and yes some killed even before they reach the border. Many are trafficked and sold once they reach the US, brought here by people they aren't even related to. That's way Sessions is insisting on DNA tests, to prove paternity. Many are given to supposed relatives who are illegal themselves, that's why they don't answer when DHS calls to check on the kids. All because the parents or who ever they are are using them hoping to get a free pass to disappear into the population. Sessions ins't giving any more free passes.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of this has anything to do with a reason for separating families, if you can't defend the policy then why post at all?
Click to expand...



You might look at my first post in this thread. I don't have to defend anything, it's the law. Don't like it, tell you congresscritters to get off their lazy asses and change it.

BTW, how do you know the people that brought the kids here are even their parents? You're just assuming they are.


.


----------



## HappyJoy

OKTexas said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans tend to lack basic empathy for things they don’t directly witness. They don’t have the emotional maturity or complexity of thought for such a thing. As a result, they don’t bother thinking about the well being of kids. They just know brown people have crossed the border and their GOP masters tell them it’s a bad thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The parents are responsible for anything that happens to the kids, they put them in the situation.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using that logic we could murder the kids in their sleep and completely escape culpability. Your argument is weak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Many are raped, beaten and yes some killed even before they reach the border. Many are trafficked and sold once they reach the US, brought here by people they aren't even related to. That's way Sessions is insisting on DNA tests, to prove paternity. Many are given to supposed relatives who are illegal themselves, that's why they don't answer when DHS calls to check on the kids. All because the parents or who ever they are are using them hoping to get a free pass to disappear into the population. Sessions ins't giving any more free passes.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of this has anything to do with a reason for separating families, if you can't defend the policy then why post at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You might look at my first post in this thread. I don't have to defend anything, it's the law. Don't like it, tell you congresscritters to get off their lazy asses and change it.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


They aren't convicted and deserve their day in court before their kids are ripped from them and sent halfway across the country. Also, like I said they are doing this with those who legally enter the country as well.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​



*I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL. You are punishing the children.*

The children and their parents need to be deported on an expedited basis.


----------



## HappyJoy

candycorn said:


> Incredible image from the contractors hired by Trump:
> 
> View attachment 195853
> 
> This is a bus designed to haul babies away from their parents to another facility.  Nobody knows or will say why they need to be shipped away from their parents....by the busload.
> 
> American exceptionalism?  Don't make me laugh.



That may be the reason for all of this. The GEO Group is a private prison company and I'm sure they rake in the bucks for this type of service.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Incredible image from the contractors hired by Trump:
> 
> View attachment 195853
> 
> This is a bus designed to haul babies away from their parents to another facility.  Nobody knows or will say why they need to be shipped away from their parents....by the busload.
> 
> American exceptionalism?  Don't make me laugh.



*This is a bus designed to haul babies away from their parents to another facility. *

To the soylent green facility.


----------



## OKTexas

HappyJoy said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> No it I NOT EVIL. And you are contradicting yourself.  You asked a question which you yourself answered in your own OP>  You posted >>_ "When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed."
> _
> This is nothing unusual.  When US citizens are convicted of crimes, and put in prison, their children are separated from them.  We don't hear many sob stories for THESE kids though, do we ?  And unlike the illegal aliens' kids, the American kids have no choice in it.  They MUST be separated. And it could be for decades, or life.  Or the death penalty.
> 
> But the illegal alien kids have it better. They can choose to go with their parents.  They are compelled to undergo separation, as the American kids are.
> 
> And the illegals' kids really should NOT have that choice either. They shouldn't be here, because the birthright citizenship they claim is FALSE.  It comes from the 14th amendment, but the 14th amendment was not intended to include the children of foreigners (so stated the author of the 14th amendment, Sen. Jacob Howard)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are being separated before they are convicted.
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its all a scam using the so call widdle children as RAY says .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? There is an actual valid reason for separating children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean from their criminal parents, YES.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't convicted of a crime and if they don't demonstrate a threat to their children then their is not a valid reason. It's actually harmful to pull families apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They should have thought about that.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before what? Escaping whatever hell they were just to find a better way of life? Or the ones who even go through the proper channels, they are still being separated.
> 
> Of course once again, using your logic the United States government could be murdering the kids and you think we would still not be responsible.
Click to expand...



The border patrol is following the law, that's all need said.


.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Billy000 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think illegals are far worse actually.
> Federal criminality = Federal criminal
> What else can I teach you Loon?
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could teach yourself about basic human decency and the grey morality of the law. It’s not like you give a shit about Wall Street execs for going unpunished with their past  corporate crime. You would rather whine about illegal immigration like a little bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the LefTard logic...
> Try to excuse criminality with other criminality...GAY!
> “Grey morality of the law”
> WTF is that...you Loons sit around in a circle jerk coming up with the craziest bunch of bullshit...hahaha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol god you are stupid. This isn’t hard to figure out. Should we treat someone who steals a candy bar like someone who raped someone? Obviously not. It’s amazing I have to walk you through this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor Loon...
> There is a FAR greater negative effect for REAL American citizens due to illegal wetbacks. Few are actually affected by bank robbers / robberies. Think once Loon, this is simple shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb fuck. Crime among illegal immigrants is statistically low but you believe otherwise because you’re whitetrash. The economy does better with illegal immigrants because of the agricultural industry. You don’t care to learn facts because you don’t give two shits about anyone who isn’t white or straight.
Click to expand...




HappyJoy said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the LefTard logic...
> Try to excuse criminality with other criminality...GAY!
> “Grey morality of the law”
> WTF is that...you Loons sit around in a circle jerk coming up with the craziest bunch of bullshit...hahaha
> 
> 
> 
> Lol god you are stupid. This isn’t hard to figure out. Should we treat someone who steals a candy bar like someone who raped someone? Obviously not. It’s amazing I have to walk you through this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor Loon...
> There is a FAR greater negative effect for REAL American citizens due to illegal wetbacks. Few are actually affected by bank robbers / robberies. Think once Loon, this is simple shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb fuck. Crime among illegal immigrants is statistically low but you believe otherwise because you’re whitetrash. The economy does better with illegal immigrants because of the agricultural industry. You don’t care to learn facts because you don’t give two shits about anyone who isn’t white or straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha...poor Billy.
> You are so lost, confused, twisted and WRONG.
> It’s almost sad that a grown man could be so fucked up in the head. Sorry Billy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If he's so lost then why are you relying on attacking him instead of having a valid reply to his argument?
Click to expand...


Okay...I’ll play along.

*The truth about crime, illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities*
There has been much rhetoric from the left and the open-borders, pro-illegal immigration lobby suggesting that illegal immigrants pose no threat to the safety and security of this nation and commit less crimes than their American Citizen and legal immigrant counterparts.

If one watches the network newscasts, the ideologues and open-borders surrogates consistently accuse Americans and law enforcement experts who suggest otherwise of being racist and anti-immigration xenophobes. If you pay attention to the rhetoric, you will find one blaring item missing — facts.

I am a former Spanish speaking career detective who investigated violent crimes within the Hispanic and other ethnic immigrant communities.

I am also a forensic criminologist who is a subject matter expert in violent crime who advocates for facts and evidence. Here are some verified crime facts and statistics with you so that you will know the truth about the precarious relationship between violent crime and illegal immigrants.

As Americans, we should only care about three things: (1) are the immigrants in the U.S. illegally; (2) have they committed violent crimes predominantly against U.S. citizens; and (3) had these criminals not been in our country illegally, these crimes, the victimization of our citizens and the costs of their crimes borne by American taxpayers could have been completely avoided.

Previous administrations have deliberately kept Americans in the dark about illegal immigrant crimes

Most states and our federal government have kept information and statistics about illegal immigration, crimes committed by illegals and the costs borne by you the U.S. payer out of public view. It is in fact difficult, but not impossible to locate accurate crime statistics involving illegal immigrants. The statistics are buried both to suit a political agenda and to avoid public outcry. Once you read this article, you will quickly understand why.

The Pew Research Institute estimates that as of 2014, there are at least 11.2 million illegal immigrants residing in the U.S. This population comprises approximately 3.5 percent of our country’s population.

Of these, by far the largest ethnic population, 52 percent are Hispanics comprised of Mexicans, Central Americans and Cubans.

Six states: California, Texas, Illinois, Florida, New York and New Jersey account for 59 percent of all illegal immigrants residing in the U.S. The fact that 66 percent of all illegal immigrants have lived in our nation for over ten years underscores our long-standing inability to address the serious problem of our inability to control our nation’s borders.

The relationship between illegal immigrants and violent crime

Research conducted by the federal government oversight organization Judicial Water n 2014 documents that 50 percent of all federal crimes were committed near our border with Mexico.

Of the 61,529 criminal cases filed by federal prosecutors; 40 percent or 24,746 were in court districts along the southern borders of California, Arizona and Texas.

The Western District of Texas had the nation’s most significant crime rate with over 6,300 cases filed; followed by the Southern District of Texas with slightly over 6,000 cases.

The Southern California District with nearly 4,900 cases; New Mexico with nearly 4,000 cases and Arizona with over 3,500 criminal cases ranked 3rd, 4th and 5th.

The U.S. Department of Justice documents that in 2014, 19 percent or over 12,000 criminal cases filed by prosecutors were for violent crimes; and over 22 percent or 13,300 cases were for drug related felonies.

That same year, the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that 75 percent of all criminal defendants who were convicted and sentenced for federal drug offenses were illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants were also involved in 17 percent of all drug trafficking sentences and one third of all federal prison sentences.

The U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Sentencing Commission reported that as of 2014, illegal immigrants were convicted and sentenced for over 13 percent of all crimes committed in the U.S.

According to the FBI, 67,642 murders were committed in the U.S. from 2005 through 2008, and 115,717 from 2003 through 2009. The General Accounting Office documents that criminal immigrants committed 25,064 of these murders.

Illegal immigrants clearly commit a level of violent and drug related crimes disproportionate to their population.

In California alone, over 2,400 illegal immigrants out of a total prison population of 130,000 are imprisoned in the state’s prison system for the crime of homicide.

The misrepresentation of comparisons in who commits crimes between illegal immigrants, legal U.S. immigrants and American citizens

The pro-illegal immigrant lobby consistently misrepresents the criminal involvement of illegal immigrants as compared to immigrants who legally enter the U.S. and American citizens, saying that illegal immigrants commit less crimes than their counterparts. This assertion is false in most cases. Here are the vetted statistics:

In California, there are just over 92 illegal immigrants imprisoned for every 100,000 illegals as compared to 74 citizens and legal non-citizen immigrants. In Arizona, the rate is nearly 69 illegals imprisoned for every 100,000, as compared to 54 citizens and legal non-citizen immigrants.

In New York, over three times as many illegal immigrants or 169, are imprisoned for crimes per 100,000, as compared to only 48 citizens and legal non-citizen immigrants. Only the states of Texas and Florida do illegal immigrants commit less crimes than their legal immigrant counterparts (Texas with 54.5 illegals imprisoned per 100,000, compared to 65 legal immigrants and Florida with 55 illegals imprisoned, compared to 68 legal immigrants).

Texas is an epicenter for illegal immigrant crimes

Recent crime analysis by both the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Texas law enforcement authorities indicate that between June 2011 and March 2017, over 217,000 criminal immigrants were arrested and booked into Texas jails.

In researching the criminal careers of these defendants, it was revealed that they had jointly committed over nearly 600,000 criminal offenses. Their arrests included nearly 1,200 homicides; almost 69,000 assaults; 16,854 burglaries; 700 kidnappings; nearly 6,200 sexual assaults; 69,000 drug offenses; 8,700 weapons violations; over 3,800 robberies and over 45,000 obstructing police charges. In determining the status of these offenders in the U.S., it was confirmed by DHS that over 173,000 or 66 percent of these immigrant criminal defendants were in our country illegally at the times of their arrests.

“Sanctuary State” California politicians fight against deporting criminal illegal immigrants

Currently, a fight is brewing between California Open Borders politicians and the state’s Democratic controlled Legislature and the Department of Justice regarding the protection of violent criminal illegal immigrants.

Hardly any Californian’s know that in 2014, Gov. Brown signed a bill that amended a state statute amending the maximum sentencing for misdemeanor crimes by one day from 365 to 364 days in jail. This was deliberately done to avoid current federal laws that provide for the deportation of illegal and legal immigrants in this country who have received sentences of 365 days or more.

With the newly enacted jail and prison diversion programs of Propositions 109 and 47, Gov. Brown and company are effectively preventing the federal government from removing violent and recidivist illegal immigrants from our midst through the deportation process.

The extreme costs of keeping illegal immigrant criminals in this country

According to research and statistics by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, U.S. taxpayers are footing an annual bill of nearly $19 million a day to house and care for an estimated 300,000 to 450,000 convicted criminal immigrants who are eligible for deportation and are currently residing in local jails and state and federal prisons across the country.

These figures include not only those immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally, but all immigrants here who commit and have been convicted of crimes. Other accounting estimates indicate that the total cost for all corrections, medical and support services for adults and juvenile immigrant criminals nationally to be over $1.8 billion dollars.

So the next time you hear some Open Borders politician or pro illegal immigrant surrogates advocate on their behalf, ask yourself why we as American citizens need to bear the increasing costs of violence, victimization and burdensome taxes in subsidizing illegal immigrant criminals who shouldn’t be in our country in the first place.

_Ron Martinelli is a nationally renowned forensic criminologist and law enforcement expert. Martinelli is a retired San Jose (CA) police detective who provides forensic investigation and expert services to numerous states, large municipalities and national private law firms specializing in civil rights. He is fluent in Spanish and divides his time between California, Texas and Mexico.
The truth about crime, illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities_


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


It's like separating Charles Manson from his family


----------



## candycorn

HappyJoy said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incredible image from the contractors hired by Trump:
> 
> View attachment 195853
> 
> This is a bus designed to haul babies away from their parents to another facility.  Nobody knows or will say why they need to be shipped away from their parents....by the busload.
> 
> American exceptionalism?  Don't make me laugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That may be the reason for all of this. The GEO Group is a private prison company and I'm sure they rake in the bucks for this type of service.
Click to expand...


No doubt.  This is what America has become.  Industrial scale barbarism in the disguise of defending our nation against two year old children.  
Aside from the unimaginable pieces of shit  who drew up the plans, can you imagine the people who work for GEO and what their days must be like in their prison nurseries?


----------



## OKTexas

HappyJoy said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> The parents are responsible for anything that happens to the kids, they put them in the situation.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using that logic we could murder the kids in their sleep and completely escape culpability. Your argument is weak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Many are raped, beaten and yes some killed even before they reach the border. Many are trafficked and sold once they reach the US, brought here by people they aren't even related to. That's way Sessions is insisting on DNA tests, to prove paternity. Many are given to supposed relatives who are illegal themselves, that's why they don't answer when DHS calls to check on the kids. All because the parents or who ever they are are using them hoping to get a free pass to disappear into the population. Sessions ins't giving any more free passes.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of this has anything to do with a reason for separating families, if you can't defend the policy then why post at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You might look at my first post in this thread. I don't have to defend anything, it's the law. Don't like it, tell you congresscritters to get off their lazy asses and change it.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't convicted and deserve their day in court before their kids are ripped from them and sent halfway across the country. Also, like I said they are doing this with those who legally enter the country as well.
Click to expand...



The adults are a flight risk, they stay in detention until their trial or hearing, the courts say the kids can't be held there. Address the law, not me.


.


----------



## Likkmee

If Canadian Geese had any money they'd be detained at all the borders on their way south for ransom.


----------



## Kosh

This is yet another far left drone troll thread about nothing!

The far left does not care about children, especially these kids. The only reason why they mention them as they need more political cannon fodder to push their debunked religious narratives.

8 years of Obama and the far left did nothing!


----------



## EvilCat Breath

They don't have to come here.  Give them the choice.  Take your children and go home or they will be taken from you now and you still might be deported later.


----------



## candycorn

Kidnapping is official US Policy.  How sad.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

candycorn said:


> Kidnapping is official US Policy.  How sad.


You mean Americans go to these countries and kidnap these children. 

How awful


----------



## Vandalshandle

Trump and his ass kissers have now gone beyond the pale, They have fallen to a point that is beneath contempt.


----------



## bripat9643

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


The parents are the one who are punishing them, not our immigration service.


----------



## candycorn

Tipsycatlover said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kidnapping is official US Policy.  How sad.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean Americans go to these countries and kidnap these children.
> 
> How awful
Click to expand...


No, we just knowingly take them away from their parents who try to come here illegally.


----------



## Norman

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​



If the illegals care about children, then they won't try and cross the border with them.

Since they don't, why in the hell should we? And why in the hell should we let them in the country, given they are exceptionally brutish? Americans have higher standards than this.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

HappyJoy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
Click to expand...


It's the parent's fault.
They know that they are breaking the law.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

Coyote said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its just like the 'anchor baby' deal , mexicans drop an anchor baby and they have the Americans by the nutz .    This variation of the mexican taking their kids to the border is , as i say just a variation of dropping an anchor baby .  -------------------- as the mexican cries and says , you can't separate 'mamasitas' and widdle baby mexicans Coyote .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are fine with taking young children from their parents and throwing them into our foster care system while they await hearings?  700 kids lost in our foster care network or housed in barracks apart from their parents.  It's sick but you don't have an issue with it.
Click to expand...


It's the parent's fault. They know that they are breaking the law.
Many times when US parents break laws their children are put in foster care.


----------



## Vandalshandle

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the parent's fault.
> They know that they are breaking the law.
Click to expand...

This is what America has come to. Sad. So very sad.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

HappyJoy said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unnecessary? Really?
> “Parents” get caught robbing a bank...they’re prosecuted and sentenced to years of incarceration...do they forfeit their children to “the system” due to their own actions....or do we send the children to live in their prison cell with them?
> Come on people....THINK. This is such simple shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the way the immigration system as worked before.  The children and parents are housed together until they get their hearing.  It isn't a criminal court system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welcome to law and order people...this is what shit feels like when you have a POTUS with a nutsack running shit.
> This shit is super simple....DON’T BREAK THE FUCKING LAW and have no worries.
> CAUSE AND EFFECT...we learned the shit in third grade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This helps nobody, we are now losing children in the system as well as separating families that have followed the law who legally sought asylum which may be against international law.
> 
> Here, read this if you're such a 'law and order' kind of guy.
> 
> USA: Routine separation of asylum-seeking families violates international law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh shit...you whacks are so predictable.
> This is where you bring the .0002% in play that nobody gives two shits about to help push your twisted agenda. Nobody good and sane falls for that bullshit anymore...haha
> Back to the drawing board huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're making up the percentage but we'll ignore that.
> 
> The point of my post is the Trump administration is systematically separating families whether legally or not applying for asylum. In other words, the policy is broad based and probably illegal and as a policy this is new and unnecessary, it's inhumane at it's core. We also don't seem to care enough to even properly track where these kids end up or give two shits about the welfare of the most innocent among us.
> 
> The Trump administration gets away with this because you've been lead to believe that there is an 'invasion' and 'wetbacks' aren't human and should be shot on site if even glancing over at the border. I'd hate to live in your America, hopefully we will never get there.
Click to expand...


It's the parent's fault


----------



## DJT for Life

Vandalshandle said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the parent's fault.
> They know that they are breaking the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what America has come to. Sad. So very sad.
Click to expand...


What has it come to?

The Central American parents send their children here alone.
They know that our laws are such that we can't ship them back
and we hold them until they are placed in a foster home.

The vast majority of these kids that everybody is talking about came
here alone.  They are missing because the phone calls to the foster homes
have not been answered.

When we send a mother to prison we do not let the child go with her.
Why should we treat those people any different.

Trump lost 1500...huh?  Obama, according to reports lost over 4100...why
no outrage then?


----------



## Syriusly

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


Damn those Democrats for passing the law that requires the separation of parents and children!

*Trump blames Democrats for his policy of separating migrant families at border*
*Trump blames Democrats for his policy of separating migrant families at border*

*The administration confirmed this month that breaking up families was a byproduct of their new "zero tolerance" plan to prosecute everyone who crosses the border illegally, which would require minors who traveled with their family to be taken into the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services. Under the previous policy, children were usually allowed to stay with their parents in shelters while awaiting legal proceedings.*


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

One great way to avoid all of this is to legally immigrate.
We are just like the other 200 countries on the planet.
We have a 100% right to control our border crossings and immigration.
The corrupt and racist Democratic Party loves illegal immigration because it builds their voter base.


----------



## OKTexas

Syriusly said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> Damn those Democrats for passing the law that requires the separation of parents and children!
> 
> *Trump blames Democrats for his policy of separating migrant families at border*
> *Trump blames Democrats for his policy of separating migrant families at border*
> 
> *The administration confirmed this month that breaking up families was a byproduct of their new "zero tolerance" plan to prosecute everyone who crosses the border illegally, which would require minors who traveled with their family to be taken into the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services. Under the previous policy, children were usually allowed to stay with their parents in shelters while awaiting legal proceedings.*
Click to expand...



That's when the mulatto messiah was only using civil law, Sessions is prosecuting them under criminal statutes. You can't keep kids with criminals.


.


----------



## protectionist

HappyJoy said:


> They aren't convicted of a crime and if they don't demonstrate a threat to their children then their is not a valid reason. It's actually harmful to pull families apart.


1. It is the illegal parents who are pulling their families apart - no one else.

2.  I agree that there is not a valid reason fro separating them, but I don't agree for your reason.  I say they shouldn't be separated, because they should all be deported together.  The idea that kids born here, whose parents are foreigners, should automatically be American citizens, is incorrect.  They are ALL foreigners and should all be deported.  No separations.


----------



## candycorn

Norman said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the illegals care about children, then they won't try and cross the border with them.
> 
> Since they don't, why in the hell should we? And why in the hell should we let them in the country, given they are exceptionally brutish? Americans have higher standards than this.
Click to expand...


As paradoxical stream of consciousness goes, you're a classic in the genre.  On one hand its "Why the hell should we care about children" then literally 17 words later "Americans have higher standards".    If that were so, you would be deported.


----------



## candycorn

Vandalshandle said:


> Trump and his ass kissers have now gone beyond the pale, They have fallen to a point that is beneath contempt.



It does make you wonder...not when will the Trump supporters hit bottom but if there is a bottom where they are concerned.  We are now utilizing our resources to lock up infants....


----------



## Slyhunter

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
Click to expand...

Question is, is it worth the cost to their parents?


----------



## protectionist

HappyJoy said:


> Catch and release? We're talking about removing children from their parents, moving them to different states and not letting them contact their kids except maybe a phone call every couple of weeks. Then again if the child is too young to talk on the phone then we are talking up to a year w/out contacts. Now we're also losing those kids in the system.
> I'm really sure what your post has to do with separating families. I guess you'll grab at anything to justify this policy that we have done to those who sought out asylum or not.


I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm talking about simply having illegal alien parents deported (ex. to Mexico), and the kids staying in the US.  What catch & release has to do with it is, under that system, the parents simply did not go to their court hearing, just filtered back into the US community, and never got deported and so the families were NOT SEPARATED.


----------



## protectionist

candycorn said:


> It does make you wonder...not when will the Trump supporters hit bottom but if there is a bottom where they are concerned.  We are now utilizing our resources to lock up infants....


They are wasting resources . ALL the foreigners should be deported.  There is no such thing as an anchor baby. The entire family of illegal aliens are here illegally, including kids born in the US.  They should ALL be deported, and ALL leave together, as one intact family unit.


----------



## protectionist

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Not only is Trump’s hateful policy repugnant and reprehensible, punishing children for the actions of their parents is clearly un-Constitutional, as the Supreme Court has clearly held over the years (see, for example, _Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co._ (1972) and _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982)).
> 
> Not that most on the right care about the rule of law, of course; indeed, conservatives are ruled mostly by their fear, ignorance, and hate – advocating that children be separated from their parents as some sort of ‘deterrent’ to immigration is a sad example of that.


I am familiar with P vs D, and I see no relevance of it to deportation of entire illegal alien families.  The other case I am not familiar with, and by merely plunking it down here in a post and not explaining it, you have shown nothing.  It's a mile long I'm not going to spend a lot of time reading the whole boring thing.  If you think you have a point here, state it.

If you think that these SCOTUS cases impact deportation of illegal aliens, state why you think so. Until I get an explanation, I'm not accepting that they have a shred of relevance here.

And deporting children with their parents is not Trump's policy.  It is an 1866 policy of Senator Jacob Howard, author of the Constitution's 14th amendment.




  Jacob Howard, United States Senator
from Michigan.   *In office *January 17, 1862 – March 4, 1871


----------



## Darkwind

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


This is nonsense.

We are NOT punishing children.  No more than a convicted felon's child is punished when we send them to prison.

Do we stop enforcing our laws because the children will be separated from their parents who are acting criminally?

The answer is a resounding, no!

As for this nonsense of "human cost", it is nothing more than a phrase designed to instill anguish in political opposition for the purpose of achieving an agenda.


----------



## protectionist

HappyJoy said:


> They are being separated before they are convicted..


 I don't know about that, but if so, why would that be the case ?


----------



## protectionist

Darkwind said:


> This is nonsense.
> 
> We are NOT punishing children.  No more than a convicted felon's child is punished when we send them to prison.
> 
> Do we stop enforcing our laws because the children will be separated from their parents who are acting criminally?
> 
> The answer is a resounding, no!
> 
> As for this nonsense of "human cost", it is nothing more than a phrase designed to instill anguish in political opposition for the purpose of achieving an agenda.


Exactly right. We don't hear these sob stories for the kids of American criminals sent to prison for long periods, or even for life, or the death penalty.  But then, the American kids and their parents don't represent VOTES for Democrats, do they ?


----------



## there4eyeM

As the problem is presented here, things are (typically) divided into two sides. Every time, Americans resort to simplistic, binary argumentation. 
The "strict constructionists" just point to the law and say to the humans involved (the potential immigrants), "Verbotten! Raus!"
The "bleeding hearts" just say, "Oh, the humanity, the poor little babies! How can we be cruel to them?"
Certainly, laws are in place and reasonable citizens expect them to be applied.
Certainly, humans are and should be sensitive to suffering.
Look at the situation in a larger scope.
What brings people to the point of straggling, with their children, across hostile environments to the border of a foreign country with a strange (to them) culture and a language they don't speak? Only desperation would push anyone to such a point. Desperation where they originated. If there were a possibility of decent existence there, they would never undertake such an arduous journey.
Of course these people are attracted by the beacon of a vital, rich America. We would be stupid not to realize we are so attractive. We are most assuredly going to have this problem as long as conditions are insufferable so close to our borders. We spend uncountable treasure on 'defense' from possible threats. Spending a little on a definite, imminent one is only reasonable. It would be cheapest to make efforts to improve "there" so these people don't come "here". 
All the banter about who is more 'evil' in this situation serves only those who reign by division. Keep serving them at your risk, and the risk to all of us.


----------



## protectionist

Syriusly said:


> Damn those Democrats for passing the law that requires the separation of parents and children!
> 
> *Trump blames Democrats for his policy of separating migrant families at border*
> *Trump blames Democrats for his policy of separating migrant families at border*
> 
> *The administration confirmed this month that breaking up families was a byproduct of their new "zero tolerance" plan to prosecute everyone who crosses the border illegally, which would require minors who traveled with their family to be taken into the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services. Under the previous policy, children were usually allowed to stay with their parents in shelters while awaiting legal proceedings.*


Whatever happens, it is a "byproduct" of criminals committing crimes against our country, and the negligent countries they came from, in creating conditions so bad that these people would want to leave there, and make a long journey to come here.


----------



## protectionist

there4eyeM said:


> As the problem is presented here, things are (typically) divided into two sides. Every time, Americans resort to simplistic, binary argumentation.
> The "strict constructionists" just point to the law and say to the humans involved (the potential immigrants), "Verbotten! Raus!"
> The "bleeding hearts" just say, "Oh, the humanity, the poor little babies! How can we be cruel to them?"
> Certainly, laws are in place and reasonable citizens expect them to be applied.
> Certainly, humans are and should be sensitive to suffering.
> Look at the situation in a larger scope.
> What brings people to the point of straggling, with their children, across hostile environments to the border of a foreign country with a strange (to them) culture and a language they don't speak? Only desperation would push anyone to such a point. Desperation where they originated. If there were a possibility of decent existence there, they would never undertake such an arduous journey.
> Of course these people are attracted by the beacon of a vital, rich America. We would be stupid not to realize we are so attractive. We are most assuredly going to have this problem as long as conditions are insufferable so close to our borders. We spend uncountable treasure on 'defense' from possible threats. Spending a little on a definite, imminent one is only reasonable. It would be cheapest to make efforts to improve "there" so these people don't come "here".
> All the banter about who is more 'evil' in this situation serves only those who reign by division. Keep serving them at your risk, and the risk to all of us.


What kind of  _"efforts to improve "there" _do you suggest ?  Keep in mind that Mexico is a wealthy country, rich with resources of oil, gold, silver, agriculture, and tourism.  Keep in mind also that the US is the # 1 victim of remittance imperialism the world, with Mexican imperialism pillaging us for $24 Billion /year + tens of Billions more in welfare $$ to Mexicans living here.


----------



## EverCurious

Fine.  From now on all kids go with their parents to jail / "detention" centers (aka jails with nicer cells)

Hell, maybe it'll clean up some of the out of control American kids in the process.


----------



## there4eyeM

How much would a wall cost? Remember what history teaches about walls. We aren't talking about just the cost in money for the materials and labor. I'm certain that the tremendous American creativity can come up with ways of spending much less to induce people to remain and make efforts where they are than to wander through the desert seeking the promised land.


----------



## EverCurious

We the people voted for a wall.  Cost is beside the point.  Kind of like earlier we the people voted in a bunch of welfare programs; cost was, and still is, beside the point we're told.


----------



## Darkwind




----------



## there4eyeM

A minority of American voters voted for a candidate that talked about a lot of things, one of which was a wall that another country would pay for. 
What viable, historically successful actions can America take, ones that are in keeping with American ideals?


----------



## Kondor3

> What human cost is acceptable in controlling illegal immigration?


Let's ask the unemployed and job-displaced of America.

Let's ask the victims of wage-standards -lowering and wage-depression in various occupations and trades now saturated by cheap Illegal labor.

Let's ask the taxpayers of America whose hard-earned money goes to provide free education to those who sneaked-in or overstayed.

Let's ask the victims of crimes committed by Illegal Aliens.

Let's ask Americans in emergency rooms who wait for hours on-end because their local E.R. is full-to-the-rafters with Illegals.

Let's ask Americans who care about border integrity and national sovereignty and the Rule of Law in their Republic.

-------------------

Don't want your family split apart?

Don't cross over onto United States soil without our express prior consent.


----------



## Kondor3

HappyJoy said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
Click to expand...

You're right.

It is, indeed, unnecessary.

Their parents should reflect upon the risk.

They are subjecting their children to unnecessary separation when they cross onto United States soil without our express prior consent.

Time to send a message.

To Illegal Aliens.

And to those who would rather stand alongside Illegal Aliens than their own fellow countrymen and the governing laws of their Republic.

Got the message yet?


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


So... importing future Democratic voters at any cost ?


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn those Democrats for passing the law that requires the separation of parents and children!
> 
> *Trump blames Democrats for his policy of separating migrant families at border*
> *Trump blames Democrats for his policy of separating migrant families at border*
> 
> *The administration confirmed this month that breaking up families was a byproduct of their new "zero tolerance" plan to prosecute everyone who crosses the border illegally, which would require minors who traveled with their family to be taken into the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services. Under the previous policy, children were usually allowed to stay with their parents in shelters while awaiting legal proceedings.*
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever happens, it is a "byproduct" of criminals committing crimes against our country, and the negligent countries they came from, in creating conditions so bad that these people would want to leave there, and make a long journey to come here.
Click to expand...

Well that certainly explains Trump's lie that his policy is the Democrats fault.....


----------



## Slyhunter

My family is about to split apart because I can't find a job that'll pay the rent. My sister is disabled but not disabled enough to collect disability. They say she can still do a sit down job. My mother is retired. And two nephews. I lost my previous job because of a political post made in a news group that got cross posted onto Facebook. I lost my last job because I checked the wrong box on a form and accidentally charged a customer $299 more than we both thought I was charging him. oopsie. Can't find another job that'll pay the rent because all the illegals have driven wages down too low to support a family without a 4 year college degree.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

HappyJoy said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its all a scam using the so call widdle children as RAY says .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? There is an actual valid reason for separating children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's called a deterrent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Terrorizing children. People like you need to be shipped off to Guantanamo for the rest of your miserable lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then send the parents to Gitmo instead of us, because it's the parents that are causing their children harm--not us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, if we are separating them then it's us.
Click to expand...


No, it's not.  You come here illegally, everything that happens to you and your kids is your fault.  You knew well ahead of time you are coming here and breaking our laws, so anything could happen at that point. 

Let me ask, if a woman is drunk and driving around with her child, and she runs when the cops try to pull her over, and the child gets killed when she strikes a tree, do you blame the drunken mother or the police that tried to stop her? 

We have enough irresponsible people in this country, we call them Democrats.  We certainly don't need any more irresponsible people coming from other places.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

HappyJoy said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its all a scam using the so call widdle children as RAY says .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? There is an actual valid reason for separating children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean from their criminal parents, YES.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't convicted of a crime and if they don't demonstrate a threat to their children then their is not a valid reason. It's actually harmful to pull families apart.
Click to expand...


Agreed.  Then stay in your own country and keep your family together.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billy000 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> God you people are stupid. Her point is about the kids who didn’t choose to be smuggled over the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean just like the children of incarcerated bank robbers...and how the piece of shit parents forfeited them to the system by way of their own actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re equating bank robbers to people who want a better life for their children by crossing a border? God you’re fucking stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are bank robbers and illegal border crossers breaking the law?  How Fn stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop pretending you give a shit about the rule of law when we know white collar corporate crime rarely goes punished. You don’t care about that because the GOP hasn’t  told you to care about it.
Click to expand...


Stay on topic.  If you want to talk corporations and corporate crime, you're in the wrong forum.


----------



## Old Yeller

What do you want done with them?  Ritz-Cartlton?  Homeless Shelter?  Free house in Fort Worth?  Detroit?   You pay.  Start a gofundme?  Adopt them? Give out rooms in your vacation homes?  Set up FEMA trailers,  run plumbing-electric-AC.

What about American homeless?


----------



## Claudette

9thIDdoc said:


> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.



I agree. Send them all back to whatever shithole they crawled out of. Every. Single. One.


----------



## Claudette

Old Yeller said:


> What do you want done with them?  Ritz-Cartlton?  Homeless Shelter?  Free house in Fort Worth?  Detroit?   You pay.  Start a gofundme?  Adopt them? Give out rooms in your vacation homes?  Set up FEMA trailers,  run plumbing-electric-AC.
> 
> What about American homeless?



Yup. The idiots find nothing wrong with tax dollars used to support people who shouldn't be here at all.

Send them all back to whatever shithole they came from.


----------



## forkup

BrokeLoser said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn’t it time that bleeding heart suckers add some credibility to this whining by starting with the condemnation of the piece of shit criminal wetback parents first?
> Whatta ya say...seem like rudimentary logic to you?
Click to expand...

Are you native American? If not then by your logic you came from criminal scum. If the only 'crime' people commit is searching a better future. And it's a 'crime' that's worth the future of an entire family I suggest that you be deported as a member of a family that looked for a better life.


----------



## Claudette

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​



Human cost my ass. Apparently the word ILLEGAL doesn't mean much to an enabler like you.

They are breaking the law by being here and they should be sent back to whatever shithole they crawled out of.
Period.


----------



## forkup

Old Yeller said:


> What do you want done with them?  Ritz-Cartlton?  Homeless Shelter?  Free house in Fort Worth?  Detroit?   You pay.  Start a gofundme?  Adopt them? Give out rooms in your vacation homes?  Set up FEMA trailers,  run plumbing-electric-AC.
> 
> What about American homeless?


I have an idea. Stop giving tax brakes to those who already have plenty of money and use the funds to help homeless people. The richest country in the world has to much poverty and the reason isn't other poor people taking away government funds. It's the idea that being rich isn't just something to aspire to but something that requires the government's aid.


----------



## mudwhistle

HappyJoy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
Click to expand...

No.....we see them as criminals.


----------



## Claudette

mudwhistle said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.....we see them as criminals.
Click to expand...


Yup and that's just what they are. Criminals.


----------



## forkup

Claudette said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.....we see them as criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup and that's just what they are. Criminals.
Click to expand...

You are right, pushing the funny rating is so much less time consuming than giving a counterargument.


----------



## Claudette

forkup said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.....we see them as criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup and that's just what they are. Criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are right, pushing the funny rating is so much less time consuming than giving a counterargument.
Click to expand...


There is no argument. They are criminals. They are trying to enter out country illegally.

What part of the word illegal do you not understand.

Oh wait. I forgot. You are an enabler so the word illegal doesn't mean anything to you.

How many illegals are you caring for??


----------



## HappyJoy

OKTexas said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using that logic we could murder the kids in their sleep and completely escape culpability. Your argument is weak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many are raped, beaten and yes some killed even before they reach the border. Many are trafficked and sold once they reach the US, brought here by people they aren't even related to. That's way Sessions is insisting on DNA tests, to prove paternity. Many are given to supposed relatives who are illegal themselves, that's why they don't answer when DHS calls to check on the kids. All because the parents or who ever they are are using them hoping to get a free pass to disappear into the population. Sessions ins't giving any more free passes.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of this has anything to do with a reason for separating families, if you can't defend the policy then why post at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You might look at my first post in this thread. I don't have to defend anything, it's the law. Don't like it, tell you congresscritters to get off their lazy asses and change it.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't convicted and deserve their day in court before their kids are ripped from them and sent halfway across the country. Also, like I said they are doing this with those who legally enter the country as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The adults are a flight risk, they stay in detention until their trial or hearing, the courts say the kids can't be held there. Address the law, not me.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


They have in the past, this is a recent change in policy.


----------



## Mac1958

You don't punish children for the acts of their parents, period.  That includes low-income American kids.

And I'd like to know why we keep ignoring the *root problem* of all this:  The countries directly to our South are so horrible and corrupt, that not only are people *desperate* to *escape* them, but their own LEADERS are more than willing to HELP escape them *while* they blame US.

Why is this root cause never in this conversation?  No perceived political advantage for either tribe?
.


----------



## HappyJoy

BrokeLoser said:


> Billy000 HappyJoy
> *Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare*
> Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare



You have to look beyond the first generation. For starters we actually need more immigration as we are not having enough children to sustain us as older generations retire. While the first generation of immigrants tend to be poorer, the 2nd generation catches up rather quickly and negates most if not all welfare used by the first generation. Your own link alludes to this, I guess you didn't read that part.

You won't read this either but at least there are pictures so no excuses.

Second-Generation Americans

_Second-generation Americans—the 20 million adult U.S.-born children of immigrants—are substantially better off than immigrants themselves on key measures of socioeconomic attainment, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. They have higher incomes; more are college graduates and homeowners; and fewer live in poverty. In all of these measures, their characteristics resemble those of the full U.S. adult population.

Hispanics and Asian Americans make up about seven-in-ten of today’s adult immigrants and about half of today’s adult second generation. Pew Research surveys find that the second generations of both groups are much more likely than the immigrants to speak English; to have friends and spouses outside their ethnic or racial group, to say their group gets along well with others, and to think of themselves as a “typical American.”_

Nifty chart:


----------



## Norman

Mac1958 said:


> You don't punish children for the acts of their parents, period.  That includes low-income American kids.
> 
> And I'd like to know why we keep ignoring the *root problem* of all this:  The countries directly to our South are so horrible and corrupt, that not only are people *desperate* to *escape* them, but their own LEADERS are more than willing to HELP escape them *while* they blame US.
> 
> Why is this root cause never in this conversation?  No perceived political advantage for either tribe?
> .



I don't think most ever denied they are shithole countries. Which is exactly why we don't want those people here, they will make this country a shithole, too. Just look at their voting patterns, IQ and the fact that they committed a crime.

It's their fault that the child gets punished, if they are willing to risk it, not our problem. Otherwise, everyone will be coming in with their child.


----------



## Slyhunter

HappyJoy said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 HappyJoy
> *Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare*
> Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to look beyond the first generation. For starters we actually need more immigration as we are not having enough children to sustain us as older generations retire. While the first generation of immigrants tend to be poorer, the 2nd generation catches up rather quickly and negates most if not all welfare used by the first generation. Your own link alludes to this, I guess you didn't read that part.
> 
> You won't read this either but at least there are pictures so no excuses.
> 
> Second-Generation Americans
> 
> _Second-generation Americans—the 20 million adult U.S.-born children of immigrants—are substantially better off than immigrants themselves on key measures of socioeconomic attainment, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. They have higher incomes; more are college graduates and homeowners; and fewer live in poverty. In all of these measures, their characteristics resemble those of the full U.S. adult population.
> 
> Hispanics and Asian Americans make up about seven-in-ten of today’s adult immigrants and about half of today’s adult second generation. Pew Research surveys find that the second generations of both groups are much more likely than the immigrants to speak English; to have friends and spouses outside their ethnic or racial group, to say their group gets along well with others, and to think of themselves as a “typical American.”_
> 
> Nifty chart:
Click to expand...

We need immigrants who have jobs, not who collect food stamps and welfare. And taking a job from an American and lowering wages is counter productive. They need to actually create new jobs not take existing jobs.

You should watch this video and learn something.
If you practice what you preach you'll watch this video.


----------



## HappyJoy

Kondor3 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right.
> 
> It is, indeed, unnecessary.
> 
> Their parents should reflect upon the risk.
> 
> They are subjecting their children to unnecessary separation when they cross onto United States soil without our express prior consent.
> 
> Time to send a message.
> 
> To Illegal Aliens.
> 
> And to those who would rather stand alongside Illegal Aliens than their own fellow countrymen and the governing laws of their Republic.
> 
> Got the message yet?
Click to expand...


The United States is also separating families for those legally seeking asylum. Plus, many immigrants are escaping extreme poverty or violence. Time to send what message? That the United States doesn't care about family values now that the family values party is in control?


----------



## HappyJoy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? There is an actual valid reason for separating children from their parents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it's called a deterrent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Terrorizing children. People like you need to be shipped off to Guantanamo for the rest of your miserable lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then send the parents to Gitmo instead of us, because it's the parents that are causing their children harm--not us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, if we are separating them then it's us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not.  You come here illegally, everything that happens to you and your kids is your fault.  You knew well ahead of time you are coming here and breaking our laws, so anything could happen at that point.
Click to expand...


So, I guess you do believe that the United States can great people like cattle and you have no problem with it. Like I said earlier, they aren't even human to you. 



> Let me ask, if a woman is drunk and driving around with her child, and she runs when the cops try to pull her over, and the child gets killed when she strikes a tree, do you blame the drunken mother or the police that tried to stop her?



I believe the intoxicated mother, but this isn't about drunk driving.  It's quite literally nothing like that at all. 



> We have enough irresponsible people in this country, we call them Democrats.  We certainly don't need any more irresponsible people coming from other places.



Separating families for no other reason than to teach them a lesson is irresponsible.


----------



## HappyJoy

mudwhistle said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.....we see them as criminals.
Click to expand...


You see them as an invading horde who might as well be aliens from another world.


----------



## healthmyths

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​



Explain what happens then to children of parents that are imprisoned for criminal acts?

Two-thirds of these incarcerated parents were serving time for a non-violent crime while one-third were serving time for a violent one. 
As a result, there are *2.7 million *minor children who have a parent in jail or prison. In other words, 1-in-*28* American children (3.6%) have an incarcerated parent.Jun 21, 2013
Sesame Street reaches out to 2.7 million American children with an incarcerated parent

Roughly 10% of incarcerated mothers in state prison have a child in a foster home or other state care.4 Some estimates indicate that as many as 1 in 8 children who are subjects of reports of maltreatment and investigated by child welfare agencies have parents who were recently arrested.5
https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/COIP-Tookit.pdf


----------



## mudwhistle

HappyJoy said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.....we see them as criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see them as an invading horde who might as well be aliens from another world.
Click to expand...

No....I sympathize with them.
The Democrats have promised them streets of gold and they get here and discover it ain't all that great.
But they figure that the shithole they came from is so screwed up even living on welfare in America is a step up....and after living in CA for 8 years, welfare is a decent alternative.
The problem is, the flood of illegals makes it easier for criminals to pour drugs into the US.
They also have a strange habit of driving wages down wherever they decide to live because they're willing to accept extremely low wages.
20 people living in the same home making $4/hr each adds up.


----------



## Norman

HappyJoy said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 HappyJoy
> *Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare*
> Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to look beyond the first generation. For starters we actually need more immigration as we are not having enough children to sustain us as older generations retire. While the first generation of immigrants tend to be poorer, the 2nd generation catches up rather quickly and negates most if not all welfare used by the first generation. Your own link alludes to this, I guess you didn't read that part.
> 
> You won't read this either but at least there are pictures so no excuses.
> 
> Second-Generation Americans
> 
> _Second-generation Americans—the 20 million adult U.S.-born children of immigrants—are substantially better off than immigrants themselves on key measures of socioeconomic attainment, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. They have higher incomes; more are college graduates and homeowners; and fewer live in poverty. In all of these measures, their characteristics resemble those of the full U.S. adult population.
> 
> Hispanics and Asian Americans make up about seven-in-ten of today’s adult immigrants and about half of today’s adult second generation. Pew Research surveys find that the second generations of both groups are much more likely than the immigrants to speak English; to have friends and spouses outside their ethnic or racial group, to say their group gets along well with others, and to think of themselves as a “typical American.”_
> 
> Nifty chart:
Click to expand...


He was talking about ALL of them, dumbass. Besides, if you would look at 3rd generation, the statistics would again revert.The reason being the better people try to escape out of the country. However, their offspring will revert to the mean.


----------



## Claudette

Norman said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't punish children for the acts of their parents, period.  That includes low-income American kids.
> 
> And I'd like to know why we keep ignoring the *root problem* of all this:  The countries directly to our South are so horrible and corrupt, that not only are people *desperate* to *escape* them, but their own LEADERS are more than willing to HELP escape them *while* they blame US.
> 
> Why is this root cause never in this conversation?  No perceived political advantage for either tribe?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think most ever denied they are shithole countries. Which is exactly why we don't want those people here, they will make this country a shithole, too. Just look at their voting patterns, IQ and the fact that they committed a crime.
> 
> It's their fault that the child gets punished, if they are willing to risk it, not our problem. Otherwise, everyone will be coming in with their child.
Click to expand...


I agree. These people aren't our responsibility and anyone trying to make them our responsibility is one damned idiot.


----------



## Disir

Tresha91203 said:


> You cannot house children in adult detention centers. It is common sense.



They used to put everybody together years ago in Florida but they wound up with kids being sexually assaulted.


----------



## HappyJoy

mudwhistle said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.....we see them as criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see them as an invading horde who might as well be aliens from another world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No....I sympathize with them.
> The Democrats have promised them streets of gold and they get here and discover it ain't all that great.[
> /quote]
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they figure that the shithole they came from is so screwed up even living on welfare in America is a step up....and after living in CA for 8 years, welfare is a decent alternative.
> The problem is, the flood of illegals makes it easier for criminals to pour drugs into the US.
> They also have a strange habit of driving wages down wherever they decide to live because they're willing to accept extremely low wages.
> 20 people living in the same home making $4/hr each adds up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal immigration has been on a downturn beginning with the Obama administration. I have no idea why you fear them so much or pretend that everyone agrees illegal immigration should be stopped. What we more than likely do need is increased legal immigration as we are going to need people to fill jobs because our workforce is not going to keep up with our aging population. Of course you're not really for legal immigration either.
Click to expand...


----------



## forkup

mudwhistle said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.....we see them as criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see them as an invading horde who might as well be aliens from another world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No....I sympathize with them.
> The Democrats have promised them streets of gold and they get here and discover it ain't all that great.
> But they figure that the shithole they came from is so screwed up even living on welfare in America is a step up....and after living in CA for 8 years, welfare is a decent alternative.
> The problem is, the flood of illegals makes it easier for criminals to pour drugs into the US.
> They also have a strange habit of driving wages down wherever they decide to live because they're willing to accept extremely low wages.
> 20 people living in the same home making $4/hr each adds up.
Click to expand...

Le


Norman said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 HappyJoy
> *Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare*
> Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to look beyond the first generation. For starters we actually need more immigration as we are not having enough children to sustain us as older generations retire. While the first generation of immigrants tend to be poorer, the 2nd generation catches up rather quickly and negates most if not all welfare used by the first generation. Your own link alludes to this, I guess you didn't read that part.
> 
> You won't read this either but at least there are pictures so no excuses.
> 
> Second-Generation Americans
> 
> _Second-generation Americans—the 20 million adult U.S.-born children of immigrants—are substantially better off than immigrants themselves on key measures of socioeconomic attainment, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. They have higher incomes; more are college graduates and homeowners; and fewer live in poverty. In all of these measures, their characteristics resemble those of the full U.S. adult population.
> 
> Hispanics and Asian Americans make up about seven-in-ten of today’s adult immigrants and about half of today’s adult second generation. Pew Research surveys find that the second generations of both groups are much more likely than the immigrants to speak English; to have friends and spouses outside their ethnic or racial group, to say their group gets along well with others, and to think of themselves as a “typical American.”_
> 
> Nifty chart:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was talking about ALL of them, dumbass. Besides, if you would look at 3rd generation, the statistics would again revert.The reason being the better people try to escape out of the country. However, their offspring will revert to the mean.
Click to expand...

I happen to agree with that one. Donald Trump is 3rd generation, a better example of the faults of immigration can't be given.


----------



## Dragonlady

Norman said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't punish children for the acts of their parents, period.  That includes low-income American kids.
> 
> And I'd like to know why we keep ignoring the *root problem* of all this:  The countries directly to our South are so horrible and corrupt, that not only are people *desperate* to *escape* them, but their own LEADERS are more than willing to HELP escape them *while* they blame US.
> 
> Why is this root cause never in this conversation?  No perceived political advantage for either tribe?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think most ever denied they are shithole countries. Which is exactly why we don't want those people here, they will make this country a shithole, too. Just look at their voting patterns, IQ and the fact that they committed a crime.
> 
> It's their fault that the child gets punished, if they are willing to risk it, not our problem. Otherwise, everyone will be coming in with their child.
Click to expand...


People who come asking for asylum are NOT committing a crime and as such should not be treated as criminals.


----------



## Seawytch

Slyhunter said:


> My family is about to split apart because I can't find a job that'll pay the rent. My sister is disabled but not disabled enough to collect disability. They say she can still do a sit down job. My mother is retired. And two nephews. I lost my previous job because of a political post made in a news group that got cross posted onto Facebook. I lost my last job because I checked the wrong box on a form and accidentally charged a customer $299 more than we both thought I was charging him. oopsie. Can't find another job that'll pay the rent because all the illegals have driven wages down too low to support a family without a 4 year college degree.



You sound like the perfect Trumpster. Can't get a job, blame the brown people...when the truth is your own actions have led to you being unemployed.


----------



## Norman

Dragonlady said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't punish children for the acts of their parents, period.  That includes low-income American kids.
> 
> And I'd like to know why we keep ignoring the *root problem* of all this:  The countries directly to our South are so horrible and corrupt, that not only are people *desperate* to *escape* them, but their own LEADERS are more than willing to HELP escape them *while* they blame US.
> 
> Why is this root cause never in this conversation?  No perceived political advantage for either tribe?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think most ever denied they are shithole countries. Which is exactly why we don't want those people here, they will make this country a shithole, too. Just look at their voting patterns, IQ and the fact that they committed a crime.
> 
> It's their fault that the child gets punished, if they are willing to risk it, not our problem. Otherwise, everyone will be coming in with their child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who come asking for asylum are NOT committing a crime and as such should not be treated as criminals.
Click to expand...


Yes, well those people are not illegal immigrants. Unless they cross the border without permission. I am talking about illegal immigrants.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Coyote said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue isn't allowing or not allowing them to stay.  Read the OP.
Click to expand...


That's exactly the issue. What part of my response do you not understand?


----------



## HappyJoy

Seawytch said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> My family is about to split apart because I can't find a job that'll pay the rent. My sister is disabled but not disabled enough to collect disability. They say she can still do a sit down job. My mother is retired. And two nephews. I lost my previous job because of a political post made in a news group that got cross posted onto Facebook. I lost my last job because I checked the wrong box on a form and accidentally charged a customer $299 more than we both thought I was charging him. oopsie. Can't find another job that'll pay the rent because all the illegals have driven wages down too low to support a family without a 4 year college degree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like the perfect Trumpster. Can't get a job, blame the brown people...when the truth is your own actions have led to you being unemployed.
Click to expand...


Near record low unemployment and they still want to blame brown people. Sheesh, what a bunch of losers they are.


----------



## whitehall

Acceptable to whom? It wouldn't occur to the left to adopt a couple of kids or go down to the Border and assist like some Christian charities do. All illegal aliens are to them is a political tool. The left treats illegal entry into the United States like some PITA project where illegals are considered ignorant animals who migrate and have no concept of child care. The U.S. does it's best to respect human life but the responsibilities fall on the illegal aliens who already risked the lives of children getting to the border.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


Human cost????? I don't see any mention of the human cost American families bear that your bleeding heart supports committed by the constant flow of human debris you support over them.


----------



## Seawytch

Hey, dumb asses, it is *legal* to seek asylum.


----------



## forkup

whitehall said:


> Acceptable to whom? It wouldn't occur to the left to adopt a couple of kids or go down to the Border and assist like some Christian charities do. All illegal aliens are to them is a political tool. The left treats illegal entry into the United States like some PITA project where illegals are considered ignorant animals who migrate and have no concept of child care. The U.S. does it's best to respect human life but the responsibilities fall on the illegal aliens who already risked the lives of children getting to the border.


I think trying to give your child a better future is the essence of child care. For instance one of the main reasons my wife who is American and me, I'm Belgian choose to live in Europe is that we feel that our kid has a better future in Europe. The larger the disparity between the country you come from and the country you emigrate to the more risks you will take in order to provide your kid that future.


----------



## pismoe

Manonthestreet said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> Human cost????? I don't see any mention of the human cost American families bear that your bleeding heart supports committed by the constant flow of human debris you support over them.
Click to expand...

-------------------------------------------------    It is amazing to me to see the low esteem that these lefties hold currently living Americans and American youngsters and children who will have to SHARE with third worlders who want to take and own all that the USA has   Manon .


----------



## TNHarley

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


Their own parents punish them. 
Its really sad. It reminds me of some parent sin our country but at least they arent leaving them in another country and shit.
Take it up with them instead us and our laws.
Emotion can NOT run a country.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​



There is no human cost for them. 
That would require that immigrants are viewed as human in the first place.


----------



## Fang

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
Click to expand...


Who's human cost are you talking about? Kate Steinle's life? Kayla Cuevas and Nisa Mickens who were hacked to death by MS-13 members in Brentwood in 2016? Other Americans killed by illegals? The problem is Liberals who promote illegal border crossings by setting up sanctuary cities and campaigning for open borders. Stop enticing people to come to the southern border and the problem is solved on so many levels.


----------



## BluesLegend

Oh God not another liberal bleeding heart sob story. There's a billion kids in the world who are far worse off, starving to death, getting their arms and legs blown off. Why haven't you sacrificed for them? Go ahead donate 40% of your wealth to that cause.


----------



## pismoe

amazing to me , my parents and relations fought for ME and other widdle Americans like me when they fought overseas as young 20 year old men in WW2 .    Then after forming families  and putting 'IKE' in power as President .    'IKE' did the correct thing with his operation 'wetback' .    Now these new people and Fifth Column of 'other than Americans' in the USA want to give the USA to their third world families and friends .  ----------------   its amazing to me  .


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

HappyJoy said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
Click to expand...


  Why is it unnecessary?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Coyote said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unnecessary? Really?
> “Parents” get caught robbing a bank...they’re prosecuted and sentenced to years of incarceration...do they forfeit their children to “the system” due to their own actions....or do we send the children to live in their prison cell with them?
> Come on people....THINK. This is such simple shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the way the immigration system as worked before.  The children and parents are housed together until they get their hearing.  It isn't a criminal court system.
Click to expand...


  Do you have anything that supports that or are we expected to take your word on it?


----------



## EvilCat Breath

candycorn said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kidnapping is official US Policy.  How sad.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean Americans go to these countries and kidnap these children.
> 
> How awful
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we just knowingly take them away from their parents who try to come here illegally.
Click to expand...

Sounds fair.  The parents can stay home.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Billy000 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God you people are stupid. Her point is about the kids who didn’t choose to be smuggled over the border.
Click to expand...


   The parents made the choice,it's on them.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Billy000 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God you people are stupid. Her point is about the kids who didn’t choose to be smuggled over the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean just like the children of incarcerated bank robbers...and how the piece of shit parents forfeited them to the system by way of their own actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re equating bank robbers to people who want a better life for their children by crossing a border? God you’re fucking stupid.
Click to expand...


   The bank robber wants the same thing.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

HappyJoy said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> God you people are stupid. Her point is about the kids who didn’t choose to be smuggled over the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean just like the children of incarcerated bank robbers...and how the piece of shit parents forfeited them to the system by way of their own actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re equating bank robbers to people who want a better life for their children by crossing a border? God you’re fucking stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think illegals are far worse actually.
> Federal criminality = Federal criminal
> What else can I teach you Loon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, in your crazy world illegal immigration is worse than murder.
Click to expand...


    What about all of the American citizens that are killed by illegals?
     Those dont matter?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Billy000 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean just like the children of incarcerated bank robbers...and how the piece of shit parents forfeited them to the system by way of their own actions?
> 
> 
> 
> So you’re equating bank robbers to people who want a better life for their children by crossing a border? God you’re fucking stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think illegals are far worse actually.
> Federal criminality = Federal criminal
> What else can I teach you Loon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you could teach yourself about basic human decency and the grey morality of the law. It’s not like you give a shit about Wall Street execs for going unpunished with their past  corporate crime. You would rather whine about illegal immigration like a little bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the LefTard logic...
> Try to excuse criminality with other criminality...GAY!
> “Grey morality of the law”
> WTF is that...you Loons sit around in a circle jerk coming up with the craziest bunch of bullshit...hahaha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol god you are stupid. This isn’t hard to figure out. Should we treat someone who steals a candy bar like someone who raped someone? Obviously not. It’s amazing I have to walk you through this.
Click to expand...


  The cost of just one illegal would buy a shit ton of candy bars.


----------



## pismoe

Hey COYOTE ,  as to your question , what would YOU do regarding human cost and concerning these aliens and spawn invading USA Borders and Country   Coyote ??


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Vandalshandle said:


> Trump and his ass kissers have now gone beyond the pale, They have fallen to a point that is beneath contempt.



  I know you guys are hard up for voters but using children to get them is deplorable.


----------



## Old Yeller

Seawytch said:


> Hey, dumb asses, it is *legal* to seek asylum.




Right.  We get it.  The new "code word" for all of them.  We heard about the attorneys' going down to coach them too.  But go ahead, keep saying it.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Dragonlady said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't punish children for the acts of their parents, period.  That includes low-income American kids.
> 
> And I'd like to know why we keep ignoring the *root problem* of all this:  The countries directly to our South are so horrible and corrupt, that not only are people *desperate* to *escape* them, but their own LEADERS are more than willing to HELP escape them *while* they blame US.
> 
> Why is this root cause never in this conversation?  No perceived political advantage for either tribe?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think most ever denied they are shithole countries. Which is exactly why we don't want those people here, they will make this country a shithole, too. Just look at their voting patterns, IQ and the fact that they committed a crime.
> 
> It's their fault that the child gets punished, if they are willing to risk it, not our problem. Otherwise, everyone will be coming in with their child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who come asking for asylum are NOT committing a crime and as such should not be treated as criminals.
Click to expand...


   Asylum seekers.....the new illegal immigrant.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God you people are stupid. Her point is about the kids who didn’t choose to be smuggled over the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean just like the children of incarcerated bank robbers...and how the piece of shit parents forfeited them to the system by way of their own actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re equating bank robbers to people who want a better life for their children by crossing a border? God you’re fucking stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bank robber wants the same thing.
Click to expand...


Bank robbery is a felony.

Being here illegally is one misdemeanor count. Parents who have completed their sentence should be reunited with their children.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Hutch Starskey said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> God you people are stupid. Her point is about the kids who didn’t choose to be smuggled over the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean just like the children of incarcerated bank robbers...and how the piece of shit parents forfeited them to the system by way of their own actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re equating bank robbers to people who want a better life for their children by crossing a border? God you’re fucking stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bank robber wants the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bank robbery is a felony.
> 
> Being here illegally is one misdemeanor count. Parents who have completed their sentence should be reunited with their children.
Click to expand...


  In mexico.


----------



## koshergrl

"...those children had arrived alone at the Southwest border — without their parents. Most of them are from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, and were fleeing drug cartels, gang violence and domestic abuse, according to government data." And a lot of them are gang members themselves. 

"...the department’s office of refugee resettlement began voluntarily making the calls as a 30-day follow-up to make sure that the children and their sponsors did not require additional services. Those calls, which the office does not view as required, Mr. Hargan said, are now “being used to confuse and spread misinformation.”

In many cases, the statement said, sponsors cannot be reached because “they themselves are illegal aliens and do not want to be reached by federal authorities.”
Did the Trump Administration Separate Immigrant Children From Parents and Lose Them?

The left has trafficked gang members and criminals into the US, and now that they've *disappeared* they want to blame Trump?

Fucking ludicrous.


----------



## koshergrl

What happens is people show up with kids that aren't theirs, or that they're using as mules, and we remove the kids for their own safety. 

Of course the left doesn't like that. Children are disposable, and are supposed to be used by adults to get over the border. The left embraces trafficking, and is going to squawk when you protect children. They always have. 

“As required by law, D.H.S. must protect the best interests of minor children crossing our borders, and occasionally this results in separating children from an adult they are traveling with if we cannot ascertain the parental relationship, or if we think the child is otherwise in danger,”

Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents at U.S. Border


----------



## EvilCat Breath

They are fleeing gang violence all right.  They are fleeing retaliation for their own violence.  The gang cartels are their sons, husbands, brothers uncles and increasingly sisters.  The women might be fleeing domestic abuse but only temporarily.  They will soon apply for family reunification.

Send them back.  All of them.


----------



## koshergrl

The left engages in human trafficking, then squawks if someone dares to protect the children of the traffickers they want to subsidize...

"... migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.

'Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing."

Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents at U.S. Border


----------



## koshergrl

"...some migrants were using children as “human shields” in order to get out of immigration custody faster.

“It makes no sense at all for the government to just accept these attempts at fraud,” Ms. Vaughan said. “If it appears that the child is being used in this way, it is in the best interest of the child to be kept separately from the parent, for the parent to be prosecuted, because it’s a crime and it’s one that has to be deterred and prosecuted.”

Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents at U.S. Border


----------



## jc456

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


so why weren't you as outraged at obammy?  he did the same thing.

And I guess you think it's good parenting to use children as shields.


----------



## koshergrl

Fucking morons who encourage and defend human trafficking, who support the idea of human traffickers moving back and forth across the border, who are AOK with gang members trotting back and forth at will..are complaining when we try to protect the children at the border from them. 

What else is new...


----------



## koshergrl

Keep in mind..all this whining about how children are *separated* from the people who are using them to get into the US, who are moving children who are purchased like animals and sold to the highest bidders in the US...comes from a NYT *investigation*. 

The NYT, the mouthpiece for human traffickers in the US.


----------



## koshergrl

Also keep in mind Coyote is an apologist for Islam...her friends don't want children seized from traffickers at the border because it interferes with their bottom line.


----------



## Some Guy

End the war on drugs and the welfare state and we won't need to worry about illegal immigration.


----------



## Tom Horn

Why is this OP in Politics instead of the Immigration forum?....different set of rules for a mod?


----------



## koshergrl

Some Guy said:


> End the war on drugs and the welfare state and we won't need to worry about illegal immigration.


I think it's past that. 
There is a market for these kids operating on both sides of the border, since we've allowed human trafficking to become mainstream.


----------



## koshergrl

Tom Horn said:


> Why is this OP in Politics instead of the Immigration forum?....different set of rules for a mod?


It is politics.


----------



## Tom Horn

koshergrl said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is this OP in Politics instead of the Immigration forum?....different set of rules for a mod?
> 
> 
> 
> It is politics.
Click to expand...


Nope, it's immigration and there is a board for it.  When you've had as many OPs moved (hidden) as I have under that reasoning you'd see what I mean.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

forkup said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn’t it time that bleeding heart suckers add some credibility to this whining by starting with the condemnation of the piece of shit criminal wetback parents first?
> Whatta ya say...seem like rudimentary logic to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you native American? If not then by your logic you came from criminal scum. If the only 'crime' people commit is searching a better future. And it's a 'crime' that's worth the future of an entire family I suggest that you be deported as a member of a family that looked for a better life.
Click to expand...

The Very First Americans May Have Had European Roots      |     Smart News | Smithsonian


----------



## The Irish Ram

HappyJoy said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are punishing the children
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their parents are punishing those children, and putting them in harm's way, to reap benefits the the parents are not entitled to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, many are attempting to either escape extreme poverty or violence to better their own lives but your way sounds so much more dismissive and palatable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention that my way is also the correct way.   Beats catapulting your children over the wall,  hoping it gets you in.  How irresponsible of the parents, turning  their own kids into potential meal tickets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your way is treating people as inhuman. Turning their kids into meal tickets? That's just idiotic. Like most parents they want better lives for their own kids.
Click to expand...


Then stop using the children for ill gotten gain.
Would you shove your kid over the border of some country, hoping they will pave the way to freebie land for you?





^ Meal tickets.  NOT good parenting, but the end justifies the means according to you, Happy?
 I can't imagine putting my child through this, when legal options are available.


----------



## Vandalshandle

DJT for Life said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the parent's fault.
> They know that they are breaking the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what America has come to. Sad. So very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What has it come to?
> 
> The Central American parents send their children here alone.
> They know that our laws are such that we can't ship them back
> and we hold them until they are placed in a foster home.
> 
> The vast majority of these kids that everybody is talking about came
> here alone.  They are missing because the phone calls to the foster homes
> have not been answered.
> 
> When we send a mother to prison we do not let the child go with her.
> Why should we treat those people any different.
> 
> Trump lost 1500...huh?  Obama, according to reports lost over 4100...why
> no outrage then?
Click to expand...


You seem to know a lot about these children. How many do you know? Personally, I mean.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Norman said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the illegals care about children, then they won't try and cross the border with them.
> 
> Since they don't, why in the hell should we? And why in the hell should we let them in the country, given they are exceptionally brutish? Americans have higher standards than this.
Click to expand...


You should not care about children, Norman. It would put you into a category by yourself in the GOP.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


If I rob a bank and get caught, the State will have no problem separating me from my children and the means to support them.  

Why is this any different?


----------



## Norman

Vandalshandle said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the illegals care about children, then they won't try and cross the border with them.
> 
> Since they don't, why in the hell should we? And why in the hell should we let them in the country, given they are exceptionally brutish? Americans have higher standards than this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should not care about children, Norman. It would put you into a category by yourself in the GOP.
Click to expand...


Only democrats do not give a shit about children. They support single mothers and public schools, the worst enemy of children.


----------



## Crixus

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​





They want to be treated like citizens? They now are. You break the law and get sent to jail CPS gets your kids. These parents sold their children for food stamps and free health care . Piss on these wet backs. If you support them, then you support child exploitation.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Human cost?

Any analysis that does not take into consideration the human cost to those already living in a country as well as those wishing to live there is not worthy of being called an analysis.

 European countries are paying a terrible human cost for the profligate importation of massive numbers of those hostile to their very way of life.


----------



## Claudette

Dogmaphobe said:


> Human cost?
> 
> Any analysis that does not take into consideration the human cost to those already living in a country as well as those wishing to live there is not worthy of being called an analysis.
> 
> European countries are paying a terrible human cost for the profligate importation of massive numbers of those hostile to their very way of life.



Yup. If they dead could talk they would agree with you one hundred percent.


----------



## dudmuck




----------



## Vandalshandle

Norman said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the illegals care about children, then they won't try and cross the border with them.
> 
> Since they don't, why in the hell should we? And why in the hell should we let them in the country, given they are exceptionally brutish? Americans have higher standards than this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should not care about children, Norman. It would put you into a category by yourself in the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only democrats do not give a shit about children. They support single mothers and public schools, the worst enemy of children.
Click to expand...


You need not fret. Trump is well on his way toward eliminating public schools with DeVos. I can't help you on the issue of single mothers. He seems to be all for more of them, in view of his war on Planned Parenthood.


----------



## DJT for Life

Vandalshandle said:


> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the parent's fault.
> They know that they are breaking the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what America has come to. Sad. So very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What has it come to?
> 
> The Central American parents send their children here alone.
> They know that our laws are such that we can't ship them back
> and we hold them until they are placed in a foster home.
> 
> The vast majority of these kids that everybody is talking about came
> here alone.  They are missing because the phone calls to the foster homes
> have not been answered.
> 
> When we send a mother to prison we do not let the child go with her.
> Why should we treat those people any different.
> 
> Trump lost 1500...huh?  Obama, according to reports lost over 4100...why
> no outrage then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to know a lot about these children. How many do you know? Personally, I mean.
Click to expand...


I don't know any of them individually.  But I know how their parents
and their shithhole countries that they come from. are gaming the system.

And what's your story, Pancho?  Butt-hurt liberal or illegal alien?


----------



## MrShangles

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​



Y’all are some of the dumbest folks I’ve ever seen.
It ain’t Trumps fault, it ain’t Sessions fault. 
Why note blame the parents that broke the law and crossed the border ILLEGALLY, it cannot be that hard to understand can it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MrShangles

HappyJoy said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
Click to expand...


How bout unnecessarily crossing our border Illegally, did we drag them across the border?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Claudette

MrShangles said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Y’all are some of the dumbest folks I’ve ever seen.
> It ain’t Trumps fault, it ain’t Sessions fault.
> Why note blame the parents that broke the law and crossed the border ILLEGALLY, it cannot be that hard to understand can it?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I couldn't agree more. Put the blame where it belongs on the parents who drag their kids with them.

The parents are the ones who decided to break our laws. Send them all back to where ever they came from.


----------



## Pop23

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​



Shouldn't the country of origin step up to the plate and care for their own?

What am I missing here?


----------



## Coyote

OKTexas said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking to the wrong people. Only congress can address the situation. Border patrol is enforcing the law, congress is working on a law where the whole family can be deported expeditiously but your commiecrats won't hear of it. So don't come crying on our shoulders, tell your party to get off their ass and support a fix.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

What law states children must be removed from parents?


----------



## Coyote

Pop23 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't the country of origin step up to the plate and care for their own?
> 
> What am I missing here?
Click to expand...

read the OP.


----------



## Coyote

The Irish Ram said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are punishing the children
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their parents are punishing those children, and putting them in harm's way, to reap benefits that  the parents are not entitled to.
Click to expand...

rhat is certainly is one way justifying it...good job...keep in mind they are entitled to a hearing under the law. Nowhere does it say their children must be confiscated from them first.


----------



## candycorn

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump and his ass kissers have now gone beyond the pale, They have fallen to a point that is beneath contempt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you guys are hard up for voters but using children to get them is deplorable.
Click to expand...


Almost as deplorable as legally kidnapping them….


----------



## Coyote

BrokeLoser said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't make any sense and it's just plain stupid sounding.
> 
> Deportations were way up prior to Trump - but they didn't seperate the kids from the parents unless there was suspician the "parent" wasn't the child's real parent.  This new announced change is a departure.
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called "deportations" under Obama were not deportations. Generally, caught illegal aliens were given "catch & release".  After their immediate release, they simply disappeared back into the population, and did not get separated from their family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’ll add....the illegal alien population grew by 2.5 million under the unAmerican Black dude with the unAmerican name.
Click to expand...

Link?


----------



## Coyote

protectionist said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't make any sense and it's just plain stupid sounding.
> 
> Deportations were way up prior to Trump - but they didn't seperate the kids from the parents unless there was suspician the "parent" wasn't the child's real parent.  This new announced change is a departure.
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called "deportations" under Obama were not deportations. Generally, caught illegal aliens were given "catch & release".  After their immediate release, they simply disappeared back into the population, and did not get separated from their family.
Click to expand...

The deportation statistics are for deportions.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Coyote said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't make any sense and it's just plain stupid sounding.
> 
> Deportations were way up prior to Trump - but they didn't seperate the kids from the parents unless there was suspician the "parent" wasn't the child's real parent.  This new announced change is a departure.
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called "deportations" under Obama were not deportations. Generally, caught illegal aliens were given "catch & release".  After their immediate release, they simply disappeared back into the population, and did not get separated from their family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’ll add....the illegal alien population grew by 2.5 million under the unAmerican Black dude with the unAmerican name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


Probably not a credible source...it didn’t come from your programmer CNN.
2.5 Million Join Illegal Population under Obama


----------



## Coyote

OKTexas said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans tend to lack basic empathy for things they don’t directly witness. They don’t have the emotional maturity or complexity of thought for such a thing. As a result, they don’t bother thinking about the well being of kids. They just know brown people have crossed the border and their GOP masters tell them it’s a bad thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The parents are responsible for anything that happens to the kids, they put them in the situation.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Sorry but no.  Once they are under our control WE are responsible.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Coyote said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans tend to lack basic empathy for things they don’t directly witness. They don’t have the emotional maturity or complexity of thought for such a thing. As a result, they don’t bother thinking about the well being of kids. They just know brown people have crossed the border and their GOP masters tell them it’s a bad thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The parents are responsible for anything that happens to the kids, they put them in the situation.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but no.  Once they are under our control WE are responsible.
Click to expand...


Link us to that LAW would you please?
Thanks in advance


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

candycorn said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump and his ass kissers have now gone beyond the pale, They have fallen to a point that is beneath contempt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you guys are hard up for voters but using children to get them is deplorable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Almost as deplorable as legally kidnapping them….
Click to expand...


  You mean like barry did?


----------



## Coyote

BrokeLoser said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't make any sense and it's just plain stupid sounding.
> 
> Deportations were way up prior to Trump - but they didn't seperate the kids from the parents unless there was suspician the "parent" wasn't the child's real parent.  This new announced change is a departure.
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called "deportations" under Obama were not deportations. Generally, caught illegal aliens were given "catch & release".  After their immediate release, they simply disappeared back into the population, and did not get separated from their family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’ll add....the illegal alien population grew by 2.5 million under the unAmerican Black dude with the unAmerican name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably not a credible source...it didn’t come from your programmer CNN.
> 2.5 Million Join Illegal Population under Obama
Click to expand...

Ah...so even CIS admits the rate declined under Obama.  And they managed tbat decline without ripping children away from their parents.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Coyote said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't make any sense and it's just plain stupid sounding.
> 
> Deportations were way up prior to Trump - but they didn't seperate the kids from the parents unless there was suspician the "parent" wasn't the child's real parent.  This new announced change is a departure.
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called "deportations" under Obama were not deportations. Generally, caught illegal aliens were given "catch & release".  After their immediate release, they simply disappeared back into the population, and did not get separated from their family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’ll add....the illegal alien population grew by 2.5 million under the unAmerican Black dude with the unAmerican name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably not a credible source...it didn’t come from your programmer CNN.
> 2.5 Million Join Illegal Population under Obama
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah...so even CIS admits the rate declined under Obama.  And they managed tbat decline without ripping children away from their parents.
Click to expand...


Clever spin...but an increase can never be considered a decline...not even  in Libtardia


----------



## Coyote

OKTexas said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans tend to lack basic empathy for things they don’t directly witness. They don’t have the emotional maturity or complexity of thought for such a thing. As a result, they don’t bother thinking about the well being of kids. They just know brown people have crossed the border and their GOP masters tell them it’s a bad thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The parents are responsible for anything that happens to the kids, they put them in the situation.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using that logic we could murder the kids in their sleep and completely escape culpability. Your argument is weak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Many are raped, beaten and yes some killed even before they reach the border. Many are trafficked and sold once they reach the US, brought here by people they aren't even related to. That's why Sessions is insisting on DNA tests, to prove paternity. Many are given to supposed relatives who are illegal themselves, that's why they don't answer when DHS calls to check on the kids. All because the parents or who ever they are are using them hoping to get a free pass to disappear into the population. Sessions isn't giving any more free passes.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

There is no free pass being given by allowing children to stay with parents as they await their hearing.  They have always been able to remove children they suspect might not belong to the "parents" but that is not the case here.


----------



## Coyote

protectionist said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> No it I NOT EVIL. And you are contradicting yourself.  You asked a question which you yourself answered in your own OP>  You posted >>_ "When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed."
> _
> This is nothing unusual.  When US citizens are convicted of crimes, and put in prison, their children are separated from them.  We don't hear many sob stories for THESE kids though, do we ?  And unlike the illegal aliens' kids, the American kids have no choice in it.  They MUST be separated. And it could be for decades, or life.  Or the death penalty.
> 
> But the illegal alien kids have it better. They can choose to go with their parents.  They are not compelled to undergo separation, as the American kids are.
> 
> And the illegals' kids really should NOT have that choice either. They shouldn't be here, because the birthright citizenship they claim is FALSE.  It comes from the 14th amendment, but the 14th amendment was not intended to include the children of foreigners (so stated the author of the 14th amendment, Sen. Jacob Howard)
Click to expand...

it is decietful to compare them to criminals when they havent had their hearing or been convicted of anything.  That is a false comparison.


----------



## Vandalshandle

DJT for Life said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the parent's fault.
> They know that they are breaking the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what America has come to. Sad. So very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What has it come to?
> 
> The Central American parents send their children here alone.
> They know that our laws are such that we can't ship them back
> and we hold them until they are placed in a foster home.
> 
> The vast majority of these kids that everybody is talking about came
> here alone.  They are missing because the phone calls to the foster homes
> have not been answered.
> 
> When we send a mother to prison we do not let the child go with her.
> Why should we treat those people any different.
> 
> Trump lost 1500...huh?  Obama, according to reports lost over 4100...why
> no outrage then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to know a lot about these children. How many do you know? Personally, I mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know any of them individually.  But I know how their parents
> and their shithhole countries that they come from. are gaming the system.
> 
> And what's your story, Pancho?  Butt-hurt liberal or illegal alien?
Click to expand...


If your logic is to punish the children for their parents having committed a misdemeanor by crossing the border without papers, why not go all the way, and torture them as well?


----------



## Coyote

BrokeLoser said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could teach yourself about basic human decency and the grey morality of the law. It’s not like you give a shit about Wall Street execs for going unpunished with their past  corporate crime. You would rather whine about illegal immigration like a little bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the LefTard logic...
> Try to excuse criminality with other criminality...GAY!
> “Grey morality of the law”
> WTF is that...you Loons sit around in a circle jerk coming up with the craziest bunch of bullshit...hahaha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol god you are stupid. This isn’t hard to figure out. Should we treat someone who steals a candy bar like someone who raped someone? Obviously not. It’s amazing I have to walk you through this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor Loon...
> There is a FAR greater negative effect for REAL American citizens due to illegal wetbacks. Few are actually affected by bank robbers / robberies. Think once Loon, this is simple shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb fuck. Crime among illegal immigrants is statistically low but you believe otherwise because you’re whitetrash. The economy does better with illegal immigrants because of the agricultural industry. You don’t care to learn facts because you don’t give two shits about anyone who isn’t white or straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol god you are stupid. This isn’t hard to figure out. Should we treat someone who steals a candy bar like someone who raped someone? Obviously not. It’s amazing I have to walk you through this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor Loon...
> There is a FAR greater negative effect for REAL American citizens due to illegal wetbacks. Few are actually affected by bank robbers / robberies. Think once Loon, this is simple shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb fuck. Crime among illegal immigrants is statistically low but you believe otherwise because you’re whitetrash. The economy does better with illegal immigrants because of the agricultural industry. You don’t care to learn facts because you don’t give two shits about anyone who isn’t white or straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha...poor Billy.
> You are so lost, confused, twisted and WRONG.
> It’s almost sad that a grown man could be so fucked up in the head. Sorry Billy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If he's so lost then why are you relying on attacking him instead of having a valid reply to his argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay...I’ll play along.
> 
> *The truth about crime, illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities*
> There has been much rhetoric from the left and the open-borders, pro-illegal immigration lobby suggesting that illegal immigrants pose no threat to the safety and security of this nation and commit less crimes than their American Citizen and legal immigrant counterparts.
> 
> If one watches the network newscasts, the ideologues and open-borders surrogates consistently accuse Americans and law enforcement experts who suggest otherwise of being racist and anti-immigration xenophobes. If you pay attention to the rhetoric, you will find one blaring item missing — facts.
> 
> I am a former Spanish speaking career detective who investigated violent crimes within the Hispanic and other ethnic immigrant communities.
> 
> I am also a forensic criminologist who is a subject matter expert in violent crime who advocates for facts and evidence. Here are some verified crime facts and statistics with you so that you will know the truth about the precarious relationship between violent crime and illegal immigrants.
> 
> As Americans, we should only care about three things: (1) are the immigrants in the U.S. illegally; (2) have they committed violent crimes predominantly against U.S. citizens; and (3) had these criminals not been in our country illegally, these crimes, the victimization of our citizens and the costs of their crimes borne by American taxpayers could have been completely avoided.
> 
> Previous administrations have deliberately kept Americans in the dark about illegal immigrant crimes
> 
> Most states and our federal government have kept information and statistics about illegal immigration, crimes committed by illegals and the costs borne by you the U.S. payer out of public view. It is in fact difficult, but not impossible to locate accurate crime statistics involving illegal immigrants. The statistics are buried both to suit a political agenda and to avoid public outcry. Once you read this article, you will quickly understand why.
> 
> The Pew Research Institute estimates that as of 2014, there are at least 11.2 million illegal immigrants residing in the U.S. This population comprises approximately 3.5 percent of our country’s population.
> 
> Of these, by far the largest ethnic population, 52 percent are Hispanics comprised of Mexicans, Central Americans and Cubans.
> 
> Six states: California, Texas, Illinois, Florida, New York and New Jersey account for 59 percent of all illegal immigrants residing in the U.S. The fact that 66 percent of all illegal immigrants have lived in our nation for over ten years underscores our long-standing inability to address the serious problem of our inability to control our nation’s borders.
> 
> The relationship between illegal immigrants and violent crime
> 
> Research conducted by the federal government oversight organization Judicial Water n 2014 documents that 50 percent of all federal crimes were committed near our border with Mexico.
> 
> Of the 61,529 criminal cases filed by federal prosecutors; 40 percent or 24,746 were in court districts along the southern borders of California, Arizona and Texas.
> 
> The Western District of Texas had the nation’s most significant crime rate with over 6,300 cases filed; followed by the Southern District of Texas with slightly over 6,000 cases.
> 
> The Southern California District with nearly 4,900 cases; New Mexico with nearly 4,000 cases and Arizona with over 3,500 criminal cases ranked 3rd, 4th and 5th.
> 
> The U.S. Department of Justice documents that in 2014, 19 percent or over 12,000 criminal cases filed by prosecutors were for violent crimes; and over 22 percent or 13,300 cases were for drug related felonies.
> 
> That same year, the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that 75 percent of all criminal defendants who were convicted and sentenced for federal drug offenses were illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants were also involved in 17 percent of all drug trafficking sentences and one third of all federal prison sentences.
> 
> The U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Sentencing Commission reported that as of 2014, illegal immigrants were convicted and sentenced for over 13 percent of all crimes committed in the U.S.
> 
> According to the FBI, 67,642 murders were committed in the U.S. from 2005 through 2008, and 115,717 from 2003 through 2009. The General Accounting Office documents that criminal immigrants committed 25,064 of these murders.
> 
> Illegal immigrants clearly commit a level of violent and drug related crimes disproportionate to their population.
> 
> In California alone, over 2,400 illegal immigrants out of a total prison population of 130,000 are imprisoned in the state’s prison system for the crime of homicide.
> 
> The misrepresentation of comparisons in who commits crimes between illegal immigrants, legal U.S. immigrants and American citizens
> 
> The pro-illegal immigrant lobby consistently misrepresents the criminal involvement of illegal immigrants as compared to immigrants who legally enter the U.S. and American citizens, saying that illegal immigrants commit less crimes than their counterparts. This assertion is false in most cases. Here are the vetted statistics:
> 
> In California, there are just over 92 illegal immigrants imprisoned for every 100,000 illegals as compared to 74 citizens and legal non-citizen immigrants. In Arizona, the rate is nearly 69 illegals imprisoned for every 100,000, as compared to 54 citizens and legal non-citizen immigrants.
> 
> In New York, over three times as many illegal immigrants or 169, are imprisoned for crimes per 100,000, as compared to only 48 citizens and legal non-citizen immigrants. Only the states of Texas and Florida do illegal immigrants commit less crimes than their legal immigrant counterparts (Texas with 54.5 illegals imprisoned per 100,000, compared to 65 legal immigrants and Florida with 55 illegals imprisoned, compared to 68 legal immigrants).
> 
> Texas is an epicenter for illegal immigrant crimes
> 
> Recent crime analysis by both the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Texas law enforcement authorities indicate that between June 2011 and March 2017, over 217,000 criminal immigrants were arrested and booked into Texas jails.
> 
> In researching the criminal careers of these defendants, it was revealed that they had jointly committed over nearly 600,000 criminal offenses. Their arrests included nearly 1,200 homicides; almost 69,000 assaults; 16,854 burglaries; 700 kidnappings; nearly 6,200 sexual assaults; 69,000 drug offenses; 8,700 weapons violations; over 3,800 robberies and over 45,000 obstructing police charges. In determining the status of these offenders in the U.S., it was confirmed by DHS that over 173,000 or 66 percent of these immigrant criminal defendants were in our country illegally at the times of their arrests.
> 
> “Sanctuary State” California politicians fight against deporting criminal illegal immigrants
> 
> Currently, a fight is brewing between California Open Borders politicians and the state’s Democratic controlled Legislature and the Department of Justice regarding the protection of violent criminal illegal immigrants.
> 
> Hardly any Californian’s know that in 2014, Gov. Brown signed a bill that amended a state statute amending the maximum sentencing for misdemeanor crimes by one day from 365 to 364 days in jail. This was deliberately done to avoid current federal laws that provide for the deportation of illegal and legal immigrants in this country who have received sentences of 365 days or more.
> 
> With the newly enacted jail and prison diversion programs of Propositions 109 and 47, Gov. Brown and company are effectively preventing the federal government from removing violent and recidivist illegal immigrants from our midst through the deportation process.
> 
> The extreme costs of keeping illegal immigrant criminals in this country
> 
> According to research and statistics by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, U.S. taxpayers are footing an annual bill of nearly $19 million a day to house and care for an estimated 300,000 to 450,000 convicted criminal immigrants who are eligible for deportation and are currently residing in local jails and state and federal prisons across the country.
> 
> These figures include not only those immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally, but all immigrants here who commit and have been convicted of crimes. Other accounting estimates indicate that the total cost for all corrections, medical and support services for adults and juvenile immigrant criminals nationally to be over $1.8 billion dollars.
> 
> So the next time you hear some Open Borders politician or pro illegal immigrant surrogates advocate on their behalf, ask yourself why we as American citizens need to bear the increasing costs of violence, victimization and burdensome taxes in subsidizing illegal immigrant criminals who shouldn’t be in our country in the first place.
> 
> _Ron Martinelli is a nationally renowned forensic criminologist and law enforcement expert. Martinelli is a retired San Jose (CA) police detective who provides forensic investigation and expert services to numerous states, large municipalities and national private law firms specializing in civil rights. He is fluent in Spanish and divides his time between California, Texas and Mexico.
> The truth about crime, illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities_
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with the policy being discussed unless you are trying to gin up generalized anti immigrant hatred.


----------



## Vandalshandle

The children are rapists, and murderers. They are also terrorists, and they threaten the lives of all the tots that legal Americas put in day care. Since Trump has begun separating the children from their parents, there has not been one single mass shooting in a nursey care center!


----------



## BrokeLoser

Coyote said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the LefTard logic...
> Try to excuse criminality with other criminality...GAY!
> “Grey morality of the law”
> WTF is that...you Loons sit around in a circle jerk coming up with the craziest bunch of bullshit...hahaha
> 
> 
> 
> Lol god you are stupid. This isn’t hard to figure out. Should we treat someone who steals a candy bar like someone who raped someone? Obviously not. It’s amazing I have to walk you through this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor Loon...
> There is a FAR greater negative effect for REAL American citizens due to illegal wetbacks. Few are actually affected by bank robbers / robberies. Think once Loon, this is simple shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb fuck. Crime among illegal immigrants is statistically low but you believe otherwise because you’re whitetrash. The economy does better with illegal immigrants because of the agricultural industry. You don’t care to learn facts because you don’t give two shits about anyone who isn’t white or straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Loon...
> There is a FAR greater negative effect for REAL American citizens due to illegal wetbacks. Few are actually affected by bank robbers / robberies. Think once Loon, this is simple shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb fuck. Crime among illegal immigrants is statistically low but you believe otherwise because you’re whitetrash. The economy does better with illegal immigrants because of the agricultural industry. You don’t care to learn facts because you don’t give two shits about anyone who isn’t white or straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha...poor Billy.
> You are so lost, confused, twisted and WRONG.
> It’s almost sad that a grown man could be so fucked up in the head. Sorry Billy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If he's so lost then why are you relying on attacking him instead of having a valid reply to his argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay...I’ll play along.
> 
> *The truth about crime, illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities*
> There has been much rhetoric from the left and the open-borders, pro-illegal immigration lobby suggesting that illegal immigrants pose no threat to the safety and security of this nation and commit less crimes than their American Citizen and legal immigrant counterparts.
> 
> If one watches the network newscasts, the ideologues and open-borders surrogates consistently accuse Americans and law enforcement experts who suggest otherwise of being racist and anti-immigration xenophobes. If you pay attention to the rhetoric, you will find one blaring item missing — facts.
> 
> I am a former Spanish speaking career detective who investigated violent crimes within the Hispanic and other ethnic immigrant communities.
> 
> I am also a forensic criminologist who is a subject matter expert in violent crime who advocates for facts and evidence. Here are some verified crime facts and statistics with you so that you will know the truth about the precarious relationship between violent crime and illegal immigrants.
> 
> As Americans, we should only care about three things: (1) are the immigrants in the U.S. illegally; (2) have they committed violent crimes predominantly against U.S. citizens; and (3) had these criminals not been in our country illegally, these crimes, the victimization of our citizens and the costs of their crimes borne by American taxpayers could have been completely avoided.
> 
> Previous administrations have deliberately kept Americans in the dark about illegal immigrant crimes
> 
> Most states and our federal government have kept information and statistics about illegal immigration, crimes committed by illegals and the costs borne by you the U.S. payer out of public view. It is in fact difficult, but not impossible to locate accurate crime statistics involving illegal immigrants. The statistics are buried both to suit a political agenda and to avoid public outcry. Once you read this article, you will quickly understand why.
> 
> The Pew Research Institute estimates that as of 2014, there are at least 11.2 million illegal immigrants residing in the U.S. This population comprises approximately 3.5 percent of our country’s population.
> 
> Of these, by far the largest ethnic population, 52 percent are Hispanics comprised of Mexicans, Central Americans and Cubans.
> 
> Six states: California, Texas, Illinois, Florida, New York and New Jersey account for 59 percent of all illegal immigrants residing in the U.S. The fact that 66 percent of all illegal immigrants have lived in our nation for over ten years underscores our long-standing inability to address the serious problem of our inability to control our nation’s borders.
> 
> The relationship between illegal immigrants and violent crime
> 
> Research conducted by the federal government oversight organization Judicial Water n 2014 documents that 50 percent of all federal crimes were committed near our border with Mexico.
> 
> Of the 61,529 criminal cases filed by federal prosecutors; 40 percent or 24,746 were in court districts along the southern borders of California, Arizona and Texas.
> 
> The Western District of Texas had the nation’s most significant crime rate with over 6,300 cases filed; followed by the Southern District of Texas with slightly over 6,000 cases.
> 
> The Southern California District with nearly 4,900 cases; New Mexico with nearly 4,000 cases and Arizona with over 3,500 criminal cases ranked 3rd, 4th and 5th.
> 
> The U.S. Department of Justice documents that in 2014, 19 percent or over 12,000 criminal cases filed by prosecutors were for violent crimes; and over 22 percent or 13,300 cases were for drug related felonies.
> 
> That same year, the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that 75 percent of all criminal defendants who were convicted and sentenced for federal drug offenses were illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants were also involved in 17 percent of all drug trafficking sentences and one third of all federal prison sentences.
> 
> The U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Sentencing Commission reported that as of 2014, illegal immigrants were convicted and sentenced for over 13 percent of all crimes committed in the U.S.
> 
> According to the FBI, 67,642 murders were committed in the U.S. from 2005 through 2008, and 115,717 from 2003 through 2009. The General Accounting Office documents that criminal immigrants committed 25,064 of these murders.
> 
> Illegal immigrants clearly commit a level of violent and drug related crimes disproportionate to their population.
> 
> In California alone, over 2,400 illegal immigrants out of a total prison population of 130,000 are imprisoned in the state’s prison system for the crime of homicide.
> 
> The misrepresentation of comparisons in who commits crimes between illegal immigrants, legal U.S. immigrants and American citizens
> 
> The pro-illegal immigrant lobby consistently misrepresents the criminal involvement of illegal immigrants as compared to immigrants who legally enter the U.S. and American citizens, saying that illegal immigrants commit less crimes than their counterparts. This assertion is false in most cases. Here are the vetted statistics:
> 
> In California, there are just over 92 illegal immigrants imprisoned for every 100,000 illegals as compared to 74 citizens and legal non-citizen immigrants. In Arizona, the rate is nearly 69 illegals imprisoned for every 100,000, as compared to 54 citizens and legal non-citizen immigrants.
> 
> In New York, over three times as many illegal immigrants or 169, are imprisoned for crimes per 100,000, as compared to only 48 citizens and legal non-citizen immigrants. Only the states of Texas and Florida do illegal immigrants commit less crimes than their legal immigrant counterparts (Texas with 54.5 illegals imprisoned per 100,000, compared to 65 legal immigrants and Florida with 55 illegals imprisoned, compared to 68 legal immigrants).
> 
> Texas is an epicenter for illegal immigrant crimes
> 
> Recent crime analysis by both the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Texas law enforcement authorities indicate that between June 2011 and March 2017, over 217,000 criminal immigrants were arrested and booked into Texas jails.
> 
> In researching the criminal careers of these defendants, it was revealed that they had jointly committed over nearly 600,000 criminal offenses. Their arrests included nearly 1,200 homicides; almost 69,000 assaults; 16,854 burglaries; 700 kidnappings; nearly 6,200 sexual assaults; 69,000 drug offenses; 8,700 weapons violations; over 3,800 robberies and over 45,000 obstructing police charges. In determining the status of these offenders in the U.S., it was confirmed by DHS that over 173,000 or 66 percent of these immigrant criminal defendants were in our country illegally at the times of their arrests.
> 
> “Sanctuary State” California politicians fight against deporting criminal illegal immigrants
> 
> Currently, a fight is brewing between California Open Borders politicians and the state’s Democratic controlled Legislature and the Department of Justice regarding the protection of violent criminal illegal immigrants.
> 
> Hardly any Californian’s know that in 2014, Gov. Brown signed a bill that amended a state statute amending the maximum sentencing for misdemeanor crimes by one day from 365 to 364 days in jail. This was deliberately done to avoid current federal laws that provide for the deportation of illegal and legal immigrants in this country who have received sentences of 365 days or more.
> 
> With the newly enacted jail and prison diversion programs of Propositions 109 and 47, Gov. Brown and company are effectively preventing the federal government from removing violent and recidivist illegal immigrants from our midst through the deportation process.
> 
> The extreme costs of keeping illegal immigrant criminals in this country
> 
> According to research and statistics by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, U.S. taxpayers are footing an annual bill of nearly $19 million a day to house and care for an estimated 300,000 to 450,000 convicted criminal immigrants who are eligible for deportation and are currently residing in local jails and state and federal prisons across the country.
> 
> These figures include not only those immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally, but all immigrants here who commit and have been convicted of crimes. Other accounting estimates indicate that the total cost for all corrections, medical and support services for adults and juvenile immigrant criminals nationally to be over $1.8 billion dollars.
> 
> So the next time you hear some Open Borders politician or pro illegal immigrant surrogates advocate on their behalf, ask yourself why we as American citizens need to bear the increasing costs of violence, victimization and burdensome taxes in subsidizing illegal immigrant criminals who shouldn’t be in our country in the first place.
> 
> _Ron Martinelli is a nationally renowned forensic criminologist and law enforcement expert. Martinelli is a retired San Jose (CA) police detective who provides forensic investigation and expert services to numerous states, large municipalities and national private law firms specializing in civil rights. He is fluent in Spanish and divides his time between California, Texas and Mexico.
> The truth about crime, illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This has nothing to do with the policy being discussed unless you are trying to gin up generalized anti immigrant hatred.
Click to expand...


Sorry to divert the thread...your Loony Toon friends HappyJoy and Billy000 asked me to school them...so I did.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
Click to expand...


I think it is terrible that these people put their children in such peril.


----------



## busybee01

Ray From Cleveland said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are little more than a terrorist. Your ass needs to be kicked out. You are a animal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Terrorist?  Do you know what terrorists do to avoid being killed?  They hide behind women.  They strike from nursing homes and hospitals to avoid retaliation.
> 
> If anybody uses terrorist schemes, it's the Democrats.  Quit hiding behind children to get your Fn way all the time.  You claim to be so concerned about children, but have no problem when our tax dollars goes to kill them before they are even born.
> 
> Hypocrites.
Click to expand...


You are taking children away which amounts to kidnapping them. Many of these children are clearly being frightened and traumatized. Children are not a part of this and they should leave them with their parents. Conservatives talk about family yet I seem to be the only one who still believes in the family. Children are not pawns to be used in law enforcement.

Trump is falsely claiming that Democrats are making him do it. He is very well aware of the immorality of doing it so he is hiding behind Democrats. You are using children as hostages. You are no different than terrorists. 

You have no FUCKING idea what I support. I have no problem with the government not paying for abortions however I disagree with what you and Trump are doing. You have to speak to people's hearts instead of making laws to make abortion more difficult. That alienates other voters and does not help the situation.


----------



## Coyote

Darkwind said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> This is nonsense.
> 
> We are NOT punishing children.  No more than a convicted felon's child is punished when we send them to prison.
> 
> Do we stop enforcing our laws because the children will be separated from their parents who are acting criminally?
> 
> The answer is a resounding, no!
> 
> As for this nonsense of "human cost", it is nothing more than a phrase designed to instill anguish in political opposition for the purpose of achieving an agenda.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.  Who suffers?  The children.  What crime does a 3 yr old commit that is prosecutable under the law? Explain that to the hysterical child, tell him he is NOT being punished  by being ripped from the only family he knows and then try to rationalize a seriously fucked policy here that was NOT in place before.

And remind me again how your party is pro family cause I sure dont see it in this policy.


----------



## Coyote

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> So... importing future Democratic voters at any cost ?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the OP?  Oh ya...nothing.


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? There is an actual valid reason for separating children from their parents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it's called a deterrent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Terrorizing children. People like you need to be shipped off to Guantanamo for the rest of your miserable lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then send the parents to Gitmo instead of us, because it's the parents that are causing their children harm--not us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, if we are separating them then it's us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not.  You come here illegally, everything that happens to you and your kids is your fault.  You knew well ahead of time you are coming here and breaking our laws, so anything could happen at that point.
> 
> Let me ask, if a woman is drunk and driving around with her child, and she runs when the cops try to pull her over, and the child gets killed when she strikes a tree, do you blame the drunken mother or the police that tried to stop her?
> 
> We have enough irresponsible people in this country, we call them Democrats.  We certainly don't need any more irresponsible people coming from other places.
Click to expand...

You really think that is comparable?  The only reason to remove a child from its family is if the child is neglected or endangered or can not be otherwise be cared for.  Prior to this there was no need to take children.  The environment and risk haven't changed. What has?


----------



## busybee01

OKTexas said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans tend to lack basic empathy for things they don’t directly witness. They don’t have the emotional maturity or complexity of thought for such a thing. As a result, they don’t bother thinking about the well being of kids. They just know brown people have crossed the border and their GOP masters tell them it’s a bad thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The parents are responsible for anything that happens to the kids, they put them in the situation.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


We hold law enforcement to the same standards we hold everyone else. The people who are implementing this policy are responsible and should be held legally liable. Take your trash elsewhere.


----------



## Coyote

Mac1958 said:


> You don't punish children for the acts of their parents, period.  That includes low-income American kids.
> 
> And I'd like to know why we keep ignoring the *root problem* of all this:  The countries directly to our South are so horrible and corrupt, that not only are people *desperate* to *escape* them, but their own LEADERS are more than willing to HELP escape them *while* they blame US.
> 
> Why is this root cause never in this conversation?  No perceived political advantage for either tribe?
> .


It isnt part of the conversation here (not that I disagree) because the conversation isnt about illegal immigration on general but a specific policy that goes to far.  And in my opinion it should not matter what your political outlook is, it is indefensible.


----------



## pismoe

Vandalshandle said:


> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the parent's fault.
> They know that they are breaking the law.
> 
> 
> 
> This is what America has come to. Sad. So very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What has it come to?
> 
> The Central American parents send their children here alone.
> They know that our laws are such that we can't ship them back
> and we hold them until they are placed in a foster home.
> 
> The vast majority of these kids that everybody is talking about came
> here alone.  They are missing because the phone calls to the foster homes
> have not been answered.
> 
> When we send a mother to prison we do not let the child go with her.
> Why should we treat those people any different.
> 
> Trump lost 1500...huh?  Obama, according to reports lost over 4100...why
> no outrage then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to know a lot about these children. How many do you know? Personally, I mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know any of them individually.  But I know how their parents
> and their shithhole countries that they come from. are gaming the system.
> 
> And what's your story, Pancho?  Butt-hurt liberal or illegal alien?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your logic is to punish the children for their parents having committed a misdemeanor by crossing the border without papers, why not go all the way, and torture them as well?
Click to expand...

-----------------------------


Coyote said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> This is nonsense.
> 
> We are NOT punishing children.  No more than a convicted felon's child is punished when we send them to prison.
> 
> Do we stop enforcing our laws because the children will be separated from their parents who are acting criminally?
> 
> The answer is a resounding, no!
> 
> As for this nonsense of "human cost", it is nothing more than a phrase designed to instill anguish in political opposition for the purpose of achieving an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.  Who suffers?  The children.  What crime does a 3 yr old commit that is prosecutable under the law? Explain that to the hysterical child, tell him he is NOT being punished  by being ripped from the only family he knows and then try to rationalize a seriously fucked policy here that was NOT in place before.
> 
> And remind me again how your party is pro family cause I sure dont see it in this policy.
Click to expand...

-------------------------------   that'd be PRO American family Coyote .


----------



## busybee01

protectionist said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stay on topic, we are discussing the separation of families.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and catch & release, and its effects have much to do with separation of families.  The reason why families are being separated is twofold 1) because the illegals chose to come here illegally, and 2) because they can no longer escape deportation by C & R poilcy.
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are subject to international laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO we are not. And this is an important point.  Leftists are internationalists, just like communists.  They are, like Obama, "citizen of the world".  But that is FALSE.  We are Americans, not citizens of the world. And where international law and US law clash, there is no contest. US law prevails.  That is how it is.
> 
> Anybody who thinks different from that isn't a true American, and they really should leave the US and go to where it is believed that international law is superior to that countries law.
> 
> In the USA  >>_ "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States...shall be the *Supreme Law of the Land*"_  (US Constitution, Article 6, Section 2, part 1 - the Supremacy Clause)​
Click to expand...


The children did nothing illegal. You really want to charge a 53 week old baby. They are being used. This is Nazi style tactics.

There is no law that allows this so US law does not matter. The Nuremburg trials had nothing to do with American law. I would gladly turn over the people responsible including Trump only if we can't find a US law to charge him with.


----------



## pismoe

got a hardon fer your President TRUMP eh Busybee ??


----------



## Mac1958

Coyote said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't punish children for the acts of their parents, period.  That includes low-income American kids.
> 
> And I'd like to know why we keep ignoring the *root problem* of all this:  The countries directly to our South are so horrible and corrupt, that not only are people *desperate* to *escape* them, but their own LEADERS are more than willing to HELP escape them *while* they blame US.
> 
> Why is this root cause never in this conversation?  No perceived political advantage for either tribe?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> It isnt part of the conversation here (not that I disagree) because the conversation isnt about illegal immigration on general but a specific policy that goes to far.  And in my opinion it should not matter what your political outlook is, it is indefensible.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned, we can't turn our backs on kids when nothing is in their control.  That holds true regardless of who they are or where they came from.  The grownups (ha) can work out the details of the grownup (ha) stuff separately.

This is the danger of the binary, all-or-nothing thought processes to which much of the Right is conditioned.  No, no, no, never, never, never, I don't care who suffers.  Well, that's beneath us as a civilization.  Or should be.
.


----------



## candycorn

busybee01 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stay on topic, we are discussing the separation of families.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and catch & release, and its effects have much to do with separation of families.  The reason why families are being separated is twofold 1) because the illegals chose to come here illegally, and 2) because they can no longer escape deportation by C & R poilcy.
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are subject to international laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO we are not. And this is an important point.  Leftists are internationalists, just like communists.  They are, like Obama, "citizen of the world".  But that is FALSE.  We are Americans, not citizens of the world. And where international law and US law clash, there is no contest. US law prevails.  That is how it is.
> 
> Anybody who thinks different from that isn't a true American, and they really should leave the US and go to where it is believed that international law is superior to that countries law.
> 
> In the USA  >>_ "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States...shall be the *Supreme Law of the Land*"_  (US Constitution, Article 6, Section 2, part 1 - the Supremacy Clause)​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The children did nothing illegal. You really want to charge a 53 week old baby. They are being used. This is Nazi style tactics.
> 
> There is no law that allows this so US law does not matter. The Nuremburg trials had nothing to do with American law. I would gladly turn over the people responsible including Trump only if we can't find a US law to charge him with.
Click to expand...


Really, it makes you wonder….

I’m sure when the Holocaust started, there were laws passed restricting Jews and they were legally rounded up and sent to camps.  And the defense used by the supporters of the Reich was “don’t blame me, blame the law”….I would hope (and I’m pretty confident) that the average foot soldier and the average German who supported the Reich were not aware of what went on in the camps but used the law as air cover to explain why they were for treating fellow human beings in such mean estate.  Just like the Trump enablers are doing now.


----------



## busybee01

protectionist said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> No it I NOT EVIL. And you are contradicting yourself.  You asked a question which you yourself answered in your own OP>  You posted >>_ "When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed."
> _
> This is nothing unusual.  When US citizens are convicted of crimes, and put in prison, their children are separated from them.  We don't hear many sob stories for THESE kids though, do we ?  And unlike the illegal aliens' kids, the American kids have no choice in it.  They MUST be separated. And it could be for decades, or life.  Or the death penalty.
> 
> But the illegal alien kids have it better. They can choose to go with their parents.  They are not compelled to undergo separation, as the American kids are.
> 
> And the illegals' kids really should NOT have that choice either. They shouldn't be here, because the birthright citizenship they claim is FALSE.  It comes from the 14th amendment, but the 14th amendment was not intended to include the children of foreigners (so stated the author of the 14th amendment, Sen. Jacob Howard)
Click to expand...

 
No one is going to jail for crossing the border unless they are a convicted felon. There is no reason for separating children from their parents. You cannot compare major felonies with crossing the border illegally.

Birthright citizenship is not false. A plain reading of the Amendment does support what the courts have said. If he didn't like it then he should have written it better.


----------



## pismoe

Coyote said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't punish children for the acts of their parents, period.  That includes low-income American kids.
> 
> And I'd like to know why we keep ignoring the *root problem* of all this:  The countries directly to our South are so horrible and corrupt, that not only are people *desperate* to *escape* them, but their own LEADERS are more than willing to HELP escape them *while* they blame US.
> 
> Why is this root cause never in this conversation?  No perceived political advantage for either tribe?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> It isnt part of the conversation here (not that I disagree) because the conversation isnt about illegal immigration on general but a specific policy that goes to far.  And in my opinion it should not matter what your political outlook is, it is indefensible.
Click to expand...

------------------------------  yeah , just give them and their parents their way because they are widdle baby foreign mexican bambinos  getting ready to feck up Publc Schools and eat Free lunches .      Same thing as the 25 year old 'caca daca' childrens eh Coyote ??


----------



## BrokeLoser

busybee01 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are little more than a terrorist. Your ass needs to be kicked out. You are a animal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Terrorist?  Do you know what terrorists do to avoid being killed?  They hide behind women.  They strike from nursing homes and hospitals to avoid retaliation.
> 
> If anybody uses terrorist schemes, it's the Democrats.  Quit hiding behind children to get your Fn way all the time.  You claim to be so concerned about children, but have no problem when our tax dollars goes to kill them before they are even born.
> 
> Hypocrites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are taking children away which amounts to kidnapping them. Many of these children are clearly being frightened and traumatized. Children are not a part of this and they should leave them with their parents. Conservatives talk about family yet I seem to be the only one who still believes in the family. Children are not pawns to be used in law enforcement.
> 
> Trump is falsely claiming that Democrats are making him do it. He is very well aware of the immorality of doing it so he is hiding behind Democrats. You are using children as hostages. You are no different than terrorists.
> 
> You have no FUCKING idea what I support. I have no problem with the government not paying for abortions however I disagree with what you and Trump are doing. You have to speak to people's hearts instead of making laws to make abortion more difficult. That alienates other voters and does not help the situation.
Click to expand...




Coyote said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> This is nonsense.
> 
> We are NOT punishing children.  No more than a convicted felon's child is punished when we send them to prison.
> 
> Do we stop enforcing our laws because the children will be separated from their parents who are acting criminally?
> 
> The answer is a resounding, no!
> 
> As for this nonsense of "human cost", it is nothing more than a phrase designed to instill anguish in political opposition for the purpose of achieving an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.  Who suffers?  The children.  What crime does a 3 yr old commit that is prosecutable under the law? Explain that to the hysterical child, tell him he is NOT being punished  by being ripped from the only family he knows and then try to rationalize a seriously fucked policy here that was NOT in place before.
> 
> And remind me again how your party is pro family cause I sure dont see it in this policy.
Click to expand...


Again, nobody sane can take you serious...you have zero credibility.
Condemn the filthy, criminal, illegal, wetback parents first then come whine about our laws and how they work. Simple shit.


----------



## Coyote

Disir said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot house children in adult detention centers. It is common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They used to put everybody together years ago in Florida but they wound up with kids being sexually assaulted.
Click to expand...

They managed to keep families together before...now suddenly they cant?  Has there been an sudden increase in crimes against these children that they can not stay with their mothers?


----------



## busybee01

BrokeLoser said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you’re equating bank robbers to people who want a better life for their children by crossing a border? God you’re fucking stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think illegals are far worse actually.
> Federal criminality = Federal criminal
> What else can I teach you Loon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you could teach yourself about basic human decency and the grey morality of the law. It’s not like you give a shit about Wall Street execs for going unpunished with their past  corporate crime. You would rather whine about illegal immigration like a little bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the LefTard logic...
> Try to excuse criminality with other criminality...GAY!
> “Grey morality of the law”
> WTF is that...you Loons sit around in a circle jerk coming up with the craziest bunch of bullshit...hahaha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol god you are stupid. This isn’t hard to figure out. Should we treat someone who steals a candy bar like someone who raped someone? Obviously not. It’s amazing I have to walk you through this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor Loon...
> There is a FAR greater negative effect for REAL American citizens due to illegal wetbacks. Few are actually affected by bank robbers / robberies. Think once Loon, this is simple shit.
Click to expand...


The fact is that racists like you harm this country more. People like you need to be segregated on some desert island where you won't hurt anyone and you can be as racist as you want.


----------



## BrokeLoser

busybee01 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think illegals are far worse actually.
> Federal criminality = Federal criminal
> What else can I teach you Loon?
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could teach yourself about basic human decency and the grey morality of the law. It’s not like you give a shit about Wall Street execs for going unpunished with their past  corporate crime. You would rather whine about illegal immigration like a little bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the LefTard logic...
> Try to excuse criminality with other criminality...GAY!
> “Grey morality of the law”
> WTF is that...you Loons sit around in a circle jerk coming up with the craziest bunch of bullshit...hahaha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol god you are stupid. This isn’t hard to figure out. Should we treat someone who steals a candy bar like someone who raped someone? Obviously not. It’s amazing I have to walk you through this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor Loon...
> There is a FAR greater negative effect for REAL American citizens due to illegal wetbacks. Few are actually affected by bank robbers / robberies. Think once Loon, this is simple shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that racists like you harm this country more. People like you need to be segregated on some desert island where you won't hurt anyone and you can be as racist as you want.
Click to expand...


Link me to that data please. Thanks in advance.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Illegal aliens-including underaged illegal aliens-should be held in custody until transported out of the country.
Putting children in the same cell as adult prisoners is a bad idea.


----------



## busybee01

BrokeLoser said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are little more than a terrorist. Your ass needs to be kicked out. You are a animal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Terrorist?  Do you know what terrorists do to avoid being killed?  They hide behind women.  They strike from nursing homes and hospitals to avoid retaliation.
> 
> If anybody uses terrorist schemes, it's the Democrats.  Quit hiding behind children to get your Fn way all the time.  You claim to be so concerned about children, but have no problem when our tax dollars goes to kill them before they are even born.
> 
> Hypocrites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are taking children away which amounts to kidnapping them. Many of these children are clearly being frightened and traumatized. Children are not a part of this and they should leave them with their parents. Conservatives talk about family yet I seem to be the only one who still believes in the family. Children are not pawns to be used in law enforcement.
> 
> Trump is falsely claiming that Democrats are making him do it. He is very well aware of the immorality of doing it so he is hiding behind Democrats. You are using children as hostages. You are no different than terrorists.
> 
> You have no FUCKING idea what I support. I have no problem with the government not paying for abortions however I disagree with what you and Trump are doing. You have to speak to people's hearts instead of making laws to make abortion more difficult. That alienates other voters and does not help the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is nonsense.
> 
> We are NOT punishing children.  No more than a convicted felon's child is punished when we send them to prison.
> 
> Do we stop enforcing our laws because the children will be separated from their parents who are acting criminally?
> 
> The answer is a resounding, no!
> 
> As for this nonsense of "human cost", it is nothing more than a phrase designed to instill anguish in political opposition for the purpose of achieving an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.  Who suffers?  The children.  What crime does a 3 yr old commit that is prosecutable under the law? Explain that to the hysterical child, tell him he is NOT being punished  by being ripped from the only family he knows and then try to rationalize a seriously fucked policy here that was NOT in place before.
> 
> And remind me again how your party is pro family cause I sure dont see it in this policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, nobody sane can take you serious...you have zero credibility.
> Condemn the filthy, criminal, illegal, wetback parents first then come whine about our laws and how they work. Simple shit.
Click to expand...


Racists like you have zero credibility. It seems that the only way to get rid of evil like you is put up with Democrats for 4 years. You are the filthy, scum that we are plagued with.


----------



## pismoe

with all due respect to Normal Females on the board but what you see in this thread by what i ASSUME to be female posters .   Its the reason i will never vote or support MOST women who ever run for high office or simple power over me and my son and daughters and other Americans .   These ASSUMED women in this thread  are not thoughtful people but are driven by silly emotion .  -------------  JUST a comment , just saying .


----------



## busybee01

pismoe said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what America has come to. Sad. So very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What has it come to?
> 
> The Central American parents send their children here alone.
> They know that our laws are such that we can't ship them back
> and we hold them until they are placed in a foster home.
> 
> The vast majority of these kids that everybody is talking about came
> here alone.  They are missing because the phone calls to the foster homes
> have not been answered.
> 
> When we send a mother to prison we do not let the child go with her.
> Why should we treat those people any different.
> 
> Trump lost 1500...huh?  Obama, according to reports lost over 4100...why
> no outrage then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to know a lot about these children. How many do you know? Personally, I mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know any of them individually.  But I know how their parents
> and their shithhole countries that they come from. are gaming the system.
> 
> And what's your story, Pancho?  Butt-hurt liberal or illegal alien?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your logic is to punish the children for their parents having committed a misdemeanor by crossing the border without papers, why not go all the way, and torture them as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is nonsense.
> 
> We are NOT punishing children.  No more than a convicted felon's child is punished when we send them to prison.
> 
> Do we stop enforcing our laws because the children will be separated from their parents who are acting criminally?
> 
> The answer is a resounding, no!
> 
> As for this nonsense of "human cost", it is nothing more than a phrase designed to instill anguish in political opposition for the purpose of achieving an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.  Who suffers?  The children.  What crime does a 3 yr old commit that is prosecutable under the law? Explain that to the hysterical child, tell him he is NOT being punished  by being ripped from the only family he knows and then try to rationalize a seriously fucked policy here that was NOT in place before.
> 
> And remind me again how your party is pro family cause I sure dont see it in this policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------------   that'd be PRO American family Coyote .
Click to expand...


That shows what a racist you are. You are either pro-family or you are not. There is no in-between.


----------



## pismoe

thats PRO American family , feck these foreign 'famblies'  Busybee ,


----------



## busybee01

OKTexas said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using that logic we could murder the kids in their sleep and completely escape culpability. Your argument is weak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many are raped, beaten and yes some killed even before they reach the border. Many are trafficked and sold once they reach the US, brought here by people they aren't even related to. That's way Sessions is insisting on DNA tests, to prove paternity. Many are given to supposed relatives who are illegal themselves, that's why they don't answer when DHS calls to check on the kids. All because the parents or who ever they are are using them hoping to get a free pass to disappear into the population. Sessions ins't giving any more free passes.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of this has anything to do with a reason for separating families, if you can't defend the policy then why post at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You might look at my first post in this thread. I don't have to defend anything, it's the law. Don't like it, tell you congresscritters to get off their lazy asses and change it.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't convicted and deserve their day in court before their kids are ripped from them and sent halfway across the country. Also, like I said they are doing this with those who legally enter the country as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The adults are a flight risk, they stay in detention until their trial or hearing, the courts say the kids can't be held there. Address the law, not me.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Hiding behind laws will not work. You are a morally corrupt person and getting rid of Trump and Republicans seems to be the only way to stop this.


----------



## DJT for Life

Vandalshandle said:


> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the parent's fault.
> They know that they are breaking the law.
> 
> 
> 
> This is what America has come to. Sad. So very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What has it come to?
> 
> The Central American parents send their children here alone.
> They know that our laws are such that we can't ship them back
> and we hold them until they are placed in a foster home.
> 
> The vast majority of these kids that everybody is talking about came
> here alone.  They are missing because the phone calls to the foster homes
> have not been answered.
> 
> When we send a mother to prison we do not let the child go with her.
> Why should we treat those people any different.
> 
> Trump lost 1500...huh?  Obama, according to reports lost over 4100...why
> no outrage then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to know a lot about these children. How many do you know? Personally, I mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know any of them individually.  But I know how their parents
> and their shithhole countries that they come from. are gaming the system.
> 
> And what's your story, Pancho?  Butt-hurt liberal or illegal alien?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your logic is to punish the children for their parents having committed a misdemeanor by crossing the border without papers, why not go all the way, and torture them as well?
Click to expand...


Having the types of parents that they do is torture enough.


----------



## busybee01

pismoe said:


> thats PRO American family , feck these foreign 'famblies'  Busybee ,



You need to be fecked. I hope there is no family for you. More trash we don't need.


----------



## pismoe

go ahead , i think you been trying that getting rid of TRUMP for a couple of years or a year and a half [about] haven't YOU my Dear Lady 'maxine watters'  , er , i mean Busybee .


----------



## Pop23

Coyote said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't the country of origin step up to the plate and care for their own?
> 
> What am I missing here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> read the OP.
Click to expand...


Why?

When a citizen enters our country illegally, why is the other country off the hook?


----------



## Doc1

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​



Tough shit, come legally or stay home. Damned easy solution.


----------



## busybee01

bripat9643 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> The parents are the one who are punishing them, not our immigration service.
Click to expand...


Trump and his thugs are. There are no laws forcing them to do this. You need to be locked up BOY.


----------



## pismoe

busybee01 said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> thats PRO American family , feck these foreign 'famblies'  Busybee ,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to be fecked. I hope there is no family for you. More trash we don't need.
Click to expand...

---------------------------  I'M an 'Old Gent' and my Legacy is already  assured Busybee .  But feck these foreigners and their 'caca daca' and widdle babies  Busybee .


----------



## Vandalshandle

DJT for Life said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what America has come to. Sad. So very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What has it come to?
> 
> The Central American parents send their children here alone.
> They know that our laws are such that we can't ship them back
> and we hold them until they are placed in a foster home.
> 
> The vast majority of these kids that everybody is talking about came
> here alone.  They are missing because the phone calls to the foster homes
> have not been answered.
> 
> When we send a mother to prison we do not let the child go with her.
> Why should we treat those people any different.
> 
> Trump lost 1500...huh?  Obama, according to reports lost over 4100...why
> no outrage then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to know a lot about these children. How many do you know? Personally, I mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know any of them individually.  But I know how their parents
> and their shithhole countries that they come from. are gaming the system.
> 
> And what's your story, Pancho?  Butt-hurt liberal or illegal alien?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your logic is to punish the children for their parents having committed a misdemeanor by crossing the border without papers, why not go all the way, and torture them as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having the types of parents that they do is torture enough.
Click to expand...


You're sure? I mean, one could give them electric shocks and put them on a starvation diet. That would REALLY show those parents!


----------



## busybee01

Norman said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the illegals care about children, then they won't try and cross the border with them.
> 
> Since they don't, why in the hell should we? And why in the hell should we let them in the country, given they are exceptionally brutish? Americans have higher standards than this.
Click to expand...


Why the hell should we put up with you. Take your entire trashy family and throw you out. You are the brutal thug.


----------



## pismoe

and one more thing , sorry for the large amount of 'funny icons' i attach to most of your posts but most of what you post is silly , emotional , not thoughtful and is funny Busybee


----------



## busybee01

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its just like the 'anchor baby' deal , mexicans drop an anchor baby and they have the Americans by the nutz .    This variation of the mexican taking their kids to the border is , as i say just a variation of dropping an anchor baby .  -------------------- as the mexican cries and says , you can't separate 'mamasitas' and widdle baby mexicans Coyote .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are fine with taking young children from their parents and throwing them into our foster care system while they await hearings?  700 kids lost in our foster care network or housed in barracks apart from their parents.  It's sick but you don't have an issue with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the parent's fault. They know that they are breaking the law.
> Many times when US parents break laws their children are put in foster care.
Click to expand...


It is not the parents' fault. Trump knows this which is why he is blaming Democrats.


----------



## Vandalshandle

There is a gang in Ecuador who are sending up members to infiltrate the US. It is called MS-2, and it is made up of two year olds who use opened safely diaper pins for weapons.


----------



## pismoe

Vandalshandle said:


> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has it come to?
> 
> The Central American parents send their children here alone.
> They know that our laws are such that we can't ship them back
> and we hold them until they are placed in a foster home.
> 
> The vast majority of these kids that everybody is talking about came
> here alone.  They are missing because the phone calls to the foster homes
> have not been answered.
> 
> When we send a mother to prison we do not let the child go with her.
> Why should we treat those people any different.
> 
> Trump lost 1500...huh?  Obama, according to reports lost over 4100...why
> no outrage then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to know a lot about these children. How many do you know? Personally, I mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know any of them individually.  But I know how their parents
> and their shithhole countries that they come from. are gaming the system.
> 
> And what's your story, Pancho?  Butt-hurt liberal or illegal alien?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your logic is to punish the children for their parents having committed a misdemeanor by crossing the border without papers, why not go all the way, and torture them as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having the types of parents that they do is torture enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're sure? I mean, one could give them electric shocks and put them on a starvation diet. That would REALLY show those parents!
Click to expand...

------------------------------   just exclude the foreigners and their kids VS.


----------



## pismoe

busybee01 said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its just like the 'anchor baby' deal , mexicans drop an anchor baby and they have the Americans by the nutz .    This variation of the mexican taking their kids to the border is , as i say just a variation of dropping an anchor baby .  -------------------- as the mexican cries and says , you can't separate 'mamasitas' and widdle baby mexicans Coyote .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are fine with taking young children from their parents and throwing them into our foster care system while they await hearings?  700 kids lost in our foster care network or housed in barracks apart from their parents.  It's sick but you don't have an issue with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the parent's fault. They know that they are breaking the law.
> Many times when US parents break laws their children are put in foster care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not the parents' fault. Trump knows this which is why he is blaming Democrats.
Click to expand...

-----------------------------   he is blaming 'dems' / YOU because the moochers in cages photos was taken during 'mrobama' time in office   Busybee .


----------



## busybee01

OKTexas said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> Damn those Democrats for passing the law that requires the separation of parents and children!
> 
> *Trump blames Democrats for his policy of separating migrant families at border*
> *Trump blames Democrats for his policy of separating migrant families at border*
> 
> *The administration confirmed this month that breaking up families was a byproduct of their new "zero tolerance" plan to prosecute everyone who crosses the border illegally, which would require minors who traveled with their family to be taken into the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services. Under the previous policy, children were usually allowed to stay with their parents in shelters while awaiting legal proceedings.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's when the mulatto messiah was only using civil law, Sessions is prosecuting them under criminal statutes. You can't keep kids with criminals.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


They are not criminals. Sessions and Trump are the criminals.


----------



## busybee01

protectionist said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does make you wonder...not when will the Trump supporters hit bottom but if there is a bottom where they are concerned.  We are now utilizing our resources to lock up infants....
> 
> 
> 
> They are wasting resources . ALL the foreigners should be deported.  There is no such thing as an anchor baby. The entire family of illegal aliens are here illegally, including kids born in the US.  They should ALL be deported, and ALL leave together, as one intact family unit.
Click to expand...


You should be deported. Trash like you are not needed in this country.


----------



## DJT for Life

Vandalshandle said:


> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has it come to?
> 
> The Central American parents send their children here alone.
> They know that our laws are such that we can't ship them back
> and we hold them until they are placed in a foster home.
> 
> The vast majority of these kids that everybody is talking about came
> here alone.  They are missing because the phone calls to the foster homes
> have not been answered.
> 
> When we send a mother to prison we do not let the child go with her.
> Why should we treat those people any different.
> 
> Trump lost 1500...huh?  Obama, according to reports lost over 4100...why
> no outrage then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to know a lot about these children. How many do you know? Personally, I mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know any of them individually.  But I know how their parents
> and their shithhole countries that they come from. are gaming the system.
> 
> And what's your story, Pancho?  Butt-hurt liberal or illegal alien?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your logic is to punish the children for their parents having committed a misdemeanor by crossing the border without papers, why not go all the way, and torture them as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having the types of parents that they do is torture enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're sure? I mean, one could give them electric shocks and put them on a starvation diet. That would REALLY show those parents!
Click to expand...


There parents don't give a shit now.  We're just helping the children with
a basic lesson in life.  The lesson being..."For every behavior...there is a
consequence."

Bad behavior calls for a bad consequence.

There is legal immigration and their is illegal immigration.  There is no
bad consequence with legal immigration.


----------



## pismoe

Vandalshandle said:


> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has it come to?
> 
> The Central American parents send their children here alone.
> They know that our laws are such that we can't ship them back
> and we hold them until they are placed in a foster home.
> 
> The vast majority of these kids that everybody is talking about came
> here alone.  They are missing because the phone calls to the foster homes
> have not been answered.
> 
> When we send a mother to prison we do not let the child go with her.
> Why should we treat those people any different.
> 
> Trump lost 1500...huh?  Obama, according to reports lost over 4100...why
> no outrage then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to know a lot about these children. How many do you know? Personally, I mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know any of them individually.  But I know how their parents
> and their shithhole countries that they come from. are gaming the system.
> 
> And what's your story, Pancho?  Butt-hurt liberal or illegal alien?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your logic is to punish the children for their parents having committed a misdemeanor by crossing the border without papers, why not go all the way, and torture them as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having the types of parents that they do is torture enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're sure? I mean, one could give them electric shocks and put them on a starvation diet. That would REALLY show those parents!
Click to expand...

-----------------------------------   i mean , hey , look at this silly message by some poster .    What a foolish person YOU are V.S..


----------



## busybee01

protectionist said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is nonsense.
> 
> We are NOT punishing children.  No more than a convicted felon's child is punished when we send them to prison.
> 
> Do we stop enforcing our laws because the children will be separated from their parents who are acting criminally?
> 
> The answer is a resounding, no!
> 
> As for this nonsense of "human cost", it is nothing more than a phrase designed to instill anguish in political opposition for the purpose of achieving an agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> W
> Exactly right. We don't hear these sob stories for the kids of American criminals sent to prison for long periods, or even for life, or the death penalty.  But then, the American kids and their parents don't represent VOTES for Democrats, do they ?
Click to expand...


To get a long prison term, life or the death penalty you have to commit a pretty serious crime. Crossing the border illegally does not rise to that level. Would you take away the children for a jaywalking ticket. That is the level we are talking about.


----------



## busybee01

Slyhunter said:


> My family is about to split apart because I can't find a job that'll pay the rent. My sister is disabled but not disabled enough to collect disability. They say she can still do a sit down job. My mother is retired. And two nephews. I lost my previous job because of a political post made in a news group that got cross posted onto Facebook. I lost my last job because I checked the wrong box on a form and accidentally charged a customer $299 more than we both thought I was charging him. oopsie. Can't find another job that'll pay the rent because all the illegals have driven wages down too low to support a family without a 4 year college degree.



This has nothing to do with what we are talking about. The question is whether children should be separated from their parents. 

The reason why wages are down has nothing to do with illegals. Corporations are cutting costs. Even burger flippers could be replaced by automation for example.


----------



## busybee01

Ray From Cleveland said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? There is an actual valid reason for separating children from their parents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it's called a deterrent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Terrorizing children. People like you need to be shipped off to Guantanamo for the rest of your miserable lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then send the parents to Gitmo instead of us, because it's the parents that are causing their children harm--not us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, if we are separating them then it's us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not.  You come here illegally, everything that happens to you and your kids is your fault.  You knew well ahead of time you are coming here and breaking our laws, so anything could happen at that point.
> 
> Let me ask, if a woman is drunk and driving around with her child, and she runs when the cops try to pull her over, and the child gets killed when she strikes a tree, do you blame the drunken mother or the police that tried to stop her?
> 
> We have enough irresponsible people in this country, we call them Democrats.  We certainly don't need any more irresponsible people coming from other places.
Click to expand...


There is no moral equivalence in the argument. No one is killed when someone crosses the border. Sit down and shut up.


----------



## busybee01

Claudette said:


> Old Yeller said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you want done with them?  Ritz-Cartlton?  Homeless Shelter?  Free house in Fort Worth?  Detroit?   You pay.  Start a gofundme?  Adopt them? Give out rooms in your vacation homes?  Set up FEMA trailers,  run plumbing-electric-AC.
> 
> What about American homeless?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. The idiots find nothing wrong with tax dollars used to support people who shouldn't be here at all.
> 
> Send them all back to whatever shithole they came from.
Click to expand...


Wherever you live is a shithole. You are living proof.


----------



## busybee01

Norman said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't punish children for the acts of their parents, period.  That includes low-income American kids.
> 
> And I'd like to know why we keep ignoring the *root problem* of all this:  The countries directly to our South are so horrible and corrupt, that not only are people *desperate* to *escape* them, but their own LEADERS are more than willing to HELP escape them *while* they blame US.
> 
> Why is this root cause never in this conversation?  No perceived political advantage for either tribe?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think most ever denied they are shithole countries. Which is exactly why we don't want those people here, they will make this country a shithole, too. Just look at their voting patterns, IQ and the fact that they committed a crime.
> 
> It's their fault that the child gets punished, if they are willing to risk it, not our problem. Otherwise, everyone will be coming in with their child.
Click to expand...


You are making this country a shithole country. People like you need to be gotten rid of.


----------



## Vandalshandle

pismoe said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to know a lot about these children. How many do you know? Personally, I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know any of them individually.  But I know how their parents
> and their shithhole countries that they come from. are gaming the system.
> 
> And what's your story, Pancho?  Butt-hurt liberal or illegal alien?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your logic is to punish the children for their parents having committed a misdemeanor by crossing the border without papers, why not go all the way, and torture them as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having the types of parents that they do is torture enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're sure? I mean, one could give them electric shocks and put them on a starvation diet. That would REALLY show those parents!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ------------------------------   just exclude the foreigners and their kids VS.
Click to expand...


What? Just exclude them? You mean that it isn't necessary to separate them?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

busybee01 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think illegals are far worse actually.
> Federal criminality = Federal criminal
> What else can I teach you Loontates that have the lowest per capita income QUOTE]
> Perhaps you could teach yourself about basic human decency and the grey morality of the law. It’s not like you give a shit about Wall Street execs for going unpunished with their past  corporate crime. You would rather whine about illegal immigration like a little bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the LefTard logic...
> Try to excuse criminality with other criminality...GAY!
> “Grey morality of the law”
> WTF is that...you Loons sit around in a circle jerk coming up with the craziest bunch of bullshit...hahaha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol god you are stupid. This isn’t hard to figure out. Should we treat someone who steals a candy bar like someone who raped someone? Obviously not. It’s amazing I have to walk you through this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cost of just one illegal would buy a shit ton of candy bars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really. If you look at the top states in which residents receive a healthcare subsidy, they are mostly red states. The states with the lowest per capita income are mostly red states.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Hey dumbass!!!
My state is full of illegals and south of the border invaders....
  And of course most of them are on welfare of some sort......oops.
Thanks for making my point.


----------



## Vandalshandle

DJT for Life said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to know a lot about these children. How many do you know? Personally, I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know any of them individually.  But I know how their parents
> and their shithhole countries that they come from. are gaming the system.
> 
> And what's your story, Pancho?  Butt-hurt liberal or illegal alien?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your logic is to punish the children for their parents having committed a misdemeanor by crossing the border without papers, why not go all the way, and torture them as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having the types of parents that they do is torture enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're sure? I mean, one could give them electric shocks and put them on a starvation diet. That would REALLY show those parents!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There parents don't give a shit now.  We're just helping the children with
> a basic lesson in life.  The lesson being..."For every behavior...there is a
> consequence."
> 
> Bad behavior calls for a bad consequence.
> 
> There is legal immigration and their is illegal immigration.  There is no
> bad consequence with legal immigration.
Click to expand...


I am sure that the lesson will be learned. Next time, the kids will choose better parents....


----------



## busybee01

koshergrl said:


> "...those children had arrived alone at the Southwest border — without their parents. Most of them are from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, and were fleeing drug cartels, gang violence and domestic abuse, according to government data." And a lot of them are gang members themselves.
> 
> "...the department’s office of refugee resettlement began voluntarily making the calls as a 30-day follow-up to make sure that the children and their sponsors did not require additional services. Those calls, which the office does not view as required, Mr. Hargan said, are now “being used to confuse and spread misinformation.”
> 
> In many cases, the statement said, sponsors cannot be reached because “they themselves are illegal aliens and do not want to be reached by federal authorities.”
> Did the Trump Administration Separate Immigrant Children From Parents and Lose Them?
> 
> The left has trafficked gang members and criminals into the US, and now that they've *disappeared* they want to blame Trump?
> 
> Fucking ludicrous.





koshergrl said:


> What happens is people show up with kids that aren't theirs, or that they're using as mules, and we remove the kids for their own safety.
> 
> Of course the left doesn't like that. Children are disposable, and are supposed to be used by adults to get over the border. The left embraces trafficking, and is going to squawk when you protect children. They always have.
> 
> “As required by law, D.H.S. must protect the best interests of minor children crossing our borders, and occasionally this results in separating children from an adult they are traveling with if we cannot ascertain the parental relationship, or if we think the child is otherwise in danger,”
> 
> Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents at U.S. Border



That is so much bullshit and trash like you know it. The Trump people are separating children from their parents. They know it is wrong because they are blaming democrats for it. This is happening more than occasionally.

Got anymore BULLSHIT.


----------



## Vandalshandle

busybee01 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> My family is about to split apart because I can't find a job that'll pay the rent. My sister is disabled but not disabled enough to collect disability. They say she can still do a sit down job. My mother is retired. And two nephews. I lost my previous job because of a political post made in a news group that got cross posted onto Facebook. I lost my last job because I checked the wrong box on a form and accidentally charged a customer $299 more than we both thought I was charging him. oopsie. Can't find another job that'll pay the rent because all the illegals have driven wages down too low to support a family without a 4 year college degree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with what we are talking about. The question is whether children should be separated from their parents.
> 
> The reason why wages are down has nothing to do with illegals. Corporations are cutting costs. Even burger flippers could be replaced by automation for example.
Click to expand...


Poor Sly. All this grief in his family being caused by illegals....


----------



## busybee01

HereWeGoAgain said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the LefTard logic...
> Try to excuse criminality with other criminality...GAY!
> “Grey morality of the law”
> WTF is that...you Loons sit around in a circle jerk coming up with the craziest bunch of bullshit...hahaha
> 
> 
> 
> Lol god you are stupid. This isn’t hard to figure out. Should we treat someone who steals a candy bar like someone who raped someone? Obviously not. It’s amazing I have to walk you through this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cost of just one illegal would buy a shit ton of candy bars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really. If you look at the top states in which residents receive a healthcare subsidy, they are mostly red states. The states with the lowest per capita income are mostly red states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey dumbass!!!
> My state is full of illegals and south of the border invaders....
> And of course most of them are on welfare of some sort......oops.
> Thanks for making my point.
Click to expand...


Most of them are in red states and are white.


----------



## koshergrl

busybee01 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...those children had arrived alone at the Southwest border — without their parents. Most of them are from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, and were fleeing drug cartels, gang violence and domestic abuse, according to government data." And a lot of them are gang members themselves.
> 
> "...the department’s office of refugee resettlement began voluntarily making the calls as a 30-day follow-up to make sure that the children and their sponsors did not require additional services. Those calls, which the office does not view as required, Mr. Hargan said, are now “being used to confuse and spread misinformation.”
> 
> In many cases, the statement said, sponsors cannot be reached because “they themselves are illegal aliens and do not want to be reached by federal authorities.”
> Did the Trump Administration Separate Immigrant Children From Parents and Lose Them?
> 
> The left has trafficked gang members and criminals into the US, and now that they've *disappeared* they want to blame Trump?
> 
> Fucking ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens is people show up with kids that aren't theirs, or that they're using as mules, and we remove the kids for their own safety.
> 
> Of course the left doesn't like that. Children are disposable, and are supposed to be used by adults to get over the border. The left embraces trafficking, and is going to squawk when you protect children. They always have.
> 
> “As required by law, D.H.S. must protect the best interests of minor children crossing our borders, and occasionally this results in separating children from an adult they are traveling with if we cannot ascertain the parental relationship, or if we think the child is otherwise in danger,”
> 
> Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents at U.S. Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is so much bullshit and trash like you know it. The Trump people are separating children from their parents. They know it is wrong because they are blaming democrats for it. This is happening more than occasionally.
> 
> Got anymore BULLSHIT.
Click to expand...


You're a liar. Proved repeatedly, and obvious here.

Child trafficking, slavery...these are the historic accoutrement of the US left.


----------



## busybee01

koshergrl said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...those children had arrived alone at the Southwest border — without their parents. Most of them are from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, and were fleeing drug cartels, gang violence and domestic abuse, according to government data." And a lot of them are gang members themselves.
> 
> "...the department’s office of refugee resettlement began voluntarily making the calls as a 30-day follow-up to make sure that the children and their sponsors did not require additional services. Those calls, which the office does not view as required, Mr. Hargan said, are now “being used to confuse and spread misinformation.”
> 
> In many cases, the statement said, sponsors cannot be reached because “they themselves are illegal aliens and do not want to be reached by federal authorities.”
> Did the Trump Administration Separate Immigrant Children From Parents and Lose Them?
> 
> The left has trafficked gang members and criminals into the US, and now that they've *disappeared* they want to blame Trump?
> 
> Fucking ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens is people show up with kids that aren't theirs, or that they're using as mules, and we remove the kids for their own safety.
> 
> Of course the left doesn't like that. Children are disposable, and are supposed to be used by adults to get over the border. The left embraces trafficking, and is going to squawk when you protect children. They always have.
> 
> “As required by law, D.H.S. must protect the best interests of minor children crossing our borders, and occasionally this results in separating children from an adult they are traveling with if we cannot ascertain the parental relationship, or if we think the child is otherwise in danger,”
> 
> Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents at U.S. Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is so much bullshit and trash like you know it. The Trump people are separating children from their parents. They know it is wrong because they are blaming democrats for it. This is happening more than occasionally.
> 
> Got anymore BULLSHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a liar. Proved repeatedly, and obvious here.
> 
> Child trafficking, slavery...these are the historic accoutrement of the US left.
Click to expand...


Being Trump trash automatically makes you a liar. Proven and obvious.

Who introduced slavery to the south. Northern merchants and Republicans.


----------



## busybee01

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> If I rob a bank and get caught, the State will have no problem separating me from my children and the means to support them.
> 
> Why is this any different?
Click to expand...


Because crossing the border is a minor offense. Robbery is not.


----------



## koshergrl

busybee01 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...those children had arrived alone at the Southwest border — without their parents. Most of them are from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, and were fleeing drug cartels, gang violence and domestic abuse, according to government data." And a lot of them are gang members themselves.
> 
> "...the department’s office of refugee resettlement began voluntarily making the calls as a 30-day follow-up to make sure that the children and their sponsors did not require additional services. Those calls, which the office does not view as required, Mr. Hargan said, are now “being used to confuse and spread misinformation.”
> 
> In many cases, the statement said, sponsors cannot be reached because “they themselves are illegal aliens and do not want to be reached by federal authorities.”
> Did the Trump Administration Separate Immigrant Children From Parents and Lose Them?
> 
> The left has trafficked gang members and criminals into the US, and now that they've *disappeared* they want to blame Trump?
> 
> Fucking ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens is people show up with kids that aren't theirs, or that they're using as mules, and we remove the kids for their own safety.
> 
> Of course the left doesn't like that. Children are disposable, and are supposed to be used by adults to get over the border. The left embraces trafficking, and is going to squawk when you protect children. They always have.
> 
> “As required by law, D.H.S. must protect the best interests of minor children crossing our borders, and occasionally this results in separating children from an adult they are traveling with if we cannot ascertain the parental relationship, or if we think the child is otherwise in danger,”
> 
> Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents at U.S. Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is so much bullshit and trash like you know it. The Trump people are separating children from their parents. They know it is wrong because they are blaming democrats for it. This is happening more than occasionally.
> 
> Got anymore BULLSHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a liar. Proved repeatedly, and obvious here.
> 
> Child trafficking, slavery...these are the historic accoutrement of the US left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being Trump trash automatically makes you a liar. Proven and obvious.
> 
> Who introduced slavery to the south. Northern merchants and Republicans.
Click to expand...

You moron. 
Republicans didn't exist until they formed...to end Democrat slavery. 

You really are an idiot.


----------



## koshergrl

So we have it from blackflag, busy bee and coyote....human trafficking is an acceptable lifestyle and we should accommodate human traffickers..as well as subsidizing them financially and welcoming them into our schools.


----------



## BrokeLoser

busybee01 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol god you are stupid. This isn’t hard to figure out. Should we treat someone who steals a candy bar like someone who raped someone? Obviously not. It’s amazing I have to walk you through this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of just one illegal would buy a shit ton of candy bars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really. If you look at the top states in which residents receive a healthcare subsidy, they are mostly red states. The states with the lowest per capita income are mostly red states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey dumbass!!!
> My state is full of illegals and south of the border invaders....
> And of course most of them are on welfare of some sort......oops.
> Thanks for making my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of them are in red states and are white.
Click to expand...


NEGATIVE 
Are you ever right about anything you confused Loon?

21.3% of US Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month
*Who Participated in Welfare?*
The *black population at 41.6 percent*, blacks were more likely to participate in government assistance programs in an average month.
The black participation rate was followed by *Hispanics at 36.4 percent, *Asians or Pacific Islanders at 17.8 percent, and non-Hispanic whites at 13.2 percent


----------



## flewism

busybee01 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...those children had arrived alone at the Southwest border — without their parents. Most of them are from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, and were fleeing drug cartels, gang violence and domestic abuse, according to government data." And a lot of them are gang members themselves.
> 
> "...the department’s office of refugee resettlement began voluntarily making the calls as a 30-day follow-up to make sure that the children and their sponsors did not require additional services. Those calls, which the office does not view as required, Mr. Hargan said, are now “being used to confuse and spread misinformation.”
> 
> In many cases, the statement said, sponsors cannot be reached because “they themselves are illegal aliens and do not want to be reached by federal authorities.”
> Did the Trump Administration Separate Immigrant Children From Parents and Lose Them?
> 
> The left has trafficked gang members and criminals into the US, and now that they've *disappeared* they want to blame Trump?
> 
> Fucking ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens is people show up with kids that aren't theirs, or that they're using as mules, and we remove the kids for their own safety.
> 
> Of course the left doesn't like that. Children are disposable, and are supposed to be used by adults to get over the border. The left embraces trafficking, and is going to squawk when you protect children. They always have.
> 
> “As required by law, D.H.S. must protect the best interests of minor children crossing our borders, and occasionally this results in separating children from an adult they are traveling with if we cannot ascertain the parental relationship, or if we think the child is otherwise in danger,”
> 
> Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents at U.S. Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is so much bullshit and trash like you know it. The Trump people are separating children from their parents. They know it is wrong because they are blaming democrats for it. This is happening more than occasionally.
> 
> Got anymore BULLSHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a liar. Proved repeatedly, and obvious here.
> 
> Child trafficking, slavery...these are the historic accoutrement of the US left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being Trump trash automatically makes you a liar. Proven and obvious.
> 
> Who introduced slavery to the south. Northern merchants and Republicans.
Click to expand...


You are one of those that just must get the last word in no matter how many lies you spew.

You must be heavily medicated to believe such outlandish bullshit.


----------



## busybee01

pismoe said:


> go ahead , i think you been trying that getting rid of TRUMP for a couple of years or a year and a half [about] haven't YOU my Dear Lady 'maxine watters'  , er , i mean Busybee .



Actually it starts in 2018 with the midterms. Start by putting racists like you out of business. Then in 2020 get rid of Trump.


----------



## koshergrl

flewism said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...those children had arrived alone at the Southwest border — without their parents. Most of them are from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, and were fleeing drug cartels, gang violence and domestic abuse, according to government data." And a lot of them are gang members themselves.
> 
> "...the department’s office of refugee resettlement began voluntarily making the calls as a 30-day follow-up to make sure that the children and their sponsors did not require additional services. Those calls, which the office does not view as required, Mr. Hargan said, are now “being used to confuse and spread misinformation.”
> 
> In many cases, the statement said, sponsors cannot be reached because “they themselves are illegal aliens and do not want to be reached by federal authorities.”
> Did the Trump Administration Separate Immigrant Children From Parents and Lose Them?
> 
> The left has trafficked gang members and criminals into the US, and now that they've *disappeared* they want to blame Trump?
> 
> Fucking ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens is people show up with kids that aren't theirs, or that they're using as mules, and we remove the kids for their own safety.
> 
> Of course the left doesn't like that. Children are disposable, and are supposed to be used by adults to get over the border. The left embraces trafficking, and is going to squawk when you protect children. They always have.
> 
> “As required by law, D.H.S. must protect the best interests of minor children crossing our borders, and occasionally this results in separating children from an adult they are traveling with if we cannot ascertain the parental relationship, or if we think the child is otherwise in danger,”
> 
> Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents at U.S. Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is so much bullshit and trash like you know it. The Trump people are separating children from their parents. They know it is wrong because they are blaming democrats for it. This is happening more than occasionally.
> 
> Got anymore BULLSHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a liar. Proved repeatedly, and obvious here.
> 
> Child trafficking, slavery...these are the historic accoutrement of the US left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being Trump trash automatically makes you a liar. Proven and obvious.
> 
> Who introduced slavery to the south. Northern merchants and Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are on of those you just must get the last word in no matter how many lies you spew.
> 
> You must be heavily medicated to believe such outlandish bullshit.
Click to expand...

they don't believe it. 
They are heavily medicated.


----------



## busybee01

pismoe said:


> and one more thing , sorry for the large amount of 'funny icons' i attach to most of your posts but most of what you post is silly , emotional , not thoughtful and is funny Busybee



You are doing a good job of describing your posts.


----------



## BrokeLoser

busybee01 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol god you are stupid. This isn’t hard to figure out. Should we treat someone who steals a candy bar like someone who raped someone? Obviously not. It’s amazing I have to walk you through this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of just one illegal would buy a shit ton of candy bars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really. If you look at the top states in which residents receive a healthcare subsidy, they are mostly red states. The states with the lowest per capita income are mostly red states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey dumbass!!!
> My state is full of illegals and south of the border invaders....
> And of course most of them are on welfare of some sort......oops.
> Thanks for making my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of them are in red states and are white.
Click to expand...


Mexifornia has 12% of the national population and 33% of the nations welfare recipients...Loon York is right behind them.
Are they “red states”?
Just admit it and save face...nearly all of you Mexicrats are lowlife filth...the data proves it. Sorry bud.


----------



## koshergrl

busybee01 said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> go ahead , i think you been trying that getting rid of TRUMP for a couple of years or a year and a half [about] haven't YOU my Dear Lady 'maxine watters'  , er , i mean Busybee .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it starts in 2018 with the midterms. Start by putting racists like you out of business. Then in 2020 get rid of Trump.
Click to expand...


There it is. 

RACISTACISTACISTACISTACIST


----------



## Vandalshandle

BrokeLoser said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of just one illegal would buy a shit ton of candy bars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really. If you look at the top states in which residents receive a healthcare subsidy, they are mostly red states. The states with the lowest per capita income are mostly red states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey dumbass!!!
> My state is full of illegals and south of the border invaders....
> And of course most of them are on welfare of some sort......oops.
> Thanks for making my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of them are in red states and are white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexifornia has 12% of the national population and 33% of the nations welfare recipients...Loon York is right behind them.
> Are they “red states”?
> Just admit it and save face...nearly all of you Mexicrats are lowlife filth...the data proves it. Sorry bud.
Click to expand...


----------



## busybee01

pismoe said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its just like the 'anchor baby' deal , mexicans drop an anchor baby and they have the Americans by the nutz .    This variation of the mexican taking their kids to the border is , as i say just a variation of dropping an anchor baby .  -------------------- as the mexican cries and says , you can't separate 'mamasitas' and widdle baby mexicans Coyote .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are fine with taking young children from their parents and throwing them into our foster care system while they await hearings?  700 kids lost in our foster care network or housed in barracks apart from their parents.  It's sick but you don't have an issue with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the parent's fault. They know that they are breaking the law.
> Many times when US parents break laws their children are put in foster care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not the parents' fault. Trump knows this which is why he is blaming Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------   he is blaming 'dems' / YOU because the moochers in cages photos was taken during 'mrobama' time in office   Busybee .
Click to expand...


Do you have a clue what you are talking about. We are talking about TRUMP'S decision to separate children from their families. Obama did not start it. Quit blaming Obama for everything.


----------



## DJT for Life

Vandalshandle said:


> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know any of them individually.  But I know how their parents
> and their shithhole countries that they come from. are gaming the system.
> 
> And what's your story, Pancho?  Butt-hurt liberal or illegal alien?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your logic is to punish the children for their parents having committed a misdemeanor by crossing the border without papers, why not go all the way, and torture them as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having the types of parents that they do is torture enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're sure? I mean, one could give them electric shocks and put them on a starvation diet. That would REALLY show those parents!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There parents don't give a shit now.  We're just helping the children with
> a basic lesson in life.  The lesson being..."For every behavior...there is a
> consequence."
> 
> Bad behavior calls for a bad consequence.
> 
> There is legal immigration and their is illegal immigration.  There is no
> bad consequence with legal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure that the lesson will be learned. Next time, the kids will choose better parents....
Click to expand...


Or maybe become better parents when they have children.  It'll be one helluva long shot with them being from Central America, but at least
we would have done our part.

If they could choose better parents next time around, here's hoping they
choose Democrats.  They won't be faced with this type of a problem
then.  They'll have been aborted 6 months before delivery date.


----------



## OKTexas

HappyJoy said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many are raped, beaten and yes some killed even before they reach the border. Many are trafficked and sold once they reach the US, brought here by people they aren't even related to. That's way Sessions is insisting on DNA tests, to prove paternity. Many are given to supposed relatives who are illegal themselves, that's why they don't answer when DHS calls to check on the kids. All because the parents or who ever they are are using them hoping to get a free pass to disappear into the population. Sessions ins't giving any more free passes.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of this has anything to do with a reason for separating families, if you can't defend the policy then why post at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You might look at my first post in this thread. I don't have to defend anything, it's the law. Don't like it, tell you congresscritters to get off their lazy asses and change it.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't convicted and deserve their day in court before their kids are ripped from them and sent halfway across the country. Also, like I said they are doing this with those who legally enter the country as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The adults are a flight risk, they stay in detention until their trial or hearing, the courts say the kids can't be held there. Address the law, not me.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have in the past, this is a recent change in policy.
Click to expand...



So you suggest we keep doing shit that doesn't work, over and over. I think they have a name for that, insanity.


.


----------



## DJT for Life

busybee01 said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its just like the 'anchor baby' deal , mexicans drop an anchor baby and they have the Americans by the nutz .    This variation of the mexican taking their kids to the border is , as i say just a variation of dropping an anchor baby .  -------------------- as the mexican cries and says , you can't separate 'mamasitas' and widdle baby mexicans Coyote .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are fine with taking young children from their parents and throwing them into our foster care system while they await hearings?  700 kids lost in our foster care network or housed in barracks apart from their parents.  It's sick but you don't have an issue with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the parent's fault. They know that they are breaking the law.
> Many times when US parents break laws their children are put in foster care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not the parents' fault. Trump knows this which is why he is blaming Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------   he is blaming 'dems' / YOU because the moochers in cages photos was taken during 'mrobama' time in office   Busybee .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a clue what you are talking about. We are talking about TRUMP'S decision to separate children from their families. Obama did not start it. Quit blaming Obama for everything.
Click to expand...


Obama lost over 4100 children when he was President.


----------



## Vandalshandle

DJT for Life said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your logic is to punish the children for their parents having committed a misdemeanor by crossing the border without papers, why not go all the way, and torture them as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having the types of parents that they do is torture enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're sure? I mean, one could give them electric shocks and put them on a starvation diet. That would REALLY show those parents!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There parents don't give a shit now.  We're just helping the children with
> a basic lesson in life.  The lesson being..."For every behavior...there is a
> consequence."
> 
> Bad behavior calls for a bad consequence.
> 
> There is legal immigration and their is illegal immigration.  There is no
> bad consequence with legal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure that the lesson will be learned. Next time, the kids will choose better parents....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or maybe become better parents when they have children.  It'll be one helluva long shot with them being from Central America, but at least
> we would have done our part.
> 
> If they could choose better parents next time around, here's hoping they
> choose Democrats.  They won't be faced with this type of a problem
> then.  They'll have been aborted 6 months before delivery date.
Click to expand...


Can't stay on topic? Short attention span?


----------



## Meathead

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


Minimize it, but otherwise whatever it takes.


----------



## koshergrl

busybee01 said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its just like the 'anchor baby' deal , mexicans drop an anchor baby and they have the Americans by the nutz .    This variation of the mexican taking their kids to the border is , as i say just a variation of dropping an anchor baby .  -------------------- as the mexican cries and says , you can't separate 'mamasitas' and widdle baby mexicans Coyote .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are fine with taking young children from their parents and throwing them into our foster care system while they await hearings?  700 kids lost in our foster care network or housed in barracks apart from their parents.  It's sick but you don't have an issue with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the parent's fault. They know that they are breaking the law.
> Many times when US parents break laws their children are put in foster care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not the parents' fault. Trump knows this which is why he is blaming Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------   he is blaming 'dems' / YOU because the moochers in cages photos was taken during 'mrobama' time in office   Busybee .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a clue what you are talking about. We are talking about TRUMP'S decision to separate children from their families. Obama did not start it. Quit blaming Obama for everything.
Click to expand...

Also known as.."we're talking about Trump separating child traffickers from their victims. How dare anybody interfere with the sacred institution of child trafficking!"


----------



## Vandalshandle

Meathead said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> Minimize it, but otherwise whatever it takes.
Click to expand...


If that is your position, we could always adopt a "final solution".


----------



## Hugo Furst

busybee01 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...those children had arrived alone at the Southwest border — without their parents. Most of them are from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, and were fleeing drug cartels, gang violence and domestic abuse, according to government data." And a lot of them are gang members themselves.
> 
> "...the department’s office of refugee resettlement began voluntarily making the calls as a 30-day follow-up to make sure that the children and their sponsors did not require additional services. Those calls, which the office does not view as required, Mr. Hargan said, are now “being used to confuse and spread misinformation.”
> 
> In many cases, the statement said, sponsors cannot be reached because “they themselves are illegal aliens and do not want to be reached by federal authorities.”
> Did the Trump Administration Separate Immigrant Children From Parents and Lose Them?
> 
> The left has trafficked gang members and criminals into the US, and now that they've *disappeared* they want to blame Trump?
> 
> Fucking ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens is people show up with kids that aren't theirs, or that they're using as mules, and we remove the kids for their own safety.
> 
> Of course the left doesn't like that. Children are disposable, and are supposed to be used by adults to get over the border. The left embraces trafficking, and is going to squawk when you protect children. They always have.
> 
> “As required by law, D.H.S. must protect the best interests of minor children crossing our borders, and occasionally this results in separating children from an adult they are traveling with if we cannot ascertain the parental relationship, or if we think the child is otherwise in danger,”
> 
> Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents at U.S. Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is so much bullshit and trash like you know it. The Trump people are separating children from their parents. They know it is wrong because they are blaming democrats for it. This is happening more than occasionally.
> 
> Got anymore BULLSHIT.
Click to expand...




busybee01 said:


> They know it is wrong because they are blaming democrats for it.



Couldn't possibly be because it started under Obama, could it?


----------



## busybee01

koshergrl said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...those children had arrived alone at the Southwest border — without their parents. Most of them are from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, and were fleeing drug cartels, gang violence and domestic abuse, according to government data." And a lot of them are gang members themselves.
> 
> "...the department’s office of refugee resettlement began voluntarily making the calls as a 30-day follow-up to make sure that the children and their sponsors did not require additional services. Those calls, which the office does not view as required, Mr. Hargan said, are now “being used to confuse and spread misinformation.”
> 
> In many cases, the statement said, sponsors cannot be reached because “they themselves are illegal aliens and do not want to be reached by federal authorities.”
> Did the Trump Administration Separate Immigrant Children From Parents and Lose Them?
> 
> The left has trafficked gang members and criminals into the US, and now that they've *disappeared* they want to blame Trump?
> 
> Fucking ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens is people show up with kids that aren't theirs, or that they're using as mules, and we remove the kids for their own safety.
> 
> Of course the left doesn't like that. Children are disposable, and are supposed to be used by adults to get over the border. The left embraces trafficking, and is going to squawk when you protect children. They always have.
> 
> “As required by law, D.H.S. must protect the best interests of minor children crossing our borders, and occasionally this results in separating children from an adult they are traveling with if we cannot ascertain the parental relationship, or if we think the child is otherwise in danger,”
> 
> Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents at U.S. Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is so much bullshit and trash like you know it. The Trump people are separating children from their parents. They know it is wrong because they are blaming democrats for it. This is happening more than occasionally.
> 
> Got anymore BULLSHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a liar. Proved repeatedly, and obvious here.
> 
> Child trafficking, slavery...these are the historic accoutrement of the US left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being Trump trash automatically makes you a liar. Proven and obvious.
> 
> Who introduced slavery to the south. Northern merchants and Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You moron.
> Republicans didn't exist until they formed...to end Democrat slavery.
> 
> You really are an idiot.
Click to expand...


Actually the Republicans did nothing to stop slavery. States were allowed to decide if they wanted to be free or slave. They did not form to end slavery.

You are the idiot.


----------



## busybee01

flewism said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...those children had arrived alone at the Southwest border — without their parents. Most of them are from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, and were fleeing drug cartels, gang violence and domestic abuse, according to government data." And a lot of them are gang members themselves.
> 
> "...the department’s office of refugee resettlement began voluntarily making the calls as a 30-day follow-up to make sure that the children and their sponsors did not require additional services. Those calls, which the office does not view as required, Mr. Hargan said, are now “being used to confuse and spread misinformation.”
> 
> In many cases, the statement said, sponsors cannot be reached because “they themselves are illegal aliens and do not want to be reached by federal authorities.”
> Did the Trump Administration Separate Immigrant Children From Parents and Lose Them?
> 
> The left has trafficked gang members and criminals into the US, and now that they've *disappeared* they want to blame Trump?
> 
> Fucking ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens is people show up with kids that aren't theirs, or that they're using as mules, and we remove the kids for their own safety.
> 
> Of course the left doesn't like that. Children are disposable, and are supposed to be used by adults to get over the border. The left embraces trafficking, and is going to squawk when you protect children. They always have.
> 
> “As required by law, D.H.S. must protect the best interests of minor children crossing our borders, and occasionally this results in separating children from an adult they are traveling with if we cannot ascertain the parental relationship, or if we think the child is otherwise in danger,”
> 
> Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents at U.S. Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is so much bullshit and trash like you know it. The Trump people are separating children from their parents. They know it is wrong because they are blaming democrats for it. This is happening more than occasionally.
> 
> Got anymore BULLSHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a liar. Proved repeatedly, and obvious here.
> 
> Child trafficking, slavery...these are the historic accoutrement of the US left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being Trump trash automatically makes you a liar. Proven and obvious.
> 
> Who introduced slavery to the south. Northern merchants and Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are one of those that just must get the last word in no matter how many lies you spew.
> 
> You must be heavily medicated to believe such outlandish bullshit.
Click to expand...


You must be medicated if you are a Trump supporter. That also makes you a liar.


----------



## busybee01

OKTexas said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of this has anything to do with a reason for separating families, if you can't defend the policy then why post at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might look at my first post in this thread. I don't have to defend anything, it's the law. Don't like it, tell you congresscritters to get off their lazy asses and change it.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't convicted and deserve their day in court before their kids are ripped from them and sent halfway across the country. Also, like I said they are doing this with those who legally enter the country as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The adults are a flight risk, they stay in detention until their trial or hearing, the courts say the kids can't be held there. Address the law, not me.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have in the past, this is a recent change in policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you suggest we keep doing shit that doesn't work, over and over. I think they have a name for that, insanity.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


What does separating children from their families have to do with illegal immigration. NOTHING. So what are you trying to do.


----------



## Meathead

HappyJoy said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
Click to expand...




Vandalshandle said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> Minimize it, but otherwise whatever it takes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that is your position, we could always adopt a "final solution".
Click to expand...

KMA you self-righteous twat.


----------



## busybee01

DJT for Life said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are fine with taking young children from their parents and throwing them into our foster care system while they await hearings?  700 kids lost in our foster care network or housed in barracks apart from their parents.  It's sick but you don't have an issue with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the parent's fault. They know that they are breaking the law.
> Many times when US parents break laws their children are put in foster care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not the parents' fault. Trump knows this which is why he is blaming Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------   he is blaming 'dems' / YOU because the moochers in cages photos was taken during 'mrobama' time in office   Busybee .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a clue what you are talking about. We are talking about TRUMP'S decision to separate children from their families. Obama did not start it. Quit blaming Obama for everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama lost over 4100 children when he was President.
Click to expand...


The fact is that it continued under Trump. However we are discussing TRUMP policy of separating children from their families. Obama had nothing to do with it.


----------



## busybee01

koshergrl said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are fine with taking young children from their parents and throwing them into our foster care system while they await hearings?  700 kids lost in our foster care network or housed in barracks apart from their parents.  It's sick but you don't have an issue with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the parent's fault. They know that they are breaking the law.
> Many times when US parents break laws their children are put in foster care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not the parents' fault. Trump knows this which is why he is blaming Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------   he is blaming 'dems' / YOU because the moochers in cages photos was taken during 'mrobama' time in office   Busybee .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a clue what you are talking about. We are talking about TRUMP'S decision to separate children from their families. Obama did not start it. Quit blaming Obama for everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also known as.."we're talking about Trump separating child traffickers from their victims. How dare anybody interfere with the sacred institution of child trafficking!"
Click to expand...


That is BULLSHIT and you know it. These children were in no danger and you are making it all up. You must be medicated or on drugs to think people are going to buy it.


----------



## busybee01

WillHaftawaite said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...those children had arrived alone at the Southwest border — without their parents. Most of them are from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, and were fleeing drug cartels, gang violence and domestic abuse, according to government data." And a lot of them are gang members themselves.
> 
> "...the department’s office of refugee resettlement began voluntarily making the calls as a 30-day follow-up to make sure that the children and their sponsors did not require additional services. Those calls, which the office does not view as required, Mr. Hargan said, are now “being used to confuse and spread misinformation.”
> 
> In many cases, the statement said, sponsors cannot be reached because “they themselves are illegal aliens and do not want to be reached by federal authorities.”
> Did the Trump Administration Separate Immigrant Children From Parents and Lose Them?
> 
> The left has trafficked gang members and criminals into the US, and now that they've *disappeared* they want to blame Trump?
> 
> Fucking ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens is people show up with kids that aren't theirs, or that they're using as mules, and we remove the kids for their own safety.
> 
> Of course the left doesn't like that. Children are disposable, and are supposed to be used by adults to get over the border. The left embraces trafficking, and is going to squawk when you protect children. They always have.
> 
> “As required by law, D.H.S. must protect the best interests of minor children crossing our borders, and occasionally this results in separating children from an adult they are traveling with if we cannot ascertain the parental relationship, or if we think the child is otherwise in danger,”
> 
> Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents at U.S. Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is so much bullshit and trash like you know it. The Trump people are separating children from their parents. They know it is wrong because they are blaming democrats for it. This is happening more than occasionally.
> 
> Got anymore BULLSHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They know it is wrong because they are blaming democrats for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Couldn't possibly be because it started under Obama, could it?
Click to expand...


You know that is garbage. Even Trump supporters don't buy that.


----------



## pismoe

woman is cwazy .


----------



## Meathead

busybee01 said:


> The fact is that it continued under Trump. However we are discussing TRUMP policy of separating children from their families. Obama had nothing to do with it.


Trump is not trying to bring in illegal alien families. In fact he's actually trying to stop them.


----------



## william the wie

Why this impassioned defense of the enablers of child molestation? How do you think the parents paid off the coyote?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

busybee01 said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has it come to?
> 
> The Central American parents send their children here alone.
> They know that our laws are such that we can't ship them back
> and we hold them until they are placed in a foster home.
> 
> The vast majority of these kids that everybody is talking about came
> here alone.  They are missing because the phone calls to the foster homes
> have not been answered.
> 
> When we send a mother to prison we do not let the child go with her.
> Why should we treat those people any different.
> 
> Trump lost 1500...huh?  Obama, according to reports lost over 4100...why
> no outrage then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to know a lot about these children. How many do you know? Personally, I mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know any of them individually.  But I know how their parents
> and their shithhole countries that they come from. are gaming the system.
> 
> And what's your story, Pancho?  Butt-hurt liberal or illegal alien?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your logic is to punish the children for their parents having committed a misdemeanor by crossing the border without papers, why not go all the way, and torture them as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is nonsense.
> 
> We are NOT punishing children.  No more than a convicted felon's child is punished when we send them to prison.
> 
> Do we stop enforcing our laws because the children will be separated from their parents who are acting criminally?
> 
> The answer is a resounding, no!
> 
> As for this nonsense of "human cost", it is nothing more than a phrase designed to instill anguish in political opposition for the purpose of achieving an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.  Who suffers?  The children.  What crime does a 3 yr old commit that is prosecutable under the law? Explain that to the hysterical child, tell him he is NOT being punished  by being ripped from the only family he knows and then try to rationalize a seriously fucked policy here that was NOT in place before.
> 
> And remind me again how your party is pro family cause I sure dont see it in this policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------------   that'd be PRO American family Coyote .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That shows what a racist you are. You are either pro-family or you are not. There is no in-between.
Click to expand...


You are either pro-law and order and pro-American taxpayer or you are not.


----------



## koshergrl

busybee01 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...those children had arrived alone at the Southwest border — without their parents. Most of them are from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, and were fleeing drug cartels, gang violence and domestic abuse, according to government data." And a lot of them are gang members themselves.
> 
> "...the department’s office of refugee resettlement began voluntarily making the calls as a 30-day follow-up to make sure that the children and their sponsors did not require additional services. Those calls, which the office does not view as required, Mr. Hargan said, are now “being used to confuse and spread misinformation.”
> 
> In many cases, the statement said, sponsors cannot be reached because “they themselves are illegal aliens and do not want to be reached by federal authorities.”
> Did the Trump Administration Separate Immigrant Children From Parents and Lose Them?
> 
> The left has trafficked gang members and criminals into the US, and now that they've *disappeared* they want to blame Trump?
> 
> Fucking ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens is people show up with kids that aren't theirs, or that they're using as mules, and we remove the kids for their own safety.
> 
> Of course the left doesn't like that. Children are disposable, and are supposed to be used by adults to get over the border. The left embraces trafficking, and is going to squawk when you protect children. They always have.
> 
> “As required by law, D.H.S. must protect the best interests of minor children crossing our borders, and occasionally this results in separating children from an adult they are traveling with if we cannot ascertain the parental relationship, or if we think the child is otherwise in danger,”
> 
> Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents at U.S. Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is so much bullshit and trash like you know it. The Trump people are separating children from their parents. They know it is wrong because they are blaming democrats for it. This is happening more than occasionally.
> 
> Got anymore BULLSHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a liar. Proved repeatedly, and obvious here.
> 
> Child trafficking, slavery...these are the historic accoutrement of the US left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being Trump trash automatically makes you a liar. Proven and obvious.
> 
> Who introduced slavery to the south. Northern merchants and Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You moron.
> Republicans didn't exist until they formed...to end Democrat slavery.
> 
> You really are an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the Republicans did nothing to stop slavery. States were allowed to decide if they wanted to be free or slave. They did not form to end slavery.
> 
> You are the idiot.
Click to expand...

Oh, ok. 

"In Ripon, Wisconsin, former members of the Whig Party meet to establish *a new party to oppose the spread of slavery* into the western territories. The Whig Party, which was formed in 1834 to oppose the “tyranny” of President Andrew Jackson, had shown itself incapable of coping with the national crisis over slavery.

"With the successful introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill of 1854, an act that dissolved the terms of the Missouri Compromise and allowed slave or free status to be decided in the territories by popular sovereignty, the Whigs disintegrated. *By February 1854, anti-slavery Whigs had begun meeting in the upper midwestern states to discuss the formation of a new party. One such meeting, in Wisconsin on March 20, 1854, is generally remembered as the founding meeting of the Republican Party*."


Republican Party founded - Mar 20, 1854 - HISTORY.com


----------



## koshergrl

DJT for Life said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are fine with taking young children from their parents and throwing them into our foster care system while they await hearings?  700 kids lost in our foster care network or housed in barracks apart from their parents.  It's sick but you don't have an issue with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the parent's fault. They know that they are breaking the law.
> Many times when US parents break laws their children are put in foster care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not the parents' fault. Trump knows this which is why he is blaming Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------   he is blaming 'dems' / YOU because the moochers in cages photos was taken during 'mrobama' time in office   Busybee .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a clue what you are talking about. We are talking about TRUMP'S decision to separate children from their families. Obama did not start it. Quit blaming Obama for everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama lost over 4100 children when he was President.
Click to expand...

They aren't lost.


----------



## tycho1572

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


I agree. It’s why Trump has been trying to stop people from illegally entering this country.

Democrats have been rolling out the the red carpet while ignoring the danger it puts people in.
I can’t understand why they continue to turn a blind eye to the problems of human trafficking, drugs being brought in, murders, gun smuggling, children being sold, etc...etc...etc...

It’s looking like democrats are putting a higher value on votes than the well being of others.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

busybee01 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it's called a deterrent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorizing children. People like you need to be shipped off to Guantanamo for the rest of your miserable lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then send the parents to Gitmo instead of us, because it's the parents that are causing their children harm--not us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, if we are separating them then it's us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not.  You come here illegally, everything that happens to you and your kids is your fault.  You knew well ahead of time you are coming here and breaking our laws, so anything could happen at that point.
> 
> Let me ask, if a woman is drunk and driving around with her child, and she runs when the cops try to pull her over, and the child gets killed when she strikes a tree, do you blame the drunken mother or the police that tried to stop her?
> 
> We have enough irresponsible people in this country, we call them Democrats.  We certainly don't need any more irresponsible people coming from other places.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no moral equivalence in the argument. No one is killed when someone crosses the border. Sit down and shut up.
Click to expand...


I see that point flew over your pointy head.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


Don't care. They took the risks so the can reap the results.

ZERO FUCKS GIVEN


----------



## The Irish Ram

Coyote said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are punishing the children
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their parents are punishing those children, and putting them in harm's way, to reap benefits that  the parents are not entitled to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rhat is certainly is one way justifying it...good job...keep in mind they are entitled to a hearing under the law. Nowhere does it say their children must be confiscated from them first.
Click to expand...


I agree.  They should all be stopped before they get across the border. No hearings, no confiscations. No entry. Period.  Those who wish to become  American citizens need not send their children to loop hole for them, just mail a request for US immigration policy and forms...


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Coyote said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> So... importing future Democratic voters at any cost ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with the OP?  Oh ya...nothing.
Click to expand...

Well absolutely everything the Democratic party elite don't give a shit about illegal immigration other than expanding the voter base..


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

busybee01 said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has it come to?
> 
> The Central American parents send their children here alone.
> They know that our laws are such that we can't ship them back
> and we hold them until they are placed in a foster home.
> 
> The vast majority of these kids that everybody is talking about came
> here alone.  They are missing because the phone calls to the foster homes
> have not been answered.
> 
> When we send a mother to prison we do not let the child go with her.
> Why should we treat those people any different.
> 
> Trump lost 1500...huh?  Obama, according to reports lost over 4100...why
> no outrage then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to know a lot about these children. How many do you know? Personally, I mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know any of them individually.  But I know how their parents
> and their shithhole countries that they come from. are gaming the system.
> 
> And what's your story, Pancho?  Butt-hurt liberal or illegal alien?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your logic is to punish the children for their parents having committed a misdemeanor by crossing the border without papers, why not go all the way, and torture them as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is nonsense.
> 
> We are NOT punishing children.  No more than a convicted felon's child is punished when we send them to prison.
> 
> Do we stop enforcing our laws because the children will be separated from their parents who are acting criminally?
> 
> The answer is a resounding, no!
> 
> As for this nonsense of "human cost", it is nothing more than a phrase designed to instill anguish in political opposition for the purpose of achieving an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.  Who suffers?  The children.  What crime does a 3 yr old commit that is prosecutable under the law? Explain that to the hysterical child, tell him he is NOT being punished  by being ripped from the only family he knows and then try to rationalize a seriously fucked policy here that was NOT in place before.
> 
> And remind me again how your party is pro family cause I sure dont see it in this policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------------   that'd be PRO American family Coyote .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That shows what a racist you are. You are either pro-family or you are not. There is no in-between.
Click to expand...


And you are either pro-laws or you're not.


----------



## koshergrl

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> So... importing future Democratic voters at any cost ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with the OP?  Oh ya...nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well absolutely everything the Democratic party elite don't give a shit about illegal immigration other than expanding the voter base..
Click to expand...

Well they care about facilitating homosexual access to foster children.


----------



## OKTexas

Coyote said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking to the wrong people. Only congress can address the situation. Border patrol is enforcing the law, congress is working on a law where the whole family can be deported expeditiously but your commiecrats won't hear of it. So don't come crying on our shoulders, tell your party to get off their ass and support a fix.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What law states children must be removed from parents?
Click to expand...



The courts say they can't be detained in the same facilities as their parents, this has already been addressed in this thread. This ain't maobamas transformed America any longer, where the rule of law is ignored.


.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it's called a deterrent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorizing children. People like you need to be shipped off to Guantanamo for the rest of your miserable lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then send the parents to Gitmo instead of us, because it's the parents that are causing their children harm--not us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, if we are separating them then it's us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not.  You come here illegally, everything that happens to you and your kids is your fault.  You knew well ahead of time you are coming here and breaking our laws, so anything could happen at that point.
> 
> Let me ask, if a woman is drunk and driving around with her child, and she runs when the cops try to pull her over, and the child gets killed when she strikes a tree, do you blame the drunken mother or the police that tried to stop her?
> 
> We have enough irresponsible people in this country, we call them Democrats.  We certainly don't need any more irresponsible people coming from other places.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really think that is comparable?  The only reason to remove a child from its family is if the child is neglected or endangered or can not be otherwise be cared for.  Prior to this there was no need to take children.  The environment and risk haven't changed. What has?
Click to expand...


How do you suppose it is that welfare people have larger families than the working?  It's because we reward people for having children they can't afford to have, and we taxpayer are FORCED to support them.   

I say take the reward of bringing your kids here for us to take care of should stop.  If we did, it would deter more people from coming here and doing the same thing.  

As long as people can use their children to get what they want out of us, they will continue to do so.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

busybee01 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its all a scam using the so call widdle children as RAY says .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? There is an actual valid reason for separating children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's called a deterrent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Terrorizing children. People like you need to be shipped off to Guantanamo for the rest of your miserable lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then send the parents to Gitmo instead of us, because it's the parents that are causing their children harm--not us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pigs like you are no different than the Nazis who were tried at Nuremberg. The people who are doing this should be held accountable in the same way.
> +
Click to expand...


They will be held accountable; we will vote them back in.


----------



## Doc1

busybee01 said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the illegals care about children, then they won't try and cross the border with them.
> 
> Since they don't, why in the hell should we? And why in the hell should we let them in the country, given they are exceptionally brutish? Americans have higher standards than this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why the hell should we put up with you. Take your entire trashy family and throw you out. You are the brutal thug.
Click to expand...


Go for it kid.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

busybee01 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...those children had arrived alone at the Southwest border — without their parents. Most of them are from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, and were fleeing drug cartels, gang violence and domestic abuse, according to government data." And a lot of them are gang members themselves.
> 
> "...the department’s office of refugee resettlement began voluntarily making the calls as a 30-day follow-up to make sure that the children and their sponsors did not require additional services. Those calls, which the office does not view as required, Mr. Hargan said, are now “being used to confuse and spread misinformation.”
> 
> In many cases, the statement said, sponsors cannot be reached because “they themselves are illegal aliens and do not want to be reached by federal authorities.”
> Did the Trump Administration Separate Immigrant Children From Parents and Lose Them?
> 
> The left has trafficked gang members and criminals into the US, and now that they've *disappeared* they want to blame Trump?
> 
> Fucking ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens is people show up with kids that aren't theirs, or that they're using as mules, and we remove the kids for their own safety.
> 
> Of course the left doesn't like that. Children are disposable, and are supposed to be used by adults to get over the border. The left embraces trafficking, and is going to squawk when you protect children. They always have.
> 
> “As required by law, D.H.S. must protect the best interests of minor children crossing our borders, and occasionally this results in separating children from an adult they are traveling with if we cannot ascertain the parental relationship, or if we think the child is otherwise in danger,”
> 
> Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents at U.S. Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is so much bullshit and trash like you know it. The Trump people are separating children from their parents. They know it is wrong because they are blaming democrats for it. This is happening more than occasionally.
> 
> Got anymore BULLSHIT.
Click to expand...


   So where were you when barry was doing the exact same thing?
  Not a fuken peep out of you.


----------



## Doc1

busybee01 said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't punish children for the acts of their parents, period.  That includes low-income American kids.
> 
> And I'd like to know why we keep ignoring the *root problem* of all this:  The countries directly to our South are so horrible and corrupt, that not only are people *desperate* to *escape* them, but their own LEADERS are more than willing to HELP escape them *while* they blame US.
> 
> Why is this root cause never in this conversation?  No perceived political advantage for either tribe?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think most ever denied they are shithole countries. Which is exactly why we don't want those people here, they will make this country a shithole, too. Just look at their voting patterns, IQ and the fact that they committed a crime.
> 
> It's their fault that the child gets punished, if they are willing to risk it, not our problem. Otherwise, everyone will be coming in with their child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making this country a shithole country. People like you need to be gotten rid of.
Click to expand...


Go for it kid.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

busybee01 said:


> You are using children as hostages. You are no different than terrorists.



And the left is not???


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

busybee01 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol god you are stupid. This isn’t hard to figure out. Should we treat someone who steals a candy bar like someone who raped someone? Obviously not. It’s amazing I have to walk you through this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of just one illegal would buy a shit ton of candy bars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really. If you look at the top states in which residents receive a healthcare subsidy, they are mostly red states. The states with the lowest per capita income are mostly red states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey dumbass!!!
> My state is full of illegals and south of the border invaders....
> And of course most of them are on welfare of some sort......oops.
> Thanks for making my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of them are in red states and are white.
Click to expand...


  Bullshit.
Most are black in the inner cities or brown invaders from south of the border.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

busybee01 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...those children had arrived alone at the Southwest border — without their parents. Most of them are from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, and were fleeing drug cartels, gang violence and domestic abuse, according to government data." And a lot of them are gang members themselves.
> 
> "...the department’s office of refugee resettlement began voluntarily making the calls as a 30-day follow-up to make sure that the children and their sponsors did not require additional services. Those calls, which the office does not view as required, Mr. Hargan said, are now “being used to confuse and spread misinformation.”
> 
> In many cases, the statement said, sponsors cannot be reached because “they themselves are illegal aliens and do not want to be reached by federal authorities.”
> Did the Trump Administration Separate Immigrant Children From Parents and Lose Them?
> 
> The left has trafficked gang members and criminals into the US, and now that they've *disappeared* they want to blame Trump?
> 
> Fucking ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens is people show up with kids that aren't theirs, or that they're using as mules, and we remove the kids for their own safety.
> 
> Of course the left doesn't like that. Children are disposable, and are supposed to be used by adults to get over the border. The left embraces trafficking, and is going to squawk when you protect children. They always have.
> 
> “As required by law, D.H.S. must protect the best interests of minor children crossing our borders, and occasionally this results in separating children from an adult they are traveling with if we cannot ascertain the parental relationship, or if we think the child is otherwise in danger,”
> 
> Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents at U.S. Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is so much bullshit and trash like you know it. The Trump people are separating children from their parents. They know it is wrong because they are blaming democrats for it. This is happening more than occasionally.
> 
> Got anymore BULLSHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a liar. Proved repeatedly, and obvious here.
> 
> Child trafficking, slavery...these are the historic accoutrement of the US left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being Trump trash automatically makes you a liar. Proven and obvious.
> 
> Who introduced slavery to the south. Northern merchants and Republicans.
Click to expand...


  LOL....so full of shit her eyes are brown and her breath smells like an outhouse.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

busybee01 said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its just like the 'anchor baby' deal , mexicans drop an anchor baby and they have the Americans by the nutz .    This variation of the mexican taking their kids to the border is , as i say just a variation of dropping an anchor baby .  -------------------- as the mexican cries and says , you can't separate 'mamasitas' and widdle baby mexicans Coyote .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are fine with taking young children from their parents and throwing them into our foster care system while they await hearings?  700 kids lost in our foster care network or housed in barracks apart from their parents.  It's sick but you don't have an issue with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the parent's fault. They know that they are breaking the law.
> Many times when US parents break laws their children are put in foster care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not the parents' fault. Trump knows this which is why he is blaming Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------   he is blaming 'dems' / YOU because the moochers in cages photos was taken during 'mrobama' time in office   Busybee .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a clue what you are talking about. We are talking about TRUMP'S decision to separate children from their families. Obama did not start it. Quit blaming Obama for everything.
Click to expand...


  You stupid clunt!!
That started in the meat puppet faggot era.


----------



## OKTexas

Coyote said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans tend to lack basic empathy for things they don’t directly witness. They don’t have the emotional maturity or complexity of thought for such a thing. As a result, they don’t bother thinking about the well being of kids. They just know brown people have crossed the border and their GOP masters tell them it’s a bad thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The parents are responsible for anything that happens to the kids, they put them in the situation.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but no.  Once they are under our control WE are responsible.
Click to expand...



And Sessions told them very clearly what would happen if they came here, we take care of them as best we can. But in the end it falls on the parents, they made the choice to bring them here.


.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

busybee01 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might look at my first post in this thread. I don't have to defend anything, it's the law. Don't like it, tell you congresscritters to get off their lazy asses and change it.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't convicted and deserve their day in court before their kids are ripped from them and sent halfway across the country. Also, like I said they are doing this with those who legally enter the country as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The adults are a flight risk, they stay in detention until their trial or hearing, the courts say the kids can't be held there. Address the law, not me.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have in the past, this is a recent change in policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you suggest we keep doing shit that doesn't work, over and over. I think they have a name for that, insanity.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does separating children from their families have to do with illegal immigration. NOTHING. So what are you trying to do.
Click to expand...


  So you want to hold children with the adults that raped the women during their illegal march across our border?
  What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## OKTexas

Coyote said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans tend to lack basic empathy for things they don’t directly witness. They don’t have the emotional maturity or complexity of thought for such a thing. As a result, they don’t bother thinking about the well being of kids. They just know brown people have crossed the border and their GOP masters tell them it’s a bad thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The parents are responsible for anything that happens to the kids, they put them in the situation.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using that logic we could murder the kids in their sleep and completely escape culpability. Your argument is weak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Many are raped, beaten and yes some killed even before they reach the border. Many are trafficked and sold once they reach the US, brought here by people they aren't even related to. That's why Sessions is insisting on DNA tests, to prove paternity. Many are given to supposed relatives who are illegal themselves, that's why they don't answer when DHS calls to check on the kids. All because the parents or who ever they are are using them hoping to get a free pass to disappear into the population. Sessions isn't giving any more free passes.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no free pass being given by allowing children to stay with parents as they await their hearing.  They have always been able to remove children they suspect might not belong to the "parents" but that is not the case here.
Click to expand...



Your dear leader issued NTAs to families and cut them loose into the population, most didn't show up for their hearing, that's not happening anymore. The courts won't allow the kids to be detained with their parents, so we find them a place to stay until the case is resolved.


.


----------



## koshergrl

dudmuck said:


>



MS13 love the reservations. They like to have half Indian anchor babies out in the hinterlands where they move their victims and drugs back and froth.


----------



## Tresha91203

Coyote said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot house children in adult detention centers. It is common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They used to put everybody together years ago in Florida but they wound up with kids being sexually assaulted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They managed to keep families together before...now suddenly they cant?  Has there been an sudden increase in crimes against these children that they can not stay with their mothers?
Click to expand...


They haven't housed children with adults for a long time. This isn't something Trump implemented. He was complaining about it, in fact, and drawing attention to the fact that, due to the law, that's what happens.

Trump criticizes separating families at the border, despite his administration's support for policy that could lead to separation - CNNPolitics

It was happening under Obama, but it wasn't an issue then. It's a humanitarian crisis under Trump, though.


----------



## OKTexas

busybee01 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans tend to lack basic empathy for things they don’t directly witness. They don’t have the emotional maturity or complexity of thought for such a thing. As a result, they don’t bother thinking about the well being of kids. They just know brown people have crossed the border and their GOP masters tell them it’s a bad thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The parents are responsible for anything that happens to the kids, they put them in the situation.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We hold law enforcement to the same standards we hold everyone else. The people who are implementing this policy are responsible and should be held legally liable. Take your trash elsewhere.
Click to expand...



Who said they're not?


.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

This isn’t difficult to understand:

Follow the law, obey the rule of law – whether one likes it or not or agrees with it or not – until such time as the law is changed via the political or judicial process.

And current law holds that undocumented immigrants are entitled to a presumption of innocence and due process of the law; that adverse action cannot be taken against them until due process has been exhausted, such as taking from them their children.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Hutch Starskey said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> God you people are stupid. Her point is about the kids who didn’t choose to be smuggled over the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean just like the children of incarcerated bank robbers...and how the piece of shit parents forfeited them to the system by way of their own actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re equating bank robbers to people who want a better life for their children by crossing a border? God you’re fucking stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bank robber wants the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bank robbery is a felony.
> 
> Being here illegally is one misdemeanor count. Parents who have completed their sentence should be reunited with their children.
Click to expand...


Then I have a solution to our problem.  Make coming here illegal a felony and then take away the kids.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

busybee01 said:


> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the parent's fault. They know that they are breaking the law.
> Many times when US parents break laws their children are put in foster care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not the parents' fault. Trump knows this which is why he is blaming Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------   he is blaming 'dems' / YOU because the moochers in cages photos was taken during 'mrobama' time in office   Busybee .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a clue what you are talking about. We are talking about TRUMP'S decision to separate children from their families. Obama did not start it. Quit blaming Obama for everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama lost over 4100 children when he was President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that it continued under Trump. However we are discussing TRUMP policy of separating children from their families. Obama had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

It looks like the illegal aliens are trying to use their children as passports


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

HappyJoy said:


> So, I guess you do believe that the United States can great people like cattle and you have no problem with it. Like I said earlier, they aren't even human to you.



You come here like cattle, you get treated like cattle.  



HappyJoy said:


> I believe the intoxicated mother, but this isn't about drunk driving. It's quite literally nothing like that at all.



It's exactly like the intoxicated mother.  A parent who brings harm to their own children are at fault, not the authorities who are trying to straighten out the mess the parents created.  



HappyJoy said:


> Separating families for no other reason than to teach them a lesson is irresponsible.



No, giving them a deterrent is the responsible thing to do.  Catering to the system abusers is irresponsible.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

Dear Democrats,
How many illegal aliens will be enough for you?
Why is 11 million not enough?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Dear Democrats,
> How many illegal aliens will be enough for you?
> Why is 11 million not enough?



Because they need enough to crate a single-party government.  That's been their plans all along.  Bring enough of them here so when Democrats get back in power, they can grant blanket citizenship to all illegals.  Along with citizenship comes the right to vote.


----------



## Dragonlady

whitehall said:


> Acceptable to whom? It wouldn't occur to the left to adopt a couple of kids or go down to the Border and assist like some Christian charities do. All illegal aliens are to them is a political tool. The left treats illegal entry into the United States like some PITA project where illegals are considered ignorant animals who migrate and have no concept of child care. The U.S. does it's best to respect human life but the responsibilities fall on the illegal aliens who already risked the lives of children getting to the border.



Bullshit. The children being separated from their parents aren’t “illegal aliens”. They’re refugees legally seeking asylum. 

Trump doesn’t want asylum seekers. They’re poor, and they legally entitled to a hearing when they ask for asylum. He can’t just send them back where they came from. So he’s taking their children away to discourage them from coming at all. 

This is the most heinous disgusting thing Trump has done.


----------



## Doc1

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This isn’t difficult to understand:
> 
> Follow the law, obey the rule of law – whether one likes it or not or agrees with it or not – until such time as the law is changed via the political or judicial process.
> 
> And current law holds that undocumented immigrants are entitled to a presumption of innocence and due process of the law; that adverse action cannot be taken against them until due process has been exhausted, such as taking from them their children.



Follow the Law, stop them at the border.


----------



## tycho1572

Democrats need to stop encouraging them to illegally cross our boarder. It’s a creul and selfish thing to do.


----------



## Tresha91203

busybee01 said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its just like the 'anchor baby' deal , mexicans drop an anchor baby and they have the Americans by the nutz .    This variation of the mexican taking their kids to the border is , as i say just a variation of dropping an anchor baby .  -------------------- as the mexican cries and says , you can't separate 'mamasitas' and widdle baby mexicans Coyote .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are fine with taking young children from their parents and throwing them into our foster care system while they await hearings?  700 kids lost in our foster care network or housed in barracks apart from their parents.  It's sick but you don't have an issue with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the parent's fault. They know that they are breaking the law.
> Many times when US parents break laws their children are put in foster care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not the parents' fault. Trump knows this which is why he is blaming Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------   he is blaming 'dems' / YOU because the moochers in cages photos was taken during 'mrobama' time in office   Busybee .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a clue what you are talking about. We are talking about TRUMP'S decision to separate children from their families. Obama did not start it. Quit blaming Obama for everything.
Click to expand...


TRUMP:  Look, we are going to start enforcing our laws. We've got to get a handle on this. No more catch and release B.S.. Fair warning, If you cross our border illegally, you will be detained. Since we are going to start enforcing our laws, Congress might look at this f'ed up part separating families that's been going on a long time and doesn't seem to be working. Lawmakers need to fix that part.

MSM:  Trump is threatening to rip apart innocent families because he hates brown people and children.  Here's a photo of caved children under another administration to add drama.

SHEEP:  Trump is kidnapping and caging children!


----------



## Coyote

Tresha91203 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot house children in adult detention centers. It is common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They used to put everybody together years ago in Florida but they wound up with kids being sexually assaulted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They managed to keep families together before...now suddenly they cant?  Has there been an sudden increase in crimes against these children that they can not stay with their mothers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They haven't housed children with adults for a long time. This isn't something Trump implemented. He was complaining about it, in fact, and drawing attention to the fact that, due to the law, that's what happens.
> 
> Trump criticizes separating families at the border, despite his administration's support for policy that could lead to separation - CNNPolitics
> 
> It was happening under Obama, but it wasn't an issue then. It's a humanitarian crisis under Trump, though.
Click to expand...

Because they kept children with their mothers while awaiting their hearing.  That is new.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

Dragonlady said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acceptable to whom? It wouldn't occur to the left to adopt a couple of kids or go down to the Border and assist like some Christian charities do. All illegal aliens are to them is a political tool. The left treats illegal entry into the United States like some PITA project where illegals are considered ignorant animals who migrate and have no concept of child care. The U.S. does it's best to respect human life but the responsibilities fall on the illegal aliens who already risked the lives of children getting to the border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The children being separated from their parents aren’t “illegal aliens”. They’re refugees legally seeking asylum.
> 
> Trump doesn’t want asylum seekers. They’re poor, and they legally entitled to a hearing when they ask for asylum. He can’t just send them back where they came from. So he’s taking their children away to discourage them from coming at all.
> 
> This is the most heinous disgusting thing Trump has done.
Click to expand...

Asylum Fraud is a huge problem.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Meathead said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Minimize it, but otherwise whatever it takes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that is your position, we could always adopt a "final solution".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> KMA you self-righteous twat.
Click to expand...


Granted, they aren't Jews, but they will do, for Trump's purposes.


----------



## koshergrl

tycho1572 said:


> Democrats need to stop encouraging them to illegally cross our boarder. It’s a creul and selfish thing to do.


Where will they get their sex slaves if they do that?


----------



## Coyote

Tresha91203 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are fine with taking young children from their parents and throwing them into our foster care system while they await hearings?  700 kids lost in our foster care network or housed in barracks apart from their parents.  It's sick but you don't have an issue with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the parent's fault. They know that they are breaking the law.
> Many times when US parents break laws their children are put in foster care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not the parents' fault. Trump knows this which is why he is blaming Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------   he is blaming 'dems' / YOU because the moochers in cages photos was taken during 'mrobama' time in office   Busybee .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a clue what you are talking about. We are talking about TRUMP'S decision to separate children from their families. Obama did not start it. Quit blaming Obama for everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TRUMP:  Look, we are going to start enforcing our laws. We've got to get a handle on this. No more catch and release B.S.. Fair warning, If you cross our border illegally, you will be detained. Since we are going to start enforcing our laws, Congress might look at this f'ed up part separating families that's been going on a long time and doesn't seem to be working. Lawmakers need to fix that part.
> 
> MSM:  Trump is threatening to rip apart innocent families because he hates brown people and children.  Here's a photo of caved children under another administration to add drama.
> 
> SHEEP:  Trump is kidnapping and caging children!
Click to expand...


Fact: Sessions has instituted a new policy of removing children from all illegal border crossers.  

RWMedia: But Obama did it.

Strange Observation:  the number of children being separated is so huge there aren’t enough places for them and HHS has no budget to House them.

Question: ....but didn’t Obama do it?

Political talking point scorecard 10.

Families zero.


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are fine with taking young children from their parents and throwing them into our foster care system while they await hearings?  700 kids lost in our foster care network or housed in barracks apart from their parents.  It's sick but you don't have an issue with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the parent's fault. They know that they are breaking the law.
> Many times when US parents break laws their children are put in foster care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not the parents' fault. Trump knows this which is why he is blaming Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------   he is blaming 'dems' / YOU because the moochers in cages photos was taken during 'mrobama' time in office   Busybee .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a clue what you are talking about. We are talking about TRUMP'S decision to separate children from their families. Obama did not start it. Quit blaming Obama for everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also known as.."we're talking about Trump separating child traffickers from their victims. How dare anybody interfere with the sacred institution of child trafficking!"
Click to expand...


All those kids are suddenly held by child traffickers now?


----------



## Vandalshandle

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> So... importing future Democratic voters at any cost ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with the OP?  Oh ya...nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well absolutely everything the Democratic party elite don't give a shit about illegal immigration other than expanding the voter base..
Click to expand...


Right, after all, Trump says that 5 million illegals voted for Hillary. That is about half of all of them in the country. It is getting hard to disguise 5 million illegals at the polls, so we need more, in case the GOP decides to start rounding them up at the polling stations every election day!


----------



## pismoe

Session policy is fine and the way things should be.   As far as 'mrobama' goes , all i said was that that picture of kids in APPROPRIATE places like Cages was from 2014 and thats long before President Trump  Coyote .


----------



## tycho1572

Coyote said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot house children in adult detention centers. It is common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They used to put everybody together years ago in Florida but they wound up with kids being sexually assaulted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They managed to keep families together before...now suddenly they cant?  Has there been an sudden increase in crimes against these children that they can not stay with their mothers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They haven't housed children with adults for a long time. This isn't something Trump implemented. He was complaining about it, in fact, and drawing attention to the fact that, due to the law, that's what happens.
> 
> Trump criticizes separating families at the border, despite his administration's support for policy that could lead to separation - CNNPolitics
> 
> It was happening under Obama, but it wasn't an issue then. It's a humanitarian crisis under Trump, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they kept children with their mothers while awaiting their hearing.  That is new.
Click to expand...

The recent heartbreaking pic we saw of those children was taken while obama was in office. President Trump is trying to fix the laws so that doesn’t happen.


----------



## Coyote

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acceptable to whom? It wouldn't occur to the left to adopt a couple of kids or go down to the Border and assist like some Christian charities do. All illegal aliens are to them is a political tool. The left treats illegal entry into the United States like some PITA project where illegals are considered ignorant animals who migrate and have no concept of child care. The U.S. does it's best to respect human life but the responsibilities fall on the illegal aliens who already risked the lives of children getting to the border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The children being separated from their parents aren’t “illegal aliens”. They’re refugees legally seeking asylum.
> 
> Trump doesn’t want asylum seekers. They’re poor, and they legally entitled to a hearing when they ask for asylum. He can’t just send them back where they came from. So he’s taking their children away to discourage them from coming at all.
> 
> This is the most heinous disgusting thing Trump has done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Asylum Fraud is a huge problem.
Click to expand...


And that is what hearings determine. Until then they are not illegal.


----------



## pismoe

looked fine to me , what do you want to do , give them bedrooms with 'dora' the illegal alien explorer wallpaper  Tycho .   [at taxpayer expense]


----------



## tycho1572

koshergrl said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats need to stop encouraging them to illegally cross our boarder. It’s a creul and selfish thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Where will they get their sex slaves if they do that?
Click to expand...

I don’t think democrats fully understand the problems their decisions create. It’s why they keep fighting President Trump while he’s trying to fix it.


----------



## Coyote

tycho1572 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot house children in adult detention centers. It is common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They used to put everybody together years ago in Florida but they wound up with kids being sexually assaulted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They managed to keep families together before...now suddenly they cant?  Has there been an sudden increase in crimes against these children that they can not stay with their mothers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They haven't housed children with adults for a long time. This isn't something Trump implemented. He was complaining about it, in fact, and drawing attention to the fact that, due to the law, that's what happens.
> 
> Trump criticizes separating families at the border, despite his administration's support for policy that could lead to separation - CNNPolitics
> 
> It was happening under Obama, but it wasn't an issue then. It's a humanitarian crisis under Trump, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they kept children with their mothers while awaiting their hearing.  That is new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The recent heartbreaking pic we saw of those children was taken while obama was in office. President Trump is trying to fix the laws so that doesn’t happen.
Click to expand...

Those pictures were when we had that huge influx of unaccompanied minors and there was simply no space to house  them.  A bad situation all around and the picture was wrongly attributed to Trump.  

I fail to see how ripping children away from their mothers is preventing anything.


----------



## pismoe

Coyote said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> They used to put everybody together years ago in Florida but they wound up with kids being sexually assaulted.
> 
> 
> 
> They managed to keep families together before...now suddenly they cant?  Has there been an sudden increase in crimes against these children that they can not stay with their mothers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They haven't housed children with adults for a long time. This isn't something Trump implemented. He was complaining about it, in fact, and drawing attention to the fact that, due to the law, that's what happens.
> 
> Trump criticizes separating families at the border, despite his administration's support for policy that could lead to separation - CNNPolitics
> 
> It was happening under Obama, but it wasn't an issue then. It's a humanitarian crisis under Trump, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they kept children with their mothers while awaiting their hearing.  That is new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The recent heartbreaking pic we saw of those children was taken while obama was in office. President Trump is trying to fix the laws so that doesn’t happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those pictures were when we had that huge influx of unaccompanied minors and there was simply no space to house  them.  A bad situation all around and the picture was wrongly attributed to Trump.
> 
> I fail to see how ripping children away from their mothers is preventing anything.
Click to expand...

-------------------------   as already said , that fine picture was taken under mrobamas administrationCoyote .


----------



## tycho1572

I know your heart is in the right place, Coyote.


----------



## Coyote

pismoe said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what America has come to. Sad. So very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What has it come to?
> 
> The Central American parents send their children here alone.
> They know that our laws are such that we can't ship them back
> and we hold them until they are placed in a foster home.
> 
> The vast majority of these kids that everybody is talking about came
> here alone.  They are missing because the phone calls to the foster homes
> have not been answered.
> 
> When we send a mother to prison we do not let the child go with her.
> Why should we treat those people any different.
> 
> Trump lost 1500...huh?  Obama, according to reports lost over 4100...why
> no outrage then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to know a lot about these children. How many do you know? Personally, I mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know any of them individually.  But I know how their parents
> and their shithhole countries that they come from. are gaming the system.
> 
> And what's your story, Pancho?  Butt-hurt liberal or illegal alien?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your logic is to punish the children for their parents having committed a misdemeanor by crossing the border without papers, why not go all the way, and torture them as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is nonsense.
> 
> We are NOT punishing children.  No more than a convicted felon's child is punished when we send them to prison.
> 
> Do we stop enforcing our laws because the children will be separated from their parents who are acting criminally?
> 
> The answer is a resounding, no!
> 
> As for this nonsense of "human cost", it is nothing more than a phrase designed to instill anguish in political opposition for the purpose of achieving an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.  Who suffers?  The children.  What crime does a 3 yr old commit that is prosecutable under the law? Explain that to the hysterical child, tell him he is NOT being punished  by being ripped from the only family he knows and then try to rationalize a seriously fucked policy here that was NOT in place before.
> 
> And remind me again how your party is pro family cause I sure dont see it in this policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------------   that'd be PRO American family Coyote .
Click to expand...

Oh.  I see.  Pro family depends on pedigree.  How elitist.


----------



## Coyote

tycho1572 said:


> I know your heart is in the right place, Coyote.


My heart is pissed off at the sick attitudes presented here.


----------



## Tresha91203

Coyote said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot house children in adult detention centers. It is common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They used to put everybody together years ago in Florida but they wound up with kids being sexually assaulted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They managed to keep families together before...now suddenly they cant?  Has there been an sudden increase in crimes against these children that they can not stay with their mothers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They haven't housed children with adults for a long time. This isn't something Trump implemented. He was complaining about it, in fact, and drawing attention to the fact that, due to the law, that's what happens.
> 
> Trump criticizes separating families at the border, despite his administration's support for policy that could lead to separation - CNNPolitics
> 
> It was happening under Obama, but it wasn't an issue then. It's a humanitarian crisis under Trump, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they kept children with their mothers while awaiting their hearing.  That is new.
Click to expand...


I believe you are wrong. There were no mothers in the 2014 photos I saw. Do you have a link?


----------



## tycho1572

Coyote said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> They used to put everybody together years ago in Florida but they wound up with kids being sexually assaulted.
> 
> 
> 
> They managed to keep families together before...now suddenly they cant?  Has there been an sudden increase in crimes against these children that they can not stay with their mothers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They haven't housed children with adults for a long time. This isn't something Trump implemented. He was complaining about it, in fact, and drawing attention to the fact that, due to the law, that's what happens.
> 
> Trump criticizes separating families at the border, despite his administration's support for policy that could lead to separation - CNNPolitics
> 
> It was happening under Obama, but it wasn't an issue then. It's a humanitarian crisis under Trump, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they kept children with their mothers while awaiting their hearing.  That is new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The recent heartbreaking pic we saw of those children was taken while obama was in office. President Trump is trying to fix the laws so that doesn’t happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those pictures were when we had that huge influx of unaccompanied minors and there was simply no space to house  them.  A bad situation all around and the picture was wrongly attributed to Trump.
> 
> I fail to see how ripping children away from their mothers is preventing anything.
Click to expand...

Trump is trying to avoid/stop situations like that by strengthening our boarders and laws.


----------



## Coyote

pismoe said:


> with all due respect to Normal Females on the board but what you see in this thread by what i ASSUME to be female posters .   Its the reason i will never vote or support MOST women who ever run for high office or simple power over me and my son and daughters and other Americans .   These ASSUMED women in this thread  are not thoughtful people but are driven by silly emotion .  -------------  JUST a comment , just saying .


You mean silly emotions like all illegals should be shot on sight?


----------



## pismoe

Coyote said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know your heart is in the right place, Coyote.
> 
> 
> 
> My heart is pissed off at the sick attitudes presented here.
Click to expand...

----------------------------------   GOOD  , as far as families go i am PRO American family  and i am pizzed off at the sick unAmerican attitudes of liberal / lefties in this thread  Coyote .


----------



## Tresha91203

Coyote said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the parent's fault. They know that they are breaking the law.
> Many times when US parents break laws their children are put in foster care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not the parents' fault. Trump knows this which is why he is blaming Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------   he is blaming 'dems' / YOU because the moochers in cages photos was taken during 'mrobama' time in office   Busybee .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a clue what you are talking about. We are talking about TRUMP'S decision to separate children from their families. Obama did not start it. Quit blaming Obama for everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TRUMP:  Look, we are going to start enforcing our laws. We've got to get a handle on this. No more catch and release B.S.. Fair warning, If you cross our border illegally, you will be detained. Since we are going to start enforcing our laws, Congress might look at this f'ed up part separating families that's been going on a long time and doesn't seem to be working. Lawmakers need to fix that part.
> 
> MSM:  Trump is threatening to rip apart innocent families because he hates brown people and children.  Here's a photo of caved children under another administration to add drama.
> 
> SHEEP:  Trump is kidnapping and caging children!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact: Sessions has instituted a new policy of removing children from all illegal border crossers.
> 
> RWMedia: But Obama did it.
> 
> Strange Observation:  the number of children being separated is so huge there aren’t enough places for them and HHS has no budget to House them.
> 
> Question: ....but didn’t Obama do it?
> 
> Political talking point scorecard 10.
> 
> Families zero.
Click to expand...


The new policy is to enforce the law. Trump is asking for a fix to this part of the law. Since we won't be ignoring our laws anymore, can we focus on fixing this part of the law, the one before Trump, that even be disagrees with?


----------



## Yousaidwhat

HappyJoy said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are punishing the children
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their parents are punishing those children, and putting them in harm's way, to reap benefits the the parents are not entitled to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, many are attempting to either escape extreme poverty or violence to better their own lives but your way sounds so much more dismissive and palatable.
Click to expand...

If it is so dire and imperative then they should have sought asylum the minute they crossed the Mexican border.


----------



## Coyote

Tresha91203 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot house children in adult detention centers. It is common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They used to put everybody together years ago in Florida but they wound up with kids being sexually assaulted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They managed to keep families together before...now suddenly they cant?  Has there been an sudden increase in crimes against these children that they can not stay with their mothers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They haven't housed children with adults for a long time. This isn't something Trump implemented. He was complaining about it, in fact, and drawing attention to the fact that, due to the law, that's what happens.
> 
> Trump criticizes separating families at the border, despite his administration's support for policy that could lead to separation - CNNPolitics
> 
> It was happening under Obama, but it wasn't an issue then. It's a humanitarian crisis under Trump, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they kept children with their mothers while awaiting their hearing.  That is new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you are wrong. There were no mothers in the 2014 photos I saw. Do you have a link?
Click to expand...


Do you mean the photos currently being circulated again of huge numbers of children in crowded conditions?  2014 saw a flood of unaccompanied minors Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction

The children traveled unaccompanied by parents.


----------



## deltex1

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


The solution is not to bear the burden created by political leaders  in other countries.  The solution is to kill those leaders until the correct ones are chosen.


----------



## tycho1572

Coyote said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> They used to put everybody together years ago in Florida but they wound up with kids being sexually assaulted.
> 
> 
> 
> They managed to keep families together before...now suddenly they cant?  Has there been an sudden increase in crimes against these children that they can not stay with their mothers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They haven't housed children with adults for a long time. This isn't something Trump implemented. He was complaining about it, in fact, and drawing attention to the fact that, due to the law, that's what happens.
> 
> Trump criticizes separating families at the border, despite his administration's support for policy that could lead to separation - CNNPolitics
> 
> It was happening under Obama, but it wasn't an issue then. It's a humanitarian crisis under Trump, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they kept children with their mothers while awaiting their hearing.  That is new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you are wrong. There were no mothers in the 2014 photos I saw. Do you have a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean the photos currently being circulated again of huge numbers of children in crowded conditions?  2014 saw a flood of unaccompanied minors Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction
> 
> The children traveled unaccompanied by parents.
Click to expand...

It’s sad that democrats keep inviting them in while not telling them about our laws.


----------



## tycho1572

Democrats are giving these people false hope.


----------



## Coyote

Tresha91203 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not the parents' fault. Trump knows this which is why he is blaming Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------   he is blaming 'dems' / YOU because the moochers in cages photos was taken during 'mrobama' time in office   Busybee .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a clue what you are talking about. We are talking about TRUMP'S decision to separate children from their families. Obama did not start it. Quit blaming Obama for everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TRUMP:  Look, we are going to start enforcing our laws. We've got to get a handle on this. No more catch and release B.S.. Fair warning, If you cross our border illegally, you will be detained. Since we are going to start enforcing our laws, Congress might look at this f'ed up part separating families that's been going on a long time and doesn't seem to be working. Lawmakers need to fix that part.
> 
> MSM:  Trump is threatening to rip apart innocent families because he hates brown people and children.  Here's a photo of caved children under another administration to add drama.
> 
> SHEEP:  Trump is kidnapping and caging children!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact: Sessions has instituted a new policy of removing children from all illegal border crossers.
> 
> RWMedia: But Obama did it.
> 
> Strange Observation:  the number of children being separated is so huge there aren’t enough places for them and HHS has no budget to House them.
> 
> Question: ....but didn’t Obama do it?
> 
> Political talking point scorecard 10.
> 
> Families zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The new policy is to enforce the law. Trump is asking for a fix to this part of the law. Since we won't be ignoring our laws anymore, can we focus on fixing this part of the law, the one before Trump, that even be disagrees with?
Click to expand...

So a policy of child abuse is now part of the new enforcement of the law and people are going to pretend that the law has no discretionary powers in order to justify this abuse.

So if you are caught jaywalking they can take your children and toss them into foster care because they are only enforcing the law.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the parent's fault. They know that they are breaking the law.
> Many times when US parents break laws their children are put in foster care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not the parents' fault. Trump knows this which is why he is blaming Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------   he is blaming 'dems' / YOU because the moochers in cages photos was taken during 'mrobama' time in office   Busybee .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a clue what you are talking about. We are talking about TRUMP'S decision to separate children from their families. Obama did not start it. Quit blaming Obama for everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TRUMP:  Look, we are going to start enforcing our laws. We've got to get a handle on this. No more catch and release B.S.. Fair warning, If you cross our border illegally, you will be detained. Since we are going to start enforcing our laws, Congress might look at this f'ed up part separating families that's been going on a long time and doesn't seem to be working. Lawmakers need to fix that part.
> 
> MSM:  Trump is threatening to rip apart innocent families because he hates brown people and children.  Here's a photo of caved children under another administration to add drama.
> 
> SHEEP:  Trump is kidnapping and caging children!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact: Sessions has instituted a new policy of removing children from all illegal border crossers.
> 
> RWMedia: But Obama did it.
> 
> Strange Observation:  the number of children being separated is so huge there aren’t enough places for them and HHS has no budget to House them.
> 
> Question: ....but didn’t Obama do it?
> 
> Political talking point scorecard 10.
> 
> Families zero.
Click to expand...


They aren't FAMILIES. These are TRAFFICKERS who are using children, often children that they have PAID someone to use....to get across the border.

You people insist on conflating TRAFFICKERS with FAMILY. Yes, families of TRAFFICKERS are split up when their victims, who often are their own children, are taken from them for their protection. Apparently you think human trafficking is cool, as long as the traffickers claim some relation to their victims?


----------



## pismoe

Coyote said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> with all due respect to Normal Females on the board but what you see in this thread by what i ASSUME to be female posters .   Its the reason i will never vote or support MOST women who ever run for high office or simple power over me and my son and daughters and other Americans .   These ASSUMED women in this thread  are not thoughtful people but are driven by silly emotion .  -------------  JUST a comment , just saying .
> 
> 
> 
> You mean silly emotions like all illegals should be shot on sight?
Click to expand...

-----------------------------------------   yeah , i just won't support them .  Many are quite silly and emotional as they let their emotions or naivete control them .   We are talking about little foreign invader kids in appropriate holding areas and some of these ASSUMED women are going crazy in this thread  .    Course , the same judgement for the effete and feminized [technically male]  male posters Coyote .


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acceptable to whom? It wouldn't occur to the left to adopt a couple of kids or go down to the Border and assist like some Christian charities do. All illegal aliens are to them is a political tool. The left treats illegal entry into the United States like some PITA project where illegals are considered ignorant animals who migrate and have no concept of child care. The U.S. does it's best to respect human life but the responsibilities fall on the illegal aliens who already risked the lives of children getting to the border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The children being separated from their parents aren’t “illegal aliens”. They’re refugees legally seeking asylum.
> 
> Trump doesn’t want asylum seekers. They’re poor, and they legally entitled to a hearing when they ask for asylum. He can’t just send them back where they came from. So he’s taking their children away to discourage them from coming at all.
> 
> This is the most heinous disgusting thing Trump has done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Asylum Fraud is a huge problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that is what hearings determine. Until then they are not illegal.
Click to expand...


Really. 

Can you cite that law?


----------



## Hugo Furst

busybee01 said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...those children had arrived alone at the Southwest border — without their parents. Most of them are from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, and were fleeing drug cartels, gang violence and domestic abuse, according to government data." And a lot of them are gang members themselves.
> 
> "...the department’s office of refugee resettlement began voluntarily making the calls as a 30-day follow-up to make sure that the children and their sponsors did not require additional services. Those calls, which the office does not view as required, Mr. Hargan said, are now “being used to confuse and spread misinformation.”
> 
> In many cases, the statement said, sponsors cannot be reached because “they themselves are illegal aliens and do not want to be reached by federal authorities.”
> Did the Trump Administration Separate Immigrant Children From Parents and Lose Them?
> 
> The left has trafficked gang members and criminals into the US, and now that they've *disappeared* they want to blame Trump?
> 
> Fucking ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens is people show up with kids that aren't theirs, or that they're using as mules, and we remove the kids for their own safety.
> 
> Of course the left doesn't like that. Children are disposable, and are supposed to be used by adults to get over the border. The left embraces trafficking, and is going to squawk when you protect children. They always have.
> 
> “As required by law, D.H.S. must protect the best interests of minor children crossing our borders, and occasionally this results in separating children from an adult they are traveling with if we cannot ascertain the parental relationship, or if we think the child is otherwise in danger,”
> 
> Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents at U.S. Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is so much bullshit and trash like you know it. The Trump people are separating children from their parents. They know it is wrong because they are blaming democrats for it. This is happening more than occasionally.
> 
> Got anymore BULLSHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They know it is wrong because they are blaming democrats for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Couldn't possibly be because it started under Obama, could it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know that is garbage. Even Trump supporters don't buy that.
Click to expand...


Maybe you should look it up.


----------



## Coyote

tycho1572 said:


> Democrats are giving these people false hope.


This should not be a partisan issue.  No one is saying open up the borders and let them all in. This is a specific policy carried out to an unnecessary and abusive extreme that most damages those who have the least control over their destinies.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are giving these people false hope.
> 
> 
> 
> This should not be a partisan issue.  No one is saying open up the borders and let them all in. This is a specific policy carried out to an unnecessary and abusive extreme that most damages those who have the least control over their destinies.
Click to expand...


Yes well until now, even the left has pretended to be anti-human trafficking. 

Apparently they've changed. Probably because it's a respected profession among muslims and MS13.


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> What happens is people show up with kids that aren't theirs, or that they're using as mules, and we remove the kids for their own safety.
> 
> Of course the left doesn't like that. Children are disposable, and are supposed to be used by adults to get over the border. The left embraces trafficking, and is going to squawk when you protect children. They always have.
> 
> “As required by law, D.H.S. must protect the best interests of minor children crossing our borders, and occasionally this results in separating children from an adult they are traveling with if we cannot ascertain the parental relationship, or if we think the child is otherwise in danger,”
> 
> Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents at U.S. Border


Did you miss the word “occasionally”?  I have no issue with removing a child from someone suspected of not being family or trafficking.  But as pointed out, it happens occasionally.

100% is not occasional.


----------



## Norman

Coyote said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are giving these people false hope.
> 
> 
> 
> This should not be a partisan issue.  No one is saying open up the borders and let them all in. This is a specific policy carried out to an unnecessary and abusive extreme that most damages those who have the least control over their destinies.
Click to expand...


This is precisely letting any one of them in who has a child shield. Which will be everyone if such stupidity is allowed to happen.


----------



## Kondor3

HappyJoy said:


> ...The United States is also separating families for those legally seeking asylum...


That right? Tough luck.



> ...Plus, many immigrants are escaping extreme poverty or violence...


Not our problem... it's theirs... let 'em "escape" into some *OTHER* country for once, and stay-the-hell outta mine.



> ...Time to send what message?...


That the United States is for American Citizens, that America now enforces its laws and borders, and that if you come here illegally, you and your family do so at your own risk.



> ...That the United States doesn't care about family values now that the family values party is in control?


That the United States is for American Citizens, that America now enforces its laws and borders, and that if you come here illegally, you and your family do so at your own risk.


----------



## tycho1572

Coyote said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are giving these people false hope.
> 
> 
> 
> This should not be a partisan issue.  No one is saying open up the borders and let them all in. This is a specific policy carried out to an unnecessary and abusive extreme that most damages those who have the least control over their destinies.
Click to expand...

You’re still equating that pic from the obama years to Trump.

Here’s a woman who understands the importance of having immigration laws. Her husband was recently deported.....

I blame democrats for that.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens is people show up with kids that aren't theirs, or that they're using as mules, and we remove the kids for their own safety.
> 
> Of course the left doesn't like that. Children are disposable, and are supposed to be used by adults to get over the border. The left embraces trafficking, and is going to squawk when you protect children. They always have.
> 
> “As required by law, D.H.S. must protect the best interests of minor children crossing our borders, and occasionally this results in separating children from an adult they are traveling with if we cannot ascertain the parental relationship, or if we think the child is otherwise in danger,”
> 
> Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents at U.S. Border
> 
> 
> 
> Did you miss the word “occasionally”?  I have no issue with removing a child from someone suspected of not being family or trafficking.  But as pointed out, it happens occasionally.
> 
> 100% is not occasional.
Click to expand...

Actually, it happens a lot. 

And you are pretending that when it happens, it's Trump splitting up families. 

That's the lie the traffickers want everybody to believe.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

tycho1572 said:


> My heart is pissed off at the sick attitudes presented here.




It doesn't get much sicker than wanting to flood the developed world with primitive misogynists and then laughing when they rape the children of the lands they have entered and want to take over. .


----------



## pismoe

Coyote said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are giving these people false hope.
> 
> 
> 
> This should not be a partisan issue.  No one is saying open up the borders and let them all in. This is a specific policy carried out to an unnecessary and abusive extreme that most damages those who have the least control over their destinies.
Click to expand...

---------------------------------   [chuckle]   , they are young , they'll get through it Coyote .


----------



## Coyote

deltex1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> The solution is not to bear the burden created by political leaders  in other countries.  The solution is to kill those leaders until the correct ones are chosen.
Click to expand...

That is one solution I suppose....didn’t work too well in the ME though did it?  And it won’t


tycho1572 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are giving these people false hope.
> 
> 
> 
> This should not be a partisan issue.  No one is saying open up the borders and let them all in. This is a specific policy carried out to an unnecessary and abusive extreme that most damages those who have the least control over their destinies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re still equating that pic from the obama years to Trump.
> 
> Here’s a woman who understands the importance of having immigration laws. Her husband was recently deported.....
> 
> I blame democrats for that.
Click to expand...

No I am not.  I am perfectly aware of when those pictures were taken and what was happening at the time.  Not arguing about needing or not needing immigration laws, of course we need them.  I am arguing about a specific new policy that is taking it to an abusive extreme.


----------



## pismoe

Norman said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are giving these people false hope.
> 
> 
> 
> This should not be a partisan issue.  No one is saying open up the borders and let them all in. This is a specific policy carried out to an unnecessary and abusive extreme that most damages those who have the least control over their destinies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is precisely letting any one of them in who has a child shield. Which will be everyone if such stupidity is allowed to happen.
Click to expand...

------------------------------------------   'mexican' child Shields , i like those 3 words as they very accurately describe whats going on Norman .


----------



## tycho1572

Coyote said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> The solution is not to bear the burden created by political leaders  in other countries.  The solution is to kill those leaders until the correct ones are chosen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is one solution I suppose....didn’t work too well in the ME though did it?  And it won’t
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are giving these people false hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This should not be a partisan issue.  No one is saying open up the borders and let them all in. This is a specific policy carried out to an unnecessary and abusive extreme that most damages those who have the least control over their destinies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re still equating that pic from the obama years to Trump.
> 
> Here’s a woman who understands the importance of having immigration laws. Her husband was recently deported.....
> 
> I blame democrats for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I am not.  I am perfectly aware of when those pictures were taken and what was happening at the time.  Not arguing about needing or not needing immigration laws, of course we need them.  I am arguing about a specific new policy that is taking it to an abusive extreme.
Click to expand...

What new policy is that, princess?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
Click to expand...


What about the illegal immigrants who came here only to commit crimes and in some cases KILL a law abiding American citizen? Is that cost worth the compassion you wish to give these people? There is human cost on both sides. I'd much rather a parent not risk a child's life and future smuggling them across the border than a criminal illegal immigrant taking the life of an American citizen. 

What is evil is ruining your child's future before it even starts, you know, by smuggling them illegally across our border. So, the parents should save themselves and their children some grief and stay on their side of the border.

Actions have consequences. If that means losing your child because of your selfish ambitions, then so be it.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about the illegal immigrants who came here only to commit crimes and in some cases KILL a law abiding American citizen? Is that cost worth the compassion you wish to give these people? There is human cost on both sides. I'd much rather a parent not risk a child's life and future smuggling them across the border than a criminal illegal immigrant taking the life of an American citizen.
> 
> What is evil is ruining your child's future before it even starts, you know, by smuggling them illegally across our border. So, the parents should save themselves and their children some grief and stay on their side of the border.
> 
> Actions have consequences. If that means losing your child because of your selfish ambitions, then so be it.
Click to expand...


What about’s are good for other potential discussions but not really relevant to this, a specific policy.   In fact they distract from the issue.  Tell me this, what do you think of this particular policy, not immigration in general.  Is this policy the way you feel is the right way to handle the issue?  Can people ever go too far when it comes to addressing illegal immigration?


----------



## koshergrl

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about the illegal immigrants who came here only to commit crimes and in some cases KILL a law abiding American citizen? Is that cost worth the compassion you wish to give these people? There is human cost on both sides. I'd much rather a parent not risk a child's life and future smuggling them across the border than a criminal illegal immigrant taking the life of an American citizen.
> 
> What is evil is ruining your child's future before it even starts, you know, by smuggling them illegally across our border. So, the parents should save themselves and their children some grief and stay on their side of the border.
> 
> Actions have consequences. If that means losing your child because of your selfish ambitions, then so be it.
Click to expand...

Criminals who traffic children, even their own, deserve to lose their kids. 

And that's what's happening. I'm sick of leftists whining that it's cruel to separate children from fucking traffickers.


----------



## TemplarKormac

HappyJoy said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
Click to expand...


LOL.

No.

If your ambitions and life goals are worth losing your children over, then you are not fit to be a parent. Because that's what you're doing. You're not making your life better, nor are you enriching your child's life by coming here illegally. You are subjecting yourself to unnecessary grief and hardship.

So what is truly evil? Enforcing the law or doing things like this to your family all for the sake of a so-called "better life"?

I could go on and on about how wrong it is to put your goals and ambitions over that of your children but then again, if we truly cared about the children we wouldn't be smuggling them across the border, only to have them separated from their parents, now would we?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> What about’s are good for other potential discussions but not really relevant to this, a specific policy.



Not quite sure what you were trying to say here...


----------



## Kondor3

Based on the reactions of Lib-Prog-Dems in this thread, I'd say the Policy is having the desired effect so far.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


What human cost are you willing to foist on US citizens in order to sooth your feelings over the treatment of illegal aliens?


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about’s are good for other potential discussions but not really relevant to this, a specific policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite sure what you were trying to say here...
Click to expand...

Immigration is a huge issue, with a lot of policies, laws, and strong opinions.  It is hard to focus on one particular aspect without going off on all kinds of tangents.  I don’t care about who is to blame, in fact it is irrelevant.  Blame is useless and changes nothing.  Is it possible to have enforcement policies that go too far?  Does this particular policy go too far?


----------



## protectionist

Coyote said:


> read the OP.


I don't see anything in the OP about  the country of origin stepping up to the plate, or the country of origin doing anything.


----------



## Coyote

protectionist said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> read the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see anything in the OP about  the country of origin stepping up to the plate, or the country of origin Doing anything.
Click to expand...

They have no bearing on the policy.


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite sure what you were trying to say here...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means she wants you to shut up so she can control the thread content.
Click to expand...

Are you going to continue trolling me or take a stab at the actual topic?


----------



## protectionist

Coyote said:


> They have no bearing on the policy.


Then what's the point of reading the OP ?


----------



## tycho1572

Can you understand why President Trump is working hard to fix this problem, Coyote?


----------



## Coyote

tycho1572 said:


> Can you understand why President Trump is working hard to fix this problem, Coyote?


No Tycho our reverent President is to busy tweeting.  In fact, it’s been so noisy I suspect there are birds nesting in his toupe.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about’s are good for other potential discussions but not really relevant to this, a specific policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite sure what you were trying to say here...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Immigration is a huge issue, with a lot of policies, laws, and strong opinions.  It is hard to focus on one particular aspect without going off on all kinds of tangents.  I don’t care about who is to blame, in fact it is irrelevant.  Blame is useless and changes nothing.  Is it possible to have enforcement policies that go too far?  Does this particular policy go too far?
Click to expand...

Why do you have an issue with assigning blame? It pretty simple. You drag your kid into a country illegally it’s your fault. You send your kid alone into another country illegally it’s your fault. None of this falls on us.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Coyote said:


> No Tycho our reverent President is to busy tweeting. In fact, it’s been so noisy I suspect there are birds nesting in his toupe.


I laughed.


----------



## AVG-JOE

The answer to illegal immigration in America is the same answer for illegal immigration in Europe:

Foreign policy that fixes the countries these people are coming from instead of foreign policy that exploits the countries these people are coming from while enriching unpopular dictators.


----------



## protectionist

Coyote said:


> There is no free pass being given by allowing children to stay with parents as they await their hearing.  They have always been able to remove children they suspect might not belong to the "parents" but that is not the case here.


When AMERICAN criminals are arrested (and can't make bail), they are put in county jails, to await trial.  Are their kids with THEM ?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Is it possible to have enforcement policies that go too far? Does this particular policy go too far?



For the first question,  the best way not to lose your children is to obey the law. We have laws here in the United States that take children from their families if the parents prove to be derelict in their duties as well, parents. Why no outrage over those? Sometimes these parents are derelict because they cannot afford to raise their children. Some through no fault of their own.

And as for other policies, yes, they can go too far, that's why we have a court system to weed out the excess.

To the latter question, the simple answer is no. Like I said before, if you don't want to have your family ripped apart because you violated our national sovereignty by coming here illegally, then use a bit of common sense. Respect our laws and we will respect the structural integrity of your family. Easy.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible to have enforcement policies that go too far? Does this particular policy go too far?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the first question,  the best way not to lose your children is to obey the law. We have laws here in the United States that take children from their families if the parents prove to be derelict in duties as well, parents. Why no outrage over those? Sometimes these parents are derelict because they cannot afford to raise their children. Some through no fault of their own.
> 
> And as for other policies, yes, they can go too far, that's why we have a court system to weed out the excess.
> 
> To the latter question, the simple answer is no. Like I said before, if you don't want to have your family ripped apart because you violated our national sovereignty by coming here illegally, then use a bit of common sense. Respect our laws and we will respect the structural integrity of your family.
Click to expand...

But what about the effect of the policy on the children themselves?  Is there a point at which punishing the parents for their behavior becomes punishing the kids?  You see every argument turns into something like “the parents deserve it because they did wrong”...ok....let’s accept that now for the sake of the argument.  But do the kids deserve it?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

AVG-JOE said:


> The answer to illegal immigration in America is the same answer for illegal immigration in Europe:
> 
> Foreign policy that fixes the countries these people are coming from instead of foreign policy that exploits the countries these people are coming from while enriching unpopular dictators.


In other words, let's blow the shit out of Mexico.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about’s are good for other potential discussions but not really relevant to this, a specific policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite sure what you were trying to say here...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Immigration is a huge issue, with a lot of policies, laws, and strong opinions.  It is hard to focus on one particular aspect without going off on all kinds of tangents.  I don’t care about who is to blame, in fact it is irrelevant.  Blame is useless and changes nothing.  Is it possible to have enforcement policies that go too far?  Does this particular policy go too far?
Click to expand...

It's a sign that we have reached the end of civilization when people can be raised in our culture without understanding how patently depraved it is to tolerate child trafficking.


----------



## protectionist

AVG-JOE said:


> The answer to illegal immigration in America is the same answer for illegal immigration in Europe:
> 
> Foreign policy that fixes the countries these people are coming from instead of foreign policy that exploits the countries these people are coming from while enriching unpopular dictators.


And none is more fitting to that scenario than Mexico.  A train wreck nation where monopolies (led by plutocrats) control the major industries.  And just for these few selfish fiends, millions of Mexicans suffer, and the fiend country uses them to attack the USA, with tens of Billions$$ extracted from the US economy.

The separated children soon remain separated (now under Trump's policies) when their parents are deported, but the growing up kids soon replace their parents as remittance pillagers of the US economy + pillagers of US tax treasuries, and carry on the Mexican imperialism their country loves so much.


----------



## tycho1572

Coyote said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you understand why President Trump is working hard to fix this problem, Coyote?
> 
> 
> 
> No Tycho our reverent President is to busy tweeting.  In fact, it’s been so noisy I suspect there are birds nesting in his toupe.
Click to expand...

Is it safe for me to assume you’re good with democrats allowing people to be lured into unspeakable circumstances?


----------



## AVG-JOE

AVG-JOE said:


> The answer to illegal immigration in America is the same answer for illegal immigration in Europe:
> 
> Foreign policy that fixes the countries these people are coming from instead of foreign policy that exploits the countries these people are coming from while enriching unpopular dictators.





Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> In other words, let's blow the shit out of Mexico.



I was thinking more along the lines of crippling the cartels by legalizing weed.  

But I'm a 'progressive', apparently


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> But what about the effect of the policy on the children themselves?



I'm curious about something...

Are the parents considering the effect on their children when they smuggle them across the border illegally? Do they consider the effect this policy will have on their child? 

I don't think they do.


----------



## Coyote

tycho1572 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you understand why President Trump is working hard to fix this problem, Coyote?
> 
> 
> 
> No Tycho our reverent President is to busy tweeting.  In fact, it’s been so noisy I suspect there are birds nesting in his toupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it safe for me to assume that you’re good with democrats allowing people to be lured into unspeakable circumstances?
Click to expand...

You think it is just a partisan issue then?


----------



## koshergrl

tycho1572 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you understand why President Trump is working hard to fix this problem, Coyote?
> 
> 
> 
> No Tycho our reverent President is to busy tweeting.  In fact, it’s been so noisy I suspect there are birds nesting in his toupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it safe for me to assume that you’re good with democrats allowing people to be lured into unspeakable circumstances?
Click to expand...

She will tolerate anything in the name of tolerance...
Except protection of children. She won't tolerate that.


----------



## tycho1572

Coyote said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you understand why President Trump is working hard to fix this problem, Coyote?
> 
> 
> 
> No Tycho our reverent President is to busy tweeting.  In fact, it’s been so noisy I suspect there are birds nesting in his toupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it safe for me to assume that you’re good with democrats allowing people to be lured into unspeakable circumstances?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think it is just a partisan issue then?
Click to expand...

It’s a humanitarian issue for me.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what about the effect of the policy on the children themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious about something...
> 
> Are the parents considering the effect on their children when they smuggle them across the border illegally? Do they consider the effect this policy will have on their child?
> 
> I don't think they do.
Click to expand...

Yes I think they do.  Very much so.  The journey is very dangerous, and often they are fleeing dangerous conditions in their own countries including threats to their children if they don’t join cartels or gangs, even rape.  Often it is the sort of thing only desperate people would do.  So yes I do believe they think of their children.  What would you choose....having your daughter raped by a gang member because you refused to allow your son to serve as a runner for them and the police are either too corrupt or too afraid to do anything about it...or attempting a dangerous where, if you make it your family might be relatively safe?


----------



## Coyote

tycho1572 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you understand why President Trump is working hard to fix this problem, Coyote?
> 
> 
> 
> No Tycho our reverent President is to busy tweeting.  In fact, it’s been so noisy I suspect there are birds nesting in his toupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it safe for me to assume that you’re good with democrats allowing people to be lured into unspeakable circumstances?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think it is just a partisan issue then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a humanitarian issue for me.
Click to expand...

Likewise.


----------



## Coyote

Missouri_Mike said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about’s are good for other potential discussions but not really relevant to this, a specific policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite sure what you were trying to say here...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Immigration is a huge issue, with a lot of policies, laws, and strong opinions.  It is hard to focus on one particular aspect without going off on all kinds of tangents.  I don’t care about who is to blame, in fact it is irrelevant.  Blame is useless and changes nothing.  Is it possible to have enforcement policies that go too far?  Does this particular policy go too far?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you have an issue with assigning blame? It pretty simple. You drag your kid into a country illegally it’s your fault. You send your kid alone into another country illegally it’s your fault. None of this falls on us.
Click to expand...

What point is there to blame, what does blame resolve except to make you feel self righteous?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Is there a point at which punishing the parents for their behavior becomes punishing the kids?



No. The punishment inflicted on the child is the parent's fault. You have a very kind and sweet heart, Coyote, but at some point the compassion has to end, and law and order must begin. We cannot dilute the law to a point where it is satisfactorily amiable to those of us on the inside looking out. Law has no purpose if we refuse to enforce it or we change it to a point where it has no effectiveness.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> You see every argument turns into something like “the parents deserve it because they did wrong”...ok....let’s accept that now for the sake of the argument. *But do the kids deserve it?*



I'm sorry to keep going down that path, but the answer is this:

The parents thought they did.


----------



## tycho1572

Coyote said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you understand why President Trump is working hard to fix this problem, Coyote?
> 
> 
> 
> No Tycho our reverent President is to busy tweeting.  In fact, it’s been so noisy I suspect there are birds nesting in his toupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it safe for me to assume that you’re good with democrats allowing people to be lured into unspeakable circumstances?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think it is just a partisan issue then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a humanitarian issue for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Likewise.
Click to expand...

I know that. We just see things differently.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a point at which punishing the parents for their behavior becomes punishing the kids?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The punishment inflicted on the child is the parent's fault. You have a very kind and sweet heart, Coyote, but at some point the compassion has to end, and law and order must begin. We cannot dilute the law to a point where it is satisfactorily amiable to those of us looking out from the inside. Law has no purpose if we refuse to enforce it or we change it to a point that it has no effectiveness.
Click to expand...


But TK...you are still missing the point.  Ok, let us say it is the parents fault.  Is what is being done to these kids worth it?  Is the cost paid by the children worth the punishment inflicted on the children?  Does that make sense?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Is what is being done to these kids worth it?


That's my point.

Is violating our laws worth losing your child over? Is it worth the trauma you are subjecting your child to?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Is the cost paid by the children worth the punishment inflicted on the children? Does that make sense?



No. To avoid the cost, don't commit to the transaction. I am flummoxed by how hard this is for some people to understand. 

Cause and effect. *Don't like the effect? Don't be the cause. *


----------



## Borillar

What do they do with these kids once they separate them from their parents? Medical experiments? Slaves to the wealthy? Soylent Green?


----------



## Coyote

The Law has discretion, crimes have degrees, and there is a wide range of acceptable penalties and the degree to which it is enforced.  That is a good, it allows judges and enforcement to consider circumstances including what is best for all affected parties while still following the law.  That means if immigration enforcement apprehend adults with children and they suspect that they are not the parents and human trafficking might be occurring, they can seperate them.  Likewise, if they think that the adult is in fact the child’s mother they can keep them together until the hearing decides whether they will stay or be deported, as a unit.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the cost paid by the children worth the punishment inflicted on the children? Does that make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. To avoid the cost, don't commit to the transaction. I am flummoxed by how hard this is for some people to understand.
> 
> Cause and effect. *Don't like the effect? Don't be the cause. *
Click to expand...

Fine.  But the kids pay.  What did the kids do wrong?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> But TK...you are still missing the point.



No, I'm not. I see the issue quite clearly. All in all, this is unfair to the child. No child should have to experience the trauma of being taken away from their parents. However, the parents are selfish for putting their child through that  kind of trauma in the first place.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> But TK...you are still missing the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not. I see the issue quite clearly. All in all this is unfair to the child. No child should have to experience the trauma of being taken away from their parents. However, the parents are selfish for putting their child through that  kind of trauma in the first place.
Click to expand...


Ok.  Let’s say the parents are selfish.  Is this a good policy?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the cost paid by the children worth the punishment inflicted on the children? Does that make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. To avoid the cost, don't commit to the transaction. I am flummoxed by how hard this is for some people to understand.
> 
> Cause and effect. *Don't like the effect? Don't be the cause. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine.  But the kids pay.  What did the kids do wrong?
Click to expand...


Nothing. That is why the parents are to blame. They are the ones who chose to bring their child(ren) into this world, and they more than likely were the ones who chose to smuggle their child(ren) across the border illegally. Did they honestly think there would be no consequences for the child once they got here? That is sheer ignorance, and a folly of the highest order of magnitude.


----------



## william the wie

Since the only coin the parents have are the kids Mommy and daddy are going to get whacked when they get back to central America for failure to pay.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Ok. Let’s say the parents are selfish. Is this a good policy?



The selfishness or the law?


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the cost paid by the children worth the punishment inflicted on the children? Does that make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. To avoid the cost, don't commit to the transaction. I am flummoxed by how hard this is for some people to understand.
> 
> Cause and effect. *Don't like the effect? Don't be the cause. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine.  But the kids pay.  What did the kids do wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing. That is why the parents are to blame. They are the ones who chose to bring their child(ren) into this world, and they more than likely were the ones who chose to smuggle their child(ren) across the border illegally. Did they honestly think there would be no consequences for the child once they got here? That is sheer ignorance, and a folly of the highest order of magnitude.
Click to expand...


Ok.  The kids did nothing wrong but they are being punished.  How is that just?


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Let’s say the parents are selfish. Is this a good policy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The selfishness or the law?
Click to expand...


Obviously selfishness is bad policy .  The policy Sessions put in p,ace regarding how he will enforce the law?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> The Law has discretion, crimes have degrees, and there is a wide range of acceptable penalties and the degree to which it is enforced.



And human beings have the ability to exercise better judgement. They should be able to deem what is acceptable and what isn't. 

Tell me, what is wrong with smuggling an innocent child across the border? In this case, the punishment should fit the crime. 

And curiously... in cases of unaccompanied minors, why are they unaccompanied? Where are their parents?

This is ludicrous. All of it.


----------



## tycho1572

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the cost paid by the children worth the punishment inflicted on the children? Does that make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. To avoid the cost, don't commit to the transaction. I am flummoxed by how hard this is for some people to understand.
> 
> Cause and effect. *Don't like the effect? Don't be the cause. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine.  But the kids pay.  What did the kids do wrong?
Click to expand...

The kids pay because their parents violated our laws. Why are these parents violating our laws? Because democrats keep telling them they can!


----------



## Coyote

tycho1572 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the cost paid by the children worth the punishment inflicted on the children? Does that make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. To avoid the cost, don't commit to the transaction. I am flummoxed by how hard this is for some people to understand.
> 
> Cause and effect. *Don't like the effect? Don't be the cause. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine.  But the kids pay.  What did the kids do wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The kids pay because their parents violated our laws. Why are these parents violating our laws? Because democrats keep telling them they can!
Click to expand...

Except that doesn’t make sense since deportations were way up under a Democrat president...

Should the kids have to pay?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Let’s say the parents are selfish. Is this a good policy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The selfishness or the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously selfishness is bad policy .  The policy Sessions put in place regarding how he will enforce the law?
Click to expand...


Now see here! I'm not a tongue type of guy!

In all seriousness, yes. It is a good, fitting policy. I don't think any parent deserves to keep their child when they subject them to this hellish process, no matter how well intentioned they might have been.

A good thing to do, instead of teaching illegals how to skirt our immigration laws, teach them how to obey our immigration laws. These parents are often ignorant of the policy changes being made in the US on a daily basis. This is also another reason why they lose their children when they get here.


----------



## Coyote

B


TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Law has discretion, crimes have degrees, and there is a wide range of acceptable penalties and the degree to which it is enforced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And human beings have the ability to exercise better judgement. They should be able to deem what is acceptable and what isn't.
> 
> Tell me, what is wrong with smuggling an innocent child across the border? In this case, the punishment should fit the crime.
> 
> And curiously... in cases of unaccompanied minors, why are they unaccompanied? Where are their parents?
> 
> This is ludicrous. All of it.
Click to expand...

But the punishment is on child. What crime of the child is it fitting?


----------



## Manonthestreet

If it saves just one American life wall is worth it


----------



## boedicca

What Human Cost is Tolerable to promote open, uncontrolled borders?


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Let’s say the parents are selfish. Is this a good policy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The selfishness or the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously selfishness is bad policy .  The policy Sessions put in place regarding how he will enforce the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now see here! I'm not a tongue type of guy!
> 
> In all seriousness, yes. It is a good, fitting policy. I don't think any parent deserves to keep their child when they subject them to this hellish process, no matter how well intentioned they might have been.
> 
> A good thing to do, instead of teaching illegals how to skirt our immigration laws, teach them how to obey our immigration. These parents are often ignorant of the policy changes being made in the US on a daily basis. This is also another reason why they lose their children when they get here.
Click to expand...

I don’t agree, but that is one way of looking at it.

If a parent is making the difficult choice to leave a horrible situation, they are not a bad parent.  They do not deserve to lose their child, and child is not better off in a foster care system riddled with problems and abuses, overwhelmed with numbers.  It is a nightmare, not a blessing for the child.


----------



## tycho1572

Coyote said:


> B
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Law has discretion, crimes have degrees, and there is a wide range of acceptable penalties and the degree to which it is enforced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And human beings have the ability to exercise better judgement. They should be able to deem what is acceptable and what isn't.
> 
> Tell me, what is wrong with smuggling an innocent child across the border? In this case, the punishment should fit the crime.
> 
> And curiously... in cases of unaccompanied minors, why are they unaccompanied? Where are their parents?
> 
> This is ludicrous. All of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the punishment is on child. What crime of the child is it fitting?
Click to expand...

That would be a good question for the democrats who keep blocking a solution to this problem.


----------



## Coyote

boedicca said:


> What Human Cost is Tolerable to promote open, uncontrolled borders?


That isn’t the issue.


----------



## Coyote

tycho1572 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the cost paid by the children worth the punishment inflicted on the children? Does that make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. To avoid the cost, don't commit to the transaction. I am flummoxed by how hard this is for some people to understand.
> 
> Cause and effect. *Don't like the effect? Don't be the cause. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine.  But the kids pay.  What did the kids do wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The kids pay because their parents violated our laws. Why are these parents violating our laws? Because democrats keep telling them they can!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that doesn’t make sense since deportations were way up under a Democrat president...
> 
> Should the kids have to pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This problem is trying to fixed by Trump. Can you expla
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> B
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Law has discretion, crimes have degrees, and there is a wide range of acceptable penalties and the degree to which it is enforced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And human beings have the ability to exercise better judgement. They should be able to deem what is acceptable and what isn't.
> 
> Tell me, what is wrong with smuggling an innocent child across the border? In this case, the punishment should fit the crime.
> 
> And curiously... in cases of unaccompanied minors, why are they unaccompanied? Where are their parents?
> 
> This is ludicrous. All of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the punishment is on child. What crime of the child is it fitting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be a good question for the democrats who keep blocking a solution to this problem.
Click to expand...

Last I heard Trump agreed to a bill and then changed his mind at the last minute.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> But the punishment is on child.



No, it's not. And if it were, then the punishment is being inflicted on the child by a careless parent.

When a crime is committed, something of value or endearment must be taken away from you as punishment.

If you kill someone, then your freedom and/or your life.
If you steal, your freedom.
If you commit financial crimes, your money.

And unfortunately, in this case, when you smuggle a live human child across the border of our country for the sole purpose of coming here illegally, your child. The child has done nothing wrong. The parent on the other hand has, in my mind, done something patently unforgivable.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Let’s say the parents are selfish. Is this a good policy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The selfishness or the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously selfishness is bad policy .  The policy Sessions put in place regarding how he will enforce the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now see here! I'm not a tongue type of guy!
> 
> In all seriousness, yes. It is a good, fitting policy. I don't think any parent deserves to keep their child when they subject them to this hellish process, no matter how well intentioned they might have been.
> 
> A good thing to do, instead of teaching illegals how to skirt our immigration laws, teach them how to obey our immigration laws. These parents are often ignorant of the policy changes being made in the US on a daily basis. This is also another reason why they lose their children when they get here.
Click to expand...


Actually I believe they know everything that's going on in our country.  I believe they knew about Trump being our President and how anti-illegal immigration he is, but they came anyway to see if they can start trouble among the citizens just to get in.


----------



## tycho1572

Coyote said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. To avoid the cost, don't commit to the transaction. I am flummoxed by how hard this is for some people to understand.
> 
> Cause and effect. *Don't like the effect? Don't be the cause. *
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.  But the kids pay.  What did the kids do wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The kids pay because their parents violated our laws. Why are these parents violating our laws? Because democrats keep telling them they can!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that doesn’t make sense since deportations were way up under a Democrat president...
> 
> Should the kids have to pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This problem is trying to fixed by Trump. Can you expla
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> B
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Law has discretion, crimes have degrees, and there is a wide range of acceptable penalties and the degree to which it is enforced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And human beings have the ability to exercise better judgement. They should be able to deem what is acceptable and what isn't.
> 
> Tell me, what is wrong with smuggling an innocent child across the border? In this case, the punishment should fit the crime.
> 
> And curiously... in cases of unaccompanied minors, why are they unaccompanied? Where are their parents?
> 
> This is ludicrous. All of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the punishment is on child. What crime of the child is it fitting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be a good question for the democrats who keep blocking a solution to this problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I heard Trump agreed to a bill and then changed his mind at the last minute.
Click to expand...

What bill was that?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the cost paid by the children worth the punishment inflicted on the children? Does that make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. To avoid the cost, don't commit to the transaction. I am flummoxed by how hard this is for some people to understand.
> 
> Cause and effect. *Don't like the effect? Don't be the cause. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine.  But the kids pay.  What did the kids do wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The kids pay because their parents violated our laws. Why are these parents violating our laws? Because democrats keep telling them they can!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that doesn’t make sense since deportations were way up under a Democrat president...
> 
> Should the kids have to pay?
Click to expand...


LA Times

Court Deportations Drop 43 Percent in Past Five Years


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the punishment is on child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. And if it were, then the punishment is being inflicted on the child by a careless parent.
> 
> When a crime is committed, something of value or endearment must be taken away from you as punishment.
> 
> If you kill someone, then your freedom and/or your life.
> If you steal, your freedom.
> If you commit financial crimes, your money.
> 
> And unfortunately, in this case, when you smuggle a live human child across the border of our country for the sole purpose of coming here illegally, your child. The child has done nothing wrong. The parent on the other hand has, in my mind,done something patently unforgivable.
Click to expand...


Ok....I think in this case you way wrong....because a child isn’t a thing or property.  It is a person with rights as well.  That is why we don’t punish children for what their parents did.  Though we used to.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> If a parent is making the difficult choice to leave a horrible situation, they are not a bad parent.



If they are going to subject their child to a horrible situation, just to escape another horrible situation, what has changed for the child, Coyote?


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the cost paid by the children worth the punishment inflicted on the children? Does that make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. To avoid the cost, don't commit to the transaction. I am flummoxed by how hard this is for some people to understand.
> 
> Cause and effect. *Don't like the effect? Don't be the cause. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine.  But the kids pay.  What did the kids do wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The kids pay because their parents violated our laws. Why are these parents violating our laws? Because democrats keep telling them they can!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that doesn’t make sense since deportations were way up under a Democrat president...
> 
> Should the kids have to pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LA Times
> 
> Court Deportations Drop 43 Percent in Past Five Years
Click to expand...


“While Mr. Obama *has deported more foreigners than any other president, *the pace of deportations has recently declined.”


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a parent is making the difficult choice to leave a horrible situation, they are not a bad parent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they are going to subject their child to a horrible situation, just to escape another horrible situation, what has changed for the child, Coyote?
Click to expand...

The situation they were leaving was worse.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Ok....I think in this case you way wrong....because a child isn’t a thing or property. It is a person with rights as well. That is why we don’t punish children for what their parents did. Though we used to.



The one thing you're failing to realize is that I'm not wanting the child to be punished. I want the child to be treated like a human being. Apparently the parents seem to think they are "things" or "property" because they have to smuggle them. Yes. What do you do with drugs if you're in a drug cartel? You smuggle them. What do you do if you're a thief with stolen property and need to get your filched goods from one place to another? You smuggle them.

You're right, they aren't things or property, but their parents are using them as leverage over another sovereign government in order to get here themselves. That, Coyote, is not acceptable.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> The Law has discretion, crimes have degrees, and there is a wide range of acceptable penalties and the degree to which it is enforced.  That is a good, it allows judges and enforcement to consider circumstances including what is best for all affected parties while still following the law.  That means if immigration enforcement apprehend adults with children and they suspect that they are not the parents and human trafficking might be occurring, they can seperate them.  Likewise, if they think that the adult is in fact the child’s mother they can keep them together until the hearing decides whether they will stay or be deported, as a unit.



So that's how we should do things, by the way people "think?"  

I'm sorry, but "thinking" is not acceptable to change policy pro or con.


----------



## tycho1572

Democrats know our laws don’t say anyone can come into this country. Why do they keep pretending they do?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a parent is making the difficult choice to leave a horrible situation, they are not a bad parent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they are going to subject their child to a horrible situation, just to escape another horrible situation, what has changed for the child, Coyote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The situation they were leaving was worse.
Click to expand...


(Chuckles)

No. 

What is worse is not having a relationship with your parent. Not having the guidance of a parent. I should know, I lived without knowing my mom or dad for the better part of a decade before my father chose to come back and atone for himself.  My grandmother has more than picked up the slack, but there's always that wanting there, that regret of not knowing or being loved by the people who brought you into this world. 

And I will never look kindly on parents who do these kinds of things to their children. Not ever.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok....I think in this case you way wrong....because a child isn’t a thing or property. It is a person with rights as well. That is why we don’t punish children for what their parents did. Though we used to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing you're failing to realize is that I'm not wanting the child to be punished. I want the child to be treated like a human being. Apparently the parents seem to think they are "things" or "property" because they have to smuggle them. Yes. What do you do with drugs if your in a drug cartel? You smuggle them. What do you do if you're a thief with stolen property and need to get your filched goods from one place to another,  you smuggle them.
> 
> You're right, they aren't things or property, but their parents are using them as leverage over another sovereign government in order to get here themselves. That, Coyote, is not acceptable.
Click to expand...

What would you do as a parent in that situation TK?


----------



## tycho1572

Democrats would lure a family across a mine field if they thought it would get them a vote.


----------



## DJT for Life

Vandalshandle said:


> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having the types of parents that they do is torture enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're sure? I mean, one could give them electric shocks and put them on a starvation diet. That would REALLY show those parents!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There parents don't give a shit now.  We're just helping the children with
> a basic lesson in life.  The lesson being..."For every behavior...there is a
> consequence."
> 
> Bad behavior calls for a bad consequence.
> 
> There is legal immigration and their is illegal immigration.  There is no
> bad consequence with legal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure that the lesson will be learned. Next time, the kids will choose better parents....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or maybe become better parents when they have children.  It'll be one helluva long shot with them being from Central America, but at least
> we would have done our part.
> 
> If they could choose better parents next time around, here's hoping they
> choose Democrats.  They won't be faced with this type of a problem
> then.  They'll have been aborted 6 months before delivery date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't stay on topic? Short attention span?
Click to expand...


I answered your question.  I assumed that would be classified as
staying on topic.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a point at which punishing the parents for their behavior becomes punishing the kids?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The punishment inflicted on the child is the parent's fault. You have a very kind and sweet heart, Coyote, but at some point the compassion has to end, and law and order must begin. We cannot dilute the law to a point where it is satisfactorily amiable to those of us looking out from the inside. Law has no purpose if we refuse to enforce it or we change it to a point that it has no effectiveness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But TK...you are still missing the point.  Ok, let us say it is the parents fault.  Is what is being done to these kids worth it?  Is the cost paid by the children worth the punishment inflicted on the children?  Does that make sense?
Click to expand...


Of course it makes sense.  Keep pandering to these people, and millions more WITH KIDS will follow in their footsteps.  I hope this news gets back to the countries they came from to deter others from doing the same.  I hope it makes them change their minds if they thought they could come here and have us provide for them and their children.

You have to stop this.  Pandering to them does just the opposite.  Maybe these particular children will suffer a little bit, but in doing so, it will stop a lot more children in the future from suffering.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
Click to expand...


A good parent wouldn't subject their child to this.

They know the risks before they try to enter so it's difficult to feel sorry for them.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a parent is making the difficult choice to leave a horrible situation, they are not a bad parent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they are going to subject their child to a horrible situation, just to escape another horrible situation, what has changed for the child, Coyote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The situation they were leaving was worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (Chuckles)
> 
> No.
> 
> What is worse is not having a relationship with your parent. Not having the guidance of a parent. I should know, I lived without knowing my mom or dad for the better part of a decade before my father chose to come back and atone for himself.  My grandmother has more than picked up the slack, but there's always that wanting there, that regret of not knowing or being loved by the people who brought you into this world.
> 
> And I will never look kindly on parents who do these kinds of things to their children. Not ever.
Click to expand...


I can understand your perspective, given that.  Mine is different.  I would probably do whatever I had to to save my children...there are worse things then foster care.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> “While Mr. Obama *has deported more foreigners than any other president, *the pace of deportations has recently declined.”



High deportation figures are misleading


----------



## boedicca

Coyote said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Human Cost is Tolerable to promote open, uncontrolled borders?
> 
> 
> 
> That isn’t the issue.
Click to expand...


Actually, it is THE ISSUE that matters. Our government's responsibility is to protect U.S. citizens, not to put them at risk in order to serve some PC Agenda of open borders that enable illegal immigration.


----------



## DJT for Life

busybee01 said:


> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the parent's fault. They know that they are breaking the law.
> Many times when US parents break laws their children are put in foster care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not the parents' fault. Trump knows this which is why he is blaming Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------   he is blaming 'dems' / YOU because the moochers in cages photos was taken during 'mrobama' time in office   Busybee .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a clue what you are talking about. We are talking about TRUMP'S decision to separate children from their families. Obama did not start it. Quit blaming Obama for everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama lost over 4100 children when he was President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that it continued under Trump. However we are discussing TRUMP policy of separating children from their families. Obama had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...


And none of the children lost were because they were separated from
their parents.

If your Mama gets arrested stealing a loaf of bread and has to spend
90 days in the county jail...you ain't going there with her.

We aren't offering temporary housing for illegal families.


----------



## Coyote

SassyIrishLass said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A good parent wouldn't subject their child to this.
> 
> They know the risks before they try to enter so it's difficult to feel sorry for them.
Click to expand...

Do you think the choices they make are lightly made or the situations they are leaving behind good for their kids? I am not arguing against deportation here, I am saying this is a really bad policy to enforce with zero tolerance.  It is barbaric imo, and there are better ways of dealing with it than that.


----------



## tycho1572

Despite our differences, you’ll always be loved by me, Coyote.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok....I think in this case you way wrong....because a child isn’t a thing or property. It is a person with rights as well. That is why we don’t punish children for what their parents did. Though we used to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing you're failing to realize is that I'm not wanting the child to be punished. I want the child to be treated like a human being. Apparently the parents seem to think they are "things" or "property" because they have to smuggle them. Yes. What do you do with drugs if your in a drug cartel? You smuggle them. What do you do if you're a thief with stolen property and need to get your filched goods from one place to another,  you smuggle them.
> 
> You're right, they aren't things or property, but their parents are using them as leverage over another sovereign government in order to get here themselves. That, Coyote, is not acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would you do as a parent in that situation TK?
Click to expand...


I would obey the friggun law, Coyote. I'd much rather maintain my relationship with my child than to use them as a tool to leverage another government for my illegal presence within their borders. I will have none of it. Children are not tools, they are children. Innocent children who essentially have no control over their situations. Ultimately the onus lies on the parents, they set such a vicious cycle in motion.

Not even in a moment of sheer desperation would I ever dare to subject my child to that. I would have to have gone completely insane to do something so barbarous.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A good parent wouldn't subject their child to this.
> 
> They know the risks before they try to enter so it's difficult to feel sorry for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think the choices they make are lightly made or the situations they are leaving behind good for their kids? I am not arguing against deportation here, I am saying this is a really bad policy to enforce with zero tolerance.  It is barbaric imo, and there are better ways of dealing with it than that.
Click to expand...


A simple fix is when caught turn them back. 

I'm sorry but I've had it up to my eye balls with illegals. The cost is staggering and Americans should come first.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what about the effect of the policy on the children themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious about something...
> 
> Are the parents considering the effect on their children when they smuggle them across the border illegally? Do they consider the effect this policy will have on their child?
> 
> I don't think they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I think they do.  Very much so.  The journey is very dangerous, and often they are fleeing dangerous conditions in their own countries including threats to their children if they don’t join cartels or gangs, even rape.  Often it is the sort of thing only desperate people would do.  So yes I do believe they think of their children.  What would you choose....having your daughter raped by a gang member because you refused to allow your son to serve as a runner for them and the police are either too corrupt or too afraid to do anything about it...or attempting a dangerous where, if you make it your family might be relatively safe?
Click to expand...


If the conditions were so bad where they came from, WTF did they have children in the first place?  

I made the decision long ago never to have children because of the expense and responsibility.  I didn't want to pass on bad genes because my health was bad since a young adult.  It wasn't that difficult of a decision to make or carry out.  Yet these people come from shitholes and decide to have children and bring them into those shitholes, and somehow that becomes our problem. 

We have a bad enough problem taking care of uncared for children by our own people.  We don't need to be taking care of the worlds children on top of it.  WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY!


----------



## Manonthestreet

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A good parent wouldn't subject their child to this.
> 
> They know the risks before they try to enter so it's difficult to feel sorry for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think the choices they make are lightly made or the situations they are leaving behind good for their kids? I am not arguing against deportation here, I am saying this is a really bad policy to enforce with zero tolerance.  It is barbaric imo, and there are better ways of dealing with it than that.
Click to expand...

How many paid coyotes by prostituting their kids......


----------



## Coyote

boedicca said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Human Cost is Tolerable to promote open, uncontrolled borders?
> 
> 
> 
> That isn’t the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it is THE ISSUE that matters. Our government's responsibility is to protect U.S. citizens, not to put them at risk in order to serve some PC Agenda of open borders that enable illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

It isn’t about open borders.  I don’t know anyone outside of the rights imagination who supports truly open borders so that claim is just a deflection from the real issue.  How do you handle families, in particular mothers, with children while they await their hearing?  Is this really the best way or only way? Is it even cost effective to have to throw all those kids into an already overburdened foster care system.  HHS is stuck with paying for it, and they are not equip or funded to do so.  So what purpose does it serve?


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God you people are stupid. Her point is about the kids who didn’t choose to be smuggled over the border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean just like the children of incarcerated bank robbers...and how the piece of shit parents forfeited them to the system by way of their own actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re equating bank robbers to people who want a better life for their children by crossing a border? God you’re fucking stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bank robber wants the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bank robbery is a felony.
> 
> Being here illegally is one misdemeanor count. Parents who have completed their sentence should be reunited with their children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I have a solution to our problem.  Make coming here illegal a felony and then take away the kids.
Click to expand...


That's not a solution, dope. It certainly does nothing to address the current problem.


----------



## Coyote

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A good parent wouldn't subject their child to this.
> 
> They know the risks before they try to enter so it's difficult to feel sorry for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think the choices they make are lightly made or the situations they are leaving behind good for their kids? I am not arguing against deportation here, I am saying this is a really bad policy to enforce with zero tolerance.  It is barbaric imo, and there are better ways of dealing with it than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A simple fix is when caught turn them back.
> 
> I'm sorry but I've had it up to my eye balls with illegals. The cost is staggering and Americans should come first.
Click to expand...


I think asylum seekers have a right to a hearing no matter what.  Most end up deported but it is their legal right.  As an American I would feel horrible sending some on back to a horrendous situation without even a hearing.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Hutch Starskey said:


> That's not a solution, dope. It certainly does nothing to address the current problem.



And what have the past "solutions" done to solve the problem?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Hutch Starskey said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean just like the children of incarcerated bank robbers...and how the piece of shit parents forfeited them to the system by way of their own actions?
> 
> 
> 
> So you’re equating bank robbers to people who want a better life for their children by crossing a border? God you’re fucking stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bank robber wants the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bank robbery is a felony.
> 
> Being here illegally is one misdemeanor count. Parents who have completed their sentence should be reunited with their children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I have a solution to our problem.  Make coming here illegal a felony and then take away the kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not a solution, dope. It certainly does nothing to address the current problem.
Click to expand...


  Here's the solution......


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A good parent wouldn't subject their child to this.
> 
> They know the risks before they try to enter so it's difficult to feel sorry for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think the choices they make are lightly made or the situations they are leaving behind good for their kids? I am not arguing against deportation here, I am saying this is a really bad policy to enforce with zero tolerance.  It is barbaric imo, and there are better ways of dealing with it than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A simple fix is when caught turn them back.
> 
> I'm sorry but I've had it up to my eye balls with illegals. The cost is staggering and Americans should come first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think asylum seekers have a right to a hearing no matter what.  Most end up deported but it is their legal right.  As an American I would feel horrible sending some on back to a horrendous situation without even a hearing.
Click to expand...


  How the hell are we supposed to know if they're telling the truth?


----------



## OKTexas

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about’s are good for other potential discussions but not really relevant to this, a specific policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite sure what you were trying to say here...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Immigration is a huge issue, with a lot of policies, laws, and strong opinions.  It is hard to focus on one particular aspect without going off on all kinds of tangents.  I don’t care about who is to blame, in fact it is irrelevant.  Blame is useless and changes nothing.  Is it possible to have enforcement policies that go too far?  Does this particular policy go too far?
Click to expand...



NO.


.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A good parent wouldn't subject their child to this.
> 
> They know the risks before they try to enter so it's difficult to feel sorry for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think the choices they make are lightly made or the situations they are leaving behind good for their kids? I am not arguing against deportation here, I am saying this is a really bad policy to enforce with zero tolerance.  It is barbaric imo, and there are better ways of dealing with it than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A simple fix is when caught turn them back.
> 
> I'm sorry but I've had it up to my eye balls with illegals. The cost is staggering and Americans should come first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think asylum seekers have a right to a hearing no matter what.  Most end up deported but it is their legal right.  As an American I would feel horrible sending some on back to a horrendous situation without even a hearing.
Click to expand...




HereWeGoAgain said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A good parent wouldn't subject their child to this.
> 
> They know the risks before they try to enter so it's difficult to feel sorry for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think the choices they make are lightly made or the situations they are leaving behind good for their kids? I am not arguing against deportation here, I am saying this is a really bad policy to enforce with zero tolerance.  It is barbaric imo, and there are better ways of dealing with it than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A simple fix is when caught turn them back.
> 
> I'm sorry but I've had it up to my eye balls with illegals. The cost is staggering and Americans should come first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think asylum seekers have a right to a hearing no matter what.  Most end up deported but it is their legal right.  As an American I would feel horrible sending some on back to a horrendous situation without even a hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How the hell are we supposed to know if they're telling the truth?
Click to expand...

You just magically believe whatever they say


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok....I think in this case you way wrong....because a child isn’t a thing or property. It is a person with rights as well. That is why we don’t punish children for what their parents did. Though we used to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing you're failing to realize is that I'm not wanting the child to be punished. I want the child to be treated like a human being. Apparently the parents seem to think they are "things" or "property" because they have to smuggle them. Yes. What do you do with drugs if your in a drug cartel? You smuggle them. What do you do if you're a thief with stolen property and need to get your filched goods from one place to another,  you smuggle them.
> 
> You're right, they aren't things or property, but their parents are using them as leverage over another sovereign government in order to get here themselves. That, Coyote, is not acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would you do as a parent in that situation TK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would obey the friggun law, Coyote. I'd much rather maintain my relationship with my child than to use them as a tool to leverage another government for my illegal presence within their borders. I will have none of it. Children are not tools, they are children. Innocent children who essentially have no control over their situations. Ultimately the onus lies on the parents, they set such a vicious cycle in motion.
> 
> Not even in a moment of sheer desperation would I ever dare to subject my child to that. I would have to have gone completely insane to do something so barbarous.
Click to expand...

What if your daughter was raped by a gang and your other daughter threatened with the same if you did not pay up?  What if the police were bankrolled by that gang?  Not fictional, these are the sorts of things recounted.  What would you do?

I would get my kids the hell out of Dodge any way I can.


----------



## pismoe

Coyote said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Human Cost is Tolerable to promote open, uncontrolled borders?
> 
> 
> 
> That isn’t the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it is THE ISSUE that matters. Our government's responsibility is to protect U.S. citizens, not to put them at risk in order to serve some PC Agenda of open borders that enable illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn’t about open borders.  I don’t know anyone outside of the rights imagination who supports truly open borders so that claim is just a deflection from the real issue.  How do you handle families, in particular mothers, with children while they await their hearing?  Is this really the best way or only way? Is it even cost effective to have to throw all those kids into an already overburdened foster care system.  HHS is stuck with paying for it, and they are not equip or funded to do so.  So what purpose does it serve?
Click to expand...

---------------------------------   might scare the mothers  Coyote .


----------



## Hutch Starskey

TemplarKormac said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a solution, dope. It certainly does nothing to address the current problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what have the past "solutions" done to solve the problem?
> 
> ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Click to expand...


Human rights abuses are not a tool used by America. Trump's policies are dragging us down with the two bit dictators.


----------



## boedicca

Coyote said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Human Cost is Tolerable to promote open, uncontrolled borders?
> 
> 
> 
> That isn’t the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it is THE ISSUE that matters. Our government's responsibility is to protect U.S. citizens, not to put them at risk in order to serve some PC Agenda of open borders that enable illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn’t about open borders.  I don’t know anyone outside of the rights imagination who supports truly open borders so that claim is just a deflection from the real issue.  How do you handle families, in particular mothers, with children while they await their hearing?  Is this really the best way or only way? Is it even cost effective to have to throw all those kids into an already overburdened foster care system.  HHS is stuck with paying for it, and they are not equip or funded to do so.  So what purpose does it serve?
Click to expand...


They should be sent taken to the consulates of the countries from which they came in order for their government officials to figure out a way to get them home.

They are not our responsibility.  Period.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you’re equating bank robbers to people who want a better life for their children by crossing a border? God you’re fucking stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bank robber wants the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bank robbery is a felony.
> 
> Being here illegally is one misdemeanor count. Parents who have completed their sentence should be reunited with their children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I have a solution to our problem.  Make coming here illegal a felony and then take away the kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not a solution, dope. It certainly does nothing to address the current problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the solution......
Click to expand...


So, kill them? Nice job, loser.


----------



## Coyote

Manonthestreet said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A good parent wouldn't subject their child to this.
> 
> They know the risks before they try to enter so it's difficult to feel sorry for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think the choices they make are lightly made or the situations they are leaving behind good for their kids? I am not arguing against deportation here, I am saying this is a really bad policy to enforce with zero tolerance.  It is barbaric imo, and there are better ways of dealing with it than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A simple fix is when caught turn them back.
> 
> I'm sorry but I've had it up to my eye balls with illegals. The cost is staggering and Americans should come first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think asylum seekers have a right to a hearing no matter what.  Most end up deported but it is their legal right.  As an American I would feel horrible sending some on back to a horrendous situation without even a hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good parent wouldn't subject their child to this.
> 
> They know the risks before they try to enter so it's difficult to feel sorry for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think the choices they make are lightly made or the situations they are leaving behind good for their kids? I am not arguing against deportation here, I am saying this is a really bad policy to enforce with zero tolerance.  It is barbaric imo, and there are better ways of dealing with it than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A simple fix is when caught turn them back.
> 
> I'm sorry but I've had it up to my eye balls with illegals. The cost is staggering and Americans should come first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think asylum seekers have a right to a hearing no matter what.  Most end up deported but it is their legal right.  As an American I would feel horrible sending some on back to a horrendous situation without even a hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How the hell are we supposed to know if they're telling the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just magically believe whatever they say
Click to expand...

I would imagine the people conducting the hearing are experienced in ferreting out the truth.  Most asylum requests are denied.  Not necessarily because the immigrant isn’t coming from a bad situation but because it doesn’t fit within the categories allowed for granting asylum.


----------



## pismoe

Manonthestreet said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A good parent wouldn't subject their child to this.
> 
> They know the risks before they try to enter so it's difficult to feel sorry for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think the choices they make are lightly made or the situations they are leaving behind good for their kids? I am not arguing against deportation here, I am saying this is a really bad policy to enforce with zero tolerance.  It is barbaric imo, and there are better ways of dealing with it than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A simple fix is when caught turn them back.
> 
> I'm sorry but I've had it up to my eye balls with illegals. The cost is staggering and Americans should come first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think asylum seekers have a right to a hearing no matter what.  Most end up deported but it is their legal right.  As an American I would feel horrible sending some on back to a horrendous situation without even a hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good parent wouldn't subject their child to this.
> 
> They know the risks before they try to enter so it's difficult to feel sorry for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think the choices they make are lightly made or the situations they are leaving behind good for their kids? I am not arguing against deportation here, I am saying this is a really bad policy to enforce with zero tolerance.  It is barbaric imo, and there are better ways of dealing with it than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A simple fix is when caught turn them back.
> 
> I'm sorry but I've had it up to my eye balls with illegals. The cost is staggering and Americans should come first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think asylum seekers have a right to a hearing no matter what.  Most end up deported but it is their legal right.  As an American I would feel horrible sending some on back to a horrendous situation without even a hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How the hell are we supposed to know if they're telling the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just magically believe whatever they say
Click to expand...

--------------------------------------   thats what i say , they base their actions , thinking and policy on emotion and thats not smart , its emotional .


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what about the effect of the policy on the children themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious about something...
> 
> Are the parents considering the effect on their children when they smuggle them across the border illegally? Do they consider the effect this policy will have on their child?
> 
> I don't think they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I think they do.  Very much so.  The journey is very dangerous, and often they are fleeing dangerous conditions in their own countries including threats to their children if they don’t join cartels or gangs, even rape.  Often it is the sort of thing only desperate people would do.  So yes I do believe they think of their children.  What would you choose....having your daughter raped by a gang member because you refused to allow your son to serve as a runner for them and the police are either too corrupt or too afraid to do anything about it...or attempting a dangerous where, if you make it your family might be relatively safe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the conditions were so bad where they came from, WTF did they have children in the first place?
> 
> I made the decision long ago never to have children because of the expense and responsibility.  I didn't want to pass on bad genes because my health was bad since a young adult.  It wasn't that difficult of a decision to make or carry out.  Yet these people come from shitholes and decide to have children and bring them into those shitholes, and somehow that becomes our problem.
> 
> We have a bad enough problem taking care of uncared for children by our own people.  We don't need to be taking care of the worlds children on top of it.  WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY!
Click to expand...


  The wife and I discussed children up till we reached our late thirties.
   In the end we decided not to have any since it wasnt an emotional imperative.


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​



What made you think that having a baby was a golden ticket to US citizenship again?


----------



## Hutch Starskey

pismoe said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good parent wouldn't subject their child to this.
> 
> They know the risks before they try to enter so it's difficult to feel sorry for them.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think the choices they make are lightly made or the situations they are leaving behind good for their kids? I am not arguing against deportation here, I am saying this is a really bad policy to enforce with zero tolerance.  It is barbaric imo, and there are better ways of dealing with it than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A simple fix is when caught turn them back.
> 
> I'm sorry but I've had it up to my eye balls with illegals. The cost is staggering and Americans should come first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think asylum seekers have a right to a hearing no matter what.  Most end up deported but it is their legal right.  As an American I would feel horrible sending some on back to a horrendous situation without even a hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think the choices they make are lightly made or the situations they are leaving behind good for their kids? I am not arguing against deportation here, I am saying this is a really bad policy to enforce with zero tolerance.  It is barbaric imo, and there are better ways of dealing with it than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A simple fix is when caught turn them back.
> 
> I'm sorry but I've had it up to my eye balls with illegals. The cost is staggering and Americans should come first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think asylum seekers have a right to a hearing no matter what.  Most end up deported but it is their legal right.  As an American I would feel horrible sending some on back to a horrendous situation without even a hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How the hell are we supposed to know if they're telling the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just magically believe whatever they say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> --------------------------------------   thats what i say , they base their actions , thinking and policy on emotion and thats not smart , its emotional .
Click to expand...


Hating immigrants is nothing but emotion, retard.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A good parent wouldn't subject their child to this.
> 
> They know the risks before they try to enter so it's difficult to feel sorry for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think the choices they make are lightly made or the situations they are leaving behind good for their kids? I am not arguing against deportation here, I am saying this is a really bad policy to enforce with zero tolerance.  It is barbaric imo, and there are better ways of dealing with it than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A simple fix is when caught turn them back.
> 
> I'm sorry but I've had it up to my eye balls with illegals. The cost is staggering and Americans should come first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think asylum seekers have a right to a hearing no matter what.  Most end up deported but it is their legal right.  As an American I would feel horrible sending some on back to a horrendous situation without even a hearing.
Click to expand...


My guess is about 1-5% are actually eligible.

You got me on a bad week on this topic. We had a run in with a group of them over the weekend harassing our daughters. No reason for what was said and happened. None and if you're here illegally you'd be wise to learn some manners.


----------



## Coyote

kaz said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What made you think that having a baby was a golden ticket to US citizenship again?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with keeping mothers and children together until their hearing?


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
Click to expand...


Um .. no ... someone having a baby in the world doesn't make them a US citizen ... fail ... and badly so ...


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Hutch Starskey said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bank robber wants the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bank robbery is a felony.
> 
> Being here illegally is one misdemeanor count. Parents who have completed their sentence should be reunited with their children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I have a solution to our problem.  Make coming here illegal a felony and then take away the kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not a solution, dope. It certainly does nothing to address the current problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the solution......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, kill them? Nice job, loser.
Click to expand...



  No....that would be suicide.
They were encouraged to not cross the minefield in clear signs in Spanish and they chose to take their chances.
    Oh well......


----------



## Hutch Starskey

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A good parent wouldn't subject their child to this.
> 
> They know the risks before they try to enter so it's difficult to feel sorry for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think the choices they make are lightly made or the situations they are leaving behind good for their kids? I am not arguing against deportation here, I am saying this is a really bad policy to enforce with zero tolerance.  It is barbaric imo, and there are better ways of dealing with it than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A simple fix is when caught turn them back.
> 
> I'm sorry but I've had it up to my eye balls with illegals. The cost is staggering and Americans should come first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think asylum seekers have a right to a hearing no matter what.  Most end up deported but it is their legal right.  As an American I would feel horrible sending some on back to a horrendous situation without even a hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My guess is about 1-5% are actually eligible.
> 
> You got me on a bad week on this topic. We had a run in with a group of them over the weekend harassing our daughters. No reason for what was said and happened. None and if you're here illegally you'd be wise to learn some manners.
Click to expand...



Did you call the cops because they were grilling in the park?


----------



## boedicca

Hutch Starskey said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think the choices they make are lightly made or the situations they are leaving behind good for their kids? I am not arguing against deportation here, I am saying this is a really bad policy to enforce with zero tolerance.  It is barbaric imo, and there are better ways of dealing with it than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A simple fix is when caught turn them back.
> 
> I'm sorry but I've had it up to my eye balls with illegals. The cost is staggering and Americans should come first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think asylum seekers have a right to a hearing no matter what.  Most end up deported but it is their legal right.  As an American I would feel horrible sending some on back to a horrendous situation without even a hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> A simple fix is when caught turn them back.
> 
> I'm sorry but I've had it up to my eye balls with illegals. The cost is staggering and Americans should come first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think asylum seekers have a right to a hearing no matter what.  Most end up deported but it is their legal right.  As an American I would feel horrible sending some on back to a horrendous situation without even a hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How the hell are we supposed to know if they're telling the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just magically believe whatever they say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> --------------------------------------   thats what i say , they base their actions , thinking and policy on emotion and thats not smart , its emotional .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hating immigrants is nothing but emotion, retard.
Click to expand...



So is hating Americans, but you seem quite comfortable with having that emotion.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok....I think in this case you way wrong....because a child isn’t a thing or property. It is a person with rights as well. That is why we don’t punish children for what their parents did. Though we used to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing you're failing to realize is that I'm not wanting the child to be punished. I want the child to be treated like a human being. Apparently the parents seem to think they are "things" or "property" because they have to smuggle them. Yes. What do you do with drugs if your in a drug cartel? You smuggle them. What do you do if you're a thief with stolen property and need to get your filched goods from one place to another,  you smuggle them.
> 
> You're right, they aren't things or property, but their parents are using them as leverage over another sovereign government in order to get here themselves. That, Coyote, is not acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would you do as a parent in that situation TK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would obey the friggun law, Coyote. I'd much rather maintain my relationship with my child than to use them as a tool to leverage another government for my illegal presence within their borders. I will have none of it. Children are not tools, they are children. Innocent children who essentially have no control over their situations. Ultimately the onus lies on the parents, they set such a vicious cycle in motion.
> 
> Not even in a moment of sheer desperation would I ever dare to subject my child to that. I would have to have gone completely insane to do something so barbarous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if your daughter was raped by a gang and your other daughter threatened with the same if you did not pay up?  What if the police were bankrolled by that gang?  Not fictional, these are the sorts of things recounted.  What would you do?
> 
> I would get my kids the hell out of Dodge any way I can.
Click to expand...


  That sure is a whole lotta well ifs.......


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A good parent wouldn't subject their child to this.
> 
> They know the risks before they try to enter so it's difficult to feel sorry for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think the choices they make are lightly made or the situations they are leaving behind good for their kids? I am not arguing against deportation here, I am saying this is a really bad policy to enforce with zero tolerance.  It is barbaric imo, and there are better ways of dealing with it than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A simple fix is when caught turn them back.
> 
> I'm sorry but I've had it up to my eye balls with illegals. The cost is staggering and Americans should come first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think asylum seekers have a right to a hearing no matter what.  Most end up deported but it is their legal right.  As an American I would feel horrible sending some on back to a horrendous situation without even a hearing.
Click to expand...


You would feel horrible sending them back with or without a hearing.  That will be the next step when we deport them: what about the children?  

Many of these people were granted asylum in Mexico.  But you can't say "HEY!  There is a better place to get asylum, so I'm going to trade my Mexico asylum in for an American asylum!"


----------



## pismoe

my wife wanted another kid in about 1986 .   I told her , no way as i could see the foreign youts walking home from American public schools .  I wasn't going to have my kids growing up with third worlders .


----------



## Coyote

kaz said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um .. no ... someone having a baby in the world doesn't make them a US citizen ... fail ... and badly so ...
Click to expand...

Umm...dude...it isn’t about having a kid in order to gain citizenship.  Try again.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Hutch Starskey said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean just like the children of incarcerated bank robbers...and how the piece of shit parents forfeited them to the system by way of their own actions?
> 
> 
> 
> So you’re equating bank robbers to people who want a better life for their children by crossing a border? God you’re fucking stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bank robber wants the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bank robbery is a felony.
> 
> Being here illegally is one misdemeanor count. Parents who have completed their sentence should be reunited with their children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I have a solution to our problem.  Make coming here illegal a felony and then take away the kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not a solution, dope. It certainly does nothing to address the current problem.
Click to expand...


Correct, it will address future problems though.


----------



## eagle1462010

John Hawkins - The Top Seven Techniques Liberals Use to Lie About Conservatives

3) The Teary Eyed Spokesman: One of the Left's favorite tactics of late is to pick pathetic figures we're supposed to feel sorry for as spokesmen. That way, if you try to respond to the lies of someone like Cindy Sheehan, you're accused of picking on the mother of a dead soldier. If you try to respond to the lies of Max Cleland, you're accused of picking on a crippled vet. At this point, I'm surprised they haven't found a gaunt, stuttering orphan to serve as Obama's Press Secretary. Worst-case scenario, he couldn't do much worse than Robert Gibbs.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Hutch Starskey said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good parent wouldn't subject their child to this.
> 
> They know the risks before they try to enter so it's difficult to feel sorry for them.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think the choices they make are lightly made or the situations they are leaving behind good for their kids? I am not arguing against deportation here, I am saying this is a really bad policy to enforce with zero tolerance.  It is barbaric imo, and there are better ways of dealing with it than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A simple fix is when caught turn them back.
> 
> I'm sorry but I've had it up to my eye balls with illegals. The cost is staggering and Americans should come first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think asylum seekers have a right to a hearing no matter what.  Most end up deported but it is their legal right.  As an American I would feel horrible sending some on back to a horrendous situation without even a hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My guess is about 1-5% are actually eligible.
> 
> You got me on a bad week on this topic. We had a run in with a group of them over the weekend harassing our daughters. No reason for what was said and happened. None and if you're here illegally you'd be wise to learn some manners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you call the cops because they were grilling in the park?
Click to expand...


No shit stain they harrased our 14 year old daughters and they're damn lucky the police were on top of it. Damn lucky.

Now go troll somewhere else, toad


----------



## Hutch Starskey

boedicca said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> A simple fix is when caught turn them back.
> 
> I'm sorry but I've had it up to my eye balls with illegals. The cost is staggering and Americans should come first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think asylum seekers have a right to a hearing no matter what.  Most end up deported but it is their legal right.  As an American I would feel horrible sending some on back to a horrendous situation without even a hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think asylum seekers have a right to a hearing no matter what.  Most end up deported but it is their legal right.  As an American I would feel horrible sending some on back to a horrendous situation without even a hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How the hell are we supposed to know if they're telling the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just magically believe whatever they say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> --------------------------------------   thats what i say , they base their actions , thinking and policy on emotion and thats not smart , its emotional .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hating immigrants is nothing but emotion, retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So is hating Americans, but you seem quite comfortable with having that emotion.
Click to expand...


Just the dopey, ignorant ones like yourself.


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What made you think that having a baby was a golden ticket to US citizenship again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with keeping mothers and children together until their hearing?
Click to expand...


Because they are illegal aliens and should be deported immediately.  You're just trying to fudge your way into keeping criminals in the US


----------



## Coyote

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok....I think in this case you way wrong....because a child isn’t a thing or property. It is a person with rights as well. That is why we don’t punish children for what their parents did. Though we used to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing you're failing to realize is that I'm not wanting the child to be punished. I want the child to be treated like a human being. Apparently the parents seem to think they are "things" or "property" because they have to smuggle them. Yes. What do you do with drugs if your in a drug cartel? You smuggle them. What do you do if you're a thief with stolen property and need to get your filched goods from one place to another,  you smuggle them.
> 
> You're right, they aren't things or property, but their parents are using them as leverage over another sovereign government in order to get here themselves. That, Coyote, is not acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would you do as a parent in that situation TK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would obey the friggun law, Coyote. I'd much rather maintain my relationship with my child than to use them as a tool to leverage another government for my illegal presence within their borders. I will have none of it. Children are not tools, they are children. Innocent children who essentially have no control over their situations. Ultimately the onus lies on the parents, they set such a vicious cycle in motion.
> 
> Not even in a moment of sheer desperation would I ever dare to subject my child to that. I would have to have gone completely insane to do something so barbarous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if your daughter was raped by a gang and your other daughter threatened with the same if you did not pay up?  What if the police were bankrolled by that gang?  Not fictional, these are the sorts of things recounted.  What would you do?
> 
> I would get my kids the hell out of Dodge any way I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That sure is a whole lotta well ifs.......
Click to expand...

No it isn’t.  It is a real scenario.


----------



## TemplarKormac

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you’re equating bank robbers to people who want a better life for their children by crossing a border? God you’re fucking stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bank robber wants the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bank robbery is a felony.
> 
> Being here illegally is one misdemeanor count. Parents who have completed their sentence should be reunited with their children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I have a solution to our problem.  Make coming here illegal a felony and then take away the kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not a solution, dope. It certainly does nothing to address the current problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the solution......
Click to expand...

C'mon man...


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um .. no ... someone having a baby in the world doesn't make them a US citizen ... fail ... and badly so ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm...dude...it isn’t about having a kid in order to gain citizenship.  Try again.
Click to expand...


OMG you're stupid, of course it is!!!  Are you seriously so dim witted you actually believe that illegal alien criminals don't know our laws???

Don't take telemarketing calls.  I mean seriously ... don't ...


----------



## Coyote

kaz said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What made you think that having a baby was a golden ticket to US citizenship again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with keeping mothers and children together until their hearing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they are illegal aliens and should be deported immediately.  You're just trying to fudge your way into keeping criminals in the US
Click to expand...

Nope.  I want families kept together unless there is a darn good reason to remove the child.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

SassyIrishLass said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think the choices they make are lightly made or the situations they are leaving behind good for their kids? I am not arguing against deportation here, I am saying this is a really bad policy to enforce with zero tolerance.  It is barbaric imo, and there are better ways of dealing with it than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A simple fix is when caught turn them back.
> 
> I'm sorry but I've had it up to my eye balls with illegals. The cost is staggering and Americans should come first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think asylum seekers have a right to a hearing no matter what.  Most end up deported but it is their legal right.  As an American I would feel horrible sending some on back to a horrendous situation without even a hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My guess is about 1-5% are actually eligible.
> 
> You got me on a bad week on this topic. We had a run in with a group of them over the weekend harassing our daughters. No reason for what was said and happened. None and if you're here illegally you'd be wise to learn some manners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you call the cops because they were grilling in the park?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit stain they harrased our 14 year old daughters and they're damn lucky the police were on top of it. Damn lucky.
> 
> Now go troll somewhere else, toad
Click to expand...


They?

General dirty Messicans?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> What if your daughter was raped by a gang and your other daughter threatened with the same if you did not pay up?



Why would I even want to have children in a scenario or in a place where that could occur?


----------



## eagle1462010

This OP appears to try to shift the recent scam on how they showed caged immigrants on to Trump when the article was in 2014 under Obama.

Now it's ....................Your mean people..........and look at the Children Identity politics...............

We don't have the responsibility to take on all the worlds problems...........It's a numbers game and we simply cannot take in all those South of the border........It cost a lot of money after they get here and is causing financial problems in this country.

The governments South of the border are corrupt...........some owned by the drug cartels.......and have caused the problems that make people flee.....That is the problem and not the United States.


----------



## Coyote

eagle1462010 said:


> John Hawkins - The Top Seven Techniques Liberals Use to Lie About Conservatives
> 
> 3) The Teary Eyed Spokesman: One of the Left's favorite tactics of late is to pick pathetic figures we're supposed to feel sorry for as spokesmen. That way, if you try to respond to the lies of someone like Cindy Sheehan, you're accused of picking on the mother of a dead soldier. If you try to respond to the lies of Max Cleland, you're accused of picking on a crippled vet. At this point, I'm surprised they haven't found a gaunt, stuttering orphan to serve as Obama's Press Secretary. Worst-case scenario, he couldn't do much worse than Robert Gibbs.


What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Nope. I want families kept together unless there is a darn good reason to remove the child.



But what about all the parents sending their children alone across the frontier to be handled by complete strangers in hopes of getting them across the border? Have they not already broken up the family? Did they not already damage that precious bond between parent and child?


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Coyote said:


> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about’s are good for other potential discussions but not really relevant to this, a specific policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite sure what you were trying to say here...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Immigration is a huge issue, with a lot of policies, laws, and strong opinions.  It is hard to focus on one particular aspect without going off on all kinds of tangents.  I don’t care about who is to blame, in fact it is irrelevant.  Blame is useless and changes nothing.  Is it possible to have enforcement policies that go too far?  Does this particular policy go too far?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you have an issue with assigning blame? It pretty simple. You drag your kid into a country illegally it’s your fault. You send your kid alone into another country illegally it’s your fault. None of this falls on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What point is there to blame, what does blame resolve except to make you feel self righteous?
Click to expand...

It puts the cause of the problem on those that deserve it. Instead of making their failures our problem. Why the hell isnt there a station on the Mexican side of the border we can drop their kids at? They came from there, they are their citizens, how is this our problem? Why do you think we need to take care of them? All we are doing is making Mexico’s problems ours to solve. We don’t have a problem to solve, they do. Make your country less of a shithole that your people are so desperate to leave they drop their fucking kids on our door step.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Hutch Starskey said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> A simple fix is when caught turn them back.
> 
> I'm sorry but I've had it up to my eye balls with illegals. The cost is staggering and Americans should come first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think asylum seekers have a right to a hearing no matter what.  Most end up deported but it is their legal right.  As an American I would feel horrible sending some on back to a horrendous situation without even a hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My guess is about 1-5% are actually eligible.
> 
> You got me on a bad week on this topic. We had a run in with a group of them over the weekend harassing our daughters. No reason for what was said and happened. None and if you're here illegally you'd be wise to learn some manners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you call the cops because they were grilling in the park?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit stain they harrased our 14 year old daughters and they're damn lucky the police were on top of it. Damn lucky.
> 
> Now go troll somewhere else, toad
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They?
> 
> General dirty Messicans?
Click to expand...


Detained for no ID...think hard now


----------



## TemplarKormac

Hutch Starskey said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think the choices they make are lightly made or the situations they are leaving behind good for their kids? I am not arguing against deportation here, I am saying this is a really bad policy to enforce with zero tolerance.  It is barbaric imo, and there are better ways of dealing with it than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A simple fix is when caught turn them back.
> 
> I'm sorry but I've had it up to my eye balls with illegals. The cost is staggering and Americans should come first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think asylum seekers have a right to a hearing no matter what.  Most end up deported but it is their legal right.  As an American I would feel horrible sending some on back to a horrendous situation without even a hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> A simple fix is when caught turn them back.
> 
> I'm sorry but I've had it up to my eye balls with illegals. The cost is staggering and Americans should come first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think asylum seekers have a right to a hearing no matter what.  Most end up deported but it is their legal right.  As an American I would feel horrible sending some on back to a horrendous situation without even a hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How the hell are we supposed to know if they're telling the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just magically believe whatever they say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> --------------------------------------   thats what i say , they base their actions , thinking and policy on emotion and thats not smart , its emotional .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hating immigrants is nothing but emotion, retard.
Click to expand...


And saying "but this is for the children!" isn't?


----------



## tycho1572

What are your thoughts on the vid I posted, Coyote?

Here it is again in case you missed it.....


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um .. no ... someone having a baby in the world doesn't make them a US citizen ... fail ... and badly so ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm...dude...it isn’t about having a kid in order to gain citizenship.  Try again.
Click to expand...


Cool, so you're in favor of deporting pregnant criminal illegal aliens?  You should have said so


----------



## TemplarKormac

Hutch Starskey said:


> Human rights abuses are not a tool used by America.



No, but by using these children as tools, you have already violated their human rights. 

Thanks for playing.


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What made you think that having a baby was a golden ticket to US citizenship again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with keeping mothers and children together until their hearing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they are illegal aliens and should be deported immediately.  You're just trying to fudge your way into keeping criminals in the US
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  I want families kept together unless there is a darn good reason to remove the child.
Click to expand...


Agreed.  Their parents being illegal aliens is a damned good reason, isn't it?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. To avoid the cost, don't commit to the transaction. I am flummoxed by how hard this is for some people to understand.
> 
> Cause and effect. *Don't like the effect? Don't be the cause. *
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.  But the kids pay.  What did the kids do wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The kids pay because their parents violated our laws. Why are these parents violating our laws? Because democrats keep telling them they can!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that doesn’t make sense since deportations were way up under a Democrat president...
> 
> Should the kids have to pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LA Times
> 
> Court Deportations Drop 43 Percent in Past Five Years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “While Mr. Obama *has deported more foreigners than any other president, *the pace of deportations has recently declined.”
Click to expand...


So have people who crossed our borders.  Remember that GW changed our definition of deportation.  Before, you were considered deported if you snuck into the country and we kicked you out.  After the change, anybody being refused to cross the border was considered a deportation. 

Immigration statistics show largest increase in arrests in three years

Number of immigrants caught at Mexican border plunges 40% under Trump

Arrests Of Undocumented Immigrants Climbing In North Texas

WINNING: 30% More Illegals Going Home in 2017 | Breitbart


----------



## Coyote

eagle1462010 said:


> This OP appears to try to shift the recent scam on how they showed caged immigrants on to Trump when the article was in 2014 under Obama.
> 
> Now it's ....................Your mean people..........and look at the Children Identity politics...............
> 
> We don't have the responsibility to take on all the worlds problems...........It's a numbers game and we simply cannot take in all those South of the border........It cost a lot of money after they get here and is causing financial problems in this country.
> 
> The governments South of the border are corrupt...........some owned by the drug cartels.......and have caused the problems that make people flee.....That is the problem and not the United States.


No, that scam is a different issue. No one was actually caged, it was from the flood of unaccompanied minors and it was under Obama.  Kids weren’t being separated from parents, they came without any parents so there is a good bit of scamming both ways there.

This is about Session’s announced policy of 100% removing children from parents caught entering the country illegally.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Hutch Starskey said:


> Trump's policies are dragging us down with the two bit dictators.



No, they aren't. A complete refusal to enforce the laws we have on the books are.

(Hey, is the rabbit hole you're in big enough for the two of us? I'm thinking not.)


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Hawkins - The Top Seven Techniques Liberals Use to Lie About Conservatives
> 
> 3) The Teary Eyed Spokesman: One of the Left's favorite tactics of late is to pick pathetic figures we're supposed to feel sorry for as spokesmen. That way, if you try to respond to the lies of someone like Cindy Sheehan, you're accused of picking on the mother of a dead soldier. If you try to respond to the lies of Max Cleland, you're accused of picking on a crippled vet. At this point, I'm surprised they haven't found a gaunt, stuttering orphan to serve as Obama's Press Secretary. Worst-case scenario, he couldn't do much worse than Robert Gibbs.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything?
Click to expand...

Has to do with what you are trying to do here..............

An excuse to bring in more illegals and more amnesty................about 100,000 arrested in the  last 2 months............detained may be a more proper word..........

And your side shows the detention centers showing how EVIL WE ARE..................Identity politics..........LOOK AT THE Children.............

Then get off your butts and increase the border agent numbers.........increase the number of beds in detention centers.........and create more immigration courts so our Border Agents aren't overloaded..............

Dems BLOCK IMMIGRATION reform unless it is Amnesty...........DREAMERS..........and so on..........Put your dang money where your mouth is and change the laws and increase the funding to get rid of these problems............Your side didn't fix any of this.............so stop complaining.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

eagle1462010 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Hawkins - The Top Seven Techniques Liberals Use to Lie About Conservatives
> 
> 3) The Teary Eyed Spokesman: One of the Left's favorite tactics of late is to pick pathetic figures we're supposed to feel sorry for as spokesmen. That way, if you try to respond to the lies of someone like Cindy Sheehan, you're accused of picking on the mother of a dead soldier. If you try to respond to the lies of Max Cleland, you're accused of picking on a crippled vet. At this point, I'm surprised they haven't found a gaunt, stuttering orphan to serve as Obama's Press Secretary. Worst-case scenario, he couldn't do much worse than Robert Gibbs.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has to do with what you are trying to do here..............
> 
> An excuse to bring in more illegals and more amnesty................about 100,000 arrested in the  last 2 months............detained may be a more proper word..........
> 
> And your side shows the detention centers showing how EVIL WE ARE..................Identity politics..........LOOK AT THE Children.............
> 
> Then get off your butts and increase the border agent numbers.........increase the number of beds in detention centers.........and create more immigration courts so our Border Agents aren't overloaded..............
> 
> Dems BLOCK IMMIGRATION reform unless it is Amnesty...........DREAMERS..........and so on..........Put your dang money where your mouth is and change the laws and increase the funding to get rid of these problems............Your side didn't fix any of this.............so stop complaining.
Click to expand...


Build the wall


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote 

You thanked post #523, where the author said and I quote "Trump's policies are dragging us down with the two bit dictators".

Do you think Trump is a "two bit dictator"? Simply for wanting our national sovereignty to be respected?


----------



## eagle1462010

_"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."

Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._


From the OP..............tell me when the children of American criminals join their parents in jail......................well...........If the parents GO TO JAIL..........were not going to throw the children in jail too.............

So........are you spinning that quote???????????????????????


----------



## Coyote

tycho1572 said:


> What are your thoughts on the vid I posted, Coyote?
> 
> Here it is again in case you missed it.....


How does that relate to forceably removing children from their mothers while awaiting a hearing?  I notice she has her children with her and she said nothing about that policy, only that she can’t blame Trump for enforcing the immigration laws that deported her husband.  She says nothing about kids.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok....I think in this case you way wrong....because a child isn’t a thing or property. It is a person with rights as well. That is why we don’t punish children for what their parents did. Though we used to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing you're failing to realize is that I'm not wanting the child to be punished. I want the child to be treated like a human being. Apparently the parents seem to think they are "things" or "property" because they have to smuggle them. Yes. What do you do with drugs if your in a drug cartel? You smuggle them. What do you do if you're a thief with stolen property and need to get your filched goods from one place to another,  you smuggle them.
> 
> You're right, they aren't things or property, but their parents are using them as leverage over another sovereign government in order to get here themselves. That, Coyote, is not acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would you do as a parent in that situation TK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would obey the friggun law, Coyote. I'd much rather maintain my relationship with my child than to use them as a tool to leverage another government for my illegal presence within their borders. I will have none of it. Children are not tools, they are children. Innocent children who essentially have no control over their situations. Ultimately the onus lies on the parents, they set such a vicious cycle in motion.
> 
> Not even in a moment of sheer desperation would I ever dare to subject my child to that. I would have to have gone completely insane to do something so barbarous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if your daughter was raped by a gang and your other daughter threatened with the same if you did not pay up?  What if the police were bankrolled by that gang?  Not fictional, these are the sorts of things recounted.  What would you do?
> 
> I would get my kids the hell out of Dodge any way I can.
Click to expand...

An additional response to this post would be:

Seek asylum, don't break our laws. 

Don't use asylum as a means to circumvent our immigration laws. If your situation is that severe, our government has a means for you to get here and be safe from your malefactors.  Asylum. A-s-y-l-u-m.


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This OP appears to try to shift the recent scam on how they showed caged immigrants on to Trump when the article was in 2014 under Obama.
> 
> Now it's ....................Your mean people..........and look at the Children Identity politics...............
> 
> We don't have the responsibility to take on all the worlds problems...........It's a numbers game and we simply cannot take in all those South of the border........It cost a lot of money after they get here and is causing financial problems in this country.
> 
> The governments South of the border are corrupt...........some owned by the drug cartels.......and have caused the problems that make people flee.....That is the problem and not the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that scam is a different issue. No one was actually caged, it was from the flood of unaccompanied minors and it was under Obama.  Kids weren’t being separated from parents, they came without any parents so there is a good bit of scamming both ways there.
> 
> This is about Session’s announced policy of 100% removing children from parents caught entering the country illegally.
Click to expand...


OK, so what you're saying is that you agree though that when a child has two criminal parents who say bring their child illegally into the United States have then we should arrest and put their criminal parents in jail and put their kids into foster care, right?  That's what you're saying?


----------



## tycho1572

Coyote said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This OP appears to try to shift the recent scam on how they showed caged immigrants on to Trump when the article was in 2014 under Obama.
> 
> Now it's ....................Your mean people..........and look at the Children Identity politics...............
> 
> We don't have the responsibility to take on all the worlds problems...........It's a numbers game and we simply cannot take in all those South of the border........It cost a lot of money after they get here and is causing financial problems in this country.
> 
> The governments South of the border are corrupt...........some owned by the drug cartels.......and have caused the problems that make people flee.....That is the problem and not the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that scam is a different issue. No one was actually caged, it was from the flood of unaccompanied minors and it was under Obama.  Kids weren’t being separated from parents, they came without any parents so there is a good bit of scamming both ways there.
> 
> This is about Session’s announced policy of 100% removing children from parents caught entering the country illegally.
Click to expand...

Kids being separated from their families is what Trump is trying to prevent. 
Democrats are trying to keep it going.


----------



## Coyote

eagle1462010 said:


> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._
> 
> 
> From the OP..............tell me when the children of American criminals join their parents in jail......................well...........If the parents GO TO JAIL..........were not going to throw the children in jail too.............
> 
> So........are you spinning that quote???????????????????????


Convicted and jailed.

What have these immigrants been convicted of, they haven’t even had their hearing.  Who is spinning?


----------



## eagle1462010

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok....I think in this case you way wrong....because a child isn’t a thing or property. It is a person with rights as well. That is why we don’t punish children for what their parents did. Though we used to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing you're failing to realize is that I'm not wanting the child to be punished. I want the child to be treated like a human being. Apparently the parents seem to think they are "things" or "property" because they have to smuggle them. Yes. What do you do with drugs if your in a drug cartel? You smuggle them. What do you do if you're a thief with stolen property and need to get your filched goods from one place to another,  you smuggle them.
> 
> You're right, they aren't things or property, but their parents are using them as leverage over another sovereign government in order to get here themselves. That, Coyote, is not acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would you do as a parent in that situation TK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would obey the friggun law, Coyote. I'd much rather maintain my relationship with my child than to use them as a tool to leverage another government for my illegal presence within their borders. I will have none of it. Children are not tools, they are children. Innocent children who essentially have no control over their situations. Ultimately the onus lies on the parents, they set such a vicious cycle in motion.
> 
> Not even in a moment of sheer desperation would I ever dare to subject my child to that. I would have to have gone completely insane to do something so barbarous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if your daughter was raped by a gang and your other daughter threatened with the same if you did not pay up?  What if the police were bankrolled by that gang?  Not fictional, these are the sorts of things recounted.  What would you do?
> 
> I would get my kids the hell out of Dodge any way I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An additional response to this post would be:
> 
> Seek asylum, don't break our laws.
> 
> Don't use asylum as a means to circumvent our immigration laws. If your situation is that severe, our government has a means for you to get here and be safe from your malefactors.  Asylum. A-s-y-l-u-m.
Click to expand...

Smugglers give them a cheat sheet on what to say when asked questions at the border..........They study it and make sure they answer the questions specifically to seek Asylum.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote
> 
> You thanked post #523, where the author said and I quote "Trump's policies are dragging us down with the two bit dictators".
> 
> Do you think Trump is a "two bit dictator"? Simply for wanting our national sovereignty to be respected?


I think policies like this one are dragging us down to that level.  You do not need a policy like this in order to successfully maintain law and order at the border.


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts on the vid I posted, Coyote?
> 
> Here it is again in case you missed it.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that relate to forceably removing children from their mothers while awaiting a hearing?  I notice she has her children with her and she said nothing about that policy, only that she can’t blame Trump for enforcing the immigration laws that deported her husband.  She says nothing about kids.
Click to expand...


I agree with you that we should give illegal aliens an immediate hearing and put her in jail for being a criminal and then we can turn the child over to the Mexican government.  Agreed?


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote
> 
> You thanked post #523, where the author said and I quote "Trump's policies are dragging us down with the two bit dictators".
> 
> Do you think Trump is a "two bit dictator"? Simply for wanting our national sovereignty to be respected?
> 
> 
> 
> I think policies like this one are dragging us down to that level.  You do not need a policy like this in order to successfully maintain law and order at the border.
Click to expand...


Politics?  So when we put criminals in jail that's "politics?"  Wow, what a stupid post that was


----------



## Coyote

eagle1462010 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing you're failing to realize is that I'm not wanting the child to be punished. I want the child to be treated like a human being. Apparently the parents seem to think they are "things" or "property" because they have to smuggle them. Yes. What do you do with drugs if your in a drug cartel? You smuggle them. What do you do if you're a thief with stolen property and need to get your filched goods from one place to another,  you smuggle them.
> 
> You're right, they aren't things or property, but their parents are using them as leverage over another sovereign government in order to get here themselves. That, Coyote, is not acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> What would you do as a parent in that situation TK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would obey the friggun law, Coyote. I'd much rather maintain my relationship with my child than to use them as a tool to leverage another government for my illegal presence within their borders. I will have none of it. Children are not tools, they are children. Innocent children who essentially have no control over their situations. Ultimately the onus lies on the parents, they set such a vicious cycle in motion.
> 
> Not even in a moment of sheer desperation would I ever dare to subject my child to that. I would have to have gone completely insane to do something so barbarous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if your daughter was raped by a gang and your other daughter threatened with the same if you did not pay up?  What if the police were bankrolled by that gang?  Not fictional, these are the sorts of things recounted.  What would you do?
> 
> I would get my kids the hell out of Dodge any way I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An additional response to this post would be:
> 
> Seek asylum, don't break our laws.
> 
> Don't use asylum as a means to circumvent our immigration laws. If your situation is that severe, our government has a means for you to get here and be safe from your malefactors.  Asylum. A-s-y-l-u-m.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Smugglers give them a cheat sheet on what to say when asked questions at the border..........They study it and make sure they answer the questions specifically to seek Asylum.
Click to expand...

Do you think these judges are that stupid? Again...most requests are denied and end in deportation.


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._
> 
> 
> From the OP..............tell me when the children of American criminals join their parents in jail......................well...........If the parents GO TO JAIL..........were not going to throw the children in jail too.............
> 
> So........are you spinning that quote???????????????????????
> 
> 
> 
> Convicted and jailed.
> 
> What have these immigrants been convicted of, they haven’t even had their hearing.  Who is spinning?
Click to expand...


Good point.  They are criminals, but we haven't convicted them yet.  We need to do that faster.  I agree with you on that point


----------



## Coyote

kaz said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote
> 
> You thanked post #523, where the author said and I quote "Trump's policies are dragging us down with the two bit dictators".
> 
> Do you think Trump is a "two bit dictator"? Simply for wanting our national sovereignty to be respected?
> 
> 
> 
> I think policies like this one are dragging us down to that level.  You do not need a policy like this in order to successfully maintain law and order at the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Politics?  So when we put criminals in jail that's "politics?"  Wow, what a stupid post that was
Click to expand...

Slow down speedy.  Policies.


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._
> 
> 
> From the OP..............tell me when the children of American criminals join their parents in jail......................well...........If the parents GO TO JAIL..........were not going to throw the children in jail too.............
> 
> So........are you spinning that quote???????????????????????
> 
> 
> 
> Convicted and jailed.
> 
> What have these immigrants been convicted of, they haven’t even had their hearing.  Who is spinning?
Click to expand...

There is a back log of 350,000 immigration cases because we don't have enough courts...........Tell me the Dems bills to get more immigration courtrooms and staff and building to remedy that............I again say..............put your dang money where your mouth is..............

You said earlier you don't want open borders............but where is your concern for more border agents are more beds and staff at the detention centers..............I haven't seen it...................

Dems BLOCK Border Security measures........and better facilities at the border.


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would you do as a parent in that situation TK?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would obey the friggun law, Coyote. I'd much rather maintain my relationship with my child than to use them as a tool to leverage another government for my illegal presence within their borders. I will have none of it. Children are not tools, they are children. Innocent children who essentially have no control over their situations. Ultimately the onus lies on the parents, they set such a vicious cycle in motion.
> 
> Not even in a moment of sheer desperation would I ever dare to subject my child to that. I would have to have gone completely insane to do something so barbarous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if your daughter was raped by a gang and your other daughter threatened with the same if you did not pay up?  What if the police were bankrolled by that gang?  Not fictional, these are the sorts of things recounted.  What would you do?
> 
> I would get my kids the hell out of Dodge any way I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An additional response to this post would be:
> 
> Seek asylum, don't break our laws.
> 
> Don't use asylum as a means to circumvent our immigration laws. If your situation is that severe, our government has a means for you to get here and be safe from your malefactors.  Asylum. A-s-y-l-u-m.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Smugglers give them a cheat sheet on what to say when asked questions at the border..........They study it and make sure they answer the questions specifically to seek Asylum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think these judges are that stupid? Again...most requests are denied and end in deportation.
Click to expand...


Exactly, which is why your solution of keeping the children of criminals here longer is inhuman.  Let's deport them with their criminal parents faster and let Mexico deal with them


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would you do as a parent in that situation TK?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would obey the friggun law, Coyote. I'd much rather maintain my relationship with my child than to use them as a tool to leverage another government for my illegal presence within their borders. I will have none of it. Children are not tools, they are children. Innocent children who essentially have no control over their situations. Ultimately the onus lies on the parents, they set such a vicious cycle in motion.
> 
> Not even in a moment of sheer desperation would I ever dare to subject my child to that. I would have to have gone completely insane to do something so barbarous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if your daughter was raped by a gang and your other daughter threatened with the same if you did not pay up?  What if the police were bankrolled by that gang?  Not fictional, these are the sorts of things recounted.  What would you do?
> 
> I would get my kids the hell out of Dodge any way I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An additional response to this post would be:
> 
> Seek asylum, don't break our laws.
> 
> Don't use asylum as a means to circumvent our immigration laws. If your situation is that severe, our government has a means for you to get here and be safe from your malefactors.  Asylum. A-s-y-l-u-m.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Smugglers give them a cheat sheet on what to say when asked questions at the border..........They study it and make sure they answer the questions specifically to seek Asylum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think these judges are that stupid? Again...most requests are denied and end in deportation.
Click to expand...

So.............................


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote
> 
> You thanked post #523, where the author said and I quote "Trump's policies are dragging us down with the two bit dictators".
> 
> Do you think Trump is a "two bit dictator"? Simply for wanting our national sovereignty to be respected?
> 
> 
> 
> I think policies like this one are dragging us down to that level.  You do not need a policy like this in order to successfully maintain law and order at the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Politics?  So when we put criminals in jail that's "politics?"  Wow, what a stupid post that was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slow down speedy.  Policies.
Click to expand...


Exactly, your policies are the politics of importing Democrat voters as fast as you can because you're in trouble and you know it


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote
> 
> You thanked post #523, where the author said and I quote "Trump's policies are dragging us down with the two bit dictators".
> 
> Do you think Trump is a "two bit dictator"? Simply for wanting our national sovereignty to be respected?
> 
> 
> 
> I think policies like this one are dragging us down to that level.  You do not need a policy like this in order to successfully maintain law and order at the border.
Click to expand...


Yes we do. 

But should we have no consequences for violating our immigration laws? Have we not come full circle in this discussion?


----------



## candycorn

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote
> 
> You thanked post #523, where the author said and I quote "Trump's policies are dragging us down with the two bit dictators".
> 
> Do you think Trump is a "two bit dictator"? Simply for wanting our national sovereignty to be respected?
> 
> 
> 
> I think policies like this one are dragging us down to that level.  You do not need a policy like this in order to successfully maintain law and order at the border.
Click to expand...


Not that the border was so incredibly lawless and wild to start with…  

It’s a cure in search of a disease.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Come on liberals...
You claimed that barry deported more illegals than Trump has.
Yet you a attack Trump for pics that were taken during barry's term and blame conservatives for abusing immigrants. So which is it? Barry was tough on immigration and caged kids

      Seriously?


Coyote said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts on the vid I posted, Coyote?
> 
> Here it is again in case you missed it.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that relate to forceably removing children from their mothers while awaiting a hearing?  I notice she has her children with her and she said nothing about that policy, only that she can’t blame Trump for enforcing the immigration laws that deported her husband.  She says nothing about kids.
Click to expand...


  Niiiiice......degrade the immigrant that followed the rules and is willing to accept the consequences of her sig other being here illegally.

    I applaud her for standing up for the rule of law.
She is exactly the type immigrant we want in America.


----------



## eagle1462010

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Come on liberals...
> You claimed that barry deported more illegals than Trump has.
> Yet you a attack Trump for pics that were taken during barry's term and blame conservatives for abusing immigrants. So which is it? Barry was tough on immigration and caged kids
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts on the vid I posted, Coyote?
> 
> Here it is again in case you missed it.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that relate to forceably removing children from their mothers while awaiting a hearing?  I notice she has her children with her and she said nothing about that policy, only that she can’t blame Trump for enforcing the immigration laws that deported her husband.  She says nothing about kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Niiiiice......degrade the immigrant that followed the rules and is willing to accept the consequences of her sig other being here illegally.
> 
> I applaud her for standing up for the rule of law.
> She is exactly the type immigrant we want in America.
Click to expand...

Catch and Release...........get a court date and never show up immigration under Obama.


----------



## pismoe

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if your daughter was raped by a gang and your other daughter threatened with the same if you did not pay up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I even want to have children in a scenario or in a place where that could occur?
Click to expand...

-------------------------------   they are like Rabbits VOLUNTARILY breeding from a very  early age TK .


----------



## Tresha91203

Coyote said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> They used to put everybody together years ago in Florida but they wound up with kids being sexually assaulted.
> 
> 
> 
> They managed to keep families together before...now suddenly they cant?  Has there been an sudden increase in crimes against these children that they can not stay with their mothers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They haven't housed children with adults for a long time. This isn't something Trump implemented. He was complaining about it, in fact, and drawing attention to the fact that, due to the law, that's what happens.
> 
> Trump criticizes separating families at the border, despite his administration's support for policy that could lead to separation - CNNPolitics
> 
> It was happening under Obama, but it wasn't an issue then. It's a humanitarian crisis under Trump, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they kept children with their mothers while awaiting their hearing.  That is new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you are wrong. There were no mothers in the 2014 photos I saw. Do you have a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean the photos currently being circulated again of huge numbers of children in crowded conditions?  2014 saw a flood of unaccompanied minors Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction
> 
> The children traveled unaccompanied by parents.
Click to expand...


Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.


----------



## tycho1572

Coyote said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts on the vid I posted, Coyote?
> 
> Here it is again in case you missed it.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that relate to forceably removing children from their mothers while awaiting a hearing?  I notice she has her children with her and she said nothing about that policy, only that she can’t blame Trump for enforcing the immigration laws that deported her husband.  She says nothing about kids.
Click to expand...

It highlights the problems democrats create when they make stupid decisions. 

I know you’re an honest person who’ll eventually appreciate President Trump for addressing the problems democrats created. You and I both hate the trail of death and pain they’ve paved. 
It’s why I’m glad we finally have a president willing to fix this problem.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Tresha91203 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> They managed to keep families together before...now suddenly they cant?  Has there been an sudden increase in crimes against these children that they can not stay with their mothers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They haven't housed children with adults for a long time. This isn't something Trump implemented. He was complaining about it, in fact, and drawing attention to the fact that, due to the law, that's what happens.
> 
> Trump criticizes separating families at the border, despite his administration's support for policy that could lead to separation - CNNPolitics
> 
> It was happening under Obama, but it wasn't an issue then. It's a humanitarian crisis under Trump, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they kept children with their mothers while awaiting their hearing.  That is new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you are wrong. There were no mothers in the 2014 photos I saw. Do you have a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean the photos currently being circulated again of huge numbers of children in crowded conditions?  2014 saw a flood of unaccompanied minors Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction
> 
> The children traveled unaccompanied by parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
Click to expand...


  I asked for qualification on her claim early on in this thread....nothing was forth coming.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

tycho1572 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts on the vid I posted, Coyote?
> 
> Here it is again in case you missed it.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that relate to forceably removing children from their mothers while awaiting a hearing?  I notice she has her children with her and she said nothing about that policy, only that she can’t blame Trump for enforcing the immigration laws that deported her husband.  She says nothing about kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It highlights the problems democrats create when they make stupid decisions.
> 
> I know you’re an honest person who’ll eventually appreciate President Trump for addressing the problems democrats created. You and I both hate the trail of death and pain they’ve paved.
> It’s why I’m glad we finally have a president willing to fix this problem.
Click to expand...


   As much as I screw with Coyote I still think she's a thinking dem.


----------



## Tresha91203

Coyote said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------   he is blaming 'dems' / YOU because the moochers in cages photos was taken during 'mrobama' time in office   Busybee .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a clue what you are talking about. We are talking about TRUMP'S decision to separate children from their families. Obama did not start it. Quit blaming Obama for everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TRUMP:  Look, we are going to start enforcing our laws. We've got to get a handle on this. No more catch and release B.S.. Fair warning, If you cross our border illegally, you will be detained. Since we are going to start enforcing our laws, Congress might look at this f'ed up part separating families that's been going on a long time and doesn't seem to be working. Lawmakers need to fix that part.
> 
> MSM:  Trump is threatening to rip apart innocent families because he hates brown people and children.  Here's a photo of caved children under another administration to add drama.
> 
> SHEEP:  Trump is kidnapping and caging children!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact: Sessions has instituted a new policy of removing children from all illegal border crossers.
> 
> RWMedia: But Obama did it.
> 
> Strange Observation:  the number of children being separated is so huge there aren’t enough places for them and HHS has no budget to House them.
> 
> Question: ....but didn’t Obama do it?
> 
> Political talking point scorecard 10.
> 
> Families zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The new policy is to enforce the law. Trump is asking for a fix to this part of the law. Since we won't be ignoring our laws anymore, can we focus on fixing this part of the law, the one before Trump, that even be disagrees with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a policy of child abuse is now part of the new enforcement of the law and people are going to pretend that the law has no discretionary powers in order to justify this abuse.
> 
> So if you are caught jaywalking they can take your children and toss them into foster care because they are only enforcing the law.
Click to expand...


There is no law requiring detention of jaywalkers. There is a law that strangers entering our country illegally are to be detained. Due to the high rate of abuse of children in detention centers, children are placed with families or in juvenile facilities. Do you have a solution?


----------



## eagle1462010

Tresha91203 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a clue what you are talking about. We are talking about TRUMP'S decision to separate children from their families. Obama did not start it. Quit blaming Obama for everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRUMP:  Look, we are going to start enforcing our laws. We've got to get a handle on this. No more catch and release B.S.. Fair warning, If you cross our border illegally, you will be detained. Since we are going to start enforcing our laws, Congress might look at this f'ed up part separating families that's been going on a long time and doesn't seem to be working. Lawmakers need to fix that part.
> 
> MSM:  Trump is threatening to rip apart innocent families because he hates brown people and children.  Here's a photo of caved children under another administration to add drama.
> 
> SHEEP:  Trump is kidnapping and caging children!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact: Sessions has instituted a new policy of removing children from all illegal border crossers.
> 
> RWMedia: But Obama did it.
> 
> Strange Observation:  the number of children being separated is so huge there aren’t enough places for them and HHS has no budget to House them.
> 
> Question: ....but didn’t Obama do it?
> 
> Political talking point scorecard 10.
> 
> Families zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The new policy is to enforce the law. Trump is asking for a fix to this part of the law. Since we won't be ignoring our laws anymore, can we focus on fixing this part of the law, the one before Trump, that even be disagrees with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a policy of child abuse is now part of the new enforcement of the law and people are going to pretend that the law has no discretionary powers in order to justify this abuse.
> 
> So if you are caught jaywalking they can take your children and toss them into foster care because they are only enforcing the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no law requiring detention of jaywalkers. There is a law that strangers entering our country illegally are to be detained. Due to the high rate of abuse of children in detention centers, children are placed with families or in juvenile facilities. Do you have a solution?
Click to expand...

Amnesty for all...............LOL


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Coyote said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._
> 
> 
> From the OP..............tell me when the children of American criminals join their parents in jail......................well...........If the parents GO TO JAIL..........were not going to throw the children in jail too.............
> 
> So........are you spinning that quote???????????????????????
> 
> 
> 
> Convicted and jailed.
> 
> What have these immigrants been convicted of, they haven’t even had their hearing.  Who is spinning?
Click to expand...

They came here illegally, they are in jail pending a hearing. Just like any US citizen charged with a crime. They can rejoin their child on the bus back to Mexico


----------



## tycho1572

HereWeGoAgain said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts on the vid I posted, Coyote?
> 
> Here it is again in case you missed it.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that relate to forceably removing children from their mothers while awaiting a hearing?  I notice she has her children with her and she said nothing about that policy, only that she can’t blame Trump for enforcing the immigration laws that deported her husband.  She says nothing about kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It highlights the problems democrats create when they make stupid decisions.
> 
> I know you’re an honest person who’ll eventually appreciate President Trump for addressing the problems democrats created. You and I both hate the trail of death and pain they’ve paved.
> It’s why I’m glad we finally have a president willing to fix this problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As much as I screw with Coyote I still think she's a thinking dem.
Click to expand...

I like coyote. I don’t know why.. I just do.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

tycho1572 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts on the vid I posted, Coyote?
> 
> Here it is again in case you missed it.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that relate to forceably removing children from their mothers while awaiting a hearing?  I notice she has her children with her and she said nothing about that policy, only that she can’t blame Trump for enforcing the immigration laws that deported her husband.  She says nothing about kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It highlights the problems democrats create when they make stupid decisions.
> 
> I know you’re an honest person who’ll eventually appreciate President Trump for addressing the problems democrats created. You and I both hate the trail of death and pain they’ve paved.
> It’s why I’m glad we finally have a president willing to fix this problem.
Click to expand...


We dealt with immigrants Obama's way for eight years, and the results were less than satisfying.  Trump hasn't been in office for two years, and they are complaining left and right.  

Let us do it our way for four years (possibly eight) and see the end results.  Let's compare who has the best way to deal with the problems that come to our borders.  

It has noting to do with the children, what it has to do with is they know our policies will provide results.  That's what scares the hell out of them.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

tycho1572 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts on the vid I posted, Coyote?
> 
> Here it is again in case you missed it.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that relate to forceably removing children from their mothers while awaiting a hearing?  I notice she has her children with her and she said nothing about that policy, only that she can’t blame Trump for enforcing the immigration laws that deported her husband.  She says nothing about kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It highlights the problems democrats create when they make stupid decisions.
> 
> I know you’re an honest person who’ll eventually appreciate President Trump for addressing the problems democrats created. You and I both hate the trail of death and pain they’ve paved.
> It’s why I’m glad we finally have a president willing to fix this problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As much as I screw with Coyote I still think she's a thinking dem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like coyote. I don’t know why.. I just do.
Click to expand...


Because she's one of the few on the left that can have a discussion without getting into personal insults????


----------



## Coyote

Tresha91203 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> They managed to keep families together before...now suddenly they cant?  Has there been an sudden increase in crimes against these children that they can not stay with their mothers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They haven't housed children with adults for a long time. This isn't something Trump implemented. He was complaining about it, in fact, and drawing attention to the fact that, due to the law, that's what happens.
> 
> Trump criticizes separating families at the border, despite his administration's support for policy that could lead to separation - CNNPolitics
> 
> It was happening under Obama, but it wasn't an issue then. It's a humanitarian crisis under Trump, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they kept children with their mothers while awaiting their hearing.  That is new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you are wrong. There were no mothers in the 2014 photos I saw. Do you have a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean the photos currently being circulated again of huge numbers of children in crowded conditions?  2014 saw a flood of unaccompanied minors Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction
> 
> The children traveled unaccompanied by parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
Click to expand...



U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Coyote said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They haven't housed children with adults for a long time. This isn't something Trump implemented. He was complaining about it, in fact, and drawing attention to the fact that, due to the law, that's what happens.
> 
> Trump criticizes separating families at the border, despite his administration's support for policy that could lead to separation - CNNPolitics
> 
> It was happening under Obama, but it wasn't an issue then. It's a humanitarian crisis under Trump, though.
> 
> 
> 
> Because they kept children with their mothers while awaiting their hearing.  That is new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you are wrong. There were no mothers in the 2014 photos I saw. Do you have a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean the photos currently being circulated again of huge numbers of children in crowded conditions?  2014 saw a flood of unaccompanied minors Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction
> 
> The children traveled unaccompanied by parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
Click to expand...


   Your link was enough to ignore your link.
Activist say?


----------



## Coyote

tycho1572 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts on the vid I posted, Coyote?
> 
> Here it is again in case you missed it.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that relate to forceably removing children from their mothers while awaiting a hearing?  I notice she has her children with her and she said nothing about that policy, only that she can’t blame Trump for enforcing the immigration laws that deported her husband.  She says nothing about kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It highlights the problems democrats create when they make stupid decisions.
> 
> I know you’re an honest person who’ll eventually appreciate President Trump for addressing the problems democrats created. You and I both hate the trail of death and pain they’ve paved.
> It’s why I’m glad we finally have a president willing to fix this problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As much as I screw with Coyote I still think she's a thinking dem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like coyote. I don’t know why.. I just do.
Click to expand...

There is no accounting for taste  
I am not registered with any party though.


----------



## Coyote

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they kept children with their mothers while awaiting their hearing.  That is new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are wrong. There were no mothers in the 2014 photos I saw. Do you have a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean the photos currently being circulated again of huge numbers of children in crowded conditions?  2014 saw a flood of unaccompanied minors Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction
> 
> The children traveled unaccompanied by parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your link was enough to ignore your link.
> Activist say?
Click to expand...

There is more to it then that but feel free to ignore it.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

The true human cost to taking care of the criminals running on our border is our own kids. They lose resources that were for them in order to pay for the illegal. They get schools that can’t teach because they are dealing with non-English kids instead of math. Our neighborhood’s pay the price because these illegals are taking their parents jobs. They have to live with your human cost.


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They haven't housed children with adults for a long time. This isn't something Trump implemented. He was complaining about it, in fact, and drawing attention to the fact that, due to the law, that's what happens.
> 
> Trump criticizes separating families at the border, despite his administration's support for policy that could lead to separation - CNNPolitics
> 
> It was happening under Obama, but it wasn't an issue then. It's a humanitarian crisis under Trump, though.
> 
> 
> 
> Because they kept children with their mothers while awaiting their hearing.  That is new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you are wrong. There were no mothers in the 2014 photos I saw. Do you have a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean the photos currently being circulated again of huge numbers of children in crowded conditions?  2014 saw a flood of unaccompanied minors Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction
> 
> The children traveled unaccompanied by parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
Click to expand...

And we detained the kids with the adults and something happens to them by other adults and you'll be complaining again........Face it........You want Catch and Release......

To the 75 Democrats bitching about the situation................Stop bitching and do your job...................Demand more border agents.......larger detention facilities and more courts...............

If they don't want to do their job then why should anyone listen to them.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Coyote said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are wrong. There were no mothers in the 2014 photos I saw. Do you have a link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the photos currently being circulated again of huge numbers of children in crowded conditions?  2014 saw a flood of unaccompanied minors Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction
> 
> The children traveled unaccompanied by parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your link was enough to ignore your link.
> Activist say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is more to it then that but feel free to ignore it.
Click to expand...


   I dont take stock in either side when they admit they're activist.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Coyote said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts on the vid I posted, Coyote?
> 
> Here it is again in case you missed it.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that relate to forceably removing children from their mothers while awaiting a hearing?  I notice she has her children with her and she said nothing about that policy, only that she can’t blame Trump for enforcing the immigration laws that deported her husband.  She says nothing about kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It highlights the problems democrats create when they make stupid decisions.
> 
> I know you’re an honest person who’ll eventually appreciate President Trump for addressing the problems democrats created. You and I both hate the trail of death and pain they’ve paved.
> It’s why I’m glad we finally have a president willing to fix this problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As much as I screw with Coyote I still think she's a thinking dem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like coyote. I don’t know why.. I just do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no accounting for taste
> I am not registered with any party though.
Click to expand...

Not registered doesn’t mean you don’t vote that way.


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts on the vid I posted, Coyote?
> 
> Here it is again in case you missed it.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that relate to forceably removing children from their mothers while awaiting a hearing?  I notice she has her children with her and she said nothing about that policy, only that she can’t blame Trump for enforcing the immigration laws that deported her husband.  She says nothing about kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It highlights the problems democrats create when they make stupid decisions.
> 
> I know you’re an honest person who’ll eventually appreciate President Trump for addressing the problems democrats created. You and I both hate the trail of death and pain they’ve paved.
> It’s why I’m glad we finally have a president willing to fix this problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We dealt with immigrants Obama's way for eight years, and the results were less than satisfying.  Trump hasn't been in office for two years, and they are complaining left and right.
> 
> Let us do it our way for four years (possibly eight) and see the end results.  Let's compare who has the best way to deal with the problems that come to our borders.
> 
> It has noting to do with the children, what it has to do with is they know our policies will provide results.  That's what scares the hell out of them.
Click to expand...

What is less than satisfying for the right about a president who decreased illegal immigration and increased deportations?  If he were an R you’d be jubilant. Trump has made immigration his trademark.  Demonize, deport, and tear away their children.  Surely immigration inforcement can be carried out withou the first and the third.


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts on the vid I posted, Coyote?
> 
> Here it is again in case you missed it.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that relate to forceably removing children from their mothers while awaiting a hearing?  I notice she has her children with her and she said nothing about that policy, only that she can’t blame Trump for enforcing the immigration laws that deported her husband.  She says nothing about kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It highlights the problems democrats create when they make stupid decisions.
> 
> I know you’re an honest person who’ll eventually appreciate President Trump for addressing the problems democrats created. You and I both hate the trail of death and pain they’ve paved.
> It’s why I’m glad we finally have a president willing to fix this problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We dealt with immigrants Obama's way for eight years, and the results were less than satisfying.  Trump hasn't been in office for two years, and they are complaining left and right.
> 
> Let us do it our way for four years (possibly eight) and see the end results.  Let's compare who has the best way to deal with the problems that come to our borders.
> 
> It has noting to do with the children, what it has to do with is they know our policies will provide results.  That's what scares the hell out of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is less than satisfying for the right about a president who decreased illegal immigration and increased deportations?  If he were an R you’d be jubilant. Trump has made immigration his trademark.  Demonize, deport, and tear away their children.  Surely immigration inforcement can be carried out withou the first and the third.
Click to expand...

Revisionist history...........The Fake OP proved that............detention centers flooded awaiting Catch and Release.................in 2014........did Obama fix it...........NOPE.................

His numbers are a fraud when he lets them go...............which is exactly what he did................Open Borders by proxy.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

tycho1572 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts on the vid I posted, Coyote?
> 
> Here it is again in case you missed it.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that relate to forceably removing children from their mothers while awaiting a hearing?  I notice she has her children with her and she said nothing about that policy, only that she can’t blame Trump for enforcing the immigration laws that deported her husband.  She says nothing about kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It highlights the problems democrats create when they make stupid decisions.
> 
> I know you’re an honest person who’ll eventually appreciate President Trump for addressing the problems democrats created. You and I both hate the trail of death and pain they’ve paved.
> It’s why I’m glad we finally have a president willing to fix this problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As much as I screw with Coyote I still think she's a thinking dem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like coyote. I don’t know why.. I just do.
Click to expand...


   She may be a liberal and a Mod but she's okay in my book.


----------



## Coyote

Missouri_Mike said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does that relate to forceably removing children from their mothers while awaiting a hearing?  I notice she has her children with her and she said nothing about that policy, only that she can’t blame Trump for enforcing the immigration laws that deported her husband.  She says nothing about kids.
> 
> 
> 
> It highlights the problems democrats create when they make stupid decisions.
> 
> I know you’re an honest person who’ll eventually appreciate President Trump for addressing the problems democrats created. You and I both hate the trail of death and pain they’ve paved.
> It’s why I’m glad we finally have a president willing to fix this problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As much as I screw with Coyote I still think she's a thinking dem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like coyote. I don’t know why.. I just do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no accounting for taste
> I am not registered with any party though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not registered doesn’t mean you don’t vote that way.
Click to expand...

I vote those who’s positions come closest to mine.


HereWeGoAgain said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the photos currently being circulated again of huge numbers of children in crowded conditions?  2014 saw a flood of unaccompanied minors Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction
> 
> The children traveled unaccompanied by parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your link was enough to ignore your link.
> Activist say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is more to it then that but feel free to ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont take stock in either side when they admit they're activist.
Click to expand...

it isn’t all verbiage from activists


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts on the vid I posted, Coyote?
> 
> Here it is again in case you missed it.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that relate to forceably removing children from their mothers while awaiting a hearing?  I notice she has her children with her and she said nothing about that policy, only that she can’t blame Trump for enforcing the immigration laws that deported her husband.  She says nothing about kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It highlights the problems democrats create when they make stupid decisions.
> 
> I know you’re an honest person who’ll eventually appreciate President Trump for addressing the problems democrats created. You and I both hate the trail of death and pain they’ve paved.
> It’s why I’m glad we finally have a president willing to fix this problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We dealt with immigrants Obama's way for eight years, and the results were less than satisfying.  Trump hasn't been in office for two years, and they are complaining left and right.
> 
> Let us do it our way for four years (possibly eight) and see the end results.  Let's compare who has the best way to deal with the problems that come to our borders.
> 
> It has noting to do with the children, what it has to do with is they know our policies will provide results.  That's what scares the hell out of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is less than satisfying for the right about a president who decreased illegal immigration and increased deportations?  If he were an R you’d be jubilant. Trump has made immigration his trademark.  Demonize, deport, and tear away their children.  Surely immigration inforcement can be carried out withou the first and the third.
Click to expand...

How? You deport the people and their kids. Period. There’s no room for your feelings here.


----------



## Vandalshandle

DJT for Life said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're sure? I mean, one could give them electric shocks and put them on a starvation diet. That would REALLY show those parents!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There parents don't give a shit now.  We're just helping the children with
> a basic lesson in life.  The lesson being..."For every behavior...there is a
> consequence."
> 
> Bad behavior calls for a bad consequence.
> 
> There is legal immigration and their is illegal immigration.  There is no
> bad consequence with legal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure that the lesson will be learned. Next time, the kids will choose better parents....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or maybe become better parents when they have children.  It'll be one helluva long shot with them being from Central America, but at least
> we would have done our part.
> 
> If they could choose better parents next time around, here's hoping they
> choose Democrats.  They won't be faced with this type of a problem
> then.  They'll have been aborted 6 months before delivery date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't stay on topic? Short attention span?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered your question.  I assumed that would be classified as
> staying on topic.
Click to expand...


The topic is abortion? Damn! There must be something wrong with my computer. Mine says it is about controlling illegal immigration!


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Coyote said:


> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It highlights the problems democrats create when they make stupid decisions.
> 
> I know you’re an honest person who’ll eventually appreciate President Trump for addressing the problems democrats created. You and I both hate the trail of death and pain they’ve paved.
> It’s why I’m glad we finally have a president willing to fix this problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As much as I screw with Coyote I still think she's a thinking dem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like coyote. I don’t know why.. I just do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no accounting for taste
> I am not registered with any party though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not registered doesn’t mean you don’t vote that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I vote those who’s positions come closest to mine.
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your link was enough to ignore your link.
> Activist say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is more to it then that but feel free to ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont take stock in either side when they admit they're activist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it isn’t all verbiage from activists
Click to expand...

And those positions are what? Let all the illegals in? That sounds pretty democrat.


----------



## Coyote

eagle1462010 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they kept children with their mothers while awaiting their hearing.  That is new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are wrong. There were no mothers in the 2014 photos I saw. Do you have a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean the photos currently being circulated again of huge numbers of children in crowded conditions?  2014 saw a flood of unaccompanied minors Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction
> 
> The children traveled unaccompanied by parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we detained the kids with the adults and something happens to them by other adults and you'll be complaining again........Face it........You want Catch and Release......
> 
> To the 75 Democrats bitching about the situation................Stop bitching and do your job...................Demand more border agents.......larger detention facilities and more courts...............
> 
> If they don't want to do their job then why should anyone listen to them.
Click to expand...

We can and do detain families together, what we can’t do is put kids with unrelated adults.  

I fully support increased funding for border enforcement and courts.  There is no reason for people to languish in limbo as long as they do.  What I don’t support is policies designed to be cruel, abusive and unnecessary.


----------



## Coyote

Missouri_Mike said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> As much as I screw with Coyote I still think she's a thinking dem.
> 
> 
> 
> I like coyote. I don’t know why.. I just do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no accounting for taste
> I am not registered with any party though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not registered doesn’t mean you don’t vote that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I vote those who’s positions come closest to mine.
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your link was enough to ignore your link.
> Activist say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is more to it then that but feel free to ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont take stock in either side when they admit they're activist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it isn’t all verbiage from activists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And those positions are what? Let all the illegals in? That sounds pretty democrat.
Click to expand...

Nope.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Coyote said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are wrong. There were no mothers in the 2014 photos I saw. Do you have a link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the photos currently being circulated again of huge numbers of children in crowded conditions?  2014 saw a flood of unaccompanied minors Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction
> 
> The children traveled unaccompanied by parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we detained the kids with the adults and something happens to them by other adults and you'll be complaining again........Face it........You want Catch and Release......
> 
> To the 75 Democrats bitching about the situation................Stop bitching and do your job...................Demand more border agents.......larger detention facilities and more courts...............
> 
> If they don't want to do their job then why should anyone listen to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can and do detain families together, what we can’t do is put kids with unrelated adults.
> 
> I fully support increased funding for border enforcement and courts.  There is no reason for people to languish in limbo as long as they do.  What I don’t support is policies designed to be cruel, abusive and unnecessary.
Click to expand...

So the whole family goes to jail. Can they all be sent back on the same bus?


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Coyote said:


> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like coyote. I don’t know why.. I just do.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no accounting for taste
> I am not registered with any party though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not registered doesn’t mean you don’t vote that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I vote those who’s positions come closest to mine.
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your link was enough to ignore your link.
> Activist say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is more to it then that but feel free to ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont take stock in either side when they admit they're activist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it isn’t all verbiage from activists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And those positions are what? Let all the illegals in? That sounds pretty democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.
Click to expand...

Just the kids? They get in but the parents don’t? Why are you separating families?


----------



## Tresha91203

Coyote said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They haven't housed children with adults for a long time. This isn't something Trump implemented. He was complaining about it, in fact, and drawing attention to the fact that, due to the law, that's what happens.
> 
> Trump criticizes separating families at the border, despite his administration's support for policy that could lead to separation - CNNPolitics
> 
> It was happening under Obama, but it wasn't an issue then. It's a humanitarian crisis under Trump, though.
> 
> 
> 
> Because they kept children with their mothers while awaiting their hearing.  That is new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you are wrong. There were no mothers in the 2014 photos I saw. Do you have a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean the photos currently being circulated again of huge numbers of children in crowded conditions?  2014 saw a flood of unaccompanied minors Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction
> 
> The children traveled unaccompanied by parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
Click to expand...


When family detention centers are full, which they are, what do we do other than catch & release. Catch & release is a failure. Congress needs to either accommodate the influx of reduce the influx. It's their job, not Trump's. Trump is even calling for them to fix it because catch & release failed. We are now going to enforce our laws by detaining unknowns illegally crossing our borders.  Are you suggesting we continue catch & release? Are you suggesting we build more family detention centers? Are you suggesting there's no problem? Ending catch & release is good, IMO. We need to find some way to protect children as much as possible. I am open to options.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Tresha91203 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they kept children with their mothers while awaiting their hearing.  That is new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are wrong. There were no mothers in the 2014 photos I saw. Do you have a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean the photos currently being circulated again of huge numbers of children in crowded conditions?  2014 saw a flood of unaccompanied minors Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction
> 
> The children traveled unaccompanied by parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When family detention centers are full, which they are, what do we do other than catch & release. Catch & release is a failure. Congress needs to either accommodate the influx of reduce the influx. It's their job, not Trump's. Trump is even calling for them to fix it because catch & release failed. We are now going to enforce our laws by detaining unknowns illegally crossing our borders.  Are you suggesting we continue catch & release? Are you suggesting we build more family detention centers? Are you suggesting there's no problem? Ending catch & release is good, IMO. We need to find some way to protect children as much as possible. I am open to options.
Click to expand...

Why do we have family detention centers? They should be nothing more than a bus stop where they wait for a ride back to Mexico. We take them over the border and drop them off for Mexico to deal with. It’s not our problem.


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are wrong. There were no mothers in the 2014 photos I saw. Do you have a link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the photos currently being circulated again of huge numbers of children in crowded conditions?  2014 saw a flood of unaccompanied minors Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction
> 
> The children traveled unaccompanied by parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we detained the kids with the adults and something happens to them by other adults and you'll be complaining again........Face it........You want Catch and Release......
> 
> To the 75 Democrats bitching about the situation................Stop bitching and do your job...................Demand more border agents.......larger detention facilities and more courts...............
> 
> If they don't want to do their job then why should anyone listen to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can and do detain families together, what we can’t do is put kids with unrelated adults.
> 
> I fully support increased funding for border enforcement and courts.  There is no reason for people to languish in limbo as long as they do.  What I don’t support is policies designed to be cruel, abusive and unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Detention centers have  a capacity of 40,000 beds..............

100,000 have been detained in 2 months...........that doesn't count the ones not caught..............

The numbers don't add up.


----------



## busybee01

Meathead said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that it continued under Trump. However we are discussing TRUMP policy of separating children from their families. Obama had nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is not trying to bring in illegal alien families. In fact he's actually trying to stop them.
Click to expand...


There is no evidence that is what Obama was trying to do. Treating people humanely is not bringing them in.


----------



## eagle1462010

Missouri_Mike said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are wrong. There were no mothers in the 2014 photos I saw. Do you have a link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the photos currently being circulated again of huge numbers of children in crowded conditions?  2014 saw a flood of unaccompanied minors Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction
> 
> The children traveled unaccompanied by parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When family detention centers are full, which they are, what do we do other than catch & release. Catch & release is a failure. Congress needs to either accommodate the influx of reduce the influx. It's their job, not Trump's. Trump is even calling for them to fix it because catch & release failed. We are now going to enforce our laws by detaining unknowns illegally crossing our borders.  Are you suggesting we continue catch & release? Are you suggesting we build more family detention centers? Are you suggesting there's no problem? Ending catch & release is good, IMO. We need to find some way to protect children as much as possible. I am open to options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do we have family detention centers? They should be nothing more than a bus stop where they wait for a ride back to Mexico. We take them over the border and drop them off for Mexico to deal with. It’s not our problem.
Click to expand...

legal loop holes............law..............asylum seekers are required by law to get a hearing.


----------



## busybee01

9thIDdoc said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to know a lot about these children. How many do you know? Personally, I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know any of them individually.  But I know how their parents
> and their shithhole countries that they come from. are gaming the system.
> 
> And what's your story, Pancho?  Butt-hurt liberal or illegal alien?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your logic is to punish the children for their parents having committed a misdemeanor by crossing the border without papers, why not go all the way, and torture them as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is nonsense.
> 
> We are NOT punishing children.  No more than a convicted felon's child is punished when we send them to prison.
> 
> Do we stop enforcing our laws because the children will be separated from their parents who are acting criminally?
> 
> The answer is a resounding, no!
> 
> As for this nonsense of "human cost", it is nothing more than a phrase designed to instill anguish in political opposition for the purpose of achieving an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.  Who suffers?  The children.  What crime does a 3 yr old commit that is prosecutable under the law? Explain that to the hysterical child, tell him he is NOT being punished  by being ripped from the only family he knows and then try to rationalize a seriously fucked policy here that was NOT in place before.
> 
> And remind me again how your party is pro family cause I sure dont see it in this policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------------   that'd be PRO American family Coyote .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That shows what a racist you are. You are either pro-family or you are not. There is no in-between.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are either pro-law and order and pro-American taxpayer or you are not.
Click to expand...


You are either humane or you are not. You are not. You offer false choices.


----------



## eagle1462010

busybee01 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that it continued under Trump. However we are discussing TRUMP policy of separating children from their families. Obama had nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is not trying to bring in illegal alien families. In fact he's actually trying to stop them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that is what Obama was trying to do. Treating people humanely is not bringing them in.
Click to expand...

In 2014 they were overcrowded in detention centers ..........yet the left pushed these pictures against Trump..........A BLATANT LIE.............for political reasons........................

Again...........Dem officials need to get off their butts and send bills to deal with the problems already mentioned in this thread.


----------



## Slyhunter

Vandalshandle said:


> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> There parents don't give a shit now.  We're just helping the children with
> a basic lesson in life.  The lesson being..."For every behavior...there is a
> consequence."
> 
> Bad behavior calls for a bad consequence.
> 
> There is legal immigration and their is illegal immigration.  There is no
> bad consequence with legal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure that the lesson will be learned. Next time, the kids will choose better parents....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or maybe become better parents when they have children.  It'll be one helluva long shot with them being from Central America, but at least
> we would have done our part.
> 
> If they could choose better parents next time around, here's hoping they
> choose Democrats.  They won't be faced with this type of a problem
> then.  They'll have been aborted 6 months before delivery date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't stay on topic? Short attention span?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered your question.  I assumed that would be classified as
> staying on topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is abortion? Damn! There must be something wrong with my computer. Mine says it is about controlling illegal immigration!
Click to expand...

Well if those illegals had abortions then there would be no illegal kids.


----------



## Slyhunter

Tresha91203 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they kept children with their mothers while awaiting their hearing.  That is new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are wrong. There were no mothers in the 2014 photos I saw. Do you have a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean the photos currently being circulated again of huge numbers of children in crowded conditions?  2014 saw a flood of unaccompanied minors Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction
> 
> The children traveled unaccompanied by parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When family detention centers are full, which they are, what do we do other than catch & release. Catch & release is a failure. Congress needs to either accommodate the influx of reduce the influx. It's their job, not Trump's. Trump is even calling for them to fix it because catch & release failed. We are now going to enforce our laws by detaining unknowns illegally crossing our borders.  Are you suggesting we continue catch & release? Are you suggesting we build more family detention centers? Are you suggesting there's no problem? Ending catch & release is good, IMO. We need to find some way to protect children as much as possible. I am open to options.
Click to expand...

Catch and release on the other side of the wall.
execute anyone found on this side of the wall.


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are wrong. There were no mothers in the 2014 photos I saw. Do you have a link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the photos currently being circulated again of huge numbers of children in crowded conditions?  2014 saw a flood of unaccompanied minors Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction
> 
> The children traveled unaccompanied by parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we detained the kids with the adults and something happens to them by other adults and you'll be complaining again........Face it........You want Catch and Release......
> 
> To the 75 Democrats bitching about the situation................Stop bitching and do your job...................Demand more border agents.......larger detention facilities and more courts...............
> 
> If they don't want to do their job then why should anyone listen to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can and do detain families together, what we can’t do is put kids with unrelated adults.
> 
> I fully support increased funding for border enforcement and courts.  There is no reason for people to languish in limbo as long as they do.  What I don’t support is policies designed to be cruel, abusive and unnecessary.
Click to expand...

aka Catch and Release we know that is exactly what you are getting at.............No room...........look at the poor kids and overcrowding......let them go........Sure they will be at court on the date prescribed...............LOL.............yeah that's tough Obama immigration policies.............

Dems purposely help cause all this ..............they want the Identity politics ...........they want the overcrowding to push their true agenda..........which sure as hell isn't increasing border security.......

They want more detention centers and border agents.......put it in a bill tomorrow and it will pass QUICK............they aren't gonna do it........and will Block any attempt to increase border security ......courts and detention centers..............


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um .. no ... someone having a baby in the world doesn't make them a US citizen ... fail ... and badly so ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm...dude...it isn’t about having a kid in order to gain citizenship.  Try again.
Click to expand...

Then why are so many children coming here without their parents?


----------



## Tresha91203

Coyote said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are wrong. There were no mothers in the 2014 photos I saw. Do you have a link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the photos currently being circulated again of huge numbers of children in crowded conditions?  2014 saw a flood of unaccompanied minors Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction
> 
> The children traveled unaccompanied by parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we detained the kids with the adults and something happens to them by other adults and you'll be complaining again........Face it........You want Catch and Release......
> 
> To the 75 Democrats bitching about the situation................Stop bitching and do your job...................Demand more border agents.......larger detention facilities and more courts...............
> 
> If they don't want to do their job then why should anyone listen to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can and do detain families together, what we can’t do is put kids with unrelated adults.
> 
> I fully support increased funding for border enforcement and courts.  There is no reason for people to languish in limbo as long as they do.  What I don’t support is policies designed to be cruel, abusive and unnecessary.
Click to expand...


Many just want Catch & Release. A few years back, the complaint was that any detention was bad, even family centers.

The fight over family immigration detention centers - CNN

I think the sentiment is the same. The latest fake spin just presented another bash Trump session.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

eagle1462010 said:


> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the photos currently being circulated again of huge numbers of children in crowded conditions?  2014 saw a flood of unaccompanied minors Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction
> 
> The children traveled unaccompanied by parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When family detention centers are full, which they are, what do we do other than catch & release. Catch & release is a failure. Congress needs to either accommodate the influx of reduce the influx. It's their job, not Trump's. Trump is even calling for them to fix it because catch & release failed. We are now going to enforce our laws by detaining unknowns illegally crossing our borders.  Are you suggesting we continue catch & release? Are you suggesting we build more family detention centers? Are you suggesting there's no problem? Ending catch & release is good, IMO. We need to find some way to protect children as much as possible. I am open to options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do we have family detention centers? They should be nothing more than a bus stop where they wait for a ride back to Mexico. We take them over the border and drop them off for Mexico to deal with. It’s not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> legal loop holes............law..............asylum seekers are required by law to get a hearing.
Click to expand...

We don’t need a hearing. They jumped the border. Ho back. Case solved.


----------



## flacaltenn

busybee01 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that it continued under Trump. However we are discussing TRUMP policy of separating children from their families. Obama had nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is not trying to bring in illegal alien families. In fact he's actually trying to stop them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that is what Obama was trying to do. Treating people humanely is not bringing them in.
Click to expand...


Since when was Uncle Sam an expert at customer service and hospitality? The expectations here are all wrong. If it's not a simple and clear procedure -- there's NO ROOM for compassion in the heart of a bureaucrat. And no room in their brain for incentives to be creative or reasonable. 

Don't EXPECT those things of the Federal Govt. It's not like Mr Hilton is running the chaos at the border.


----------



## eagle1462010

Missouri_Mike said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When family detention centers are full, which they are, what do we do other than catch & release. Catch & release is a failure. Congress needs to either accommodate the influx of reduce the influx. It's their job, not Trump's. Trump is even calling for them to fix it because catch & release failed. We are now going to enforce our laws by detaining unknowns illegally crossing our borders.  Are you suggesting we continue catch & release? Are you suggesting we build more family detention centers? Are you suggesting there's no problem? Ending catch & release is good, IMO. We need to find some way to protect children as much as possible. I am open to options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do we have family detention centers? They should be nothing more than a bus stop where they wait for a ride back to Mexico. We take them over the border and drop them off for Mexico to deal with. It’s not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> legal loop holes............law..............asylum seekers are required by law to get a hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don’t need a hearing. They jumped the border. Ho back. Case solved.
Click to expand...

Asylum laws are on the books................whether we like it or not............which is exactly why they have what to say instructions when coming here............forces a court date by law..................under catch and release..........they just haul ass.........don't show up for court.........and blend in to the country with the rest of the millions upon millions of illegals already here.


----------



## busybee01

Ray From Cleveland said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorizing children. People like you need to be shipped off to Guantanamo for the rest of your miserable lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then send the parents to Gitmo instead of us, because it's the parents that are causing their children harm--not us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, if we are separating them then it's us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not.  You come here illegally, everything that happens to you and your kids is your fault.  You knew well ahead of time you are coming here and breaking our laws, so anything could happen at that point.
> 
> Let me ask, if a woman is drunk and driving around with her child, and she runs when the cops try to pull her over, and the child gets killed when she strikes a tree, do you blame the drunken mother or the police that tried to stop her?
> 
> We have enough irresponsible people in this country, we call them Democrats.  We certainly don't need any more irresponsible people coming from other places.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no moral equivalence in the argument. No one is killed when someone crosses the border. Sit down and shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see that point flew over your pointy head.
Click to expand...


That point doesn't exist except in your pointy head.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

flacaltenn said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that it continued under Trump. However we are discussing TRUMP policy of separating children from their families. Obama had nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is not trying to bring in illegal alien families. In fact he's actually trying to stop them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that is what Obama was trying to do. Treating people humanely is not bringing them in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since when was Uncle Sam an expert at customer service and hospitality? The expectations here are all wrong. If it's not a simple and clear procedure -- there's NO ROOM for compassion in the heart of a bureaucrat. And no room in their brain for incentives to be creative or reasonable.
> 
> Don't EXPECT those things of the Federal Govt. It's not like Mr Hilton is running the chaos at the border.
Click to expand...

Damn, AAmerica sounds horrible. Don’t come here.


----------



## busybee01

Ray From Cleveland said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to know a lot about these children. How many do you know? Personally, I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know any of them individually.  But I know how their parents
> and their shithhole countries that they come from. are gaming the system.
> 
> And what's your story, Pancho?  Butt-hurt liberal or illegal alien?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your logic is to punish the children for their parents having committed a misdemeanor by crossing the border without papers, why not go all the way, and torture them as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is nonsense.
> 
> We are NOT punishing children.  No more than a convicted felon's child is punished when we send them to prison.
> 
> Do we stop enforcing our laws because the children will be separated from their parents who are acting criminally?
> 
> The answer is a resounding, no!
> 
> As for this nonsense of "human cost", it is nothing more than a phrase designed to instill anguish in political opposition for the purpose of achieving an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.  Who suffers?  The children.  What crime does a 3 yr old commit that is prosecutable under the law? Explain that to the hysterical child, tell him he is NOT being punished  by being ripped from the only family he knows and then try to rationalize a seriously fucked policy here that was NOT in place before.
> 
> And remind me again how your party is pro family cause I sure dont see it in this policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------------   that'd be PRO American family Coyote .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That shows what a racist you are. You are either pro-family or you are not. There is no in-between.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are either pro-laws or you're not.
Click to expand...


This has nothing to do with laws. There is no law that says that children should be separated from their parents.


----------



## Tresha91203

Missouri_Mike said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are wrong. There were no mothers in the 2014 photos I saw. Do you have a link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the photos currently being circulated again of huge numbers of children in crowded conditions?  2014 saw a flood of unaccompanied minors Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction
> 
> The children traveled unaccompanied by parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When family detention centers are full, which they are, what do we do other than catch & release. Catch & release is a failure. Congress needs to either accommodate the influx of reduce the influx. It's their job, not Trump's. Trump is even calling for them to fix it because catch & release failed. We are now going to enforce our laws by detaining unknowns illegally crossing our borders.  Are you suggesting we continue catch & release? Are you suggesting we build more family detention centers? Are you suggesting there's no problem? Ending catch & release is good, IMO. We need to find some way to protect children as much as possible. I am open to options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do we have family detention centers? They should be nothing more than a bus stop where they wait for a ride back to Mexico. We take them over the border and drop them off for Mexico to deal with. It’s not our problem.
Click to expand...


Many may be legitimate assylum seekers. We need more judges processing faster and to reduce fraudsters.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

eagle1462010 said:


> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When family detention centers are full, which they are, what do we do other than catch & release. Catch & release is a failure. Congress needs to either accommodate the influx of reduce the influx. It's their job, not Trump's. Trump is even calling for them to fix it because catch & release failed. We are now going to enforce our laws by detaining unknowns illegally crossing our borders.  Are you suggesting we continue catch & release? Are you suggesting we build more family detention centers? Are you suggesting there's no problem? Ending catch & release is good, IMO. We need to find some way to protect children as much as possible. I am open to options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do we have family detention centers? They should be nothing more than a bus stop where they wait for a ride back to Mexico. We take them over the border and drop them off for Mexico to deal with. It’s not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> legal loop holes............law..............asylum seekers are required by law to get a hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don’t need a hearing. They jumped the border. Ho back. Case solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Asylum laws are on the books................whether we like it or not............which is exactly why they have what to say instructions when coming here............forces a court date by law..................under catch and release..........they just haul ass.........don't show up for court.........and blend in to the country with the rest of the millions upon millions of illegals already here.
Click to expand...

Which is the true immigration reform we need. It’s not letting more law breakers in its shortening the time they get sent out.


----------



## busybee01

HereWeGoAgain said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...those children had arrived alone at the Southwest border — without their parents. Most of them are from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, and were fleeing drug cartels, gang violence and domestic abuse, according to government data." And a lot of them are gang members themselves.
> 
> "...the department’s office of refugee resettlement began voluntarily making the calls as a 30-day follow-up to make sure that the children and their sponsors did not require additional services. Those calls, which the office does not view as required, Mr. Hargan said, are now “being used to confuse and spread misinformation.”
> 
> In many cases, the statement said, sponsors cannot be reached because “they themselves are illegal aliens and do not want to be reached by federal authorities.”
> Did the Trump Administration Separate Immigrant Children From Parents and Lose Them?
> 
> The left has trafficked gang members and criminals into the US, and now that they've *disappeared* they want to blame Trump?
> 
> Fucking ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens is people show up with kids that aren't theirs, or that they're using as mules, and we remove the kids for their own safety.
> 
> Of course the left doesn't like that. Children are disposable, and are supposed to be used by adults to get over the border. The left embraces trafficking, and is going to squawk when you protect children. They always have.
> 
> “As required by law, D.H.S. must protect the best interests of minor children crossing our borders, and occasionally this results in separating children from an adult they are traveling with if we cannot ascertain the parental relationship, or if we think the child is otherwise in danger,”
> 
> Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents at U.S. Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is so much bullshit and trash like you know it. The Trump people are separating children from their parents. They know it is wrong because they are blaming democrats for it. This is happening more than occasionally.
> 
> Got anymore BULLSHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where were you when barry was doing the exact same thing?
> Not a fuken peep out of you.
Click to expand...


Trump is the one separating children from their parents not Obama. You are a fucken liar.


----------



## eagle1462010

Tresha91203 said:


> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the photos currently being circulated again of huge numbers of children in crowded conditions?  2014 saw a flood of unaccompanied minors Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction
> 
> The children traveled unaccompanied by parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When family detention centers are full, which they are, what do we do other than catch & release. Catch & release is a failure. Congress needs to either accommodate the influx of reduce the influx. It's their job, not Trump's. Trump is even calling for them to fix it because catch & release failed. We are now going to enforce our laws by detaining unknowns illegally crossing our borders.  Are you suggesting we continue catch & release? Are you suggesting we build more family detention centers? Are you suggesting there's no problem? Ending catch & release is good, IMO. We need to find some way to protect children as much as possible. I am open to options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do we have family detention centers? They should be nothing more than a bus stop where they wait for a ride back to Mexico. We take them over the border and drop them off for Mexico to deal with. It’s not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many may be legitimate assylum seekers. We need more judges processing faster and to reduce fraudsters.
Click to expand...

We need enough of them to do this.


----------



## busybee01

Ray From Cleveland said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are using children as hostages. You are no different than terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the left is not???
Click to expand...


You are the one who wants to treat children as criminals.


----------



## busybee01

OKTexas said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans tend to lack basic empathy for things they don’t directly witness. They don’t have the emotional maturity or complexity of thought for such a thing. As a result, they don’t bother thinking about the well being of kids. They just know brown people have crossed the border and their GOP masters tell them it’s a bad thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The parents are responsible for anything that happens to the kids, they put them in the situation.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We hold law enforcement to the same standards we hold everyone else. The people who are implementing this policy are responsible and should be held legally liable. Take your trash elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who said they're not?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


When Trump is kicked out, he needs to be arrested along with his enablers of this barbaric policy. That is when accountability starts.


----------



## Tresha91203

Missouri_Mike said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When family detention centers are full, which they are, what do we do other than catch & release. Catch & release is a failure. Congress needs to either accommodate the influx of reduce the influx. It's their job, not Trump's. Trump is even calling for them to fix it because catch & release failed. We are now going to enforce our laws by detaining unknowns illegally crossing our borders.  Are you suggesting we continue catch & release? Are you suggesting we build more family detention centers? Are you suggesting there's no problem? Ending catch & release is good, IMO. We need to find some way to protect children as much as possible. I am open to options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do we have family detention centers? They should be nothing more than a bus stop where they wait for a ride back to Mexico. We take them over the border and drop them off for Mexico to deal with. It’s not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> legal loop holes............law..............asylum seekers are required by law to get a hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don’t need a hearing. They jumped the border. Ho back. Case solved.
Click to expand...


It's the law. Congress would have to get off its butt to change it. I think they are napping ATM though, so it might be a while.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

busybee01 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are using children as hostages. You are no different than terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the left is not???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who wants to treat children as criminals.
Click to expand...


And you are the one that wants to encourage people to come here and use them as pawns.


----------



## eagle1462010

busybee01 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are using children as hostages. You are no different than terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the left is not???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who wants to treat children as criminals.
Click to expand...

Placing them in detention jails with adults who may harm them whether with the parents or not would be criminal..........Then tomorrow you'd be look what you did to these families.....................Can't house them with all the adults...........got news for you.........some aren't so nice coming over.........

Kids going to other detention centers are for their own protection..............but the INN IS FULL.........only 40,000 beds......

Brings us to another lie the left pushes...........that those crossing is much smaller............more BS.

Face it..........your identity politics here is to attack to get Catch and Release back which is basically your real goal of open borders.


----------



## flacaltenn

busybee01 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know any of them individually.  But I know how their parents
> and their shithhole countries that they come from. are gaming the system.
> 
> And what's your story, Pancho?  Butt-hurt liberal or illegal alien?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your logic is to punish the children for their parents having committed a misdemeanor by crossing the border without papers, why not go all the way, and torture them as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is nonsense.
> 
> We are NOT punishing children.  No more than a convicted felon's child is punished when we send them to prison.
> 
> Do we stop enforcing our laws because the children will be separated from their parents who are acting criminally?
> 
> The answer is a resounding, no!
> 
> As for this nonsense of "human cost", it is nothing more than a phrase designed to instill anguish in political opposition for the purpose of achieving an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.  Who suffers?  The children.  What crime does a 3 yr old commit that is prosecutable under the law? Explain that to the hysterical child, tell him he is NOT being punished  by being ripped from the only family he knows and then try to rationalize a seriously fucked policy here that was NOT in place before.
> 
> And remind me again how your party is pro family cause I sure dont see it in this policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------------   that'd be PRO American family Coyote .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That shows what a racist you are. You are either pro-family or you are not. There is no in-between.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are either pro-laws or you're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with laws. There is no law that says that children should be separated from their parents.
Click to expand...


We had 160,000 PARENT-LESS children rush the S. border from Central America between 2013 and 2015. They were put into cages until they could be WAREHOUSED in abandoned gyms and army barracks for another year. Til Uncle Sam could FIND relatives or adoptions. Uncle Sam also sucks greatly at running that kind of orphanage. Wasn't for lack of MONEY -- it cost about $260/day. 

And at that density, the kids were mixed in with gang infected members and other bad elements. 

Border Agents CAN separate children until they get PROOF of family relationships. They also do it because the group ACCOMMODATIONS don't allow for the SAFETY of those children mixed in with all the other "unknowns". It's not a boarding house. Uncle Sam also does not not design boarding houses.


----------



## busybee01

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not the parents' fault. Trump knows this which is why he is blaming Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------   he is blaming 'dems' / YOU because the moochers in cages photos was taken during 'mrobama' time in office   Busybee .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a clue what you are talking about. We are talking about TRUMP'S decision to separate children from their families. Obama did not start it. Quit blaming Obama for everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama lost over 4100 children when he was President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that it continued under Trump. However we are discussing TRUMP policy of separating children from their families. Obama had nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It looks like the illegal aliens are trying to use their children as passports
Click to expand...


This has nothing to do with illegals. It has to do with morality or in this case, lack of it. Ronald Reagan would never do anything inhumane like this.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

busybee01 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know any of them individually.  But I know how their parents
> and their shithhole countries that they come from. are gaming the system.
> 
> And what's your story, Pancho?  Butt-hurt liberal or illegal alien?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your logic is to punish the children for their parents having committed a misdemeanor by crossing the border without papers, why not go all the way, and torture them as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is nonsense.
> 
> We are NOT punishing children.  No more than a convicted felon's child is punished when we send them to prison.
> 
> Do we stop enforcing our laws because the children will be separated from their parents who are acting criminally?
> 
> The answer is a resounding, no!
> 
> As for this nonsense of "human cost", it is nothing more than a phrase designed to instill anguish in political opposition for the purpose of achieving an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.  Who suffers?  The children.  What crime does a 3 yr old commit that is prosecutable under the law? Explain that to the hysterical child, tell him he is NOT being punished  by being ripped from the only family he knows and then try to rationalize a seriously fucked policy here that was NOT in place before.
> 
> And remind me again how your party is pro family cause I sure dont see it in this policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------------   that'd be PRO American family Coyote .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That shows what a racist you are. You are either pro-family or you are not. There is no in-between.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are either pro-laws or you're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with laws. There is no law that says that children should be separated from their parents.
Click to expand...


There is?  Where? 

There is a law that say you can't come to the US illegally.  I can show you that one.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Tresha91203 said:


> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the photos currently being circulated again of huge numbers of children in crowded conditions?  2014 saw a flood of unaccompanied minors Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction
> 
> The children traveled unaccompanied by parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When family detention centers are full, which they are, what do we do other than catch & release. Catch & release is a failure. Congress needs to either accommodate the influx of reduce the influx. It's their job, not Trump's. Trump is even calling for them to fix it because catch & release failed. We are now going to enforce our laws by detaining unknowns illegally crossing our borders.  Are you suggesting we continue catch & release? Are you suggesting we build more family detention centers? Are you suggesting there's no problem? Ending catch & release is good, IMO. We need to find some way to protect children as much as possible. I am open to options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do we have family detention centers? They should be nothing more than a bus stop where they wait for a ride back to Mexico. We take them over the border and drop them off for Mexico to deal with. It’s not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many may be legitimate assylum seekers. We need more judges processing faster and to reduce fraudsters.
Click to expand...

Once you have made it to Mexico your dream of a good life is granted. We don’t need to process anyone. How can you seek assylum from Mexico? That country is great.


----------



## busybee01

eagle1462010 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are using children as hostages. You are no different than terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the left is not???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who wants to treat children as criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Placing them in detention jails with adults who may harm them whether with the parents or not would be criminal..........Then tomorrow you'd be look what you did to these families.....................Can't house them with all the adults...........got news for you.........some aren't so nice coming over.........
> 
> Kids going to other detention centers are for their own protection..............but the INN IS FULL.........only 40,000 beds......
> 
> Brings us to another lie the left pushes...........that those crossing is much smaller............more BS.
> 
> Face it..........your identity politics here is to attack to get Catch and Release back which is basically your real goal of open borders.
Click to expand...


They shouldn't be in detention jails. They need to be in facilities for families. Treating people right has nothing to do with what to do with illegals. Thye should be treated right while they are there and until their status is determined legally.


----------



## eagle1462010

busybee01 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans tend to lack basic empathy for things they don’t directly witness. They don’t have the emotional maturity or complexity of thought for such a thing. As a result, they don’t bother thinking about the well being of kids. They just know brown people have crossed the border and their GOP masters tell them it’s a bad thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The parents are responsible for anything that happens to the kids, they put them in the situation.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We hold law enforcement to the same standards we hold everyone else. The people who are implementing this policy are responsible and should be held legally liable. Take your trash elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who said they're not?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Trump is kicked out, he needs to be arrested along with his enablers of this barbaric policy. That is when accountability starts.
Click to expand...

How about accountability to the Dems who refuse immigration funding to the very things I have repeatedly stated......

Please show me the bills requesting that from the Dem Reps............Push it tomorrow......it will get rushed through and we can get busy fixing this problem ASAP.............

Instead of blocking any immigration reform that doesn't say Amnesty on it.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Tresha91203 said:


> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When family detention centers are full, which they are, what do we do other than catch & release. Catch & release is a failure. Congress needs to either accommodate the influx of reduce the influx. It's their job, not Trump's. Trump is even calling for them to fix it because catch & release failed. We are now going to enforce our laws by detaining unknowns illegally crossing our borders.  Are you suggesting we continue catch & release? Are you suggesting we build more family detention centers? Are you suggesting there's no problem? Ending catch & release is good, IMO. We need to find some way to protect children as much as possible. I am open to options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do we have family detention centers? They should be nothing more than a bus stop where they wait for a ride back to Mexico. We take them over the border and drop them off for Mexico to deal with. It’s not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> legal loop holes............law..............asylum seekers are required by law to get a hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don’t need a hearing. They jumped the border. Ho back. Case solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the law. Congress would have to get off its butt to change it. I think they are napping ATM though, so it might be a while.
Click to expand...

Well it’s the democrats. They put these illegals concerns over yours.


----------



## eagle1462010

busybee01 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are using children as hostages. You are no different than terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the left is not???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who wants to treat children as criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Placing them in detention jails with adults who may harm them whether with the parents or not would be criminal..........Then tomorrow you'd be look what you did to these families.....................Can't house them with all the adults...........got news for you.........some aren't so nice coming over.........
> 
> Kids going to other detention centers are for their own protection..............but the INN IS FULL.........only 40,000 beds......
> 
> Brings us to another lie the left pushes...........that those crossing is much smaller............more BS.
> 
> Face it..........your identity politics here is to attack to get Catch and Release back which is basically your real goal of open borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They shouldn't be in detention jails. They need to be in facilities for families. Treating people right has nothing to do with what to do with illegals. Thye should be treated right while they are there and until their status is determined legally.
Click to expand...

Which part of those don't exist ............don't you understand..................


----------



## flacaltenn

Missouri_Mike said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When family detention centers are full, which they are, what do we do other than catch & release. Catch & release is a failure. Congress needs to either accommodate the influx of reduce the influx. It's their job, not Trump's. Trump is even calling for them to fix it because catch & release failed. We are now going to enforce our laws by detaining unknowns illegally crossing our borders.  Are you suggesting we continue catch & release? Are you suggesting we build more family detention centers? Are you suggesting there's no problem? Ending catch & release is good, IMO. We need to find some way to protect children as much as possible. I am open to options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do we have family detention centers? They should be nothing more than a bus stop where they wait for a ride back to Mexico. We take them over the border and drop them off for Mexico to deal with. It’s not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many may be legitimate assylum seekers. We need more judges processing faster and to reduce fraudsters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once you have made it to Mexico your dream of a good life is granted. We don’t need to process anyone. How can you seek assylum from Mexico? That country is great.
Click to expand...


Only because you can BUY your way in.. About $40 US fixes ALL the paperwork every time -- I hear. They LOVE Americans down there if they got the cash.


----------



## pismoe

busybee01 said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------   he is blaming 'dems' / YOU because the moochers in cages photos was taken during 'mrobama' time in office   Busybee .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a clue what you are talking about. We are talking about TRUMP'S decision to separate children from their families. Obama did not start it. Quit blaming Obama for everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama lost over 4100 children when he was President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that it continued under Trump. However we are discussing TRUMP policy of separating children from their families. Obama had nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It looks like the illegal aliens are trying to use their children as passports
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with illegals. It has to do with morality or in this case, lack of it. Ronald Reagan would never do anything inhumane like this.
Click to expand...

------------------------------------   feck R.R. , he started the problem though i really blame his VP 'ghwb'  so feck both pwicks  BBee .


----------



## Tresha91203

Missouri_Mike said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When family detention centers are full, which they are, what do we do other than catch & release. Catch & release is a failure. Congress needs to either accommodate the influx of reduce the influx. It's their job, not Trump's. Trump is even calling for them to fix it because catch & release failed. We are now going to enforce our laws by detaining unknowns illegally crossing our borders.  Are you suggesting we continue catch & release? Are you suggesting we build more family detention centers? Are you suggesting there's no problem? Ending catch & release is good, IMO. We need to find some way to protect children as much as possible. I am open to options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do we have family detention centers? They should be nothing more than a bus stop where they wait for a ride back to Mexico. We take them over the border and drop them off for Mexico to deal with. It’s not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many may be legitimate assylum seekers. We need more judges processing faster and to reduce fraudsters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once you have made it to Mexico your dream of a good life is granted. We don’t need to process anyone. How can you seek assylum from Mexico? That country is great.
Click to expand...


I'm actually not sure about that. It is my understanding that refugees and asylum seekers are required to present to the first country bordering their own, provided said country is not in war. That would mean we take Mexicans, Canadians and some Island nations maybe? It is possible to be a legitimate assylum seeker from Canada, even.


----------



## busybee01

flacaltenn said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your logic is to punish the children for their parents having committed a misdemeanor by crossing the border without papers, why not go all the way, and torture them as well?
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  Who suffers?  The children.  What crime does a 3 yr old commit that is prosecutable under the law? Explain that to the hysterical child, tell him he is NOT being punished  by being ripped from the only family he knows and then try to rationalize a seriously fucked policy here that was NOT in place before.
> 
> And remind me again how your party is pro family cause I sure dont see it in this policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------------   that'd be PRO American family Coyote .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That shows what a racist you are. You are either pro-family or you are not. There is no in-between.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are either pro-laws or you're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with laws. There is no law that says that children should be separated from their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had 160,000 PARENT-LESS children rush the S. border from Central America between 2013 and 2015. They were put into cages until they could be WAREHOUSED in abandoned gyms and army barracks for another year. Til Uncle Sam could FIND relatives or adoptions. Uncle Sam also sucks greatly at running that kind of orphanage. Wasn't for lack of MONEY -- it cost about $260/day.
> 
> And at that density, the kids were mixed in with gang infected members and other bad elements.
> 
> Border Agents CAN separate children until they get PROOF of family relationships. They also do it because the group ACCOMMODATIONS don't allow for the SAFETY of those children mixed in with all the other "unknowns". It's not a boarding house. Uncle Sam also does not not design boarding houses.
Click to expand...


There is no law that requires that and whether they can will be determined by the courts. We should be taking the best interests of the child into account until their status is determined. Uncle Sam needs to find facilities for them. Terrorizing the children is not the answer.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

flacaltenn said:


> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When family detention centers are full, which they are, what do we do other than catch & release. Catch & release is a failure. Congress needs to either accommodate the influx of reduce the influx. It's their job, not Trump's. Trump is even calling for them to fix it because catch & release failed. We are now going to enforce our laws by detaining unknowns illegally crossing our borders.  Are you suggesting we continue catch & release? Are you suggesting we build more family detention centers? Are you suggesting there's no problem? Ending catch & release is good, IMO. We need to find some way to protect children as much as possible. I am open to options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do we have family detention centers? They should be nothing more than a bus stop where they wait for a ride back to Mexico. We take them over the border and drop them off for Mexico to deal with. It’s not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many may be legitimate assylum seekers. We need more judges processing faster and to reduce fraudsters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once you have made it to Mexico your dream of a good life is granted. We don’t need to process anyone. How can you seek assylum from Mexico? That country is great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only because you can BUY your way in.. About $40 US fixes ALL the paperwork every time -- I hear. They LOVE Americans down there if they got the cash.
Click to expand...

So we need to send every illegal back with 40 bucks? Problem solved? That sounds reasonable.


----------



## pismoe

busybee01 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are using children as hostages. You are no different than terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the left is not???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who wants to treat children as criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Placing them in detention jails with adults who may harm them whether with the parents or not would be criminal..........Then tomorrow you'd be look what you did to these families.....................Can't house them with all the adults...........got news for you.........some aren't so nice coming over.........
> 
> Kids going to other detention centers are for their own protection..............but the INN IS FULL.........only 40,000 beds......
> 
> Brings us to another lie the left pushes...........that those crossing is much smaller............more BS.
> 
> Face it..........your identity politics here is to attack to get Catch and Release back which is basically your real goal of open borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They shouldn't be in detention jails. They need to be in facilities for families. Treating people right has nothing to do with what to do with illegals. Thye should be treated right while they are there and until their status is determined legally.
Click to expand...

-------------------------------   get Sheriff Joe Arpaio done there , let him set up some tents  BBee .   I see no reason to spend Americans taxpayer monies building holding facilities for widdle babee mexicans and their 'mamacitas'  BBee,


----------



## busybee01

Ray From Cleveland said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your logic is to punish the children for their parents having committed a misdemeanor by crossing the border without papers, why not go all the way, and torture them as well?
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  Who suffers?  The children.  What crime does a 3 yr old commit that is prosecutable under the law? Explain that to the hysterical child, tell him he is NOT being punished  by being ripped from the only family he knows and then try to rationalize a seriously fucked policy here that was NOT in place before.
> 
> And remind me again how your party is pro family cause I sure dont see it in this policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------------   that'd be PRO American family Coyote .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That shows what a racist you are. You are either pro-family or you are not. There is no in-between.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are either pro-laws or you're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with laws. There is no law that says that children should be separated from their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is?  Where?
> 
> There is a law that say you can't come to the US illegally.  I can show you that one.
Click to expand...


You point out the law that states children have to be separated from their children. 

Doesn't matter. This is about the treatment of children and whether they should be terrorized. The family should be respected and treated humanely while they are here.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

busybee01 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------
> -------------------------------   that'd be PRO American family Coyote .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That shows what a racist you are. You are either pro-family or you are not. There is no in-between.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are either pro-laws or you're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with laws. There is no law that says that children should be separated from their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had 160,000 PARENT-LESS children rush the S. border from Central America between 2013 and 2015. They were put into cages until they could be WAREHOUSED in abandoned gyms and army barracks for another year. Til Uncle Sam could FIND relatives or adoptions. Uncle Sam also sucks greatly at running that kind of orphanage. Wasn't for lack of MONEY -- it cost about $260/day.
> 
> And at that density, the kids were mixed in with gang infected members and other bad elements.
> 
> Border Agents CAN separate children until they get PROOF of family relationships. They also do it because the group ACCOMMODATIONS don't allow for the SAFETY of those children mixed in with all the other "unknowns". It's not a boarding house. Uncle Sam also does not not design boarding houses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no law that requires that and whether they can will be determined by the courts. We should be taking the best interests of the child into account until their status is determined. Uncle Sam needs to find facilities for them. Terrorizing the children is not the answer.
Click to expand...

How the fuck do you terrorize a child when their parents not only caused it but committed a crime to do so?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts on the vid I posted, Coyote?
> 
> Here it is again in case you missed it.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that relate to forceably removing children from their mothers while awaiting a hearing?  I notice she has her children with her and she said nothing about that policy, only that she can’t blame Trump for enforcing the immigration laws that deported her husband.  She says nothing about kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It highlights the problems democrats create when they make stupid decisions.
> 
> I know you’re an honest person who’ll eventually appreciate President Trump for addressing the problems democrats created. You and I both hate the trail of death and pain they’ve paved.
> It’s why I’m glad we finally have a president willing to fix this problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We dealt with immigrants Obama's way for eight years, and the results were less than satisfying.  Trump hasn't been in office for two years, and they are complaining left and right.
> 
> Let us do it our way for four years (possibly eight) and see the end results.  Let's compare who has the best way to deal with the problems that come to our borders.
> 
> It has noting to do with the children, what it has to do with is they know our policies will provide results.  That's what scares the hell out of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is less than satisfying for the right about a president who decreased illegal immigration and increased deportations?  If he were an R you’d be jubilant. Trump has made immigration his trademark.  Demonize, deport, and tear away their children.  Surely immigration inforcement can be carried out withou the first and the third.
Click to expand...


We tried it that way and they're still coming here. 

If you were in one of these countries and knew that if you dragged your kids to the US, they would be taken away by our government and you will have a hearing which will likely have you and your kids deported, would you want to come here?  

We need a deterrent to stop this from happening.  The stronger the deterrent, the better the results.


----------



## Leo123

kaz said:


> OK, so what you're saying is that you agree though that when a child has two criminal parents who say bring their child illegally into the United States have then we should arrest and put their criminal parents in jail and put their kids into foster care, right?  That's what you're saying?



Well...That's what we do to American citizen criminal parents!! Their kids become Wards of the State.   Why should illegal alien criminal parents be treated any differently?


----------



## busybee01

pismoe said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are using children as hostages. You are no different than terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the left is not???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who wants to treat children as criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Placing them in detention jails with adults who may harm them whether with the parents or not would be criminal..........Then tomorrow you'd be look what you did to these families.....................Can't house them with all the adults...........got news for you.........some aren't so nice coming over.........
> 
> Kids going to other detention centers are for their own protection..............but the INN IS FULL.........only 40,000 beds......
> 
> Brings us to another lie the left pushes...........that those crossing is much smaller............more BS.
> 
> Face it..........your identity politics here is to attack to get Catch and Release back which is basically your real goal of open borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They shouldn't be in detention jails. They need to be in facilities for families. Treating people right has nothing to do with what to do with illegals. Thye should be treated right while they are there and until their status is determined legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------------   get Sheriff Joe Arpaio done there , let him set up some tents  BBee .   I see no reason to spend Americans taxpayer monies building holding facilities for widdle babee mexicans and their 'mamacitas'  BBee,
Click to expand...


I got a better idea. Let's set up a tent city for you so we can isolate animals like you.

I believe in treating people humanely. If that means spending a few bucks so be it.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Tresha91203 said:


> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When family detention centers are full, which they are, what do we do other than catch & release. Catch & release is a failure. Congress needs to either accommodate the influx of reduce the influx. It's their job, not Trump's. Trump is even calling for them to fix it because catch & release failed. We are now going to enforce our laws by detaining unknowns illegally crossing our borders.  Are you suggesting we continue catch & release? Are you suggesting we build more family detention centers? Are you suggesting there's no problem? Ending catch & release is good, IMO. We need to find some way to protect children as much as possible. I am open to options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do we have family detention centers? They should be nothing more than a bus stop where they wait for a ride back to Mexico. We take them over the border and drop them off for Mexico to deal with. It’s not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many may be legitimate assylum seekers. We need more judges processing faster and to reduce fraudsters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once you have made it to Mexico your dream of a good life is granted. We don’t need to process anyone. How can you seek assylum from Mexico? That country is great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm actually not sure about that. It is my understanding that refugees and asylum seekers are required to present to the first country bordering their own, provided said country is not in war. That would mean we take Mexicans, Canadians and some Island nations maybe? It is possible to be a legitimate assylum seeker from Canada, even.
Click to expand...

Pretty much it. Once they hit Mexico they’re done traveling. Congrats you made it.


----------



## busybee01

pismoe said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a clue what you are talking about. We are talking about TRUMP'S decision to separate children from their families. Obama did not start it. Quit blaming Obama for everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama lost over 4100 children when he was President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that it continued under Trump. However we are discussing TRUMP policy of separating children from their families. Obama had nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It looks like the illegal aliens are trying to use their children as passports
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with illegals. It has to do with morality or in this case, lack of it. Ronald Reagan would never do anything inhumane like this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ------------------------------------   feck R.R. , he started the problem though i really blame his VP 'ghwb'  so feck both pwicks  BBee .
Click to expand...


feck you. You aren't fit to lick Reagan's shoes. GHWB fought for this country unlike a certain president.


----------



## pismoe

BBEE is just an emotion driven woman on a mexican illegal alien children crusade ,


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

busybee01 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------
> -------------------------------   that'd be PRO American family Coyote .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That shows what a racist you are. You are either pro-family or you are not. There is no in-between.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are either pro-laws or you're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with laws. There is no law that says that children should be separated from their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is?  Where?
> 
> There is a law that say you can't come to the US illegally.  I can show you that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You point out the law that states children have to be separated from their children.
> 
> Doesn't matter. This is about the treatment of children and whether they should be terrorized. The family should be respected and treated humanely while they are here.
Click to expand...


While they are here???  These are not welcomed visitors, these are invaders.  I never said there was a law that took away children, but it's a policy (big difference) that our President has instituted.


----------



## busybee01

Tresha91203 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are fine with taking young children from their parents and throwing them into our foster care system while they await hearings?  700 kids lost in our foster care network or housed in barracks apart from their parents.  It's sick but you don't have an issue with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the parent's fault. They know that they are breaking the law.
> Many times when US parents break laws their children are put in foster care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not the parents' fault. Trump knows this which is why he is blaming Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------   he is blaming 'dems' / YOU because the moochers in cages photos was taken during 'mrobama' time in office   Busybee .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a clue what you are talking about. We are talking about TRUMP'S decision to separate children from their families. Obama did not start it. Quit blaming Obama for everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TRUMP:  Look, we are going to start enforcing our laws. We've got to get a handle on this. No more catch and release B.S.. Fair warning, If you cross our border illegally, you will be detained. Since we are going to start enforcing our laws, Congress might look at this f'ed up part separating families that's been going on a long time and doesn't seem to be working. Lawmakers need to fix that part.
> 
> MSM:  Trump is threatening to rip apart innocent families because he hates brown people and children.  Here's a photo of caved children under another administration to add drama.
> 
> SHEEP:  Trump is kidnapping and caging children!
Click to expand...


Trump is separating children from their families. 

MSM - Why are you separating children from their families. 

Trump - The Democrats made me do it.

There is no doubt that this is happening.


----------



## pismoe

yeah , Reagan started to problem back in 1986 and old man 'ghwb' and 'bush' family continues with loving mexican and other foreigners and illegal aliens  BBee .


----------



## busybee01

koshergrl said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats need to stop encouraging them to illegally cross our boarder. It’s a creul and selfish thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Where will they get their sex slaves if they do that?
Click to expand...


How about from you. You have no clue what you are talking about.


----------



## pismoe

busybee01 said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the parent's fault. They know that they are breaking the law.
> Many times when US parents break laws their children are put in foster care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not the parents' fault. Trump knows this which is why he is blaming Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------   he is blaming 'dems' / YOU because the moochers in cages photos was taken during 'mrobama' time in office   Busybee .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a clue what you are talking about. We are talking about TRUMP'S decision to separate children from their families. Obama did not start it. Quit blaming Obama for everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TRUMP:  Look, we are going to start enforcing our laws. We've got to get a handle on this. No more catch and release B.S.. Fair warning, If you cross our border illegally, you will be detained. Since we are going to start enforcing our laws, Congress might look at this f'ed up part separating families that's been going on a long time and doesn't seem to be working. Lawmakers need to fix that part.
> 
> MSM:  Trump is threatening to rip apart innocent families because he hates brown people and children.  Here's a photo of caved children under another administration to add drama.
> 
> SHEEP:  Trump is kidnapping and caging children!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is separating children from their families.
> 
> MSM - Why are you separating children from their families.
> 
> Trump - The Democrats made me do it.
> 
> There is no doubt that this is happening.
Click to expand...

----------------------------------   GO President Trump !!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They haven't housed children with adults for a long time. This isn't something Trump implemented. He was complaining about it, in fact, and drawing attention to the fact that, due to the law, that's what happens.
> 
> Trump criticizes separating families at the border, despite his administration's support for policy that could lead to separation - CNNPolitics
> 
> It was happening under Obama, but it wasn't an issue then. It's a humanitarian crisis under Trump, though.
> 
> 
> 
> Because they kept children with their mothers while awaiting their hearing.  That is new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you are wrong. There were no mothers in the 2014 photos I saw. Do you have a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean the photos currently being circulated again of huge numbers of children in crowded conditions?  2014 saw a flood of unaccompanied minors Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction
> 
> The children traveled unaccompanied by parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
Click to expand...


So what if they are?  I'm all for it.  They have my support.


----------



## busybee01

tycho1572 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats need to stop encouraging them to illegally cross our boarder. It’s a creul and selfish thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Where will they get their sex slaves if they do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t think democrats fully understand the problems their decisions create. It’s why they keep fighting President Trump while he’s trying to fix it.
Click to expand...


Are you really that stupid to believe that. He is fixing it by taking all the children and separating them from their families. How is that fixing anything.


----------



## Tresha91203

busybee01 said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the parent's fault. They know that they are breaking the law.
> Many times when US parents break laws their children are put in foster care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not the parents' fault. Trump knows this which is why he is blaming Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------   he is blaming 'dems' / YOU because the moochers in cages photos was taken during 'mrobama' time in office   Busybee .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a clue what you are talking about. We are talking about TRUMP'S decision to separate children from their families. Obama did not start it. Quit blaming Obama for everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TRUMP:  Look, we are going to start enforcing our laws. We've got to get a handle on this. No more catch and release B.S.. Fair warning, If you cross our border illegally, you will be detained. Since we are going to start enforcing our laws, Congress might look at this f'ed up part separating families that's been going on a long time and doesn't seem to be working. Lawmakers need to fix that part.
> 
> MSM:  Trump is threatening to rip apart innocent families because he hates brown people and children.  Here's a photo of caved children under another administration to add drama.
> 
> SHEEP:  Trump is kidnapping and caging children!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is separating children from their families.
> 
> MSM - Why are you separating children from their families.
> 
> Trump - The Democrats made me do it.
> 
> There is no doubt that this is happening.
Click to expand...


BAAA!


----------



## pismoe

busybee01 said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats need to stop encouraging them to illegally cross our boarder. It’s a creul and selfish thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Where will they get their sex slaves if they do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t think democrats fully understand the problems their decisions create. It’s why they keep fighting President Trump while he’s trying to fix it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid to believe that. He is fixing it by taking all the children and separating them from their families. How is that fixing anything.
Click to expand...

------------------------------------   it may scare more mexicans and similar that hear about the law  BBee.


----------



## busybee01

pismoe said:


> BBEE is just an emotion driven woman on a mexican illegal alien children crusade ,



I believe in treating people humanely. That means quit terrorizing children. Animals like you are disgusting.


----------



## pismoe

and if they are scared they might not come  BBEE .


----------



## busybee01

Tresha91203 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not the parents' fault. Trump knows this which is why he is blaming Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------   he is blaming 'dems' / YOU because the moochers in cages photos was taken during 'mrobama' time in office   Busybee .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a clue what you are talking about. We are talking about TRUMP'S decision to separate children from their families. Obama did not start it. Quit blaming Obama for everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TRUMP:  Look, we are going to start enforcing our laws. We've got to get a handle on this. No more catch and release B.S.. Fair warning, If you cross our border illegally, you will be detained. Since we are going to start enforcing our laws, Congress might look at this f'ed up part separating families that's been going on a long time and doesn't seem to be working. Lawmakers need to fix that part.
> 
> MSM:  Trump is threatening to rip apart innocent families because he hates brown people and children.  Here's a photo of caved children under another administration to add drama.
> 
> SHEEP:  Trump is kidnapping and caging children!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is separating children from their families.
> 
> MSM - Why are you separating children from their families.
> 
> Trump - The Democrats made me do it.
> 
> There is no doubt that this is happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BAAA!
Click to expand...


We know that you are part of the Tumpie brigade and are incapable of thinking for yourself.


----------



## pismoe

busybee01 said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> BBEE is just an emotion driven woman on a mexican illegal alien children crusade ,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in treating people humanely. That means quit terrorizing children. Animals like you are disgusting.
Click to expand...

----------------------------------  YOU are an emotion driven woman with no SANE thoughts is your silly head  BBEE .


----------



## busybee01

pismoe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know your heart is in the right place, Coyote.
> 
> 
> 
> My heart is pissed off at the sick attitudes presented here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----------------------------------   GOOD  , as far as families go i am PRO American family  and i am pizzed off at the sick unAmerican attitudes of liberal / lefties in this thread  Coyote .
Click to expand...


There are those of us who are pro-family. Voters support amnesty and DACA overwhelmingly.


----------



## busybee01

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not the parents' fault. Trump knows this which is why he is blaming Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------   he is blaming 'dems' / YOU because the moochers in cages photos was taken during 'mrobama' time in office   Busybee .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a clue what you are talking about. We are talking about TRUMP'S decision to separate children from their families. Obama did not start it. Quit blaming Obama for everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TRUMP:  Look, we are going to start enforcing our laws. We've got to get a handle on this. No more catch and release B.S.. Fair warning, If you cross our border illegally, you will be detained. Since we are going to start enforcing our laws, Congress might look at this f'ed up part separating families that's been going on a long time and doesn't seem to be working. Lawmakers need to fix that part.
> 
> MSM:  Trump is threatening to rip apart innocent families because he hates brown people and children.  Here's a photo of caved children under another administration to add drama.
> 
> SHEEP:  Trump is kidnapping and caging children!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact: Sessions has instituted a new policy of removing children from all illegal border crossers.
> 
> RWMedia: But Obama did it.
> 
> Strange Observation:  the number of children being separated is so huge there aren’t enough places for them and HHS has no budget to House them.
> 
> Question: ....but didn’t Obama do it?
> 
> Political talking point scorecard 10.
> 
> Families zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't FAMILIES. These are TRAFFICKERS who are using children, often children that they have PAID someone to use....to get across the border.
> 
> You people insist on conflating TRAFFICKERS with FAMILY. Yes, families of TRAFFICKERS are split up when their victims, who often are their own children, are taken from them for their protection. Apparently you think human trafficking is cool, as long as the traffickers claim some relation to their victims?
Click to expand...


Everyone who is coming into this country are TRAFFICKERS. I hope you check under your bed every night to make sure there are no TRAFFICKERS under it. You must think people are stupid.


----------



## pismoe

busybee01 said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know your heart is in the right place, Coyote.
> 
> 
> 
> My heart is pissed off at the sick attitudes presented here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----------------------------------   GOOD  , as far as families go i am PRO American family  and i am pizzed off at the sick unAmerican attitudes of liberal / lefties in this thread  Coyote .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are those of us who are pro-family. Voters support amnesty and DACA overwhelmingly.
Click to expand...

----------------------------   well then , why do you cry and go crazy , is Session new law got you by the 'short hairs' BBEE ??


----------



## busybee01

WillHaftawaite said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...those children had arrived alone at the Southwest border — without their parents. Most of them are from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, and were fleeing drug cartels, gang violence and domestic abuse, according to government data." And a lot of them are gang members themselves.
> 
> "...the department’s office of refugee resettlement began voluntarily making the calls as a 30-day follow-up to make sure that the children and their sponsors did not require additional services. Those calls, which the office does not view as required, Mr. Hargan said, are now “being used to confuse and spread misinformation.”
> 
> In many cases, the statement said, sponsors cannot be reached because “they themselves are illegal aliens and do not want to be reached by federal authorities.”
> Did the Trump Administration Separate Immigrant Children From Parents and Lose Them?
> 
> The left has trafficked gang members and criminals into the US, and now that they've *disappeared* they want to blame Trump?
> 
> Fucking ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens is people show up with kids that aren't theirs, or that they're using as mules, and we remove the kids for their own safety.
> 
> Of course the left doesn't like that. Children are disposable, and are supposed to be used by adults to get over the border. The left embraces trafficking, and is going to squawk when you protect children. They always have.
> 
> “As required by law, D.H.S. must protect the best interests of minor children crossing our borders, and occasionally this results in separating children from an adult they are traveling with if we cannot ascertain the parental relationship, or if we think the child is otherwise in danger,”
> 
> Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents at U.S. Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is so much bullshit and trash like you know it. The Trump people are separating children from their parents. They know it is wrong because they are blaming democrats for it. This is happening more than occasionally.
> 
> Got anymore BULLSHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They know it is wrong because they are blaming democrats for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Couldn't possibly be because it started under Obama, could it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know that is garbage. Even Trump supporters don't buy that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should look it up.
Click to expand...


Maybe you need to read this thread. Trump supporters are defending it except for 1 idiot who thinks everybody is a TRAFFICKER.


----------



## busybee01

Norman said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are giving these people false hope.
> 
> 
> 
> This should not be a partisan issue.  No one is saying open up the borders and let them all in. This is a specific policy carried out to an unnecessary and abusive extreme that most damages those who have the least control over their destinies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is precisely letting any one of them in who has a child shield. Which will be everyone if such stupidity is allowed to happen.
Click to expand...


Are you capable of reading. What we are talking about is how the family is treated while they are there and until their status is determined.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

busybee01 said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats need to stop encouraging them to illegally cross our boarder. It’s a creul and selfish thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Where will they get their sex slaves if they do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t think democrats fully understand the problems their decisions create. It’s why they keep fighting President Trump while he’s trying to fix it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid to believe that. He is fixing it by taking all the children and separating them from their families. How is that fixing anything.
Click to expand...


Because it will deter more people from trying that stunt in the future.  A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried.


----------



## busybee01

Dogmaphobe said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My heart is pissed off at the sick attitudes presented here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't get much sicker than wanting to flood the developed world with primitive misogynists and then laughing when they rape the children of the lands they have entered and want to take over. .
Click to expand...


Haven't heard of any children committing rapes. Please give us a link to that.


----------



## busybee01

Ray From Cleveland said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats need to stop encouraging them to illegally cross our boarder. It’s a creul and selfish thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Where will they get their sex slaves if they do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t think democrats fully understand the problems their decisions create. It’s why they keep fighting President Trump while he’s trying to fix it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid to believe that. He is fixing it by taking all the children and separating them from their families. How is that fixing anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it will deter more people from trying that stunt in the future.  A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried.
Click to expand...


You definitely belong in Gitmo for admitting you are a terrorist.


----------



## busybee01

protectionist said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no free pass being given by allowing children to stay with parents as they await their hearing.  They have always been able to remove children they suspect might not belong to the "parents" but that is not the case here.
> 
> 
> 
> When AMERICAN criminals are arrested (and can't make bail), they are put in county jails, to await trial.  Are their kids with THEM ?
Click to expand...


I wasn't aware of the fact that you were put in jail for jaywalking.


----------



## busybee01

koshergrl said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you understand why President Trump is working hard to fix this problem, Coyote?
> 
> 
> 
> No Tycho our reverent President is to busy tweeting.  In fact, it’s been so noisy I suspect there are birds nesting in his toupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it safe for me to assume that you’re good with democrats allowing people to be lured into unspeakable circumstances?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She will tolerate anything in the name of tolerance...
> Except protection of children. She won't tolerate that.
Click to expand...


I think you are a robot. You  can only say what you are told.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

busybee01 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats need to stop encouraging them to illegally cross our boarder. It’s a creul and selfish thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Where will they get their sex slaves if they do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t think democrats fully understand the problems their decisions create. It’s why they keep fighting President Trump while he’s trying to fix it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid to believe that. He is fixing it by taking all the children and separating them from their families. How is that fixing anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it will deter more people from trying that stunt in the future.  A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You definitely belong in Gitmo for admitting you are a terrorist.
Click to expand...


Yeah, because you are a little commie that thinks he owns this country. Well I have bad news for ya, you don't own shit, and every American has the right to feel the way they do. 

I'm sick of reading your crap about anybody who disagrees with you should be locked up or kicked out of the country.  WTF do you think you are anyway?  If that's the way you feel, then maybe it's you who should leave and seek a country where nobody has a choice in what to believe except you. 

We on the right are very pragmatic unlike people like you.  Coyote presented a problem: 

We are taking children away from people invading our country. 
Solution:  Don't bring your children here if you are planning on invading our country. 

See how easy this is?  A simple solution to a simple problem.  But you on the left don't want easy and positive solutions.  You want to pander to those who are creating the problems in the first place.


----------



## busybee01

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is what is being done to these kids worth it?
> 
> 
> 
> That's my point.
> 
> Is violating our laws worth losing your child over? Is it worth the trauma you are subjecting your child to?
Click to expand...


In other words you want to terrorize the children. Terrorists like yo we don't need.


----------



## busybee01

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> But TK...you are still missing the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not. I see the issue quite clearly. All in all, this is unfair to the child. No child should have to experience the trauma of being taken away from their parents. However, the parents are selfish for putting their child through that  kind of trauma in the first place.
Click to expand...


Are the parents being selfish or are they showing how much they love their children. They are willing to take a chance to escape violence. That does not give us the right to terrorize the children.


----------



## Old Yeller

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a parent is making the difficult choice to leave a horrible situation, they are not a bad parent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they are going to subject their child to a horrible situation, just to escape another horrible situation, what has changed for the child, Coyote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The situation they were leaving was worse.
Click to expand...



Two chances.  Turn around, take your kids and go home when caught?  Or don't risk your kids seperated in the first place.  all on Rosario and Hector.  50 years of this crap dumped on USA kids.


----------



## busybee01

Ray From Cleveland said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where will they get their sex slaves if they do that?
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t think democrats fully understand the problems their decisions create. It’s why they keep fighting President Trump while he’s trying to fix it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid to believe that. He is fixing it by taking all the children and separating them from their families. How is that fixing anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it will deter more people from trying that stunt in the future.  A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You definitely belong in Gitmo for admitting you are a terrorist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, because you are a little commie that thinks he owns this country. Well I have bad news for ya, you don't own shit, and every American has the right to feel the way they do.
> 
> I'm sick of reading your crap about anybody who disagrees with you should be locked up or kicked out of the country.  WTF do you think you are anyway?  If that's the way you feel, then maybe it's you who should leave and seek a country where nobody has a choice in what to believe except you.
> 
> We on the right are very pragmatic unlike people like you.  Coyote presented a problem:
> 
> We are taking children away from people invading our country.
> Solution:  Don't bring your children here if you are planning on invading our country.
> 
> See how easy this is?  A simple solution to a simple problem.  But you on the left don't want easy and positive solutions.  You want to pander to those who are creating the problems in the first place.
Click to expand...


You are the commie. Commies make war on children like you want to do.

I keep reading posts from people like you about how Comey, Clinton, and others should be jailed or hung for treason. WTF do you think you are anyway? You can apparently throw them but you can't take it.

Only a monster wants to terrorize children when they have done nothing wrong. Act like a animal and be treated like a animal. Go look up the Nuremburg Trials.
Children are not invading our country or is that over your head?

You on the right are fruitcakes. Ronald Reagan would leave this party. The alt-right is hateful.

You want to terrorize children to punish the adults. That is wrong and anyone who tries it should be jailed.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

busybee01 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...those children had arrived alone at the Southwest border — without their parents. Most of them are from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, and were fleeing drug cartels, gang violence and domestic abuse, according to government data." And a lot of them are gang members themselves.
> 
> "...the department’s office of refugee resettlement began voluntarily making the calls as a 30-day follow-up to make sure that the children and their sponsors did not require additional services. Those calls, which the office does not view as required, Mr. Hargan said, are now “being used to confuse and spread misinformation.”
> 
> In many cases, the statement said, sponsors cannot be reached because “they themselves are illegal aliens and do not want to be reached by federal authorities.”
> Did the Trump Administration Separate Immigrant Children From Parents and Lose Them?
> 
> The left has trafficked gang members and criminals into the US, and now that they've *disappeared* they want to blame Trump?
> 
> Fucking ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens is people show up with kids that aren't theirs, or that they're using as mules, and we remove the kids for their own safety.
> 
> Of course the left doesn't like that. Children are disposable, and are supposed to be used by adults to get over the border. The left embraces trafficking, and is going to squawk when you protect children. They always have.
> 
> “As required by law, D.H.S. must protect the best interests of minor children crossing our borders, and occasionally this results in separating children from an adult they are traveling with if we cannot ascertain the parental relationship, or if we think the child is otherwise in danger,”
> 
> Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents at U.S. Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is so much bullshit and trash like you know it. The Trump people are separating children from their parents. They know it is wrong because they are blaming democrats for it. This is happening more than occasionally.
> 
> Got anymore BULLSHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where were you when barry was doing the exact same thing?
> Not a fuken peep out of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is the one separating children from their parents not Obama. You are a fucken liar.
Click to expand...


‘Caged migrant children’ go viral… until picture turns out taken under Obama, not Trump


----------



## OKTexas

busybee01 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans tend to lack basic empathy for things they don’t directly witness. They don’t have the emotional maturity or complexity of thought for such a thing. As a result, they don’t bother thinking about the well being of kids. They just know brown people have crossed the border and their GOP masters tell them it’s a bad thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The parents are responsible for anything that happens to the kids, they put them in the situation.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We hold law enforcement to the same standards we hold everyone else. The people who are implementing this policy are responsible and should be held legally liable. Take your trash elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who said they're not?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Trump is kicked out, he needs to be arrested along with his enablers of this barbaric policy. That is when accountability starts.
Click to expand...



For what, doing what he swore to do, I don't think so. LMAO


.


----------



## busybee01

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the punishment is on child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. And if it were, then the punishment is being inflicted on the child by a careless parent.
> 
> When a crime is committed, something of value or endearment must be taken away from you as punishment.
> 
> If you kill someone, then your freedom and/or your life.
> If you steal, your freedom.
> If you commit financial crimes, your money.
> 
> And unfortunately, in this case, when you smuggle a live human child across the border of our country for the sole purpose of coming here illegally, your child. The child has done nothing wrong. The parent on the other hand has, in my mind, done something patently unforgivable.
Click to expand...


Should we shoot someone for jaywalking. You still want to punish the child.


----------



## busybee01

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a point at which punishing the parents for their behavior becomes punishing the kids?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The punishment inflicted on the child is the parent's fault. You have a very kind and sweet heart, Coyote, but at some point the compassion has to end, and law and order must begin. We cannot dilute the law to a point where it is satisfactorily amiable to those of us looking out from the inside. Law has no purpose if we refuse to enforce it or we change it to a point that it has no effectiveness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But TK...you are still missing the point.  Ok, let us say it is the parents fault.  Is what is being done to these kids worth it?  Is the cost paid by the children worth the punishment inflicted on the children?  Does that make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it makes sense.  Keep pandering to these people, and millions more WITH KIDS will follow in their footsteps.  I hope this news gets back to the countries they came from to deter others from doing the same.  I hope it makes them change their minds if they thought they could come here and have us provide for them and their children.
> 
> You have to stop this.  Pandering to them does just the opposite.  Maybe these particular children will suffer a little bit, but in doing so, it will stop a lot more children in the future from suffering.
Click to expand...


Terrorize the children.


----------



## busybee01

OKTexas said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans tend to lack basic empathy for things they don’t directly witness. They don’t have the emotional maturity or complexity of thought for such a thing. As a result, they don’t bother thinking about the well being of kids. They just know brown people have crossed the border and their GOP masters tell them it’s a bad thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The parents are responsible for anything that happens to the kids, they put them in the situation.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We hold law enforcement to the same standards we hold everyone else. The people who are implementing this policy are responsible and should be held legally liable. Take your trash elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who said they're not?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Trump is kicked out, he needs to be arrested along with his enablers of this barbaric policy. That is when accountability starts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For what, doing what he swore to do, I don't think so. LMAO
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Where did he swear to terrorize children.


----------



## busybee01

DJT for Life said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not the parents' fault. Trump knows this which is why he is blaming Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------   he is blaming 'dems' / YOU because the moochers in cages photos was taken during 'mrobama' time in office   Busybee .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a clue what you are talking about. We are talking about TRUMP'S decision to separate children from their families. Obama did not start it. Quit blaming Obama for everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama lost over 4100 children when he was President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that it continued under Trump. However we are discussing TRUMP policy of separating children from their families. Obama had nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And none of the children lost were because they were separated from
> their parents.
> 
> If your Mama gets arrested stealing a loaf of bread and has to spend
> 90 days in the county jail...you ain't going there with her.
> 
> We aren't offering temporary housing for illegal families.
Click to expand...


Trump has instituted a policy of separating children from their families. Until their legal status is determined then they should be treated humanely.


----------



## koshergrl

Commies use children without compassion. I know exactly who the commies are.


----------



## busybee01

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you’re equating bank robbers to people who want a better life for their children by crossing a border? God you’re fucking stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bank robber wants the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bank robbery is a felony.
> 
> Being here illegally is one misdemeanor count. Parents who have completed their sentence should be reunited with their children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I have a solution to our problem.  Make coming here illegal a felony and then take away the kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not a solution, dope. It certainly does nothing to address the current problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the solution......
Click to expand...


I'll bet you had relatives from Nazi Germany.


----------



## koshergrl

busybee01 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> But TK...you are still missing the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not. I see the issue quite clearly. All in all, this is unfair to the child. No child should have to experience the trauma of being taken away from their parents. However, the parents are selfish for putting their child through that  kind of trauma in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are the parents being selfish or are they showing how much they love their children. They are willing to take a chance to escape violence. That does not give us the right to terrorize the children.
Click to expand...

No...they are willing to risk kids' lives to perpetrate a crime so they can benefit financially. That is called child trafficking.


----------



## busybee01

koshergrl said:


> Commies use children without compassion. I know exactly who the commies are.



You are advocating using children to punish the parents even if it hurts the children. Commie.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

busybee01 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bank robber wants the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bank robbery is a felony.
> 
> Being here illegally is one misdemeanor count. Parents who have completed their sentence should be reunited with their children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I have a solution to our problem.  Make coming here illegal a felony and then take away the kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not a solution, dope. It certainly does nothing to address the current problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the solution......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll bet you had relatives from Nazi Germany.
Click to expand...


  Nah...I'm of Dutch heritage.


----------



## koshergrl

busybee01 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Commies use children without compassion. I know exactly who the commies are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are advocating using children to punish the parents even if it hurts the children. Commie.
Click to expand...

No you baby trafficking pig. I am advocating protecting children from the people who traffic them. you are protecting traffickers and are willing to leave children with the people who sell and abuse them.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

busybee01 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Commies use children without compassion. I know exactly who the commies are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are advocating using children to punish the parents even if it hurts the children. Commie.
Click to expand...


   Yet it's okay for the meat puppet faggot ....


----------



## busybee01

Ray From Cleveland said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are using children as hostages. You are no different than terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the left is not???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who wants to treat children as criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are the one that wants to encourage people to come here and use them as pawns.
Click to expand...


You are the one who admits you want to terrorize children as a deterrent. I want the family treated the way a pro-family conservative should want until their case is heard.


----------



## busybee01

Missouri_Mike said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That shows what a racist you are. You are either pro-family or you are not. There is no in-between.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are either pro-laws or you're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with laws. There is no law that says that children should be separated from their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had 160,000 PARENT-LESS children rush the S. border from Central America between 2013 and 2015. They were put into cages until they could be WAREHOUSED in abandoned gyms and army barracks for another year. Til Uncle Sam could FIND relatives or adoptions. Uncle Sam also sucks greatly at running that kind of orphanage. Wasn't for lack of MONEY -- it cost about $260/day.
> 
> And at that density, the kids were mixed in with gang infected members and other bad elements.
> 
> Border Agents CAN separate children until they get PROOF of family relationships. They also do it because the group ACCOMMODATIONS don't allow for the SAFETY of those children mixed in with all the other "unknowns". It's not a boarding house. Uncle Sam also does not not design boarding houses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no law that requires that and whether they can will be determined by the courts. We should be taking the best interests of the child into account until their status is determined. Uncle Sam needs to find facilities for them. Terrorizing the children is not the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How the fuck do you terrorize a child when their parents not only caused it but committed a crime to do so?
Click to expand...


That does not give you the right to terrorize and mistreat children.


----------



## OKTexas

busybee01 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> The parents are responsible for anything that happens to the kids, they put them in the situation.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We hold law enforcement to the same standards we hold everyone else. The people who are implementing this policy are responsible and should be held legally liable. Take your trash elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who said they're not?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Trump is kicked out, he needs to be arrested along with his enablers of this barbaric policy. That is when accountability starts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For what, doing what he swore to do, I don't think so. LMAO
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did he swear to terrorize children.
Click to expand...



He didn't and he's not, you're just a lying scumbag. Trump is the top federal law enforcement officer, he swore to uphold the law. That's what he's doing. You don't like it, tough shit.


.


----------



## busybee01

koshergrl said:


> Is anybody else wondering why busy bee is a child trafficking advocate?



I am advocating for families you worthless piece of shit. Apparently you don't have a brain in your head. If these were traffickers they wouldn't be in detention.


----------



## OKTexas

busybee01 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said they're not?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Trump is kicked out, he needs to be arrested along with his enablers of this barbaric policy. That is when accountability starts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For what, doing what he swore to do, I don't think so. LMAO
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did he swear to terrorize children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't and he's not, you're just a lying scumbag. Trump is the top federal law enforcement officer, he swore to uphold the law. That's what he's doing. You don't like it, tough shit.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the lying scumbag you worthless piece of shit. Where is the law that requires children to be separated from their parents.
Click to expand...



It's been stated several times now, the courts ordered it. Children can't be held with adults. Period, end of story.

Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online


.


----------



## busybee01

HereWeGoAgain said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...those children had arrived alone at the Southwest border — without their parents. Most of them are from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, and were fleeing drug cartels, gang violence and domestic abuse, according to government data." And a lot of them are gang members themselves.
> 
> "...the department’s office of refugee resettlement began voluntarily making the calls as a 30-day follow-up to make sure that the children and their sponsors did not require additional services. Those calls, which the office does not view as required, Mr. Hargan said, are now “being used to confuse and spread misinformation.”
> 
> In many cases, the statement said, sponsors cannot be reached because “they themselves are illegal aliens and do not want to be reached by federal authorities.”
> Did the Trump Administration Separate Immigrant Children From Parents and Lose Them?
> 
> The left has trafficked gang members and criminals into the US, and now that they've *disappeared* they want to blame Trump?
> 
> Fucking ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens is people show up with kids that aren't theirs, or that they're using as mules, and we remove the kids for their own safety.
> 
> Of course the left doesn't like that. Children are disposable, and are supposed to be used by adults to get over the border. The left embraces trafficking, and is going to squawk when you protect children. They always have.
> 
> “As required by law, D.H.S. must protect the best interests of minor children crossing our borders, and occasionally this results in separating children from an adult they are traveling with if we cannot ascertain the parental relationship, or if we think the child is otherwise in danger,”
> 
> Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents at U.S. Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is so much bullshit and trash like you know it. The Trump people are separating children from their parents. They know it is wrong because they are blaming democrats for it. This is happening more than occasionally.
> 
> Got anymore BULLSHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where were you when barry was doing the exact same thing?
> Not a fuken peep out of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is the one separating children from their parents not Obama. You are a fucken liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ‘Caged migrant children’ go viral… until picture turns out taken under Obama, not Trump
Click to expand...


Sessions: Parents, children entering U.S. illegally will be separated


----------



## busybee01

OKTexas said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Trump is kicked out, he needs to be arrested along with his enablers of this barbaric policy. That is when accountability starts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For what, doing what he swore to do, I don't think so. LMAO
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did he swear to terrorize children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't and he's not, you're just a lying scumbag. Trump is the top federal law enforcement officer, he swore to uphold the law. That's what he's doing. You don't like it, tough shit.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the lying scumbag you worthless piece of shit. Where is the law that requires children to be separated from their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's been stated several times now, the courts ordered it. Children can't be held with adults. Period, end of story.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The courts have not ordered anything. Trump and Sessions ordered it.

Sessions: Parents, children entering U.S. illegally will be separated


----------



## koshergrl

busybee01 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is anybody else wondering why busy bee is a child trafficking advocate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am advocating for families you worthless piece of shit. Apparently you don't have a brain in your head. If these were traffickers they wouldn't be in detention.
Click to expand...

No you are defending human trafficking.


----------



## koshergrl

Yup if you engage in smuggling children we will rescue the child.


----------



## OKTexas

busybee01 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> For what, doing what he swore to do, I don't think so. LMAO
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did he swear to terrorize children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't and he's not, you're just a lying scumbag. Trump is the top federal law enforcement officer, he swore to uphold the law. That's what he's doing. You don't like it, tough shit.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the lying scumbag you worthless piece of shit. Where is the law that requires children to be separated from their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's been stated several times now, the courts ordered it. Children can't be held with adults. Period, end of story.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts have not ordered anything. Trump and Sessions ordered it.
> 
> Sessions: Parents, children entering U.S. illegally will be separated
Click to expand...



You missed the edit.

Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online


.


----------



## protectionist

Coyote said:


> But what about the effect of the policy on the children themselves?  Is there a point at which punishing the parents for their behavior becomes punishing the kids?  You see every argument turns into something like “the parents deserve it because they did wrong”...ok....let’s accept that now for the sake of the argument.  But do the kids deserve it?


So where do you suggest the kids go, when their parents are in jail ?


----------



## protectionist

busybee01 said:


> No one is going to jail for crossing the border unless they are a convicted felon. There is no reason for separating children from their parents. You cannot compare major felonies with crossing the border illegally.
> 
> Birthright citizenship is not false. A plain reading of the Amendment does support what the courts have said. If he didn't like it then he should have written it better.


Crossing the border EWI is a crime. It carries a 6 month federal prison penalty (1st offense) and 2 year prison penalties for subsequent offenses. 

Birthright citizenship for kids of foreigners is false.  The 14th amendment's intention is to give BC to kids of Americans, but not to foreigners.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Missouri_Mike said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are wrong. There were no mothers in the 2014 photos I saw. Do you have a link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the photos currently being circulated again of huge numbers of children in crowded conditions?  2014 saw a flood of unaccompanied minors Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction
> 
> The children traveled unaccompanied by parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When family detention centers are full, which they are, what do we do other than catch & release. Catch & release is a failure. Congress needs to either accommodate the influx of reduce the influx. It's their job, not Trump's. Trump is even calling for them to fix it because catch & release failed. We are now going to enforce our laws by detaining unknowns illegally crossing our borders.  Are you suggesting we continue catch & release? Are you suggesting we build more family detention centers? Are you suggesting there's no problem? Ending catch & release is good, IMO. We need to find some way to protect children as much as possible. I am open to options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do we have family detention centers? They should be nothing more than a bus stop where they wait for a ride back to Mexico. We take them over the border and drop them off for Mexico to deal with. It’s not our problem.
Click to expand...


Did it occur to you that they might not be Mexican, either?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Slyhunter said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJT for Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure that the lesson will be learned. Next time, the kids will choose better parents....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe become better parents when they have children.  It'll be one helluva long shot with them being from Central America, but at least
> we would have done our part.
> 
> If they could choose better parents next time around, here's hoping they
> choose Democrats.  They won't be faced with this type of a problem
> then.  They'll have been aborted 6 months before delivery date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't stay on topic? Short attention span?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered your question.  I assumed that would be classified as
> staying on topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is abortion? Damn! There must be something wrong with my computer. Mine says it is about controlling illegal immigration!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if those illegals had abortions then there would be no illegal kids.
Click to expand...


End of conversation, Sly. This is a "No trolling zone".


----------



## protectionist

busybee01 said:


> [
> 
> You are taking children away which amounts to kidnapping them. Many of these children are clearly being frightened and traumatized. Children are not a part of this and they should leave them with their parents.



I agree. The parents should be adjudicated quickly, and upon being found guilty of EWI, they should be deported immediately, and the kids should be with their parents - on their way back to Mexico (or wherever).


----------



## protectionist

busybee01 said:


> The children did nothing illegal. You really want to charge a 53 week old baby. They are being used. This is Nazi style tactics.
> 
> There is no law that allows this so US law does not matter. The Nuremburg trials had nothing to do with American law. I would gladly turn over the people responsible including Trump only if we can't find a US law to charge him with.


You seem to have things backwards. it is the illegal aliens who are the lawbreakers, not Trump or the US govt.  I never said the children did anything illegal. But the kids of American criminals didn't do anything illegal either yet they are separated from their parents, when their parents are penalized.  They are separated much more, and for longer times, than the kids of illegal aliens. Not many sob stories being raised about them, are there ?

But again, it's simple.   Deport the alien parents together with their kids.  Deport them all.


----------



## protectionist

busybee01 said:


> We hold law enforcement to the same standards we hold everyone else. The people who are implementing this policy are responsible and should be held legally liable. Take your trash elsewhere.


Legally liable relative to what law ?


----------



## protectionist

Soggy in NOLA said:


> I think it is terrible that these people put their children in such peril.


Absolutely correct.  Funny how Trump, Sessions , et al get the blame for the kids being traumatized, and not much blame is going to the parents who brought them, and introduced them to crime, at a young age. Also not much blame going to the Mexican govt, as Trump correctly said, is SENDING these people to us.

Mexican ex-president Vicente Fox called the remittances$$$ that these invaders wire to Mexico >  Mexico's # 1 source of revenue.


----------



## protectionist

busybee01 said:


> That shows what a racist you are. You are either pro-family or you are not. There is no in-between.


What does pro-family have to do with being_ "racist"_ ?


----------



## protectionist

busybee01 said:


> Hiding behind laws will not work. You are a morally corrupt person and getting rid of Trump and Republicans seems to be the only way to stop this.


So are you suggesting that the kids be held in detention with the parents ? if so, do you know what conditions that detention is.  Jail cell ?  Prison ?

_"Hiding behind laws_" ? So are you suggesting that the laws should not be followed ?


----------



## protectionist

Syriusly said:


> Well that certainly explains Trump's lie that his policy is the Democrats fault.....


Of course, it's partially the Democrats' fault. Their actions encourage the illegals to come here.


----------



## protectionist

HappyJoy said:


> They have in the past, this is a recent change in policy.


  Sure. The Obama policy was to break the law, and allow illegal aliens to stay here.. All of them - parents and kids both.  The change in policy is no more catch & release.  Now the law is being followed properly.


----------



## protectionist

HappyJoy said:


> Plus, many immigrants are escaping extreme poverty or violence. Time to send what message? That the United States doesn't care about family values now that the family values party is in control?


Time to send the message that we are NATIONALISTS, not INTENATIONALISTS (aka "globalists")


----------



## TemplarKormac

busybee01 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the punishment is on child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. And if it were, then the punishment is being inflicted on the child by a careless parent.
> 
> When a crime is committed, something of value or endearment must be taken away from you as punishment.
> 
> If you kill someone, then your freedom and/or your life.
> If you steal, your freedom.
> If you commit financial crimes, your money.
> 
> And unfortunately, in this case, when you smuggle a live human child across the border of our country for the sole purpose of coming here illegally, your child. The child has done nothing wrong. The parent on the other hand has, in my mind, done something patently unforgivable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should we shoot someone for jaywalking? You still want to punish the child.
Click to expand...


To your question, no, an oncoming vehicle will take care of that. 

There are just some things you don't do... like walk through the middle of a busy street or... smuggle your children across the border illegally.


----------



## TemplarKormac

busybee01 said:


> Are the parents being selfish or are they showing how much they love their children?



Ah, yes, these parents love their children enough to send them across a dangerous frontier, full of gangs and cartels. Alone. That is nothing but sheer cowardice.

Spare me.


----------



## TemplarKormac

busybee01 said:


> That does not give us the right to terrorize the children.



Like I said just previously, sending them alone amidst all the violence and lawlessness to get here is terrifying enough for the child, aside from being apart from their parents of course.

You don't see how much this hurts the child. We aren't hurting the child, the parents are.


----------



## TemplarKormac

busybee01 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is what is being done to these kids worth it?
> 
> 
> 
> That's my point.
> 
> Is violating our laws worth losing your child over? Is it worth the trauma you are subjecting your child to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words you want to terrorize the children. Terrorists like you we don't need.
Click to expand...


You're calling _me_ a terrorist?

That's cute. Just how mad are you? Are you made of snow? Because you're melting down. Fast.


----------



## TemplarKormac

busybee01 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats need to stop encouraging them to illegally cross our boarder. It’s a creul and selfish thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Where will they get their sex slaves if they do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t think democrats fully understand the problems their decisions create. It’s why they keep fighting President Trump while he’s trying to fix it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid to believe that. He is fixing it by taking all the children and separating them from their families. How is that fixing anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it will deter more people from trying that stunt in the future.  A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You definitely belong in Gitmo for admitting you are a terrorist.
Click to expand...


LOL Ray From Cleveland you gettin' this? BB thinks we're _terrorists_!


----------



## there4eyeM

protectionist said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that certainly explains Trump's lie that his policy is the Democrats fault.....
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, it's partially the Democrats' fault. Their actions encourage the illegals to come here.
Click to expand...

This is giving the "Democrats" far too much credit. They did not make America the rich, shining beacon that is is, one of the most attractive countries in the world. People want to enter the U.S. because of its prosperity and opportunities, which, I'm certain, cannot be ascribed solely to "Democrats".
It is no mystery why suffering foreigners seek a better life wherever they can. Efforts to make life better where they are would be the most logical and effective.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

TemplarKormac said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where will they get their sex slaves if they do that?
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t think democrats fully understand the problems their decisions create. It’s why they keep fighting President Trump while he’s trying to fix it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid to believe that. He is fixing it by taking all the children and separating them from their families. How is that fixing anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it will deter more people from trying that stunt in the future.  A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You definitely belong in Gitmo for admitting you are a terrorist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL Ray From Cleveland you gettin' this? BB thinks we're _terrorists_!
Click to expand...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Vandalshandle said:


> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the photos currently being circulated again of huge numbers of children in crowded conditions?  2014 saw a flood of unaccompanied minors Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction
> 
> The children traveled unaccompanied by parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When family detention centers are full, which they are, what do we do other than catch & release. Catch & release is a failure. Congress needs to either accommodate the influx of reduce the influx. It's their job, not Trump's. Trump is even calling for them to fix it because catch & release failed. We are now going to enforce our laws by detaining unknowns illegally crossing our borders.  Are you suggesting we continue catch & release? Are you suggesting we build more family detention centers? Are you suggesting there's no problem? Ending catch & release is good, IMO. We need to find some way to protect children as much as possible. I am open to options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do we have family detention centers? They should be nothing more than a bus stop where they wait for a ride back to Mexico. We take them over the border and drop them off for Mexico to deal with. It’s not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it occur to you that they might not be Mexican, either?
Click to expand...


Maybe not, but Mexico hosted them in coming here.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

busybee01 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are using children as hostages. You are no different than terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the left is not???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who wants to treat children as criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are the one that wants to encourage people to come here and use them as pawns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who admits you want to terrorize children as a deterrent. I want the family treated the way a pro-family conservative should want until their case is heard.
Click to expand...


If you're going to use big words like Terrorism, the least you should do is look up the definition.  When you cater to these people, you only invite more of them to come here, and as others have pointed out, the real torture for those kids is getting here, not being placed in a shelter or home with three meals a day, clean cloths and medical care. 

Your idea is to encourage more people to take that dangerous journey with their kids, maybe by the millions.  So if anybody is terrorizing children, maybe you better look in the mirror first.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

busybee01 said:


> I keep reading posts from people like you about how Comey, Clinton, and others should be jailed or hung for treason. WTF do you think you are anyway? You can apparently throw them but you can't take it.



Your comparing having a political opinion to telling others they should be thrown out of the country?  Oh yeah, they are the same thing.  

How about if I said because you are promoting more kids being in danger, we should throw you out of the country?  Or because you don't respect authority, you should be jailed?  



busybee01 said:


> Only a monster wants to terrorize children when they have done nothing wrong. Act like a animal and be treated like a animal. Go look up the Nuremburg Trials.
> Children are not invading our country or is that over your head?



Yes they are because their parent(s) are.  



busybee01 said:


> You on the right are fruitcakes. Ronald Reagan would leave this party. The alt-right is hateful.



Right, because you knew Reagan so well you'd know exactly what he'd do.  Reagan himself said his biggest mistake as President was granting amnesty to illegals here in the US.  



busybee01 said:


> You want to terrorize children to punish the adults. That is wrong and anyone who tries it should be jailed.



And there you go again.  You seem to have a hard time learning things.  A.D.D???????


----------



## Kondor3

Vandalshandle said:


> ...Did it occur to you that they might not *be Mexican*, either?


1. *the "simple majority" are anyway*, so any such policy automatically deals with the lion's share of Illegal Aliens

2. the "vast majority" come across the US-Mexican border; *all we need do is send them back across to the soil from which they crossed*

3. by adopting (2), we (a) deal with damned-near all Illegals and (b) let Mexico worry about those for whom they provided a "pass-through"; as it should be.

4. in contemplating (3)(b), that will, in turn, force the Mexicans to stop allowing "pass-throughs"

Win-Win.

----------------------------

If you like, and just for shits-and-giggles, as we kick their nasty a$$e$ back across the Mexican border...

We can even send every one of them packing with...

1. enough Mexican pesos for bus fare and a bit to spare for the trip

2. enough MRE's and bottled water for the bus trip

3. disposable blanket and pillow for the bus trip

...and bill the Democratic National Committee for the cost.

Win-Win.

--------------------------

The American People have had just about enough of this Illegal Aliens sympathy $hit.


----------



## jon_berzerk

*What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?*

a better question 

What human cost is acceptable in not controlling illegal immigration?


----------



## Hutch Starskey

SassyIrishLass said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think asylum seekers have a right to a hearing no matter what.  Most end up deported but it is their legal right.  As an American I would feel horrible sending some on back to a horrendous situation without even a hearing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is about 1-5% are actually eligible.
> 
> You got me on a bad week on this topic. We had a run in with a group of them over the weekend harassing our daughters. No reason for what was said and happened. None and if you're here illegally you'd be wise to learn some manners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you call the cops because they were grilling in the park?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit stain they harrased our 14 year old daughters and they're damn lucky the police were on top of it. Damn lucky.
> 
> Now go troll somewhere else, toad
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They?
> 
> General dirty Messicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Detained for no ID...think hard now
Click to expand...

You didn't answer. Who is they?


----------



## Hutch Starskey

TemplarKormac said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> A simple fix is when caught turn them back.
> 
> I'm sorry but I've had it up to my eye balls with illegals. The cost is staggering and Americans should come first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think asylum seekers have a right to a hearing no matter what.  Most end up deported but it is their legal right.  As an American I would feel horrible sending some on back to a horrendous situation without even a hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think asylum seekers have a right to a hearing no matter what.  Most end up deported but it is their legal right.  As an American I would feel horrible sending some on back to a horrendous situation without even a hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How the hell are we supposed to know if they're telling the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just magically believe whatever they say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> --------------------------------------   thats what i say , they base their actions , thinking and policy on emotion and thats not smart , its emotional .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hating immigrants is nothing but emotion, retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And saying "but this is for the children!" isn't?
Click to expand...


No one has said " this is for the children".

The question is the seperation of children from their families and how this administration is not handling it well.


----------



## yiostheoy

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


Well, there are no easy answers to this problem or question.

My own long term solution is to make Mexico a better place for the Mexicans.

Short of this you will need a Great Wall.

And short of a Great Wall you would need to invade Mexico and Americanize it.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Vandalshandle said:


> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the photos currently being circulated again of huge numbers of children in crowded conditions?  2014 saw a flood of unaccompanied minors Surge in unaccompanied child immigrants spurs White House reaction
> 
> The children traveled unaccompanied by parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When family detention centers are full, which they are, what do we do other than catch & release. Catch & release is a failure. Congress needs to either accommodate the influx of reduce the influx. It's their job, not Trump's. Trump is even calling for them to fix it because catch & release failed. We are now going to enforce our laws by detaining unknowns illegally crossing our borders.  Are you suggesting we continue catch & release? Are you suggesting we build more family detention centers? Are you suggesting there's no problem? Ending catch & release is good, IMO. We need to find some way to protect children as much as possible. I am open to options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do we have family detention centers? They should be nothing more than a bus stop where they wait for a ride back to Mexico. We take them over the border and drop them off for Mexico to deal with. It’s not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it occur to you that they might not be Mexican, either?
Click to expand...

Don’t care. They crossed from Mexico so they go back there. Our job is done. What Mexican chooses to do with them is their choice.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

TemplarKormac said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human rights abuses are not a tool used by America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but by using these children as tools, you have already violated their human rights.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...


The Trump admin is the only one using children as tools, dope. That's the point.
They're using the threat of seperation as a deterrent.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

kaz said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What made you think that having a baby was a golden ticket to US citizenship again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with keeping mothers and children together until their hearing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they are illegal aliens and should be deported immediately.  You're just trying to fudge your way into keeping criminals in the US
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  I want families kept together unless there is a darn good reason to remove the child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Their parents being illegal aliens is a damned good reason, isn't it?
Click to expand...


A person showing up at a border crossing and seeking assylum is not an illegal alien.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

TemplarKormac said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's policies are dragging us down with the two bit dictators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they aren't. A complete refusal to enforce the laws we have on the books are.
> 
> (Hey, is the rabbit hole you're in big enough for the two of us? I'm thinking not.)
Click to expand...


There is no law that requires seperation. That is completely within the discretion of the courts. It's only the policy that makes it mandatory.


----------



## Pop23

Hutch Starskey said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human rights abuses are not a tool used by America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but by using these children as tools, you have already violated their human rights.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Trump admin is the only one using children as tools, dope. That's the point.
> They're using the threat of seperation as a deterrent.
Click to expand...


Seems like a logical deterrent, so unless the parent is so negligent as to knowingly bring a child across the border when they know they will be separated, then it is that parents choice to do so. That is exactly what a deterrent is.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

tycho1572 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This OP appears to try to shift the recent scam on how they showed caged immigrants on to Trump when the article was in 2014 under Obama.
> 
> Now it's ....................Your mean people..........and look at the Children Identity politics...............
> 
> We don't have the responsibility to take on all the worlds problems...........It's a numbers game and we simply cannot take in all those South of the border........It cost a lot of money after they get here and is causing financial problems in this country.
> 
> The governments South of the border are corrupt...........some owned by the drug cartels.......and have caused the problems that make people flee.....That is the problem and not the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that scam is a different issue. No one was actually caged, it was from the flood of unaccompanied minors and it was under Obama.  Kids weren’t being separated from parents, they came without any parents so there is a good bit of scamming both ways there.
> 
> This is about Session’s announced policy of 100% removing children from parents caught entering the country illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kids being separated from their families is what Trump is trying to prevent.
> Democrats are trying to keep it going.
Click to expand...


Completely false. The problem, per usual, is a total lack of understanding of the issue and the acceptance of the narrative without question. There is no law that requires seperation. That is soley a policy requirement.


----------



## pismoe

yep . it is a logical deterrent .   Its older style American policy that is simply normal for older Americans that want to enforce their WILL on invaders .


----------



## dannyboys

Hutch Starskey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What made you think that having a baby was a golden ticket to US citizenship again?
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with keeping mothers and children together until their hearing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they are illegal aliens and should be deported immediately.  You're just trying to fudge your way into keeping criminals in the US
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  I want families kept together unless there is a darn good reason to remove the child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Their parents being illegal aliens is a damned good reason, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A person showing up at a border crossing and seeking assylum is not an illegal alien.
Click to expand...

Illegals are being coached on how to ask for asylum at the border.
It's often the only engish they know.
Hilarious to see 'young men' with MS13 tats all over their bodies pleading to be let into the US! And it's happenijg every day."I used to be in MS13 but now I want to attend MIT on a full scholarship".


----------



## Hutch Starskey

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok....I think in this case you way wrong....because a child isn’t a thing or property. It is a person with rights as well. That is why we don’t punish children for what their parents did. Though we used to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing you're failing to realize is that I'm not wanting the child to be punished. I want the child to be treated like a human being. Apparently the parents seem to think they are "things" or "property" because they have to smuggle them. Yes. What do you do with drugs if your in a drug cartel? You smuggle them. What do you do if you're a thief with stolen property and need to get your filched goods from one place to another,  you smuggle them.
> 
> You're right, they aren't things or property, but their parents are using them as leverage over another sovereign government in order to get here themselves. That, Coyote, is not acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would you do as a parent in that situation TK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would obey the friggun law, Coyote. I'd much rather maintain my relationship with my child than to use them as a tool to leverage another government for my illegal presence within their borders. I will have none of it. Children are not tools, they are children. Innocent children who essentially have no control over their situations. Ultimately the onus lies on the parents, they set such a vicious cycle in motion.
> 
> Not even in a moment of sheer desperation would I ever dare to subject my child to that. I would have to have gone completely insane to do something so barbarous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if your daughter was raped by a gang and your other daughter threatened with the same if you did not pay up?  What if the police were bankrolled by that gang?  Not fictional, these are the sorts of things recounted.  What would you do?
> 
> I would get my kids the hell out of Dodge any way I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An additional response to this post would be:
> 
> Seek asylum, don't break our laws.
> 
> Don't use asylum as a means to circumvent our immigration laws. If your situation is that severe, our government has a means for you to get here and be safe from your malefactors.  Asylum. A-s-y-l-u-m.
Click to expand...




TemplarKormac said:


> Seek asylum, don't break our laws.



ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote
> 
> You thanked post #523, where the author said and I quote "Trump's policies are dragging us down with the two bit dictators".
> 
> Do you think Trump is a "two bit dictator"? Simply for wanting our national sovereignty to be respected?
> 
> 
> 
> I think policies like this one are dragging us down to that level.  You do not need a policy like this in order to successfully maintain law and order at the border.
Click to expand...


Families can be and have been detained together. This move is meant to inflict the maximum pain as a deterrant. It is using human rights violations as a tool. The tools of dictators.


----------



## Pop23

pismoe said:


> yep . it is a logical deterrent .   Its older style American policy that is simply normal for older Americans that want to enforce their WILL on invaders .



Forcing a child to break the law will typically result in separation of the parent from the child. It deters those that would force a child into criminal activities.

There is nothing new here.


----------



## Pop23

Hutch Starskey said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote
> 
> You thanked post #523, where the author said and I quote "Trump's policies are dragging us down with the two bit dictators".
> 
> Do you think Trump is a "two bit dictator"? Simply for wanting our national sovereignty to be respected?
> 
> 
> 
> I think policies like this one are dragging us down to that level.  You do not need a policy like this in order to successfully maintain law and order at the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Families can be and have been detained together. This move is meant to inflict the maximum pain as a deterrant. It is using human rights violations as a tool. The tools of dictators.
Click to expand...


Forcing a child to break the law will typically result in separation of the parent from the child. It deters those that would force a child into criminal activities.

There is nothing new here.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Missouri_Mike said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts on the vid I posted, Coyote?
> 
> Here it is again in case you missed it.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that relate to forceably removing children from their mothers while awaiting a hearing?  I notice she has her children with her and she said nothing about that policy, only that she can’t blame Trump for enforcing the immigration laws that deported her husband.  She says nothing about kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It highlights the problems democrats create when they make stupid decisions.
> 
> I know you’re an honest person who’ll eventually appreciate President Trump for addressing the problems democrats created. You and I both hate the trail of death and pain they’ve paved.
> It’s why I’m glad we finally have a president willing to fix this problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We dealt with immigrants Obama's way for eight years, and the results were less than satisfying.  Trump hasn't been in office for two years, and they are complaining left and right.
> 
> Let us do it our way for four years (possibly eight) and see the end results.  Let's compare who has the best way to deal with the problems that come to our borders.
> 
> It has noting to do with the children, what it has to do with is they know our policies will provide results.  That's what scares the hell out of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is less than satisfying for the right about a president who decreased illegal immigration and increased deportations?  If he were an R you’d be jubilant. Trump has made immigration his trademark.  Demonize, deport, and tear away their children.  Surely immigration inforcement can be carried out withou the first and the third.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How? You deport the people and their kids. Period. There’s no room for your feelings here.
Click to expand...


No one has a problem with that. Just keep families intact.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Hutch Starskey said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing you're failing to realize is that I'm not wanting the child to be punished. I want the child to be treated like a human being. Apparently the parents seem to think they are "things" or "property" because they have to smuggle them. Yes. What do you do with drugs if your in a drug cartel? You smuggle them. What do you do if you're a thief with stolen property and need to get your filched goods from one place to another,  you smuggle them.
> 
> You're right, they aren't things or property, but their parents are using them as leverage over another sovereign government in order to get here themselves. That, Coyote, is not acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> What would you do as a parent in that situation TK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would obey the friggun law, Coyote. I'd much rather maintain my relationship with my child than to use them as a tool to leverage another government for my illegal presence within their borders. I will have none of it. Children are not tools, they are children. Innocent children who essentially have no control over their situations. Ultimately the onus lies on the parents, they set such a vicious cycle in motion.
> 
> Not even in a moment of sheer desperation would I ever dare to subject my child to that. I would have to have gone completely insane to do something so barbarous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if your daughter was raped by a gang and your other daughter threatened with the same if you did not pay up?  What if the police were bankrolled by that gang?  Not fictional, these are the sorts of things recounted.  What would you do?
> 
> I would get my kids the hell out of Dodge any way I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An additional response to this post would be:
> 
> Seek asylum, don't break our laws.
> 
> Don't use asylum as a means to circumvent our immigration laws. If your situation is that severe, our government has a means for you to get here and be safe from your malefactors.  Asylum. A-s-y-l-u-m.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seek asylum, don't break our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
Click to expand...


AWESOME!
Hutch Starskey please forward this letter to the White House. Thanks in advance.

Dear U.S. Government,
Please separate every child from every illegal, criminal wetback parent you capture. It’s time we get and stay extremely aggressive in the WAR with the illegal cockroaches from the dirty brown south. Don’t worry about how ignorant, bleeding heart fools may perceive this action, they hate accountability and law and order. They can not understand basic principles such as cause and effect....ALL good Americans that matter fully support this effort. 

Signed,
All good, real Americans


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

busybee01 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...those children had arrived alone at the Southwest border — without their parents. Most of them are from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, and were fleeing drug cartels, gang violence and domestic abuse, according to government data." And a lot of them are gang members themselves.
> 
> "...the department’s office of refugee resettlement began voluntarily making the calls as a 30-day follow-up to make sure that the children and their sponsors did not require additional services. Those calls, which the office does not view as required, Mr. Hargan said, are now “being used to confuse and spread misinformation.”
> 
> In many cases, the statement said, sponsors cannot be reached because “they themselves are illegal aliens and do not want to be reached by federal authorities.”
> Did the Trump Administration Separate Immigrant Children From Parents and Lose Them?
> 
> The left has trafficked gang members and criminals into the US, and now that they've *disappeared* they want to blame Trump?
> 
> Fucking ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens is people show up with kids that aren't theirs, or that they're using as mules, and we remove the kids for their own safety.
> 
> Of course the left doesn't like that. Children are disposable, and are supposed to be used by adults to get over the border. The left embraces trafficking, and is going to squawk when you protect children. They always have.
> 
> “As required by law, D.H.S. must protect the best interests of minor children crossing our borders, and occasionally this results in separating children from an adult they are traveling with if we cannot ascertain the parental relationship, or if we think the child is otherwise in danger,”
> 
> Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents at U.S. Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is so much bullshit and trash like you know it. The Trump people are separating children from their parents. They know it is wrong because they are blaming democrats for it. This is happening more than occasionally.
> 
> Got anymore BULLSHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where were you when barry was doing the exact same thing?
> Not a fuken peep out of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is the one separating children from their parents not Obama. You are a fucken liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ‘Caged migrant children’ go viral… until picture turns out taken under Obama, not Trump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sessions: Parents, children entering U.S. illegally will be separated
Click to expand...


  Didn't care when barry was doing it,dont care now.


----------



## abu afak

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."...._​


If your parents Rob a bank, you're also going to be separated.
Let's blame it on the 'inhumane' cops.

I'm tired of this nonsense.
People getting across the border, dropping a baby within months, and then whining about 'separation.'
Just because you (didn't get caught) and then dropped a kid here, you should NOT be immune from expulsion.
The gamble/risk/responsibility was/is all on the illegal parents.

People even sending in Children first, and then doing the same.
And many variants. (aka DACA)
`


----------



## Redfish

Hutch Starskey said:


> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does that relate to forceably removing children from their mothers while awaiting a hearing?  I notice she has her children with her and she said nothing about that policy, only that she can’t blame Trump for enforcing the immigration laws that deported her husband.  She says nothing about kids.
> 
> 
> 
> It highlights the problems democrats create when they make stupid decisions.
> 
> I know you’re an honest person who’ll eventually appreciate President Trump for addressing the problems democrats created. You and I both hate the trail of death and pain they’ve paved.
> It’s why I’m glad we finally have a president willing to fix this problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We dealt with immigrants Obama's way for eight years, and the results were less than satisfying.  Trump hasn't been in office for two years, and they are complaining left and right.
> 
> Let us do it our way for four years (possibly eight) and see the end results.  Let's compare who has the best way to deal with the problems that come to our borders.
> 
> It has noting to do with the children, what it has to do with is they know our policies will provide results.  That's what scares the hell out of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is less than satisfying for the right about a president who decreased illegal immigration and increased deportations?  If he were an R you’d be jubilant. Trump has made immigration his trademark.  Demonize, deport, and tear away their children.  Surely immigration inforcement can be carried out withou the first and the third.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How? You deport the people and their kids. Period. There’s no room for your feelings here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has a problem with that. Just keep families intact.
Click to expand...



How to keep families intact------------------------stay in your own country, do not try to enter this one illegally,  if you come legally we welcome you and your kids--------------------------------LEGALLY, THATS THE KEY WORD HERE.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Pop23 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human rights abuses are not a tool used by America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but by using these children as tools, you have already violated their human rights.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Trump admin is the only one using children as tools, dope. That's the point.
> They're using the threat of seperation as a deterrent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems like a logical deterrent, so unless the parent is so negligent as to knowingly bring a child across the border when they know they will be separated, then it is that parents choice to do so. That is exactly what a deterrent is.
Click to expand...


Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Hutch Starskey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human rights abuses are not a tool used by America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but by using these children as tools, you have already violated their human rights.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Trump admin is the only one using children as tools, dope. That's the point.
> They're using the threat of seperation as a deterrent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems like a logical deterrent, so unless the parent is so negligent as to knowingly bring a child across the border when they know they will be separated, then it is that parents choice to do so. That is exactly what a deterrent is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.
Click to expand...


  So whats your solution?


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.


So when a cop stops somebody for speeding and DUI, and arrests him, and his kids are separated from him, you'd say this is an _"unnecessary human rights violation"_ ?

And when the drunk driver is incarcerated, where would you suggest the kids go ?  Into jail with him ?


----------



## Hutch Starskey

dannyboys said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with keeping mothers and children together until their hearing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they are illegal aliens and should be deported immediately.  You're just trying to fudge your way into keeping criminals in the US
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  I want families kept together unless there is a darn good reason to remove the child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Their parents being illegal aliens is a damned good reason, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A person showing up at a border crossing and seeking assylum is not an illegal alien.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illegals are being coached on how to ask for asylum at the border.
> It's often the only engish they know.
> Hilarious to see 'young men' with MS13 tats all over their bodies pleading to be let into the US! And it's happenijg every day."I used to be in MS13 but now I want to attend MIT on a full scholarship".
Click to expand...


Liar.

Seeking asylum is a legal process. The admin is charging applicants as illegal crossers and separating families as a deterrent to future applicants. That is a policy move and not the law.


----------



## Pop23

Hutch Starskey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human rights abuses are not a tool used by America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but by using these children as tools, you have already violated their human rights.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Trump admin is the only one using children as tools, dope. That's the point.
> They're using the threat of seperation as a deterrent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems like a logical deterrent, so unless the parent is so negligent as to knowingly bring a child across the border when they know they will be separated, then it is that parents choice to do so. That is exactly what a deterrent is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.
Click to expand...


Sorry you feel that way.

And if you do, then is it also a human rights violation when the couple that forces their child to shoplift gets separated from them as well? Or the couple that dispatches their child to get illegal drugs from the pusher down the street get separated?

Why is one illegal activity to be treated different from another?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Hutch Starskey said:


> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they are illegal aliens and should be deported immediately.  You're just trying to fudge your way into keeping criminals in the US
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  I want families kept together unless there is a darn good reason to remove the child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Their parents being illegal aliens is a damned good reason, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A person showing up at a border crossing and seeking assylum is not an illegal alien.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illegals are being coached on how to ask for asylum at the border.
> It's often the only engish they know.
> Hilarious to see 'young men' with MS13 tats all over their bodies pleading to be let into the US! And it's happenijg every day."I used to be in MS13 but now I want to attend MIT on a full scholarship".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Seeking asylum is a legal process. The admin is charging applicants as illegal crossers and separating families as a deterrent to future applicants. That is a policy move and not the law.
Click to expand...


 Asylum seekers....the new illegal immigrant.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Pop23 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote
> 
> You thanked post #523, where the author said and I quote "Trump's policies are dragging us down with the two bit dictators".
> 
> Do you think Trump is a "two bit dictator"? Simply for wanting our national sovereignty to be respected?
> 
> 
> 
> I think policies like this one are dragging us down to that level.  You do not need a policy like this in order to successfully maintain law and order at the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Families can be and have been detained together. This move is meant to inflict the maximum pain as a deterrant. It is using human rights violations as a tool. The tools of dictators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Forcing a child to break the law will typically result in separation of the parent from the child. It deters those that would force a child into criminal activities.
> 
> There is nothing new here.
Click to expand...

It's all new.
Those seeking asylum are not breaking the law. It is a legal process.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

BrokeLoser said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would you do as a parent in that situation TK?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would obey the friggun law, Coyote. I'd much rather maintain my relationship with my child than to use them as a tool to leverage another government for my illegal presence within their borders. I will have none of it. Children are not tools, they are children. Innocent children who essentially have no control over their situations. Ultimately the onus lies on the parents, they set such a vicious cycle in motion.
> 
> Not even in a moment of sheer desperation would I ever dare to subject my child to that. I would have to have gone completely insane to do something so barbarous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if your daughter was raped by a gang and your other daughter threatened with the same if you did not pay up?  What if the police were bankrolled by that gang?  Not fictional, these are the sorts of things recounted.  What would you do?
> 
> I would get my kids the hell out of Dodge any way I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An additional response to this post would be:
> 
> Seek asylum, don't break our laws.
> 
> Don't use asylum as a means to circumvent our immigration laws. If your situation is that severe, our government has a means for you to get here and be safe from your malefactors.  Asylum. A-s-y-l-u-m.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seek asylum, don't break our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AWESOME!
> Hutch Starskey please forward this letter to the White House. Thanks in advance.
> 
> Dear U.S. Government,
> Please separate every child from every illegal, criminal wetback parent you capture. It’s time we get and stay extremely aggressive in the WAR with the illegal cockroaches from the dirty brown south. Don’t worry about how ignorant, bleeding heart fools may perceive this action, they hate accountability and law and order. They can not understand basic principles such as cause and effect....ALL good Americans that matter fully support this effort.
> 
> Signed,
> All good, real Americans
Click to expand...


Asylum seekers aren't illegals, dope.


----------



## busybee01

koshergrl said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is anybody else wondering why busy bee is a child trafficking advocate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am advocating for families you worthless piece of shit. Apparently you don't have a brain in your head. If these were traffickers they wouldn't be in detention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you are defending human trafficking.
Click to expand...


The cuckoo clock is still going.


----------



## Pop23

Hutch Starskey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote
> 
> You thanked post #523, where the author said and I quote "Trump's policies are dragging us down with the two bit dictators".
> 
> Do you think Trump is a "two bit dictator"? Simply for wanting our national sovereignty to be respected?
> 
> 
> 
> I think policies like this one are dragging us down to that level.  You do not need a policy like this in order to successfully maintain law and order at the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Families can be and have been detained together. This move is meant to inflict the maximum pain as a deterrant. It is using human rights violations as a tool. The tools of dictators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Forcing a child to break the law will typically result in separation of the parent from the child. It deters those that would force a child into criminal activities.
> 
> There is nothing new here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's all new.
> Those seeking asylum are not breaking the law. It is a legal process.
Click to expand...


The problem is, that everyone can make that claim.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

The application for asylum is fraudulent.  These countries are not persecuting anyone.  It's gangs.   They are fleeing retaliation for the attacks they made on rival gangs.


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> Liar.
> 
> Seeking asylum is a legal process. The admin is charging applicants as illegal crossers and separating families as a deterrent to future applicants. That is a policy move and not the law.


You got a link to the LAW, to show that ? And a source for the claim of charging asylum applicants as illegal crossers ?

And do you think anyone who claims to be seeking asylum really is ?  Ever occur to you that maybe they're lying ?  It's not unusual for criminals to say what they think will keep them from being arrested.

I wonder if the US should really be granting asylum anyway, even if it's legit.  Everything in life has a limitation - including a nation's population capacity.  Do we really want to be the homeless shelter for the world ?


----------



## pismoe

as the biggest CUCKOO chimes in !!    Morning BBEE !!


----------



## busybee01

protectionist said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is going to jail for crossing the border unless they are a convicted felon. There is no reason for separating children from their parents. You cannot compare major felonies with crossing the border illegally.
> 
> Birthright citizenship is not false. A plain reading of the Amendment does support what the courts have said. If he didn't like it then he should have written it better.
> 
> 
> 
> Crossing the border EWI is a crime. It carries a 6 month federal prison penalty (1st offense) and 2 year prison penalties for subsequent offenses.
> 
> Birthright citizenship for kids of foreigners is false.  The 14th amendment's intention is to give BC to kids of Americans, but not to foreigners.
Click to expand...


No one is going to jail. If you think we we going to waste money on non-violent offenses like this then you are crazy. Let's jail people for jaywalking.


----------



## protectionist

Pop23 said:


> The problem is, that everyone can make that claim.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  I want families kept together unless there is a darn good reason to remove the child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Their parents being illegal aliens is a damned good reason, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A person showing up at a border crossing and seeking assylum is not an illegal alien.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illegals are being coached on how to ask for asylum at the border.
> It's often the only engish they know.
> Hilarious to see 'young men' with MS13 tats all over their bodies pleading to be let into the US! And it's happenijg every day."I used to be in MS13 but now I want to attend MIT on a full scholarship".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Seeking asylum is a legal process. The admin is charging applicants as illegal crossers and separating families as a deterrent to future applicants. That is a policy move and not the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers....the new illegal immigrant.
Click to expand...




Pop23 said:


> Forcing a child to break the law will typically result in separation of the parent from the child. It deters those that would force a child into criminal activities.
> 
> There is nothing new here.





HereWeGoAgain said:


> Asylum seekers....the new illegal immigrant.




I wonder what congress thinks of this policy.

Rep. Mark Meadows: Separation of families at border a "horrible law," should be changed - CBS News

"Here's one of the interesting things, as we've been in these negotiations on trying to fix the immigration problem. This came out just the other day, and I said, 'I can't imagine that it's the law that you have to separate these individuals,'" Meadows told "Face the Nation" on Sunday. Meadows is chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus and one of Mr. Trump's most influential allies on Capitol Hill.
He added, "Now, obviously human trafficking is a big deal. You know, how do you know that they're really the parents in a family unit? So we would have to address that, but I think conservatives and moderates, Democrats and Republicans all agree that keeping a family together is the best strategy, and it's something we need to address and will address."


----------



## Hugo Furst

busybee01 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you understand why President Trump is working hard to fix this problem, Coyote?
> 
> 
> 
> No Tycho our reverent President is to busy tweeting.  In fact, it’s been so noisy I suspect there are birds nesting in his toupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it safe for me to assume that you’re good with democrats allowing people to be lured into unspeakable circumstances?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She will tolerate anything in the name of tolerance...
> Except protection of children. She won't tolerate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are a robot. You  can only say what you are told.
Click to expand...




busybee01 said:


> I think you are a robot. You can only say what you are told.


I get the same impression reading your posts


----------



## busybee01

protectionist said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We hold law enforcement to the same standards we hold everyone else. The people who are implementing this policy are responsible and should be held legally liable. Take your trash elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> Legally liable relative to what law ?
Click to expand...


The Nuremberg trials were about crimes against humanity. This fits.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human rights abuses are not a tool used by America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but by using these children as tools, you have already violated their human rights.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Trump admin is the only one using children as tools, dope. That's the point.
> They're using the threat of seperation as a deterrent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems like a logical deterrent, so unless the parent is so negligent as to knowingly bring a child across the border when they know they will be separated, then it is that parents choice to do so. That is exactly what a deterrent is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So whats your solution?
Click to expand...


Eliminate the horrible policy.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

protectionist said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.
> 
> 
> 
> So when a cop stops somebody for speeding and DUI, and arrests him, and his kids are separated from him, you'd say this is an _"unnecessary human rights violation"_ ?
> 
> And when the drunk driver is incarcerated, where would you suggest the kids go ?  Into jail with him ?
Click to expand...


We are talking about the new policy of separating families as a deterrant. Obviously if it's new, it was not done previously.


----------



## protectionist

busybee01 said:


> No one is going to jail. If you think we we going to waste money on non-violent offenses like this then you are crazy. Let's jail people for jaywalking.


So if the congressmen who made the law (US Code 8, Section 1325) were standing in front of you, you'd tell them point-blank that they're crazy for passing it ?

I think it's a good law, and part of the PROTECTIVE laws that our ancestors provided us with to PROTECT us.  If no one's going to jail for it, they should be.  And in the worst, miserable, hellhole prison we can find, so they won't want to go back there.

And if you need a tutorial on what we're being protected from, I can supply that, quickly. since I realize that liberals are the most information-deprived people in America, from watching their liberal OMISSION media all the time.

PS- jaywalking doesn't have the long list of harms that illegal immigration does.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Hutch Starskey said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would obey the friggun law, Coyote. I'd much rather maintain my relationship with my child than to use them as a tool to leverage another government for my illegal presence within their borders. I will have none of it. Children are not tools, they are children. Innocent children who essentially have no control over their situations. Ultimately the onus lies on the parents, they set such a vicious cycle in motion.
> 
> Not even in a moment of sheer desperation would I ever dare to subject my child to that. I would have to have gone completely insane to do something so barbarous.
> 
> 
> 
> What if your daughter was raped by a gang and your other daughter threatened with the same if you did not pay up?  What if the police were bankrolled by that gang?  Not fictional, these are the sorts of things recounted.  What would you do?
> 
> I would get my kids the hell out of Dodge any way I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An additional response to this post would be:
> 
> Seek asylum, don't break our laws.
> 
> Don't use asylum as a means to circumvent our immigration laws. If your situation is that severe, our government has a means for you to get here and be safe from your malefactors.  Asylum. A-s-y-l-u-m.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seek asylum, don't break our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AWESOME!
> Hutch Starskey please forward this letter to the White House. Thanks in advance.
> 
> Dear U.S. Government,
> Please separate every child from every illegal, criminal wetback parent you capture. It’s time we get and stay extremely aggressive in the WAR with the illegal cockroaches from the dirty brown south. Don’t worry about how ignorant, bleeding heart fools may perceive this action, they hate accountability and law and order. They can not understand basic principles such as cause and effect....ALL good Americans that matter fully support this effort.
> 
> Signed,
> All good, real Americans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers aren't illegals, dope.
Click to expand...


Nobody gives two shits about the .0002% dope... TRY AGAIN.
See how LefTards work...Suddenly every illegal wetback is an “asylum seeker”....hahaha...the whacks are always trying to repackage wetbacks and blur reality. Poor Loons...nobody sane buys your bullshit anymore.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Pop23 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human rights abuses are not a tool used by America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but by using these children as tools, you have already violated their human rights.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Trump admin is the only one using children as tools, dope. That's the point.
> They're using the threat of seperation as a deterrent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems like a logical deterrent, so unless the parent is so negligent as to knowingly bring a child across the border when they know they will be separated, then it is that parents choice to do so. That is exactly what a deterrent is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry you feel that way.
> 
> And if you do, then is it also a human rights violation when the couple that forces their child to shoplift gets separated from them as well? Or the couple that dispatches their child to get illegal drugs from the pusher down the street get separated?
> 
> Why is one illegal activity to be treated different from another?
Click to expand...



The children aren't being charged. The policy is separating families for the express purpose of being a deterrent and has nothing to do with the actual crime. It's  a step too far.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Hutch Starskey said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Their parents being illegal aliens is a damned good reason, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A person showing up at a border crossing and seeking assylum is not an illegal alien.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illegals are being coached on how to ask for asylum at the border.
> It's often the only engish they know.
> Hilarious to see 'young men' with MS13 tats all over their bodies pleading to be let into the US! And it's happenijg every day."I used to be in MS13 but now I want to attend MIT on a full scholarship".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Seeking asylum is a legal process. The admin is charging applicants as illegal crossers and separating families as a deterrent to future applicants. That is a policy move and not the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers....the new illegal immigrant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing a child to break the law will typically result in separation of the parent from the child. It deters those that would force a child into criminal activities.
> 
> There is nothing new here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers....the new illegal immigrant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what congress thinks of this policy.
> 
> Rep. Mark Meadows: Separation of families at border a "horrible law," should be changed - CBS News
> 
> "Here's one of the interesting things, as we've been in these negotiations on trying to fix the immigration problem. This came out just the other day, and I said, 'I can't imagine that it's the law that you have to separate these individuals,'" Meadows told "Face the Nation" on Sunday. Meadows is chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus and one of Mr. Trump's most influential allies on Capitol Hill.
> He added, "Now, obviously human trafficking is a big deal. You know, how do you know that they're really the parents in a family unit? So we would have to address that, but I think conservatives and moderates, Democrats and Republicans all agree that keeping a family together is the best strategy, and it's something we need to address and will address."
Click to expand...


  Still haven't gotten an explanation as to why it was okay in the barry era.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Hutch Starskey said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but by using these children as tools, you have already violated their human rights.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Trump admin is the only one using children as tools, dope. That's the point.
> They're using the threat of seperation as a deterrent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems like a logical deterrent, so unless the parent is so negligent as to knowingly bring a child across the border when they know they will be separated, then it is that parents choice to do so. That is exactly what a deterrent is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So whats your solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eliminate the horrible policy.
Click to expand...


   Thats not an answer.


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> We are talking about the new policy of separating families as a deterrant. Obviously if it's new, it was not done previously.


It's NOT a new policy.  It's been the policy (law) all along. It just wasn't being enforced by lawless Obama, who was setting EWI criminals free by way of "catch & release"

So what's you answer to my question, Mr Dodge ?  When the drunk driver is incarcerated, where would you suggest the kids go ?  Into jail with him ?


----------



## Norman

I can guarantee that all of this is just an attempt by the leftists to reform the law so that endless amount of illegals can freely enter the country.

They want to reform the policy, because Trump is tremendously effective at keeping the illegals out of the country. A new loophole must be created so that the illegal 3rd world  hordes can get in and vote democrat.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Pop23 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote
> 
> You thanked post #523, where the author said and I quote "Trump's policies are dragging us down with the two bit dictators".
> 
> Do you think Trump is a "two bit dictator"? Simply for wanting our national sovereignty to be respected?
> 
> 
> 
> I think policies like this one are dragging us down to that level.  You do not need a policy like this in order to successfully maintain law and order at the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Families can be and have been detained together. This move is meant to inflict the maximum pain as a deterrant. It is using human rights violations as a tool. The tools of dictators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Forcing a child to break the law will typically result in separation of the parent from the child. It deters those that would force a child into criminal activities.
> 
> There is nothing new here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's all new.
> Those seeking asylum are not breaking the law. It is a legal process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, that everyone can make that claim.
Click to expand...


Yes, a legal claim. Charging them as illegals and seperating families is a punative action against those involved in a legal process for no other reason than to dter future applicants. An unnecessarily harsh policy.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

protectionist said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about the new policy of separating families as a deterrant. Obviously if it's new, it was not done previously.
> 
> 
> 
> It's NOT a new policy.  It's been the policy (law) all along. It just wasn't being enforced by lawless Obama, who was setting EWI criminals free by way of "catch & release"
> 
> So what's you answer to my question, Mr Dodge ?  when the drunk driver is incarcerated, where would you suggest the kids go ?  Into jail with him ?
Click to expand...


Nonsense. If it wasn't new, Sessions wouldn't  have announced the new policy.


----------



## protectionist

busybee01 said:


> The Nuremberg trials were about crimes against humanity. This fits.


In other words, you don't know of any law that the Trump admin can be held legally liable for implementing this policy, but you propose that they be held legally liable for what there is no law to hold them legally liable for, right ?  Right, BB ? Right ?


----------



## Pop23

Hutch Starskey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but by using these children as tools, you have already violated their human rights.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Trump admin is the only one using children as tools, dope. That's the point.
> They're using the threat of seperation as a deterrent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems like a logical deterrent, so unless the parent is so negligent as to knowingly bring a child across the border when they know they will be separated, then it is that parents choice to do so. That is exactly what a deterrent is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry you feel that way.
> 
> And if you do, then is it also a human rights violation when the couple that forces their child to shoplift gets separated from them as well? Or the couple that dispatches their child to get illegal drugs from the pusher down the street get separated?
> 
> Why is one illegal activity to be treated different from another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The children aren't being charged. The policy is separating families for the express purpose of being a deterrent and has nothing to do with the actual crime. It's  a step too far.
Click to expand...


Where is it written that a child must be charged to be separated from the parent. I certainly didn't write that. It's the parent that commits the crime by sending the child (who has diminished capacity) to perform an illegal activity.

There is nothing new here. Why is it that someone from a different country is to be treated any different, when committing a crime, than an american citizen?

That's crazy.


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> Yes, a legal claim. Charging them as illegals and seperating families is a punative action against those involved in a legal process for no other reason than to dter future applicants. An unnecessarily harsh policy.


*FALSE! * It is to deport those who have no legal status to be here, and who are lucky if they aren't imprisoned for violating US Code 8, Section 1325.

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien


----------



## Hutch Starskey

protectionist said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Seeking asylum is a legal process. The admin is charging applicants as illegal crossers and separating families as a deterrent to future applicants. That is a policy move and not the law.
> 
> 
> 
> You got a link to the LAW, to show that ? And a source for the claim of charging asylum applicants as illegal crossers ?
> 
> And do you think anyone who claims to be seeking asylum really is ?  Ever occur to you that maybe they're lying ?  It's not unusual for criminals to say what they think will keep them from being arrested.
> 
> I wonder if the US should really be granting asylum anyway, even if it's legit.  Everything in life has a limitation - including a nation's population capacity.  Do we really want to be the homeless shelter for the world ?
Click to expand...


Asylum claims are for the system to figure out.

Charging those who arrive at border crossings seeking asylum as illegal crossers and seperating them from their children is not legit.

ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children


----------



## Hutch Starskey

protectionist said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, a legal claim. Charging them as illegals and seperating families is a punative action against those involved in a legal process for no other reason than to dter future applicants. An unnecessarily harsh policy.
> 
> 
> 
> *FALSE! * It is to deport those who have no legal status to be here, and who are lucky if they aren't imprisoned for violating US code 8, Section 1325.
> 
> 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
Click to expand...

I'm talking about asylum seekers at border crossings. I've only posted it a half a dozen times.

ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children


----------



## Hutch Starskey

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> A person showing up at a border crossing and seeking assylum is not an illegal alien.
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals are being coached on how to ask for asylum at the border.
> It's often the only engish they know.
> Hilarious to see 'young men' with MS13 tats all over their bodies pleading to be let into the US! And it's happenijg every day."I used to be in MS13 but now I want to attend MIT on a full scholarship".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Seeking asylum is a legal process. The admin is charging applicants as illegal crossers and separating families as a deterrent to future applicants. That is a policy move and not the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers....the new illegal immigrant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing a child to break the law will typically result in separation of the parent from the child. It deters those that would force a child into criminal activities.
> 
> There is nothing new here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers....the new illegal immigrant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what congress thinks of this policy.
> 
> Rep. Mark Meadows: Separation of families at border a "horrible law," should be changed - CBS News
> 
> "Here's one of the interesting things, as we've been in these negotiations on trying to fix the immigration problem. This came out just the other day, and I said, 'I can't imagine that it's the law that you have to separate these individuals,'" Meadows told "Face the Nation" on Sunday. Meadows is chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus and one of Mr. Trump's most influential allies on Capitol Hill.
> He added, "Now, obviously human trafficking is a big deal. You know, how do you know that they're really the parents in a family unit? So we would have to address that, but I think conservatives and moderates, Democrats and Republicans all agree that keeping a family together is the best strategy, and it's something we need to address and will address."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still haven't gotten an explanation as to why it was okay in the barry era.
Click to expand...


It wasn't.  
ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children


----------



## Pop23

Hutch Starskey said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Seeking asylum is a legal process. The admin is charging applicants as illegal crossers and separating families as a deterrent to future applicants. That is a policy move and not the law.
> 
> 
> 
> You got a link to the LAW, to show that ? And a source for the claim of charging asylum applicants as illegal crossers ?
> 
> And do you think anyone who claims to be seeking asylum really is ?  Ever occur to you that maybe they're lying ?  It's not unusual for criminals to say what they think will keep them from being arrested.
> 
> I wonder if the US should really be granting asylum anyway, even if it's legit.  Everything in life has a limitation - including a nation's population capacity.  Do we really want to be the homeless shelter for the world ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum claims are for the system to figure out.
> 
> Charging those who arrive at border crossings seeking asylum as illegal crossers and seperating them from their children is not legit.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
Click to expand...


"The System" cannot handle the load when EVERY PERSON claims to be seeking "Asylum". Most come for ECONOMIC reasons, or because they flee criminal activity. Neither is what would commonly be described as an asylum seeker.


----------



## dannyboys

The other day I saw a photo of a women trying to cross the border with NINE children! The problem is ALL of the children were approximately the same age! Ranging from about three to five years old.
Miracles really do happen in S.A. Roman Catholic families I guess.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Trump admin is the only one using children as tools, dope. That's the point.
> They're using the threat of seperation as a deterrent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like a logical deterrent, so unless the parent is so negligent as to knowingly bring a child across the border when they know they will be separated, then it is that parents choice to do so. That is exactly what a deterrent is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So whats your solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eliminate the horrible policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats not an answer.
Click to expand...


It is indeed an answer.  Creating a policy that uses human rights violations as a deterrent for furure applicants to a legal process is not a solution at all. It's  making an existing legal pathway a nightmare so people don't  try to use it.

Change the law if it's  a problem.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Hutch Starskey said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals are being coached on how to ask for asylum at the border.
> It's often the only engish they know.
> Hilarious to see 'young men' with MS13 tats all over their bodies pleading to be let into the US! And it's happenijg every day."I used to be in MS13 but now I want to attend MIT on a full scholarship".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Seeking asylum is a legal process. The admin is charging applicants as illegal crossers and separating families as a deterrent to future applicants. That is a policy move and not the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers....the new illegal immigrant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing a child to break the law will typically result in separation of the parent from the child. It deters those that would force a child into criminal activities.
> 
> There is nothing new here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers....the new illegal immigrant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what congress thinks of this policy.
> 
> Rep. Mark Meadows: Separation of families at border a "horrible law," should be changed - CBS News
> 
> "Here's one of the interesting things, as we've been in these negotiations on trying to fix the immigration problem. This came out just the other day, and I said, 'I can't imagine that it's the law that you have to separate these individuals,'" Meadows told "Face the Nation" on Sunday. Meadows is chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus and one of Mr. Trump's most influential allies on Capitol Hill.
> He added, "Now, obviously human trafficking is a big deal. You know, how do you know that they're really the parents in a family unit? So we would have to address that, but I think conservatives and moderates, Democrats and Republicans all agree that keeping a family together is the best strategy, and it's something we need to address and will address."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still haven't gotten an explanation as to why it was okay in the barry era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't.
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
Click to expand...


  Then why weren't you bitching when barry did it?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Hutch Starskey said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like a logical deterrent, so unless the parent is so negligent as to knowingly bring a child across the border when they know they will be separated, then it is that parents choice to do so. That is exactly what a deterrent is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So whats your solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eliminate the horrible policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats not an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is indeed an answer.  Creating a policy that uses human rights violations as a deterrent for furure applicants to a legal process is not a solution at all. It's  making an existing legal pathway a nightmare so people don't  try to use it.
> 
> Change the law if it's  a problem.
Click to expand...


   So what is your solution?


----------



## Pop23

dannyboys said:


> The other day I saw a photo of a women trying to cross the border with NINE children! The problem is ALL of the children were approximately the same age! Ranging from about three to five years old.
> Miracles really do happen in S.A. Roman Catholic families I guess.



And if found that they were not her children? That would be a criminal act that she should be charged with and separated from ALL the children.


----------



## Pop23

Hutch Starskey said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like a logical deterrent, so unless the parent is so negligent as to knowingly bring a child across the border when they know they will be separated, then it is that parents choice to do so. That is exactly what a deterrent is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So whats your solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eliminate the horrible policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats not an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is indeed an answer.  Creating a policy that uses human rights violations as a deterrent for furure applicants to a legal process is not a solution at all. It's  making an existing legal pathway a nightmare so people don't  try to use it.
> 
> Change the law if it's  a problem.
Click to expand...


We use deterrents to stop the abuse of the system. You either deter or you allow anyone the privilege of breaking the law.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Pop23 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Trump admin is the only one using children as tools, dope. That's the point.
> They're using the threat of seperation as a deterrent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like a logical deterrent, so unless the parent is so negligent as to knowingly bring a child across the border when they know they will be separated, then it is that parents choice to do so. That is exactly what a deterrent is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry you feel that way.
> 
> And if you do, then is it also a human rights violation when the couple that forces their child to shoplift gets separated from them as well? Or the couple that dispatches their child to get illegal drugs from the pusher down the street get separated?
> 
> Why is one illegal activity to be treated different from another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The children aren't being charged. The policy is separating families for the express purpose of being a deterrent and has nothing to do with the actual crime. It's  a step too far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is it written that a child must be charged to be separated from the parent. I certainly didn't write that. It's the parent that commits the crime by sending the child (who has diminished capacity) to perform an illegal activity.
> 
> There is nothing new here. Why is it that someone from a different country is to be treated any different, when committing a crime, than an american citizen?
> 
> That's crazy.
Click to expand...




Pop23 said:


> Where is it written that a child must be charged to be separated from the parent. I certainly didn't write that.



You just wrote about parents forcing their kids to commit crimes being sepearated.
If you aren't talking about charging kids, then what's  the purpose of the point?



Pop23 said:


> Sorry you feel that way.
> 
> And if you do, *then is it also a human rights violation when the couple that forces their child to shoplift gets separated from them as well? *Or the couple that dispatches their child to get illegal drugs from the pusher down the street get separated?
> 
> Why is one illegal activity to be treated different


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Pop23 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So whats your solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eliminate the horrible policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats not an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is indeed an answer.  Creating a policy that uses human rights violations as a deterrent for furure applicants to a legal process is not a solution at all. It's  making an existing legal pathway a nightmare so people don't  try to use it.
> 
> Change the law if it's  a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We use deterrents to stop the abuse of the system. You either deter or you allow anyone the privilege of breaking the law.
Click to expand...


No. The system decides which claims are valid. The deterrent is meant to dissuade future applicants whether their claims are valid or not.


----------



## Pop23

Hutch Starskey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like a logical deterrent, so unless the parent is so negligent as to knowingly bring a child across the border when they know they will be separated, then it is that parents choice to do so. That is exactly what a deterrent is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry you feel that way.
> 
> And if you do, then is it also a human rights violation when the couple that forces their child to shoplift gets separated from them as well? Or the couple that dispatches their child to get illegal drugs from the pusher down the street get separated?
> 
> Why is one illegal activity to be treated different from another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The children aren't being charged. The policy is separating families for the express purpose of being a deterrent and has nothing to do with the actual crime. It's  a step too far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is it written that a child must be charged to be separated from the parent. I certainly didn't write that. It's the parent that commits the crime by sending the child (who has diminished capacity) to perform an illegal activity.
> 
> There is nothing new here. Why is it that someone from a different country is to be treated any different, when committing a crime, than an american citizen?
> 
> That's crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is it written that a child must be charged to be separated from the parent. I certainly didn't write that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just wrote about parents forcing their kids to commit crimes being sepearated.
> If you aren't talking about charging kids, then what's  the purpose of the point?
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry you feel that way.
> 
> And if you do, *then is it also a human rights violation when the couple that forces their child to shoplift gets separated from them as well? *Or the couple that dispatches their child to get illegal drugs from the pusher down the street get separated?
> 
> Why is one illegal activity to be treated different
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Again, where is it written THAT A CHILD MUST BE CHARGED TO BE SEPARATED FROM THE PARENT!. If the parent uses a child, which has, by it's very nature, diminished capability, to participate in criminal activity, then IT IS THE PARENT THAT IS CHARGED WITH THE CRIME, and still the two are separated.

Clear enough now?


----------



## Pop23

Hutch Starskey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> So whats your solution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eliminate the horrible policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats not an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is indeed an answer.  Creating a policy that uses human rights violations as a deterrent for furure applicants to a legal process is not a solution at all. It's  making an existing legal pathway a nightmare so people don't  try to use it.
> 
> Change the law if it's  a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We use deterrents to stop the abuse of the system. You either deter or you allow anyone the privilege of breaking the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. The system decides which claims are valid. The deterrent is meant to dissuade future applicants whether their claims are valid or not.
Click to expand...


THE DETERRENT is not to dissuade the legitimate from application, it is to dissuade the non-legitimate.

Do you even know what a deterrent is?


----------



## dannyboys

Hutch Starskey said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, a legal claim. Charging them as illegals and seperating families is a punative action against those involved in a legal process for no other reason than to dter future applicants. An unnecessarily harsh policy.
> 
> 
> 
> *FALSE! * It is to deport those who have no legal status to be here, and who are lucky if they aren't imprisoned for violating US code 8, Section 1325.
> 
> 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about asylum seekers at border crossings. I've only posted it a half a dozen times.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
Click to expand...

Anyone  of these people can be coached to claim they are seeking asylum you MUTT!
By that standard anyone on the planet can enter the USA!
" My former boss in Romania kept 'looking at me funny'. I had no choice but to flee to the good old US which is full of 'White Guilt LIB soccer moms. I KNOW they'll let me in!. By the way the LIBs can always count on my vote. I also have four sisters who had the same 'devastating' experiences' where they worked...........cranking out cheap knock-off plastic sex toys".


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

If we are taking people who are claiming asylum, that should be an immediate declaration of war on the nation from whence such asylum seekers came, and subsequent invasion.

If we're gonna be the fucking world police, none of this shit should ever be excused.  People should die.

The better option:  Take nobody, cut welfare in half, cut military spending in half, and quit being world police.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Pop23 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Seeking asylum is a legal process. The admin is charging applicants as illegal crossers and separating families as a deterrent to future applicants. That is a policy move and not the law.
> 
> 
> 
> You got a link to the LAW, to show that ? And a source for the claim of charging asylum applicants as illegal crossers ?
> 
> And do you think anyone who claims to be seeking asylum really is ?  Ever occur to you that maybe they're lying ?  It's not unusual for criminals to say what they think will keep them from being arrested.
> 
> I wonder if the US should really be granting asylum anyway, even if it's legit.  Everything in life has a limitation - including a nation's population capacity.  Do we really want to be the homeless shelter for the world ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum claims are for the system to figure out.
> 
> Charging those who arrive at border crossings seeking asylum as illegal crossers and seperating them from their children is not legit.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The System" cannot handle the load when EVERY PERSON claims to be seeking "Asylum". Most come for ECONOMIC reasons, or because they flee criminal activity. Neither is what would commonly be described as an asylum seeker.
Click to expand...


One must qualify to be considered for asylum. The system decides if claims are valid.
The system is there because it's the law.
If it's overburdened then assign more resources. It is a legal process. As such, due diligence is required by those adjudicating claims. Due process must be observed.

Creating a policy that makes the process hostile to applicants and their family members or otherwise waives the substantive due process in favor of criminal proceedings with the intent of deterring future applicants is unacceptable and probably unconstitutional as well.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Pop23 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So whats your solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eliminate the horrible policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats not an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is indeed an answer.  Creating a policy that uses human rights violations as a deterrent for furure applicants to a legal process is not a solution at all. It's  making an existing legal pathway a nightmare so people don't  try to use it.
> 
> Change the law if it's  a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We use deterrents to stop the abuse of the system. You either deter or you allow anyone the privilege of breaking the law.
Click to expand...


By definition, if they're using the system, they're not breaking the law. Asylum is a legal process.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Pop23 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry you feel that way.
> 
> And if you do, then is it also a human rights violation when the couple that forces their child to shoplift gets separated from them as well? Or the couple that dispatches their child to get illegal drugs from the pusher down the street get separated?
> 
> Why is one illegal activity to be treated different from another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The children aren't being charged. The policy is separating families for the express purpose of being a deterrent and has nothing to do with the actual crime. It's  a step too far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is it written that a child must be charged to be separated from the parent. I certainly didn't write that. It's the parent that commits the crime by sending the child (who has diminished capacity) to perform an illegal activity.
> 
> There is nothing new here. Why is it that someone from a different country is to be treated any different, when committing a crime, than an american citizen?
> 
> That's crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is it written that a child must be charged to be separated from the parent. I certainly didn't write that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just wrote about parents forcing their kids to commit crimes being sepearated.
> If you aren't talking about charging kids, then what's  the purpose of the point?
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry you feel that way.
> 
> And if you do, *then is it also a human rights violation when the couple that forces their child to shoplift gets separated from them as well? *Or the couple that dispatches their child to get illegal drugs from the pusher down the street get separated?
> 
> Why is one illegal activity to be treated different
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, where is it written THAT A CHILD MUST BE CHARGED TO BE SEPARATED FROM THE PARENT!. If the parent uses a child, which has, by it's very nature, diminished capability, to participate in criminal activity, then IT IS THE PARENT THAT IS CHARGED WITH THE CRIME, and still the two are separated.
> 
> Clear enough now?
Click to expand...

You suggested that, fool. I just showed you why.
The parent committed the crime by crossing illegally. Whatever you mean by "using a child"  or "forcing a kid to shoplift" is irrelevant to that fact. Separation of the family is not mandatory under the law.


----------



## Pop23

Hutch Starskey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> So whats your solution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eliminate the horrible policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats not an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is indeed an answer.  Creating a policy that uses human rights violations as a deterrent for furure applicants to a legal process is not a solution at all. It's  making an existing legal pathway a nightmare so people don't  try to use it.
> 
> Change the law if it's  a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We use deterrents to stop the abuse of the system. You either deter or you allow anyone the privilege of breaking the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By definition, if they're using the system, they're not breaking the law. Asylum is a legal process.
Click to expand...


Claiming you are seeking Asylum, and actually seeking Asylum is the rub.

Again, ANYONE can claim, and that's the point isn't it? Flood the system with those that can't prove it so that the system fails. So the obligation then is to deter those that have illegitimate claims, so that those that do, have access to a fully functional system.


----------



## Pop23

Hutch Starskey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry you feel that way.
> 
> And if you do, then is it also a human rights violation when the couple that forces their child to shoplift gets separated from them as well? Or the couple that dispatches their child to get illegal drugs from the pusher down the street get separated?
> 
> Why is one illegal activity to be treated different from another?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The children aren't being charged. The policy is separating families for the express purpose of being a deterrent and has nothing to do with the actual crime. It's  a step too far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is it written that a child must be charged to be separated from the parent. I certainly didn't write that. It's the parent that commits the crime by sending the child (who has diminished capacity) to perform an illegal activity.
> 
> There is nothing new here. Why is it that someone from a different country is to be treated any different, when committing a crime, than an american citizen?
> 
> That's crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is it written that a child must be charged to be separated from the parent. I certainly didn't write that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just wrote about parents forcing their kids to commit crimes being sepearated.
> If you aren't talking about charging kids, then what's  the purpose of the point?
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry you feel that way.
> 
> And if you do, *then is it also a human rights violation when the couple that forces their child to shoplift gets separated from them as well? *Or the couple that dispatches their child to get illegal drugs from the pusher down the street get separated?
> 
> Why is one illegal activity to be treated different
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, where is it written THAT A CHILD MUST BE CHARGED TO BE SEPARATED FROM THE PARENT!. If the parent uses a child, which has, by it's very nature, diminished capability, to participate in criminal activity, then IT IS THE PARENT THAT IS CHARGED WITH THE CRIME, and still the two are separated.
> 
> Clear enough now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You suggested that, fool. I just showed you why.
> The parent committed the crime by crossing illegally. Whatever you mean by "using a child"  or "forcing a kid to shoplift" is irrelevant to that fact. Separation of the family is not mandatory under the law.
Click to expand...


You can twist like a pretzel all you want. In the practical application of law enforcement or to that matter our judicial system, involving a child in criminal activity most often results in that child being removed from the parent. PERIOD


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Pop23 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eliminate the horrible policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is indeed an answer.  Creating a policy that uses human rights violations as a deterrent for furure applicants to a legal process is not a solution at all. It's  making an existing legal pathway a nightmare so people don't  try to use it.
> 
> Change the law if it's  a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We use deterrents to stop the abuse of the system. You either deter or you allow anyone the privilege of breaking the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. The system decides which claims are valid. The deterrent is meant to dissuade future applicants whether their claims are valid or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THE DETERRENT is not to dissuade the legitimate from application, it is to dissuade the non-legitimate.
> 
> Do you even know what a deterrent is?
Click to expand...


How so?  
If applicants are afraid to apply for asylum simply because they fear criminal charges and being separated from their children, that applies to all applicants.


----------



## Pop23

Hutch Starskey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is indeed an answer.  Creating a policy that uses human rights violations as a deterrent for furure applicants to a legal process is not a solution at all. It's  making an existing legal pathway a nightmare so people don't  try to use it.
> 
> Change the law if it's  a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We use deterrents to stop the abuse of the system. You either deter or you allow anyone the privilege of breaking the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. The system decides which claims are valid. The deterrent is meant to dissuade future applicants whether their claims are valid or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THE DETERRENT is not to dissuade the legitimate from application, it is to dissuade the non-legitimate.
> 
> Do you even know what a deterrent is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
> If applicants are afraid to apply for asylum simply because they fear criminal charges and being separated from their children, that applies to all applicants.
Click to expand...


Been explained over and over and over. Our entire law enforcement system is based on a series of deterrents.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Missouri_Mike said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When family detention centers are full, which they are, what do we do other than catch & release. Catch & release is a failure. Congress needs to either accommodate the influx of reduce the influx. It's their job, not Trump's. Trump is even calling for them to fix it because catch & release failed. We are now going to enforce our laws by detaining unknowns illegally crossing our borders.  Are you suggesting we continue catch & release? Are you suggesting we build more family detention centers? Are you suggesting there's no problem? Ending catch & release is good, IMO. We need to find some way to protect children as much as possible. I am open to options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do we have family detention centers? They should be nothing more than a bus stop where they wait for a ride back to Mexico. We take them over the border and drop them off for Mexico to deal with. It’s not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it occur to you that they might not be Mexican, either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t care. They crossed from Mexico so they go back there. Our job is done. What Mexican chooses to do with them is their choice.
Click to expand...


So, we have the right to refuse entry into our country to people without papers, but Mexico does not  have the same right to block people that we try to send over there without papers? 

I think that I have found the nature of your thinking malfunction, Sparky......


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Pop23 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eliminate the horrible policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is indeed an answer.  Creating a policy that uses human rights violations as a deterrent for furure applicants to a legal process is not a solution at all. It's  making an existing legal pathway a nightmare so people don't  try to use it.
> 
> Change the law if it's  a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We use deterrents to stop the abuse of the system. You either deter or you allow anyone the privilege of breaking the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By definition, if they're using the system, they're not breaking the law. Asylum is a legal process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Claiming you are seeking Asylum, and actually seeking Asylum is the rub.
> 
> Again, ANYONE can claim, and that's the point isn't it? Flood the system with those that can't prove it so that the system fails. So the obligation then is to deter those that have illegitimate claims, so that those that do, have access to a fully functional system.
Click to expand...




Pop23 said:


> Claiming you are seeking Asylum, and actually seeking Asylum is the rub.



People must meet the qualifications in order to proceed through the process. The system decides. 

How do you deter "illegitimate" claims?
There is no penalty if an application is denied. There is no criminal act in not qualifying for asylum.


----------



## Pop23

Vandalshandle said:


> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When family detention centers are full, which they are, what do we do other than catch & release. Catch & release is a failure. Congress needs to either accommodate the influx of reduce the influx. It's their job, not Trump's. Trump is even calling for them to fix it because catch & release failed. We are now going to enforce our laws by detaining unknowns illegally crossing our borders.  Are you suggesting we continue catch & release? Are you suggesting we build more family detention centers? Are you suggesting there's no problem? Ending catch & release is good, IMO. We need to find some way to protect children as much as possible. I am open to options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do we have family detention centers? They should be nothing more than a bus stop where they wait for a ride back to Mexico. We take them over the border and drop them off for Mexico to deal with. It’s not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it occur to you that they might not be Mexican, either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t care. They crossed from Mexico so they go back there. Our job is done. What Mexican chooses to do with them is their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, we have the right to refuse entry into our country to people without papers, but Mexico does not  have the same right to block people that we try to send over there without papers?
> 
> I think that I have found the nature of your thinking malfunction, Sparky......
Click to expand...


Mexico has the right to do whatever they wish. If they wish to deny the entry of those we catch crossing FROM MEXICO ILLEGALLY, that is something that can only be addressed by a border wall.


----------



## Pop23

Hutch Starskey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is indeed an answer.  Creating a policy that uses human rights violations as a deterrent for furure applicants to a legal process is not a solution at all. It's  making an existing legal pathway a nightmare so people don't  try to use it.
> 
> Change the law if it's  a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We use deterrents to stop the abuse of the system. You either deter or you allow anyone the privilege of breaking the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By definition, if they're using the system, they're not breaking the law. Asylum is a legal process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Claiming you are seeking Asylum, and actually seeking Asylum is the rub.
> 
> Again, ANYONE can claim, and that's the point isn't it? Flood the system with those that can't prove it so that the system fails. So the obligation then is to deter those that have illegitimate claims, so that those that do, have access to a fully functional system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming you are seeking Asylum, and actually seeking Asylum is the rub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People must meet the qualifications in order to proceed through the process. The system decides.
> 
> How do you deter "illegitimate" claims?
> There is no penalty if an application is denied. There is no criminal act in not qualifying for asylum.
Click to expand...


I see you cut out the main point I made, so I will post it again:

Again, ANYONE can claim, and that's the point isn't it? Flood the system with those that can't prove it so that the system fails. So the obligation then is to deter those that have illegitimate claims, so that those that do, have access to a fully functional system.


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> Asylum seekers aren't illegals, dope.


Many of them are illegals, pretending to be asylum seekers.  Can you state how to tell the difference ?


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Pop23 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The children aren't being charged. The policy is separating families for the express purpose of being a deterrent and has nothing to do with the actual crime. It's  a step too far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is it written that a child must be charged to be separated from the parent. I certainly didn't write that. It's the parent that commits the crime by sending the child (who has diminished capacity) to perform an illegal activity.
> 
> There is nothing new here. Why is it that someone from a different country is to be treated any different, when committing a crime, than an american citizen?
> 
> That's crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is it written that a child must be charged to be separated from the parent. I certainly didn't write that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just wrote about parents forcing their kids to commit crimes being sepearated.
> If you aren't talking about charging kids, then what's  the purpose of the point?
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry you feel that way.
> 
> And if you do, *then is it also a human rights violation when the couple that forces their child to shoplift gets separated from them as well? *Or the couple that dispatches their child to get illegal drugs from the pusher down the street get separated?
> 
> Why is one illegal activity to be treated different
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, where is it written THAT A CHILD MUST BE CHARGED TO BE SEPARATED FROM THE PARENT!. If the parent uses a child, which has, by it's very nature, diminished capability, to participate in criminal activity, then IT IS THE PARENT THAT IS CHARGED WITH THE CRIME, and still the two are separated.
> 
> Clear enough now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You suggested that, fool. I just showed you why.
> The parent committed the crime by crossing illegally. Whatever you mean by "using a child"  or "forcing a kid to shoplift" is irrelevant to that fact. Separation of the family is not mandatory under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can twist like a pretzel all you want. In the practical application of law enforcement or to that matter our judicial system, involving a child in criminal activity most often results in that child being removed from the parent. PERIOD
Click to expand...


Why remove the child at all?
Convict the offender, waive the sentence and deport them immediately.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Pop23 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is indeed an answer.  Creating a policy that uses human rights violations as a deterrent for furure applicants to a legal process is not a solution at all. It's  making an existing legal pathway a nightmare so people don't  try to use it.
> 
> Change the law if it's  a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We use deterrents to stop the abuse of the system. You either deter or you allow anyone the privilege of breaking the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. The system decides which claims are valid. The deterrent is meant to dissuade future applicants whether their claims are valid or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THE DETERRENT is not to dissuade the legitimate from application, it is to dissuade the non-legitimate.
> 
> Do you even know what a deterrent is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
> If applicants are afraid to apply for asylum simply because they fear criminal charges and being separated from their children, that applies to all applicants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been explained over and over and over. Our entire law enforcement system is based on a series of deterrents.
Click to expand...


You've explained nothing. Applying for asylum is a LEGAL process. Not illegal.


----------



## Pop23

Hutch Starskey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is it written that a child must be charged to be separated from the parent. I certainly didn't write that. It's the parent that commits the crime by sending the child (who has diminished capacity) to perform an illegal activity.
> 
> There is nothing new here. Why is it that someone from a different country is to be treated any different, when committing a crime, than an american citizen?
> 
> That's crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is it written that a child must be charged to be separated from the parent. I certainly didn't write that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just wrote about parents forcing their kids to commit crimes being sepearated.
> If you aren't talking about charging kids, then what's  the purpose of the point?
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry you feel that way.
> 
> And if you do, *then is it also a human rights violation when the couple that forces their child to shoplift gets separated from them as well? *Or the couple that dispatches their child to get illegal drugs from the pusher down the street get separated?
> 
> Why is one illegal activity to be treated different
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, where is it written THAT A CHILD MUST BE CHARGED TO BE SEPARATED FROM THE PARENT!. If the parent uses a child, which has, by it's very nature, diminished capability, to participate in criminal activity, then IT IS THE PARENT THAT IS CHARGED WITH THE CRIME, and still the two are separated.
> 
> Clear enough now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You suggested that, fool. I just showed you why.
> The parent committed the crime by crossing illegally. Whatever you mean by "using a child"  or "forcing a kid to shoplift" is irrelevant to that fact. Separation of the family is not mandatory under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can twist like a pretzel all you want. In the practical application of law enforcement or to that matter our judicial system, involving a child in criminal activity most often results in that child being removed from the parent. PERIOD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why remove the child at all?
> Convict the offender, waive the sentence and deport them immediately.
Click to expand...


OK, how about just deterring the crime from happening in the first place? I guess if we extend your logic, then, if 1,000,000 people rob a bank, instead of trying to deter bank robberies by making drastic changes in the law, we just allow bank robbers to flood the system, breaking the system, so more bank robberies can occur.

Cool


----------



## Pop23

Hutch Starskey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We use deterrents to stop the abuse of the system. You either deter or you allow anyone the privilege of breaking the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The system decides which claims are valid. The deterrent is meant to dissuade future applicants whether their claims are valid or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THE DETERRENT is not to dissuade the legitimate from application, it is to dissuade the non-legitimate.
> 
> Do you even know what a deterrent is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
> If applicants are afraid to apply for asylum simply because they fear criminal charges and being separated from their children, that applies to all applicants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been explained over and over and over. Our entire law enforcement system is based on a series of deterrents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've explained nothing. Applying for asylum is a LEGAL process. Not illegal.
Click to expand...


And again, if you flood the system with illegitimate seekers, the system is going to fail and the legitimate seekers will flounder with the rest. That is your goal after all.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

protectionist said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers aren't illegals, dope.
> 
> 
> 
> Many of them are illegals, pretending to be asylum seekers.  Can you state how to tell the difference ?
Click to expand...


You can't pretend to be an asylum seeker. Your application is either approved or denied. Either way, it is not a criminal offense to apply for or be denied asylum.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Pop23 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The system decides which claims are valid. The deterrent is meant to dissuade future applicants whether their claims are valid or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE DETERRENT is not to dissuade the legitimate from application, it is to dissuade the non-legitimate.
> 
> Do you even know what a deterrent is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
> If applicants are afraid to apply for asylum simply because they fear criminal charges and being separated from their children, that applies to all applicants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been explained over and over and over. Our entire law enforcement system is based on a series of deterrents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've explained nothing. Applying for asylum is a LEGAL process. Not illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, if you flood the system with illegitimate seekers, the system is going to fail and the legitimate seekers will flounder with the rest. That is your goal after all.
Click to expand...


There is no such thing as an "illigitimate seeker". One either qualifies or they don't. Either way there is no crime in applying. It is a legal process.


----------



## Pop23

Hutch Starskey said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers aren't illegals, dope.
> 
> 
> 
> Many of them are illegals, pretending to be asylum seekers.  Can you state how to tell the difference ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't pretend to be an asylum seeker. Your application is either approved or denied. Either way, it is not a criminal offense to apply for or be denied asylum.
Click to expand...


Did you have a point?


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Coyote said:


> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.



No, it is a risk a bad parent takes trying illegally enter.
You do know other countries do the same? In fact, we have much weaker immigration policies than most.


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> Nonsense. If it wasn't new, Sessions wouldn't  have announced the new policy.


HA HA. Next thing will be liberals telling us that cows eating grass is new, and the sky has never been blue until now.  Pheeew!

All criminals are jailed.  Their kids are not jailed with them. Always been that way.   8 year old kids know that.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Pop23 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just wrote about parents forcing their kids to commit crimes being sepearated.
> If you aren't talking about charging kids, then what's  the purpose of the point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, where is it written THAT A CHILD MUST BE CHARGED TO BE SEPARATED FROM THE PARENT!. If the parent uses a child, which has, by it's very nature, diminished capability, to participate in criminal activity, then IT IS THE PARENT THAT IS CHARGED WITH THE CRIME, and still the two are separated.
> 
> Clear enough now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You suggested that, fool. I just showed you why.
> The parent committed the crime by crossing illegally. Whatever you mean by "using a child"  or "forcing a kid to shoplift" is irrelevant to that fact. Separation of the family is not mandatory under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can twist like a pretzel all you want. In the practical application of law enforcement or to that matter our judicial system, involving a child in criminal activity most often results in that child being removed from the parent. PERIOD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why remove the child at all?
> Convict the offender, waive the sentence and deport them immediately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, how about just deterring the crime from happening in the first place? I guess if we extend your logic, then, if 1,000,000 people rob a bank, instead of trying to deter bank robberies by making drastic changes in the law, we just allow bank robbers to flood the system, breaking the system, so more bank robberies can occur.
> 
> Cool
Click to expand...


What's your beef? The offender was convicted. It is a misdemeanor after all. Why should the US pay to house these people for some arbitrary amount of time or take the extra step of removing the child? Simply send them away with a warning not to return.
 If they return and are convicted a second time, what is the penalty? Much harsher. Good deterrent.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Pop23 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers aren't illegals, dope.
> 
> 
> 
> Many of them are illegals, pretending to be asylum seekers.  Can you state how to tell the difference ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't pretend to be an asylum seeker. Your application is either approved or denied. Either way, it is not a criminal offense to apply for or be denied asylum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you have a point?
Click to expand...


Apparently you cannot read.

One cannot be "an illegal" while undergoing a legal process, dope.

You dopes always ask why they just don't  come here legally. When they do, you still want to lock them up. 

Read this and tell me in what way this woman was an "illegal".

ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children


There's  more.

US government accused of unlawfully separating hundreds of migrant families


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> Asylum claims are for the system to figure out.
> 
> Charging those who arrive at border crossings seeking asylum as illegal crossers and seperating them from their children is not legit.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children


The problem with your post is the words _"seeking asylum"_.  How do you determine that that's what they're doing, and not just saying that, as a way to squeeze into the country ?

Somebody should write a book with each chapter dealing with a separate, individual con job of the liberal repitiore.


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> I'm talking about asylum seekers at border crossings. I've only posted it a half a dozen times.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children


Could be the Border Patrol has ascertained that no, they are NOT asylum seekers.  Have you consulted with the Border patrol on this ?


----------



## Hutch Starskey

protectionist said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum claims are for the system to figure out.
> 
> Charging those who arrive at border crossings seeking asylum as illegal crossers and seperating them from their children is not legit.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your post is the words _"seeking asylum"_.  How do you determine that that's what they're doing, and not just saying that, as a way to squeeze into the country ?
> 
> Somebody should write a book with each chapter dealing with a separate, individual con job of the liberal repitiore.
Click to expand...




protectionist said:


> The problem with your post is the words _"seeking asylum"_. How do you determine that that's what they're doing, and not just saying that, as a way to squeeze into the country ?



We have a system in place to determine that, dope. They are either aporoved or not.
How you can think it a crime to apply through a legal process is beyond me. That requires a form of convoluted logic I can't comprehend.


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> No. The system decides which claims are valid. The deterrent is meant to dissuade future applicants whether their claims are valid or not.


Claims valid or not, I'm sick and tired of the US being seen as a dumping ground for every country's unwanted people. It goes back to the Mariel Boatlift in the Jimmy Carter days, when Fidel Castro emptied out his prisons and nuthouses, so that the American people could take the burden of these throwaways.

Now, various countries see the US in the same light.  Just let good old Uncle SAm have them.  USA paying their poverty bill.  Now they use the asylum ruse as a way of stuffing them in here.  It's time to strictly reduce the process of asylum, if not eliminate it entirely.  We're not the world's garbage can.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

protectionist said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about asylum seekers at border crossings. I've only posted it a half a dozen times.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
> 
> 
> 
> Could be the Border Patrol has ascertained that no, they are NOT asylum seekers.  Have you consulted with the Border patrol on this ?
Click to expand...




protectionist said:


> Could be the Border Patrol has ascertained that no, they are NOT asylum seekers. Have you consulted with the Border patrol on this ?



Could be that your dopey response is due to not reading the provided link.

ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
"Referred to in the case as "Ms. L" and "S.S.," the mother and daughter arrived in San Ysidro, California, Nov. 1. They told border guards they were seeking asylum, according to the court documents. Ms. L passed what's called a "credible fear interview," where an officer determined she and S.S. had a "significant possibility of ultimately receiving asylum."


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Hutch Starskey said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about asylum seekers at border crossings. I've only posted it a half a dozen times.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
> 
> 
> 
> Could be the Border Patrol has ascertained that no, they are NOT asylum seekers.  Have you consulted with the Border patrol on this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could be the Border Patrol has ascertained that no, they are NOT asylum seekers. Have you consulted with the Border patrol on this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could be that your dopey response is due to not reading the provided link.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
> "Referred to in the case as "Ms. L" and "S.S.," the mother and daughter arrived in San Ysidro, California, Nov. 1. They told border guards they were seeking asylum, according to the court documents. Ms. L passed what's called a "credible fear interview," where an officer determined she and S.S. had a "significant possibility of ultimately receiving asylum."
Click to expand...


  Whats to stop her from making up her story?


----------



## Hutch Starskey

protectionist said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The system decides which claims are valid. The deterrent is meant to dissuade future applicants whether their claims are valid or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Claims valid or not, I'm sick and tired of the US being seen as a dumping ground for every country's unwanted people. It goes back to the Mariel Boatlift in the Jimmy Carter days, when Fidel Castro emptied out his prisons and nuthouses, so that the American people could take the burden of these throwaways.
> 
> Now, various countries see the US in the same light.  Just let good old Uncle SAm have them.  USA paying their poverty bill.  Now they use the asylum ruse as a way of stuffing them in here.  It's time to strictly reduce the process of asylum, if not eliminate it entirely.  We're not the world's garbage can.
Click to expand...


Call your representative.


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> One must qualify to be considered for asylum. The system decides if claims are valid.
> The system is there because it's the law.
> If it's overburdened then assign more resources. It is a legal process. As such, due diligence is required by those adjudicating claims. Due process must be observed.
> 
> Creating a policy that makes the process hostile to applicants and their family members or otherwise waives the substantive due process in favor of criminal proceedings with the intent of deterring future applicants is unacceptable and probably unconstitutional as well.


You're forgetting one thing.  The people we're talking about are AT THE BORDER, and caught on the American side. Why are they there ?  If they are asylum seekers, why are they not still in their home countries, and applying for asylum by mail or online ?

Want an easy answer ? Because they're NOT asylum seekers,..... they don't have to BE HERE to do that.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about asylum seekers at border crossings. I've only posted it a half a dozen times.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
> 
> 
> 
> Could be the Border Patrol has ascertained that no, they are NOT asylum seekers.  Have you consulted with the Border patrol on this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could be the Border Patrol has ascertained that no, they are NOT asylum seekers. Have you consulted with the Border patrol on this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could be that your dopey response is due to not reading the provided link.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
> "Referred to in the case as "Ms. L" and "S.S.," the mother and daughter arrived in San Ysidro, California, Nov. 1. They told border guards they were seeking asylum, according to the court documents. Ms. L passed what's called a "credible fear interview," where an officer determined she and S.S. had a "significant possibility of ultimately receiving asylum."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whats to stop her from making up her story?
Click to expand...


For the umpteenth time, the system determines the eligibility of the applicant.
She went through the proper legal channel and you still look for a problem with her. SMH.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Hutch Starskey said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about asylum seekers at border crossings. I've only posted it a half a dozen times.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
> 
> 
> 
> Could be the Border Patrol has ascertained that no, they are NOT asylum seekers.  Have you consulted with the Border patrol on this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could be the Border Patrol has ascertained that no, they are NOT asylum seekers. Have you consulted with the Border patrol on this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could be that your dopey response is due to not reading the provided link.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
> "Referred to in the case as "Ms. L" and "S.S.," the mother and daughter arrived in San Ysidro, California, Nov. 1. They told border guards they were seeking asylum, according to the court documents. Ms. L passed what's called a "credible fear interview," where an officer determined she and S.S. had a "significant possibility of ultimately receiving asylum."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whats to stop her from making up her story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time, the system determines the eligibility of the applicant.
> She went through the proper legal channel and you still look for a problem with her. SMH.
Click to expand...


  So how does the system determine if someone is lying?


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> By definition, if they're using the system, they're not breaking the law. Asylum is a legal process.


If they cross the border without inspection from US immigration authorities, that is EWI (Entry Without Inspection).  That's a crime.   If they wanted to be granted political asylum, that should be arranged beforehand, not by climbing over a fence, or hiding in the trunk of a car.


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> You suggested that, fool. I just showed you why.
> The parent committed the crime by crossing illegally. Whatever you mean by "using a child"  or "forcing a kid to shoplift" is irrelevant to that fact. Separation of the family is not mandatory under the law.


Neither is keeping them together. Nor is it the normal way of doing things.  Do you see kids of American criminals sitting in prison cells with their parents ?


----------



## Hutch Starskey

protectionist said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> One must qualify to be considered for asylum. The system decides if claims are valid.
> The system is there because it's the law.
> If it's overburdened then assign more resources. It is a legal process. As such, due diligence is required by those adjudicating claims. Due process must be observed.
> 
> Creating a policy that makes the process hostile to applicants and their family members or otherwise waives the substantive due process in favor of criminal proceedings with the intent of deterring future applicants is unacceptable and probably unconstitutional as well.
> 
> 
> 
> You're forgetting one thing.  The people we're talking about are AT THE BORDER, and caught on the American side. Why are they there ?  If they are asylum seekers, why are they not still in their home countries, and applying for asylum by mail or online ?
> 
> Want an easy answer ? Because they're NOT asylum seekers,..... they don't have to BE HERE to do that.
Click to expand...


But they are here. Their case still needs to be properly adjudicated.
What happens to them if it's denied?
Their case is referred to an immigration judge for immediate deportation proceedings.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

…in the meantime, while conservatives continue their hateful, ignorant whining about how ‘wrong’ the law is to afford undocumented immigrants the right to due process – it is nonetheless the law of the land, and it must be obeyed by Federal authorities.

Conservatives are at liberty to continue to vote for hateful bigots like Trump who will appoint likeminded hateful bigots to the courts in an effort to overturn current Fourth and Fifth Amendment jurisprudence concerning the rights of undocumented immigrants, but for now any conservative who ‘argues’ that those undocumented have no due process rights are as ignorant as they are wrong.


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> How so?
> If applicants are afraid to apply for asylum simply because they fear criminal charges and being separated from their children, that applies to all applicants.


What would make an asylum applicant fear criminal charges.  If they're hundreds of miles away in Honduras, what criminal charge might they fear ?


----------



## Hutch Starskey

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about asylum seekers at border crossings. I've only posted it a half a dozen times.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
> 
> 
> 
> Could be the Border Patrol has ascertained that no, they are NOT asylum seekers.  Have you consulted with the Border patrol on this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could be the Border Patrol has ascertained that no, they are NOT asylum seekers. Have you consulted with the Border patrol on this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could be that your dopey response is due to not reading the provided link.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
> "Referred to in the case as "Ms. L" and "S.S.," the mother and daughter arrived in San Ysidro, California, Nov. 1. They told border guards they were seeking asylum, according to the court documents. Ms. L passed what's called a "credible fear interview," where an officer determined she and S.S. had a "significant possibility of ultimately receiving asylum."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whats to stop her from making up her story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time, the system determines the eligibility of the applicant.
> She went through the proper legal channel and you still look for a problem with her. SMH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how does the system determine if someone is lying?
Click to expand...


You figure that out.
Types of Asylum Decisions


----------



## Hutch Starskey

protectionist said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You suggested that, fool. I just showed you why.
> The parent committed the crime by crossing illegally. Whatever you mean by "using a child"  or "forcing a kid to shoplift" is irrelevant to that fact. Separation of the family is not mandatory under the law.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is keeping them together. Nor is it the normal way of doing things.  Do you see kids of American criminals sitting in prison cells with their parents ?
Click to expand...


It's up to the discretion of the court. Or at least it was before the new policy.


----------



## protectionist

Vandalshandle said:


> So, we have the right to refuse entry into our country to people without papers, but Mexico does not  have the same right to block people that we try to send over there without papers?
> 
> I think that I have found the nature of your thinking malfunction, Sparky......


You have that backwards. Mexico, for years, has had far more strict immigration borders than we do.  Their southern borders with Guatemala and Belize, are not like our porous southern border.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

protectionist said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> If applicants are afraid to apply for asylum simply because they fear criminal charges and being separated from their children, that applies to all applicants.
> 
> 
> 
> What would make an asylum applicant fear criminal charges.  If they're hundreds of miles away in Honduras, what criminal charge might they fear ?
Click to expand...


Obviously that is not the same thing.

Check out this sweet new policy.

New Analysis Reveals Increase in Prosecution of Asylum Seekers Under Trump Admin


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> People must meet the qualifications in order to proceed through the process. The system decides.
> 
> How do you deter "illegitimate" claims?
> There is no penalty if an application is denied. There is no criminal act in not qualifying for asylum.


That's not what they're being arrested and jailed for. That occurs from them having committed the CRIME of EWI.


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> Why remove the child at all?
> Convict the offender, waive the sentence and deport them immediately.


I'll go along with that.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Hutch Starskey said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could be the Border Patrol has ascertained that no, they are NOT asylum seekers.  Have you consulted with the Border patrol on this ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could be the Border Patrol has ascertained that no, they are NOT asylum seekers. Have you consulted with the Border patrol on this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could be that your dopey response is due to not reading the provided link.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
> "Referred to in the case as "Ms. L" and "S.S.," the mother and daughter arrived in San Ysidro, California, Nov. 1. They told border guards they were seeking asylum, according to the court documents. Ms. L passed what's called a "credible fear interview," where an officer determined she and S.S. had a "significant possibility of ultimately receiving asylum."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whats to stop her from making up her story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time, the system determines the eligibility of the applicant.
> She went through the proper legal channel and you still look for a problem with her. SMH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how does the system determine if someone is lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You figure that out.
> Types of Asylum Decisions
Click to expand...


  Thats says nothing about how they determine the validity of the claim.


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> You've explained nothing. Applying for asylum is a LEGAL process. Not illegal.


But crossing the border without inspection IS illegal.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Hutch Starskey said:


> Why remove the child at all?
> Convict the offender, waive the sentence and deport them immediately.



So they can return a week later?


----------



## flacaltenn

busybee01 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are using children as hostages. You are no different than terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the left is not???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who wants to treat children as criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Placing them in detention jails with adults who may harm them whether with the parents or not would be criminal..........Then tomorrow you'd be look what you did to these families.....................Can't house them with all the adults...........got news for you.........some aren't so nice coming over.........
> 
> Kids going to other detention centers are for their own protection..............but the INN IS FULL.........only 40,000 beds......
> 
> Brings us to another lie the left pushes...........that those crossing is much smaller............more BS.
> 
> Face it..........your identity politics here is to attack to get Catch and Release back which is basically your real goal of open borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They shouldn't be in detention jails. They need to be in facilities for families. Treating people right has nothing to do with what to do with illegals. Thye should be treated right while they are there and until their status is determined legally.
Click to expand...


you have NO f'ing concept of the SCOPE of this problem. We're NOT gonna build "facilities" for 30,000 families at a time, spread over 2000 miles or more of border country. We're gonna review their CLAIMS for asylum and make a judgement and be done with it.

Even if Uncle Sam BUILT those facilities, it would look more like Gitmo than a Comfort Inn..


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> You can't pretend to be an asylum seeker. Your application is either approved or denied. Either way, it is not a criminal offense to apply for or be denied asylum.


But we're talking about people who have crossed the border without being cleared by US immigration authorities. That's why they get locked up, not because of anything having to do with asylum.


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> There is no such thing as an "illigitimate seeker". One either qualifies or they don't. Either way there is no crime in applying. It is a legal process.


Cool. Then let then apply from hundreds of miles away from the US, not crossing the US border illegally.


----------



## koshergrl

protectionist said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> One must qualify to be considered for asylum. The system decides if claims are valid.
> The system is there because it's the law.
> If it's overburdened then assign more resources. It is a legal process. As such, due diligence is required by those adjudicating claims. Due process must be observed.
> 
> Creating a policy that makes the process hostile to applicants and their family members or otherwise waives the substantive due process in favor of criminal proceedings with the intent of deterring future applicants is unacceptable and probably unconstitutional as well.
> 
> 
> 
> You're forgetting one thing.  The people we're talking about are AT THE BORDER, and caught on the American side. Why are they there ?  If they are asylum seekers, why are they not still in their home countries, and applying for asylum by mail or online ?
> 
> Want an easy answer ? Because they're NOT asylum seekers,..... they don't have to BE HERE to do that.
Click to expand...

They are HUMAN TRAFFICKERS on their way back to pick up more children.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

The solution for this is really easy.
Have a "Volunteer my House" campaign.
All of the people "outraged" by this can voluntarily give up at least half their home, feed/clothe them during the process.
  Something tells me the whining would subside quickly.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

protectionist said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> People must meet the qualifications in order to proceed through the process. The system decides.
> 
> How do you deter "illegitimate" claims?
> There is no penalty if an application is denied. There is no criminal act in not qualifying for asylum.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what they're being arrested and jailed for. That occurs from them having committed the CRIME of EWI.
Click to expand...


Sure, it's much better to throw due process and human rights out the window for politically adventageous policy.

New Analysis Reveals Increase in Prosecution of Asylum Seekers Under Trump Admin

On January 25, 2017, President Donald Trump issued an executive order calling on the Department of Justice (DOJ) to make the criminal prosecution of immigration offenses a “high priority”—notwithstanding the fact that criminal prosecutions for immigration offenses already made up more than half of all federal prosecutions nationwide. These directives fail to mention U.S. treaty obligations that prohibit the penalization of refugees for illegal entry or presence—protections that were created in the wake of World War II, when many nations treated refugees who sought asylum in their countries or fled on invalid travel documents as “illegal” entrants.


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> Could be that your dopey response is due to not reading the provided link.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
> "Referred to in the case as "Ms. L" and "S.S.," the mother and daughter arrived in San Ysidro, California, Nov. 1. They told border guards they were seeking asylum, according to the court documents. Ms. L passed what's called a "credible fear interview," where an officer determined she and S.S. had a "significant possibility of ultimately receiving asylum."


Shouldn't be done that way. They should apply for asylum from their home , back in their home country. The fact you said they *arrived *in San Ysidro, California,  before even talking to border guards, tells us they committed crime of EWI.

This cart before horse.  Only AFTER being granted asylum, by mail or online, should they even have begun to travel to the US.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

protectionist said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why remove the child at all?
> Convict the offender, waive the sentence and deport them immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll go along with that.
Click to expand...


I in no way support illegal immigration.
They should be processed and moved out as quickly as possible.

My beef is screwing with the asylum system.
This is established law and these people deserve due process. Anything less is not the American way. It is the govts job to manage the border not circumvent their own laws. If they are denied, deport them immediately.


----------



## protectionist

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Whats to stop her from making up her story?


Nothing.


----------



## dannyboys

Hutch Starskey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Seeking asylum is a legal process. The admin is charging applicants as illegal crossers and separating families as a deterrent to future applicants. That is a policy move and not the law.
> 
> 
> 
> You got a link to the LAW, to show that ? And a source for the claim of charging asylum applicants as illegal crossers ?
> 
> And do you think anyone who claims to be seeking asylum really is ?  Ever occur to you that maybe they're lying ?  It's not unusual for criminals to say what they think will keep them from being arrested.
> 
> I wonder if the US should really be granting asylum anyway, even if it's legit.  Everything in life has a limitation - including a nation's population capacity.  Do we really want to be the homeless shelter for the world ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum claims are for the system to figure out.
> 
> Charging those who arrive at border crossings seeking asylum as illegal crossers and seperating them from their children is not legit.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The System" cannot handle the load when EVERY PERSON claims to be seeking "Asylum". Most come for ECONOMIC reasons, or because they flee criminal activity. Neither is what would commonly be described as an asylum seeker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One must qualify to be considered for asylum. The system decides if claims are valid.
> The system is there because it's the law.
> If it's overburdened then assign more resources. It is a legal process. As such, due diligence is required by those adjudicating claims. Due process must be observed.
> 
> Creating a policy that makes the process hostile to applicants and their family members or otherwise waives the substantive due process in favor of criminal proceedings with the intent of deterring future applicants is unacceptable and probably unconstitutional as well.
Click to expand...

NO ONE is trying to "deter" legitament refugees from coming to the US you IDIOT!!!!!
That's right! Not even your most hated Trump. All anyone is asking is that the process should be fair.
Coaching tens of thousands (DEM voters) of people trying to get into the US by teaching them the only english they will likely ever know to say "I'm seeking asylum" is plain bullshit.
And YOU KNOW IT!!!!!


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> Call your representative.


Absolutely.  We all should.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

protectionist said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could be that your dopey response is due to not reading the provided link.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
> "Referred to in the case as "Ms. L" and "S.S.," the mother and daughter arrived in San Ysidro, California, Nov. 1. They told border guards they were seeking asylum, according to the court documents. Ms. L passed what's called a "credible fear interview," where an officer determined she and S.S. had a "significant possibility of ultimately receiving asylum."
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't be done that way. They should apply for asylum from their home , back in their home country. The fact you said they *arrived *in San Ysidro, California,  before even talking to border guards, tells us they committed crime of EWI.
> 
> This cart before horse.  Only AFTER being granted asylum, by mail or online, should they even have begun to travel to the US.
Click to expand...


Are you daft?
San Ysidro border crossing, fool. They walked up to the border and applied. How is that different than applying at a US embassy or consulate?


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> For the umpteenth time, the system determines the eligibility of the applicant.
> She went through the proper legal channel and you still look for a problem with her. SMH.


If the illegal aliens are being locked up, and separated from their kids, that means that NO, they did NOT go through a proper legal channel.  If they're being locked up, it's because they crossed the border ILLEGALLY - violation of US Code 8, Section 1325.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

dannyboys said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Seeking asylum is a legal process. The admin is charging applicants as illegal crossers and separating families as a deterrent to future applicants. That is a policy move and not the law.
> 
> 
> 
> You got a link to the LAW, to show that ? And a source for the claim of charging asylum applicants as illegal crossers ?
> 
> And do you think anyone who claims to be seeking asylum really is ?  Ever occur to you that maybe they're lying ?  It's not unusual for criminals to say what they think will keep them from being arrested.
> 
> I wonder if the US should really be granting asylum anyway, even if it's legit.  Everything in life has a limitation - including a nation's population capacity.  Do we really want to be the homeless shelter for the world ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum claims are for the system to figure out.
> 
> Charging those who arrive at border crossings seeking asylum as illegal crossers and seperating them from their children is not legit.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The System" cannot handle the load when EVERY PERSON claims to be seeking "Asylum". Most come for ECONOMIC reasons, or because they flee criminal activity. Neither is what would commonly be described as an asylum seeker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One must qualify to be considered for asylum. The system decides if claims are valid.
> The system is there because it's the law.
> If it's overburdened then assign more resources. It is a legal process. As such, due diligence is required by those adjudicating claims. Due process must be observed.
> 
> Creating a policy that makes the process hostile to applicants and their family members or otherwise waives the substantive due process in favor of criminal proceedings with the intent of deterring future applicants is unacceptable and probably unconstitutional as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO ONE is trying to "deter" legitament refugees from coming to the US you IDIOT!!!!!
> That's right! Not even your most hated Trump. All anyone is asking is that the process should be fair.
> Coaching tens of thousands (DEM voters) of people trying to get into the US by teaching them the only english they will likely ever know to say "I'm seeking asylum" is plain bullshit.
> And YOU KNOW IT!!!!!
Click to expand...


You can have that opinion but it's not for you  or me to decide. There is a system in place to do that. Do you know that those who are denied are deported?


----------



## protectionist

Yeah,_ "they are here" _- having crossed the border EWI. So they go to jail, for that. Then, if they're applying for asylum, and are denied, they get deported - and it should be immediately.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

protectionist said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time, the system determines the eligibility of the applicant.
> She went through the proper legal channel and you still look for a problem with her. SMH.
> 
> 
> 
> If the illegal aliens are being locked up, and separated from their kids, that means that NO, they did NOT go through a proper legal channel.  If they're being locked up, it's because they crossed the border ILLEGALLY - violation of US Code 8, Section 1325.
Click to expand...


No, they're being locked up for Trump's  policy and denied due process.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

iamwhatiseem said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why remove the child at all?
> Convict the offender, waive the sentence and deport them immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they can return a week later?
Click to expand...


Better just to put em in holes in the desert.


----------



## protectionist

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> …in the meantime, while conservatives continue their hateful, ignorant whining about how ‘wrong’ the law is to afford undocumented immigrants the right to due process – it is nonetheless the law of the land, and it must be obeyed by Federal authorities.
> 
> Conservatives are at liberty to continue to vote for hateful bigots like Trump who will appoint likeminded hateful bigots to the courts in an effort to overturn current Fourth and Fifth Amendment jurisprudence concerning the rights of undocumented immigrants, but for now any conservative who ‘argues’ that those undocumented have no due process rights are as ignorant as they are wrong.


I have not heard anybody argue that anybody has no due process rights.  The law of the land, is  US Code 8, Section 1325 (Improper Entry By Alien)and it must be obeyed by migrants, and it is the duty of Federal authorities to enforce it.  Period.

Secondly, Trump not said or done anything hateful or bigoted, despite the incessant con jobbing rantings of scatterbrained liberals.


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> It's up to the discretion of the court. Or at least it was before the new policy.


That wasn't the question.


----------



## Coyote

protectionist said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what about the effect of the policy on the children themselves?  Is there a point at which punishing the parents for their behavior becomes punishing the kids?  You see every argument turns into something like “the parents deserve it because they did wrong”...ok....let’s accept that now for the sake of the argument.  But do the kids deserve it?
> 
> 
> 
> So where do you suggest the kids go, when their parents are in jail ?
Click to expand...

Where they wete before Sessions decrated this policy.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

protectionist said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> …in the meantime, while conservatives continue their hateful, ignorant whining about how ‘wrong’ the law is to afford undocumented immigrants the right to due process – it is nonetheless the law of the land, and it must be obeyed by Federal authorities.
> 
> Conservatives are at liberty to continue to vote for hateful bigots like Trump who will appoint likeminded hateful bigots to the courts in an effort to overturn current Fourth and Fifth Amendment jurisprudence concerning the rights of undocumented immigrants, but for now any conservative who ‘argues’ that those undocumented have no due process rights are as ignorant as they are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> I have not heard anybody argue that anybody has no due process rights.  The law of the land, is  US Code 8, Section 1325 (Improper Entry By Alien)and it must be obeyed by migrants, and it is the duty of Federal authorities to enforce it.  Period.
> 
> Secondly, Trump not said or done anything hateful or bigoted, despite the incessant con jobbing rantings of scatterbrained liberals.
Click to expand...


It's up to the discretion of the federal authorities how to enforce it. Favoring prosecution over due process is wrong. That is also the law. If their claim is valid then good to go. If not, buh bye.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

protectionist said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's up to the discretion of the court. Or at least it was before the new policy.
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't the question.
Click to expand...

That was my answer.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not give us the right to terrorize the children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said just previously, sending them alone amidst all the violence and lawlessness to get here is terrifying enough for the child, aside from being apart from their parents of course.
> 
> You don't see how much this hurts the child. We aren't hurting the child, the parents are.
Click to expand...

In this the kids are not alone but with their parents.


----------



## Coyote

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human rights abuses are not a tool used by America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but by using these children as tools, you have already violated their human rights.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Trump admin is the only one using children as tools, dope. That's the point.
> They're using the threat of seperation as a deterrent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems like a logical deterrent, so unless the parent is so negligent as to knowingly bring a child across the border when they know they will be separated, then it is that parents choice to do so. That is exactly what a deterrent is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So whats your solution?
Click to expand...

Whst we were doing previously in regards to detaining families with children.


----------



## Coyote

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> A person showing up at a border crossing and seeking assylum is not an illegal alien.
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals are being coached on how to ask for asylum at the border.
> It's often the only engish they know.
> Hilarious to see 'young men' with MS13 tats all over their bodies pleading to be let into the US! And it's happenijg every day."I used to be in MS13 but now I want to attend MIT on a full scholarship".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Seeking asylum is a legal process. The admin is charging applicants as illegal crossers and separating families as a deterrent to future applicants. That is a policy move and not the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers....the new illegal immigrant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing a child to break the law will typically result in separation of the parent from the child. It deters those that would force a child into criminal activities.
> 
> There is nothing new here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers....the new illegal immigrant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what congress thinks of this policy.
> 
> Rep. Mark Meadows: Separation of families at border a "horrible law," should be changed - CBS News
> 
> "Here's one of the interesting things, as we've been in these negotiations on trying to fix the immigration problem. This came out just the other day, and I said, 'I can't imagine that it's the law that you have to separate these individuals,'" Meadows told "Face the Nation" on Sunday. Meadows is chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus and one of Mr. Trump's most influential allies on Capitol Hill.
> He added, "Now, obviously human trafficking is a big deal. You know, how do you know that they're really the parents in a family unit? So we would have to address that, but I think conservatives and moderates, Democrats and Republicans all agree that keeping a family together is the best strategy, and it's something we need to address and will address."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still haven't gotten an explanation as to why it was okay in the barry era.
Click to expand...

It wasnt done as a matter of policy inless there was reason to believe the adults were not actually the parents.


----------



## Pop23

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not give us the right to terrorize the children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said just previously, sending them alone amidst all the violence and lawlessness to get here is terrifying enough for the child, aside from being apart from their parents of course.
> 
> You don't see how much this hurts the child. We aren't hurting the child, the parents are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In this the kids are not alone but with their parents.
Click to expand...


It is still the parents decision. They made the choice, not me.


----------



## Coyote

Pop23 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not give us the right to terrorize the children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said just previously, sending them alone amidst all the violence and lawlessness to get here is terrifying enough for the child, aside from being apart from their parents of course.
> 
> You don't see how much this hurts the child. We aren't hurting the child, the parents are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In this the kids are not alone but with their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is still the parents decision. They made the choice, not me.
Click to expand...

Yes, they did.  But it is the child being punished for it.  It can be the parents fault but who is suffering from OUR policy?  It is those kids.


----------



## Pop23

Coyote said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not give us the right to terrorize the children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said just previously, sending them alone amidst all the violence and lawlessness to get here is terrifying enough for the child, aside from being apart from their parents of course.
> 
> You don't see how much this hurts the child. We aren't hurting the child, the parents are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In this the kids are not alone but with their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is still the parents decision. They made the choice, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they did.  But it is the child being punished for it.  It can be the parents fault but who is suffering from OUR policy?  It is those kids.
Click to expand...


The child would be suffering from THEIR PARENTS decision. No different when a child is separated from their parents thousands of times a month because their parent broke a law.

As I said before

Nothing new here.


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> Check out this sweet new policy.
> 
> New Analysis Reveals Increase in Prosecution of Asylum Seekers Under Trump Admin


This completely assinine_ "Analysis" _has more holes in it than a pasta strainer. The Human Rights First group is really pouring it on here in this, but it's all pile of hogwash.

1.  Making the criminal prosecution of immigration offenses a “high priority” is a good thing, is what voters elected Trump to do, and he's doing it.

2.  If it's true that  _"prosecutions for immigration offenses already made up more than half of all federal prosecutions nationwide"_, SO WHAT ?  All that means is that immigration crime is a massive entity, and must be dealt with massively.  Again, good work, Mr President.

3.  The "Analysis" says >>_ "U.S. treaty obligations that prohibit the penalization of refugees for illegal entry" _ Nothing prohibits the USA from defending itself from the invasion of illegal aliens, and no one is a _"refugee"_ until that has been ascertained by an immigration court, which hasn't happened when illegals illegally cross the border.  Also, treaty "obligations" do not trump US law. And that law is to protect the US, not countries dumping their unwanteds on us.

4. The "Analysis says >>_  "the increase in prosecutions increases the likelihood that individuals coming to the United States to seek asylum—a legal act—are penalized, detained in federal prisons"_  Well, actually, no it does not.  There is no causation connection there.

5.
The "Analysis" says >>_ "individuals coming to the United States to seek asylum—a legal act—are penalized, detained in federal prisons, and in some cases deported without a chance to have their asylum claims heard"  _​BUT, they don't offer a shred of evidence to support that, or present a single case where that might have happened.

6.  The "Analysis" presents statistics and analysis that demonstrate the skyrocketing rate of prosecution for "illegal entry" and "illegal reentry”  Well, GOOD!  That simply shows that the Trump admin is doing it's job, as promised, and gives more power to the case for re-election in 2020.

7.  It says >>>  _"In June 2017, a Border Patrol representative told a Human Rights First researcher that the agency has moved to implement a “zero-tolerance” policy, meaning that everyone apprehended, with few exceptions (e.g., minors, family units), will be prosecuted—including asylum seekers. "
_
That's called getting the job done.    (but I don't think they're prosecuting minors.)  Lots of stretching going on in this so=called (totally biased) "analysis".


----------



## protectionist

Coyote said:


> Yes, they did.  But it is the child being punished for it.  It can be the parents fault but who is suffering from OUR policy?  It is those kids.


So quickly make a verdict, join them up. If guilty, deport them all.  Otherwise, they stay.......but Congress needs to revisit our asylum policy. Are we being the world's dumping ground ?


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> I in no way support illegal immigration.
> They should be processed and moved out as quickly as possible.
> 
> My beef is screwing with the asylum system.
> This is established law and these people deserve due process. Anything less is not the American way. It is the govts job to manage the border not circumvent their own laws. If they are denied, deport them immediately.


Did anybody say their asylum claims should not be heard ? Which is a separate issue from their violation of EWI.


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> Are you daft?
> San Ysidro border crossing, fool. They walked up to the border and applied. How is that different than applying at a US embassy or consulate?


Not how it should be done.  If they aren't legal to cross the border, they should be applying from home,  Then IF/whenever they get it granted, THEN they should start traveling. 

And a "significant possibility" is fool talk.  They either are in illegal status, or legalized by an immigration court JUDGE.


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> You can have that opinion but it's not for you  or me to decide. There is a system in place to do that. Do you know that those who are denied are deported?


Do you see a reason why they would/should NOT be deported ?


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> No, they're being locked up for Trump's  policy and denied due process.


 Now, are YOU daff ?​  The_ "policy"_, as you call it, is simply >> because they crossed the border ILLEGALLY - violation of US Code 8, Section 1325, just as I said.  The "policy" is the LAW.


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> That was my answer.


No, it's NOT an answer, because it wasn't the question, Mr Dodge.


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


Parents lose their children when they commit crimes.  No duh


----------



## protectionist

Hutch Starskey said:


> It's up to the discretion of the federal authorities how to enforce it. Favoring prosecution over due process is wrong. That is also the law. If their claim is valid then good to go. If not, buh bye.


And the "federal authorities" are the executive branch > Trump and Sessions and ICE.  Nobody is favoring prosecution over due process.  The "process" is, you cross the border illegally, you get arrested & locked up. If you have any kind of a claim, you make it at trial. If you lose, out you go.

But here's what should be >>   The illegals let in at the border on asylum claims, should not have been admitted. If these criminals have a legal right to a hearing, bring a judge to the border, and hold the hearing right there. If they can make a case, put them on a lie detector right then and there in the courtroom on the border. Do not admit any more criminal illegals. Zero. No exceptions.

PS - On both sides of the fence, they were waving THEIR Countrys' flags to get into the US, rather than the American flag ......obviously evidencing these aren't Asylum seekers in any sense of the word.


----------



## protectionist

Coyote said:


> Where they wete before Sessions decrated this policy.


Before Sessions and Trump started ENFORCING THE LAW, both parents and kids were being allowed to skate, via "catch & release".  Illegal aliens being allowed to invade our country in violation of our immigration law.

It doesn't surprise me that a liberal would favor that, with more VOTES for Democrats coming from it. Par for the course.


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not give us the right to terrorize the children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said just previously, sending them alone amidst all the violence and lawlessness to get here is terrifying enough for the child, aside from being apart from their parents of course.
> 
> You don't see how much this hurts the child. We aren't hurting the child, the parents are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In this the kids are not alone but with their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is still the parents decision. They made the choice, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they did.  But it is the child being punished for it.  It can be the parents fault but who is suffering from OUR policy?  It is those kids.
Click to expand...

So we dont punish criminals who have kids?  That's seriously stupid


----------



## Seawytch

iamwhatiseem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is a risk a bad parent takes trying illegally enter.
> You do know other countries do the same? In fact, we have much weaker immigration policies than most.
Click to expand...


What other countries separate parents from children for months?


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> Parents lose their children when they commit crimes.  No duh
Click to expand...


Seeking asylum isn't a crime.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Coyote said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but by using these children as tools, you have already violated their human rights.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Trump admin is the only one using children as tools, dope. That's the point.
> They're using the threat of seperation as a deterrent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems like a logical deterrent, so unless the parent is so negligent as to knowingly bring a child across the border when they know they will be separated, then it is that parents choice to do so. That is exactly what a deterrent is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So whats your solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whst we were doing previously in regards to detaining families with children.
Click to expand...



  The same.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Coyote said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals are being coached on how to ask for asylum at the border.
> It's often the only engish they know.
> Hilarious to see 'young men' with MS13 tats all over their bodies pleading to be let into the US! And it's happenijg every day."I used to be in MS13 but now I want to attend MIT on a full scholarship".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Seeking asylum is a legal process. The admin is charging applicants as illegal crossers and separating families as a deterrent to future applicants. That is a policy move and not the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers....the new illegal immigrant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing a child to break the law will typically result in separation of the parent from the child. It deters those that would force a child into criminal activities.
> 
> There is nothing new here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers....the new illegal immigrant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what congress thinks of this policy.
> 
> Rep. Mark Meadows: Separation of families at border a "horrible law," should be changed - CBS News
> 
> "Here's one of the interesting things, as we've been in these negotiations on trying to fix the immigration problem. This came out just the other day, and I said, 'I can't imagine that it's the law that you have to separate these individuals,'" Meadows told "Face the Nation" on Sunday. Meadows is chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus and one of Mr. Trump's most influential allies on Capitol Hill.
> He added, "Now, obviously human trafficking is a big deal. You know, how do you know that they're really the parents in a family unit? So we would have to address that, but I think conservatives and moderates, Democrats and Republicans all agree that keeping a family together is the best strategy, and it's something we need to address and will address."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still haven't gotten an explanation as to why it was okay in the barry era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasnt done as a matter of policy inless there was reason to believe the adults were not actually the parents.
Click to expand...


   So are you telling me they housed/held family's in single unit cells?


----------



## Norman

Seawytch said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is a risk a bad parent takes trying illegally enter.
> You do know other countries do the same? In fact, we have much weaker immigration policies than most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What other countries separate parents from children for months?
Click to expand...


What other country has so many illegals that want to enter?

But okay, you win.

Now build that wall and make sure NO ONE enters this country illegally. Then no separations are required. Not quite what had in mind? Indeed your plan was to let everyone in because somehow that makes sense, because of the separations.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Vandalshandle said:


> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When family detention centers are full, which they are, what do we do other than catch & release. Catch & release is a failure. Congress needs to either accommodate the influx of reduce the influx. It's their job, not Trump's. Trump is even calling for them to fix it because catch & release failed. We are now going to enforce our laws by detaining unknowns illegally crossing our borders.  Are you suggesting we continue catch & release? Are you suggesting we build more family detention centers? Are you suggesting there's no problem? Ending catch & release is good, IMO. We need to find some way to protect children as much as possible. I am open to options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do we have family detention centers? They should be nothing more than a bus stop where they wait for a ride back to Mexico. We take them over the border and drop them off for Mexico to deal with. It’s not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it occur to you that they might not be Mexican, either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t care. They crossed from Mexico so they go back there. Our job is done. What Mexican chooses to do with them is their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, we have the right to refuse entry into our country to people without papers, but Mexico does not  have the same right to block people that we try to send over there without papers?
> 
> I think that I have found the nature of your thinking malfunction, Sparky......
Click to expand...

Mexico already let them in dipshit.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Pop23 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When family detention centers are full, which they are, what do we do other than catch & release. Catch & release is a failure. Congress needs to either accommodate the influx of reduce the influx. It's their job, not Trump's. Trump is even calling for them to fix it because catch & release failed. We are now going to enforce our laws by detaining unknowns illegally crossing our borders.  Are you suggesting we continue catch & release? Are you suggesting we build more family detention centers? Are you suggesting there's no problem? Ending catch & release is good, IMO. We need to find some way to protect children as much as possible. I am open to options.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have family detention centers? They should be nothing more than a bus stop where they wait for a ride back to Mexico. We take them over the border and drop them off for Mexico to deal with. It’s not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it occur to you that they might not be Mexican, either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t care. They crossed from Mexico so they go back there. Our job is done. What Mexican chooses to do with them is their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, we have the right to refuse entry into our country to people without papers, but Mexico does not  have the same right to block people that we try to send over there without papers?
> 
> I think that I have found the nature of your thinking malfunction, Sparky......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexico has the right to do whatever they wish. If they wish to deny the entry of those we catch crossing FROM MEXICO ILLEGALLY, that is something that can only be addressed by a border wall.
Click to expand...


...even though 52% of illegals simply overstay their visa? And, of course, although Trumpettes don't believe it, Mexicans actually have mastered the use of ladders and shovels.


----------



## Pop23

Vandalshandle said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have family detention centers? They should be nothing more than a bus stop where they wait for a ride back to Mexico. We take them over the border and drop them off for Mexico to deal with. It’s not our problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did it occur to you that they might not be Mexican, either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t care. They crossed from Mexico so they go back there. Our job is done. What Mexican chooses to do with them is their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, we have the right to refuse entry into our country to people without papers, but Mexico does not  have the same right to block people that we try to send over there without papers?
> 
> I think that I have found the nature of your thinking malfunction, Sparky......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexico has the right to do whatever they wish. If they wish to deny the entry of those we catch crossing FROM MEXICO ILLEGALLY, that is something that can only be addressed by a border wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...even though 52% of illegals simply overstay their visa? And, of course, although Trumpettes don't believe it, Mexicans actually have mastered the use of ladders and shovels.
Click to expand...


Make em work a bit harder, I don't care.


----------



## Vandalshandle

protectionist said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, we have the right to refuse entry into our country to people without papers, but Mexico does not  have the same right to block people that we try to send over there without papers?
> 
> I think that I have found the nature of your thinking malfunction, Sparky......
> 
> 
> 
> You have that backwards. Mexico, for years, has had far more strict immigration borders than we do.  Their southern borders with Guatemala and Belize, are not like our porous southern border.
Click to expand...


So, you feel sure that if ICE shows up at the Mexican border with a bus full of brown skinned Latinos, with no papers, Mexico will simply say, "Oh, well, they must be ours, so, just send them on over!


----------



## kaz

Vandalshandle said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have family detention centers? They should be nothing more than a bus stop where they wait for a ride back to Mexico. We take them over the border and drop them off for Mexico to deal with. It’s not our problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did it occur to you that they might not be Mexican, either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t care. They crossed from Mexico so they go back there. Our job is done. What Mexican chooses to do with them is their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, we have the right to refuse entry into our country to people without papers, but Mexico does not  have the same right to block people that we try to send over there without papers?
> 
> I think that I have found the nature of your thinking malfunction, Sparky......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexico has the right to do whatever they wish. If they wish to deny the entry of those we catch crossing FROM MEXICO ILLEGALLY, that is something that can only be addressed by a border wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...even though 52% of illegals simply overstay their visa? And, of course, although Trumpettes don't believe it, Mexicans actually have mastered the use of ladders and shovels.
Click to expand...

Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.

Oh, and take your family with you ...


----------



## kaz

Vandalshandle said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, we have the right to refuse entry into our country to people without papers, but Mexico does not  have the same right to block people that we try to send over there without papers?
> 
> I think that I have found the nature of your thinking malfunction, Sparky......
> 
> 
> 
> You have that backwards. Mexico, for years, has had far more strict immigration borders than we do.  Their southern borders with Guatemala and Belize, are not like our porous southern border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you feel sure that if ICE shows up at the Mexican border with a buss full of brown skinned Latinos, with not papers, Mexico will simply say, "Oh, well, they must be ours, so, just send them on over!
Click to expand...

Yes


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Hutch Starskey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote
> 
> You thanked post #523, where the author said and I quote "Trump's policies are dragging us down with the two bit dictators".
> 
> Do you think Trump is a "two bit dictator"? Simply for wanting our national sovereignty to be respected?
> 
> 
> 
> I think policies like this one are dragging us down to that level.  You do not need a policy like this in order to successfully maintain law and order at the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Families can be and have been detained together. This move is meant to inflict the maximum pain as a deterrant. It is using human rights violations as a tool. The tools of dictators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Forcing a child to break the law will typically result in separation of the parent from the child. It deters those that would force a child into criminal activities.
> 
> There is nothing new here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's all new.
> Those seeking asylum are not breaking the law. It is a legal process.
Click to expand...


Not when they've already been granted asylum in Mexico.  You can't trade in your one asylum for a better one north of the border.  They sought refuge and Mexico granted them refuge.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Missouri_Mike said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When family detention centers are full, which they are, what do we do other than catch & release. Catch & release is a failure. Congress needs to either accommodate the influx of reduce the influx. It's their job, not Trump's. Trump is even calling for them to fix it because catch & release failed. We are now going to enforce our laws by detaining unknowns illegally crossing our borders.  Are you suggesting we continue catch & release? Are you suggesting we build more family detention centers? Are you suggesting there's no problem? Ending catch & release is good, IMO. We need to find some way to protect children as much as possible. I am open to options.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have family detention centers? They should be nothing more than a bus stop where they wait for a ride back to Mexico. We take them over the border and drop them off for Mexico to deal with. It’s not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it occur to you that they might not be Mexican, either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t care. They crossed from Mexico so they go back there. Our job is done. What Mexican chooses to do with them is their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, we have the right to refuse entry into our country to people without papers, but Mexico does not  have the same right to block people that we try to send over there without papers?
> 
> I think that I have found the nature of your thinking malfunction, Sparky......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mexico already let them in dipshit.
Click to expand...


Latinos don't fly on planes, or travel in boats? Is there a law that anyone coming from El Salvador must first get his ticket punched in Mexico? Does Mexico agree to take anyone the USA says does not belong here into their country? Somehow, I doubt that.


----------



## Vandalshandle

kaz said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did it occur to you that they might not be Mexican, either?
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t care. They crossed from Mexico so they go back there. Our job is done. What Mexican chooses to do with them is their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, we have the right to refuse entry into our country to people without papers, but Mexico does not  have the same right to block people that we try to send over there without papers?
> 
> I think that I have found the nature of your thinking malfunction, Sparky......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexico has the right to do whatever they wish. If they wish to deny the entry of those we catch crossing FROM MEXICO ILLEGALLY, that is something that can only be addressed by a border wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...even though 52% of illegals simply overstay their visa? And, of course, although Trumpettes don't believe it, Mexicans actually have mastered the use of ladders and shovels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
Click to expand...


Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.

You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

busybee01 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is going to jail for crossing the border unless they are a convicted felon. There is no reason for separating children from their parents. You cannot compare major felonies with crossing the border illegally.
> 
> Birthright citizenship is not false. A plain reading of the Amendment does support what the courts have said. If he didn't like it then he should have written it better.
> 
> 
> 
> Crossing the border EWI is a crime. It carries a 6 month federal prison penalty (1st offense) and 2 year prison penalties for subsequent offenses.
> 
> Birthright citizenship for kids of foreigners is false.  The 14th amendment's intention is to give BC to kids of Americans, but not to foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is going to jail. If you think we we going to waste money on non-violent offenses like this then you are crazy. Let's jail people for jaywalking.
Click to expand...


If you did, you would have many less jaywalkers. 

I've always had the opinion that if you are caught in this country illegally, you should be arrested and subject to a minimum 5 years in prison.  If we had that law, none of those people would be here causing problems for us today.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Vandalshandle said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t care. They crossed from Mexico so they go back there. Our job is done. What Mexican chooses to do with them is their choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, we have the right to refuse entry into our country to people without papers, but Mexico does not  have the same right to block people that we try to send over there without papers?
> 
> I think that I have found the nature of your thinking malfunction, Sparky......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexico has the right to do whatever they wish. If they wish to deny the entry of those we catch crossing FROM MEXICO ILLEGALLY, that is something that can only be addressed by a border wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...even though 52% of illegals simply overstay their visa? And, of course, although Trumpettes don't believe it, Mexicans actually have mastered the use of ladders and shovels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
Click to expand...

If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.


----------



## Vandalshandle

For your viewing pleasure. These are merely tunnels under one town, Nogales, 30 miles from where I live.

tunnels nogales - Yahoo Image Search Results


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Hutch Starskey said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like a logical deterrent, so unless the parent is so negligent as to knowingly bring a child across the border when they know they will be separated, then it is that parents choice to do so. That is exactly what a deterrent is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So whats your solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eliminate the horrible policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats not an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is indeed an answer.  Creating a policy that uses human rights violations as a deterrent for furure applicants to a legal process is not a solution at all. It's  making an existing legal pathway a nightmare so people don't  try to use it.
> 
> Change the law if it's  a problem.
Click to expand...


And who decided it was a  human rights violation besides you and your ilk?


----------



## Pop23

Vandalshandle said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t care. They crossed from Mexico so they go back there. Our job is done. What Mexican chooses to do with them is their choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, we have the right to refuse entry into our country to people without papers, but Mexico does not  have the same right to block people that we try to send over there without papers?
> 
> I think that I have found the nature of your thinking malfunction, Sparky......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexico has the right to do whatever they wish. If they wish to deny the entry of those we catch crossing FROM MEXICO ILLEGALLY, that is something that can only be addressed by a border wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...even though 52% of illegals simply overstay their visa? And, of course, although Trumpettes don't believe it, Mexicans actually have mastered the use of ladders and shovels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
Click to expand...


Man, sure, that's going to happen really quietly as well, right. Not like we can't just push the ladder over, right?


----------



## Pop23

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So whats your solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eliminate the horrible policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats not an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is indeed an answer.  Creating a policy that uses human rights violations as a deterrent for furure applicants to a legal process is not a solution at all. It's  making an existing legal pathway a nightmare so people don't  try to use it.
> 
> Change the law if it's  a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who decided it was a  human rights violation besides you and your ilk?
Click to expand...


We do it thousands of times everyday when we take children away from citizens, it's only a human rights issue if they illegally try to enter the Country?????

Makes zero sense


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​



Coyote,

It is the parent mistake to bring theor child with them. It is illegal to enter this country without the propet authorization and yet you are angry at the Federal Government for doing it job and not the parent that put their child life at risk.

This action is to make the parent think first before risking the loss of their child...

Also Coyote no matter how you twsit this but the kid is better off in thr programs that we have than rotting in that third world hell hole they come from and some parents are willing to risk jail and capture just to get their kid here even if it is a foster home or camp...

You should be more angry at the Parent and the illegal alien homeland for forcing the parent to risk their child life than being upset at our government...


----------



## Pop23

Vandalshandle said:


> For your viewing pleasure. These are merely tunnels under one town, Nogales, 30 miles from where I live.
> 
> tunnels nogales - Yahoo Image Search Results



We will still patrol, and blow a few up. IDK


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Vandalshandle said:


> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When family detention centers are full, which they are, what do we do other than catch & release. Catch & release is a failure. Congress needs to either accommodate the influx of reduce the influx. It's their job, not Trump's. Trump is even calling for them to fix it because catch & release failed. We are now going to enforce our laws by detaining unknowns illegally crossing our borders.  Are you suggesting we continue catch & release? Are you suggesting we build more family detention centers? Are you suggesting there's no problem? Ending catch & release is good, IMO. We need to find some way to protect children as much as possible. I am open to options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do we have family detention centers? They should be nothing more than a bus stop where they wait for a ride back to Mexico. We take them over the border and drop them off for Mexico to deal with. It’s not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it occur to you that they might not be Mexican, either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t care. They crossed from Mexico so they go back there. Our job is done. What Mexican chooses to do with them is their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, we have the right to refuse entry into our country to people without papers, but Mexico does not  have the same right to block people that we try to send over there without papers?
> 
> I think that I have found the nature of your thinking malfunction, Sparky......
Click to expand...


Who are we trying to send to Mexico without papers except for the people Mexico sent us?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​



If the parents are arrested, prosecuted, and jailed, what would you LIKE to do with the children?  Session is correct that this is exactly what we do with the children of American citizens when they are arrested and jailed.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn’t it time that bleeding heart suckers add some credibility to this whining by starting with the condemnation of the piece of shit criminal wetback parents first?
> Whatta ya say...seem like rudimentary logic to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And another one who thinks punishing children is a suitable response.  Way to go dude.
Click to expand...


We aren't punishing the children; their parents are, because THEY are the ones choosing to commit crimes and thereby put their children in a precarious position.  WE are protecting the children by putting them into supervised care, exactly the way we do for the children of any OTHER criminals we prosecute.  I ask you again:  what the fuck do you WANT to do with the kids while their parents are locked up?


----------



## Cecilie1200

HappyJoy said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
Click to expand...


I think it's completely necessary to separate children from their parents WHEN THE PARENTS ARE IN JAIL.  What else are you going to do, send the kiddies to jail WITH Mommy and Daddy?

Now, if the parents choose to take their children back to the home country with them when they're deported, then I'm fine with that.  In fact, I think it's a marvelous idea.  Buh-bye.


----------



## Cecilie1200

HappyJoy said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its just like the 'anchor baby' deal , mexicans drop an anchor baby and they have the Americans by the nutz .    This variation of the mexican taking their kids to the border is , as i say just a variation of dropping an anchor baby .  -------------------- as the mexican cries and says , you can't separate 'mamasitas' and widdle mexicans Coyote .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can have another debate about birthright citizenship, this is another matter altogether so maybe stick to the topic.
Click to expand...


Actually, criminals callously using their own children as bargaining chips to play on our sympathies IS the topic.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its just like the 'anchor baby' deal , mexicans drop an anchor baby and they have the Americans by the nutz .    This variation of the mexican taking their kids to the border is , as i say just a variation of dropping an anchor baby .  -------------------- as the mexican cries and says , you can't separate 'mamasitas' and widdle baby mexicans Coyote .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are fine with taking young children from their parents and throwing them into our foster care system while they await hearings?  700 kids lost in our foster care network or housed in barracks apart from their parents.  It's sick but you don't have an issue with it.
Click to expand...


Again, what the fuck else do you WANT to do with children whose parents are in jail?  Why are you not getting your panties in a ruffle about all the children who are routinely put in foster care while their criminal parents are in the slammer?

Oh, and they're not "lost".  Will you PLEASE get your frigging hormones under control and stop sounding like a hysterical middle-schooler?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unnecessary? Really?
> “Parents” get caught robbing a bank...they’re prosecuted and sentenced to years of incarceration...do they forfeit their children to “the system” due to their own actions....or do we send the children to live in their prison cell with them?
> Come on people....THINK. This is such simple shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the way the immigration system as worked before.  The children and parents are housed together until they get their hearing.  It isn't a criminal court system.
Click to expand...


So you think locking the kids up with their parents is LESS of a punishment than foster care?  Really?  The distinction without a difference of "it isn't a criminal court system" means nothing.  Incarcerated is incarcerated.  And just as a reminder, crossing our border without permission IS a crime.


----------



## candycorn

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, we have the right to refuse entry into our country to people without papers, but Mexico does not  have the same right to block people that we try to send over there without papers?
> 
> I think that I have found the nature of your thinking malfunction, Sparky......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico has the right to do whatever they wish. If they wish to deny the entry of those we catch crossing FROM MEXICO ILLEGALLY, that is something that can only be addressed by a border wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...even though 52% of illegals simply overstay their visa? And, of course, although Trumpettes don't believe it, Mexicans actually have mastered the use of ladders and shovels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
Click to expand...


It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.


Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.  

When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico has the right to do whatever they wish. If they wish to deny the entry of those we catch crossing FROM MEXICO ILLEGALLY, that is something that can only be addressed by a border wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...even though 52% of illegals simply overstay their visa? And, of course, although Trumpettes don't believe it, Mexicans actually have mastered the use of ladders and shovels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
Click to expand...


I like your erroneous assumption that the "Hispanic community", defined as citizens and legal residents, feel a huge amount of identification with and sympathy for people who jump the line and come here illegally.  Not everyone is the racist bigot you are, thinking of themselves and others as JUST their racial/ethnic group.

Tell you what:  YOU go with your line of coddling and crying over lawbreakers, and we'll go with our line of enforcing the law and protecting the border, and we'll each worry about our own fallout, rather than this _faux _"This would be best for you, no really" bullshit, as though I really think you're concerned about protecting the GOP.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Pop23 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, we have the right to refuse entry into our country to people without papers, but Mexico does not  have the same right to block people that we try to send over there without papers?
> 
> I think that I have found the nature of your thinking malfunction, Sparky......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico has the right to do whatever they wish. If they wish to deny the entry of those we catch crossing FROM MEXICO ILLEGALLY, that is something that can only be addressed by a border wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...even though 52% of illegals simply overstay their visa? And, of course, although Trumpettes don't believe it, Mexicans actually have mastered the use of ladders and shovels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, sure, that's going to happen really quietly as well, right. Not like we can't just push the ladder over, right?
Click to expand...


You obviously do not live down here, Pop. You could walk 50 miles along the Mexican border in Arizona at night and not see a soul. And you are going to push over a rope ladder? Do all of you Trumpetts live in Disneyland?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Pop23 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> For your viewing pleasure. These are merely tunnels under one town, Nogales, 30 miles from where I live.
> 
> tunnels nogales - Yahoo Image Search Results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We will still patrol, and blow a few up. IDK
Click to expand...


Well, now, we do that every down already, and we don't need an 19 billion dollar wall to do it.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Vandalshandle said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico has the right to do whatever they wish. If they wish to deny the entry of those we catch crossing FROM MEXICO ILLEGALLY, that is something that can only be addressed by a border wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...even though 52% of illegals simply overstay their visa? And, of course, although Trumpettes don't believe it, Mexicans actually have mastered the use of ladders and shovels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, sure, that's going to happen really quietly as well, right. Not like we can't just push the ladder over, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously do not live down here, Pop. You could walk 50 miles along the Mexican border in Arizona at night and not see a soul. And you are going to push down a rope ladder? Do all of you Trumpetts live in Disneyland?
Click to expand...


  I think the best solution would be to deny all services and fine the living shit out of businesses that hire illegals.
   Of course liberals would find that to be unacceptable as well.
If the left truly wanted to fix our border problem they'd have a plan of their own.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Vandalshandle said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> For your viewing pleasure. These are merely tunnels under one town, Nogales, 30 miles from where I live.
> 
> tunnels nogales - Yahoo Image Search Results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We will still patrol, and blow a few up. IDK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, now, we do that every down already, and we don't need an 19 billion dollar wall to do it.
Click to expand...


   I cant even begin to count how many illegals I've personally seen crossing our border.
   What we're doing now is not working.


----------



## Pop23

Vandalshandle said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico has the right to do whatever they wish. If they wish to deny the entry of those we catch crossing FROM MEXICO ILLEGALLY, that is something that can only be addressed by a border wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...even though 52% of illegals simply overstay their visa? And, of course, although Trumpettes don't believe it, Mexicans actually have mastered the use of ladders and shovels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, sure, that's going to happen really quietly as well, right. Not like we can't just push the ladder over, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously do not live down here, Pop. You could walk 50 miles along the Mexican border in Arizona at night and not see a soul. And you are going to push over a rope ladder? Do all of you Trumpetts live in Disneyland?
Click to expand...


Who said the wall won’t have lighting and guards?

You living in the Stone Age?


----------



## Unkotare

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> For your viewing pleasure. These are merely tunnels under one town, Nogales, 30 miles from where I live.
> 
> tunnels nogales - Yahoo Image Search Results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We will still patrol, and blow a few up. IDK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, now, we do that every down already, and we don't need an 19 billion dollar wall to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cant even begin to count how many illegals I've personally seen crossing our border.
> .  ..
Click to expand...



So, more than 3 then.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Unkotare said:


> So, more than 3 then.


That's 11,000,003 too many.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Vandalshandle said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> For your viewing pleasure. These are merely tunnels under one town, Nogales, 30 miles from where I live.
> 
> tunnels nogales - Yahoo Image Search Results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We will still patrol, and blow a few up. IDK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, now, we do that every down already, and we don't need an 19 billion dollar wall to do it.
Click to expand...


What you on the left don't like about the wall is it's something you can't easily reverse or ignore like policy.  Once it's up, it's staying up.

Also you on the left dream up of all kinds of ways that lawbreakers will be able to get around the wall as if the Trump administration didn't figure out every single one of those ideas already; as if they didn't have meetings with our experts in the military and border security.  

Do you know how much money 19 billion dollars is in our budget?  It's one third of what we spend on food stamps in just one year.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> For your viewing pleasure. These are merely tunnels under one town, Nogales, 30 miles from where I live.
> 
> tunnels nogales - Yahoo Image Search Results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We will still patrol, and blow a few up. IDK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, now, we do that every down already, and we don't need an 19 billion dollar wall to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you on the left don't like about the wall is it's something you can't easily reverse or ignore like policy.  Once it's up, it's staying up.
> 
> Also you on the left dream up of all kinds of ways that lawbreakers will be able to get around the wall as if the Trump administration didn't figure out every single one of those ideas already; as if they didn't have meetings with our experts in the military and border security.
> 
> Do you know how much money 19 billion dollars is in our budget?  It's one third of what we spend on food stamps in just one year.
Click to expand...

The wall is worth at least $3 trillion.  Perhaps MUCH more.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico has the right to do whatever they wish. If they wish to deny the entry of those we catch crossing FROM MEXICO ILLEGALLY, that is something that can only be addressed by a border wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...even though 52% of illegals simply overstay their visa? And, of course, although Trumpettes don't believe it, Mexicans actually have mastered the use of ladders and shovels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
Click to expand...


Then you should be happy we are doing it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> For your viewing pleasure. These are merely tunnels under one town, Nogales, 30 miles from where I live.
> 
> tunnels nogales - Yahoo Image Search Results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We will still patrol, and blow a few up. IDK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, now, we do that every down already, and we don't need an 19 billion dollar wall to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you on the left don't like about the wall is it's something you can't easily reverse or ignore like policy.  Once it's up, it's staying up.
> 
> Also you on the left dream up of all kinds of ways that lawbreakers will be able to get around the wall as if the Trump administration didn't figure out every single one of those ideas already; as if they didn't have meetings with our experts in the military and border security.
> 
> Do you know how much money 19 billion dollars is in our budget?  It's one third of what we spend on food stamps in just one year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wall is worth at least $3 trillion.  Perhaps MUCH more.
Click to expand...


It will be one of the few things we spent money on that will pay for itself in less than four years.


----------



## kaz

Vandalshandle said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t care. They crossed from Mexico so they go back there. Our job is done. What Mexican chooses to do with them is their choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, we have the right to refuse entry into our country to people without papers, but Mexico does not  have the same right to block people that we try to send over there without papers?
> 
> I think that I have found the nature of your thinking malfunction, Sparky......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexico has the right to do whatever they wish. If they wish to deny the entry of those we catch crossing FROM MEXICO ILLEGALLY, that is something that can only be addressed by a border wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...even though 52% of illegals simply overstay their visa? And, of course, although Trumpettes don't believe it, Mexicans actually have mastered the use of ladders and shovels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
Click to expand...


And you and your family are going down a 30 foot ladder?  You didn't think that one through, Sparky.

And what are you going to do about the electronics that has alerted border security?


----------



## kaz

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, we have the right to refuse entry into our country to people without papers, but Mexico does not  have the same right to block people that we try to send over there without papers?
> 
> I think that I have found the nature of your thinking malfunction, Sparky......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico has the right to do whatever they wish. If they wish to deny the entry of those we catch crossing FROM MEXICO ILLEGALLY, that is something that can only be addressed by a border wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...even though 52% of illegals simply overstay their visa? And, of course, although Trumpettes don't believe it, Mexicans actually have mastered the use of ladders and shovels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
Click to expand...


It always cracks me up when every leftist has the same position on every issue justified with the same position and you claim to be the ones who "think." Yeah, right ...


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Unkotare said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> For your viewing pleasure. These are merely tunnels under one town, Nogales, 30 miles from where I live.
> 
> tunnels nogales - Yahoo Image Search Results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We will still patrol, and blow a few up. IDK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, now, we do that every down already, and we don't need an 19 billion dollar wall to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cant even begin to count how many illegals I've personally seen crossing our border.
> .  ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, more than 3 then.
Click to expand...


  That may be as high as you can count but the rest of us can go much higher.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It will be one of the few things we spent money on that will pay for itself in less than four years.


Less than a year, by my hasty, baseless calculations.  

It's worth $100 trillion just to keep the voting demographics from falling right into the hands of the communists.  How much will it cost if we lose America forever?


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico has the right to do whatever they wish. If they wish to deny the entry of those we catch crossing FROM MEXICO ILLEGALLY, that is something that can only be addressed by a border wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...even though 52% of illegals simply overstay their visa? And, of course, although Trumpettes don't believe it, Mexicans actually have mastered the use of ladders and shovels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
Click to expand...


What makes you believe that as Hispanics become more affluent over time, they are different than whites are and they will continue to support importing low class poor Mexican criminals to overflow our jails, schools, medical centers and welfare rolls?  You're a racist?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will be one of the few things we spent money on that will pay for itself in less than four years.
> 
> 
> 
> Less than a year, by my hasty, baseless calculations.
> 
> It's worth $100 trillion just to keep the voting demographics from falling right into the hands of the communists.  How much will it cost if we lose America forever?
Click to expand...


Not nearly as much as it would cost our children.


----------



## kaz

Cecilie1200 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...even though 52% of illegals simply overstay their visa? And, of course, although Trumpettes don't believe it, Mexicans actually have mastered the use of ladders and shovels.
> 
> 
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like your erroneous assumption that the "Hispanic community", defined as citizens and legal residents, feel a huge amount of identification with and sympathy for people who jump the line and come here illegally.  Not everyone is the racist bigot you are, thinking of themselves and others as JUST their racial/ethnic group.
> 
> Tell you what:  YOU go with your line of coddling and crying over lawbreakers, and we'll go with our line of enforcing the law and protecting the border, and we'll each worry about our own fallout, rather than this _faux _"This would be best for you, no really" bullshit, as though I really think you're concerned about protecting the GOP.
Click to expand...


It is funny how she doesn't see the double standard of the racist stereotypes in her portrayal, isn't it?


----------



## kaz

Vandalshandle said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico has the right to do whatever they wish. If they wish to deny the entry of those we catch crossing FROM MEXICO ILLEGALLY, that is something that can only be addressed by a border wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...even though 52% of illegals simply overstay their visa? And, of course, although Trumpettes don't believe it, Mexicans actually have mastered the use of ladders and shovels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, sure, that's going to happen really quietly as well, right. Not like we can't just push the ladder over, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously do not live down here, Pop. You could walk 50 miles along the Mexican border in Arizona at night and not see a soul. And you are going to push over a rope ladder? Do all of you Trumpetts live in Disneyland?
Click to expand...


That's why Trump proposed the wall have electronics.  Even if someone could get over the wall, it's going to take time.

Though your claim you're going to send your family down a 30 foot rope is just asinine


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...even though 52% of illegals simply overstay their visa? And, of course, although Trumpettes don't believe it, Mexicans actually have mastered the use of ladders and shovels.
> 
> 
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that as Hispanics become more affluent over time, they are different than whites are and they will continue to support importing low class poor Mexican criminals to overflow our jails, schools, medical centers and welfare rolls?  You're a racist?
Click to expand...


That's something they don't consider.  The left has a hard time putting themselves in others shoes. 

If I'm going to try and get into a country where I'm clearly a minority, and I understand some may not want me, the best thing I can do is be impressive as all hell that white people are a good thing for their society.  I'm going to want to show them I'm great, and want every other white person who comes there with me to demonstrate the same thing. 

The last thing I would do is welcome or support whites who could care less about their laws, cost them billions of dollars, criminal whites, and gang whites.  I don't want them nowhere near this new country that has graciously accepted me.


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...even though 52% of illegals simply overstay their visa? And, of course, although Trumpettes don't believe it, Mexicans actually have mastered the use of ladders and shovels.
> 
> 
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, sure, that's going to happen really quietly as well, right. Not like we can't just push the ladder over, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously do not live down here, Pop. You could walk 50 miles along the Mexican border in Arizona at night and not see a soul. And you are going to push down a rope ladder? Do all of you Trumpetts live in Disneyland?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the best solution would be to deny all services and fine the living shit out of businesses that hire illegals.
> Of course liberals would find that to be unacceptable as well.
> If the left truly wanted to fix our border problem they'd have a plan of their own.
Click to expand...


Even if we did that, it wouldn't stop the violent criminals who come here or the drugs that flow over the border


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...even though 52% of illegals simply overstay their visa? And, of course, although Trumpettes don't believe it, Mexicans actually have mastered the use of ladders and shovels.
> 
> 
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, sure, that's going to happen really quietly as well, right. Not like we can't just push the ladder over, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously do not live down here, Pop. You could walk 50 miles along the Mexican border in Arizona at night and not see a soul. And you are going to push over a rope ladder? Do all of you Trumpetts live in Disneyland?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why Trump proposed the wall have electronics.  Even if someone could get over the wall, it's going to take time.
> 
> Though your claim you're going to send your family down a 30 foot rope is just asinine
Click to expand...


They just assume the Trump administration are a bunch of rubes that never studied the subject and liberals have all the answers.  

Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that as Hispanics become more affluent over time, they are different than whites are and they will continue to support importing low class poor Mexican criminals to overflow our jails, schools, medical centers and welfare rolls?  You're a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's something they don't consider.  The left has a hard time putting themselves in others shoes.
> 
> If I'm going to try and get into a country where I'm clearly a minority, and I understand some may not want me, the best thing I can do is be impressive as all hell that white people are a good thing for their society.  I'm going to want to show them I'm great, and want every other white person who comes there with me to demonstrate the same thing.
> 
> The last thing I would do is welcome or support whites who could care less about their laws, cost them billions of dollars, criminal whites, and gang whites.  I don't want them nowhere near this new country that has graciously accepted me.
Click to expand...


Yep.  Vandal has no idea how high 30 feet is either.  Even the majority of guys would balk at scaling down a 30 foot rope themselves much less sending their 5 year old and pregnant wife down the rope


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
Click to expand...

*It is never acceptable to punish children for the misdeeds of parents.*


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It is never acceptable to punish children for the misdeeds of parents.*
Click to expand...


  Isnt jailing an American citizen for their crimes punishing their children?


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is never acceptable to punish children for the misdeeds of parents.
Click to expand...


So we keep children with parents who are criminals.  You are so completely full of shit.  The children of criminals should be removed from the home for their own good.

Give an example of any other crime the decision of whether the freedom of criminals hinges on whether or not they have children


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Flopper said:


> It is never acceptable to punish children for the misdeeds of parents.


Define "punish".  

Criminals go to jail without their children.  

Soldiers go to war without their children.

I am fucking tired of this "think of the children" bullshit.  FUCK THE CHILDREN!!!  WHAT ABOUT MY CHILDREN?


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
Click to expand...


My thought is that we carpet bomb our side of the border and 2 miles inward.  Get caught in that...tough.


----------



## Cecilie1200

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...even though 52% of illegals simply overstay their visa? And, of course, although Trumpettes don't believe it, Mexicans actually have mastered the use of ladders and shovels.
> 
> 
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that as Hispanics become more affluent over time, they are different than whites are and they will continue to support importing low class poor Mexican criminals to overflow our jails, schools, medical centers and welfare rolls?  You're a racist?
Click to expand...


Of course she's a racist.  Just look at how she defines everyone entirely by their racial/ethnic group.  That's what racists do.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not give us the right to terrorize the children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said just previously, sending them alone amidst all the violence and lawlessness to get here is terrifying enough for the child, aside from being apart from their parents of course.
> 
> You don't see how much this hurts the child. We aren't hurting the child, the parents are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In this the kids are not alone but with their parents.
Click to expand...


They are with traffickers who are paid to move people back and forth across the border. 

The children are hurt by the traffickers. When we catch them, we take the kids because they ARE IN DANGER.


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not give us the right to terrorize the children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said just previously, sending them alone amidst all the violence and lawlessness to get here is terrifying enough for the child, aside from being apart from their parents of course.
> 
> You don't see how much this hurts the child. We aren't hurting the child, the parents are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In this the kids are not alone but with their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are with traffickers who are paid to move people back and forth across the border.
> 
> The children are hurt by the traffickers. When we catch them, we take the kids because they ARE IN DANGER.
Click to expand...

When we suspect an adult might be the parent, we seperate them.  I totally agree with that.


----------



## Flopper

9thIDdoc said:


> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.


*They're not illegal because no court has found them guilty of anything.  The question is not whether they should stay or not but whether they should be treated humanely and remain with their parents until the court acts.  *


----------



## koshergrl

I love watching the morons who claimed it was a good idea to invite illegals here and who forced us to accommodate them now whining about the steps that are being taken to protect the poor children that are being exploited by the criminals that WE TRIED TO WARN YOU ABOUT.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its just like the 'anchor baby' deal , mexicans drop an anchor baby and they have the Americans by the nutz .    This variation of the mexican taking their kids to the border is , as i say just a variation of dropping an anchor baby .  -------------------- as the mexican cries and says , you can't separate 'mamasitas' and widdle baby mexicans Coyote .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are fine with taking young children from their parents and throwing them into our foster care system while they await hearings?  700 kids lost in our foster care network or housed in barracks apart from their parents.  It's sick but you don't have an issue with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, what the fuck else do you WANT to do with children whose parents are in jail?  Why are you not getting your panties in a ruffle about all the children who are routinely put in foster care while their criminal parents are in the slammer?
> 
> Oh, and they're not "lost".  Will you PLEASE get your frigging hormones under control and stop sounding like a hysterical middle-schooler?
Click to expand...

Tissue? You seem to be on the verge of an hysterical meltdown.

There are a lot of issues with the foster care system, in fact it is worth a thread.  Perhaps you should start one and advocate for those kids since you feel so passionately?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> *They're not illegal because no court has found them guilty of anything.  The question is not whether they should stay or not but whether they should be treated humanely and remain with their parents until the court acts.  *
Click to expand...


Since they are essentially jailed until that time, like anyone else who is arrested for a crime, you are suggesting that the children ALSO be jailed, to "remain with their parents".

Like everything you say, it's ludicrous and stupid.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its just like the 'anchor baby' deal , mexicans drop an anchor baby and they have the Americans by the nutz .    This variation of the mexican taking their kids to the border is , as i say just a variation of dropping an anchor baby .  -------------------- as the mexican cries and says , you can't separate 'mamasitas' and widdle baby mexicans Coyote .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are fine with taking young children from their parents and throwing them into our foster care system while they await hearings?  700 kids lost in our foster care network or housed in barracks apart from their parents.  It's sick but you don't have an issue with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, what the fuck else do you WANT to do with children whose parents are in jail?  Why are you not getting your panties in a ruffle about all the children who are routinely put in foster care while their criminal parents are in the slammer?
> 
> Oh, and they're not "lost".  Will you PLEASE get your frigging hormones under control and stop sounding like a hysterical middle-schooler?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tissue?
Click to expand...


You apparently need to keep all of yours for the crocodile tears over "lost in the network" children.


----------



## Flopper

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not give us the right to terrorize the children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said just previously, sending them alone amidst all the violence and lawlessness to get here is terrifying enough for the child, aside from being apart from their parents of course.
> 
> You don't see how much this hurts the child. We aren't hurting the child, the parents are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In this the kids are not alone but with their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are with traffickers who are paid to move people back and forth across the border.
> 
> The children are hurt by the traffickers. When we catch them, we take the kids because they ARE IN DANGER.
Click to expand...

*That is a decision for the court, not Trump.*


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> *They're not illegal because no court has found them guilty of anything.  The question is not whether they should stay or not but whether they should be treated humanely and remain with their parents until the court acts.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since they are essentially jailed until that time, like anyone else who is arrested for a crime, you are suggesting that the children ALSO be jailed, to "remain with their parents".
> 
> Like everything you say, it's ludicrous and stupid.
Click to expand...

Yup, because they aren’t actually in a jail, accommodations are made for families just as they are for children.  Great idea don’t you think?


----------



## koshergrl

Flopper said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not give us the right to terrorize the children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said just previously, sending them alone amidst all the violence and lawlessness to get here is terrifying enough for the child, aside from being apart from their parents of course.
> 
> You don't see how much this hurts the child. We aren't hurting the child, the parents are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In this the kids are not alone but with their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are with traffickers who are paid to move people back and forth across the border.
> 
> The children are hurt by the traffickers. When we catch them, we take the kids because they ARE IN DANGER.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That is a decision for the court, not Trump.*
Click to expand...

Oh really?

Tell every child welfare worker in the US that. The courts don't have to rule before children can be removed from danger.

You can thank your statist buddies for that. They've got things all lined up to accommodate child trafficking. You should be happy.


----------



## Kondor3

Did you sneak into our country or overstay, without our express prior consent?

Are your children with you?

If we catch you, you are going to be separated from them, while we process your criminal charges.

Don't want that to happen to them?

The solution is simple.

Don't bring them.

Better yet, until we give you permission, don't come here.

Ignore that at your own (and your childrens') very great risk.

You have been warned.

---------------

The current policy is correct and should have been implemented eons ago.

Insofar as Liberals and other Bleeding Hearts are concerned... nobody likes to see a sucker wise-up, eh?

Fun Time's over, kiddies...


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its just like the 'anchor baby' deal , mexicans drop an anchor baby and they have the Americans by the nutz .    This variation of the mexican taking their kids to the border is , as i say just a variation of dropping an anchor baby .  -------------------- as the mexican cries and says , you can't separate 'mamasitas' and widdle baby mexicans Coyote .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are fine with taking young children from their parents and throwing them into our foster care system while they await hearings?  700 kids lost in our foster care network or housed in barracks apart from their parents.  It's sick but you don't have an issue with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, what the fuck else do you WANT to do with children whose parents are in jail?  Why are you not getting your panties in a ruffle about all the children who are routinely put in foster care while their criminal parents are in the slammer?
> 
> Oh, and they're not "lost".  Will you PLEASE get your frigging hormones under control and stop sounding like a hysterical middle-schooler?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tissue? You seem to be on the verge of an hysterical meltdown.
> 
> There are a lot of issues with the foster care system, in fact it is worth a thread.  Perhaps you should start one and advocate for those kids since you feel so passionately?
Click to expand...


I'M hysterical and "passionate"?  I'm not the one using overwrought hyperbole to describe a very standard procedure undergone thousands of times a day in regards to any child whose parents are unavailable or unacceptable.

Btw, I'm still waiting for you to explain what you think is the "humane" way to deal with children whose parents are arrested, if not foster care.  Whenever you get done pissing yourself about "human cost" and "lost in the network" and "evil, abhorrant [sic], wrong, unacceptable" and "I hope they rot in hell" and "punishing children" and whatever other overblown rhetoric you used after I started scrolling past your bullshit posts will be fine.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not give us the right to terrorize the children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said just previously, sending them alone amidst all the violence and lawlessness to get here is terrifying enough for the child, aside from being apart from their parents of course.
> 
> You don't see how much this hurts the child. We aren't hurting the child, the parents are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In this the kids are not alone but with their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are with traffickers who are paid to move people back and forth across the border.
> 
> The children are hurt by the traffickers. When we catch them, we take the kids because they ARE IN DANGER.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That is a decision for the court, not Trump.*
Click to expand...


Wrong.  That is a decision for the law enforcement system in question, prior to a court appearance.  They all have a policy for these situations, and Trump sets the policy for ICE.

It just kills you that he's President and has the lawful powers of the office, doesn't it?


----------



## koshergrl

I can't get over people complaining because children are being removed from traffickers.

But then again, I've known they were the party of child slavery for a long, long time.


----------



## Flopper

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> *They're not illegal because no court has found them guilty of anything.  The question is not whether they should stay or not but whether they should be treated humanely and remain with their parents until the court acts.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since they are essentially jailed until that time, like anyone else who is arrested for a crime, you are suggesting that the children ALSO be jailed, to "remain with their parents".
> 
> Like everything you say, it's ludicrous and stupid.
Click to expand...

*First of all nobody is being put in jail. They are being detained.  Immigration does not jail people they detain them.  The children will not be charged or found guilty of anything.  Most of the parents will be charged with unlawful presence, a civil offence with no penalty.  The normal procedure is to keep children with their parents.  The new procedure is to take the kids away from their parents promising that they will be united with their children if they sign a voluntary deportation agreement which of course denies them due process of law.   This is an incredibly stupid move on the part of the Orange Clown which will just turn more people against his policies.  *


----------



## protectionist

Seawytch said:


> What other countries separate parents from children for months?


ALL of them.  Except the other countries and the US both, separate them for years, and decades, and lifetimes.  What do you think they do ? Put them in jail cells with their parents ?

Is this whole country going beserk ?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> *They're not illegal because no court has found them guilty of anything.  The question is not whether they should stay or not but whether they should be treated humanely and remain with their parents until the court acts.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since they are essentially jailed until that time, like anyone else who is arrested for a crime, you are suggesting that the children ALSO be jailed, to "remain with their parents".
> 
> Like everything you say, it's ludicrous and stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *First of all nobody is being put in jail. They are being detained.  Immigration does not jail people they detain them.  The children will not be charged or found guilty of anything.  Most of the parents will be charged with unlawful presence, a civil offence with no penalty.  The normal procedure is to keep children with their parents.  The new procedure is to take the kids away from their parents promising that they will be united with their children if they sign a voluntary deportation agreement which of course denies them due process of law.   This is an incredibly stupid move on the part of the Orange Clown which will just turn more people against his policies.  *
Click to expand...


I don't think so.  I think those are the kinds of policies that got him elected.


----------



## Flopper

koshergrl said:


> I can't get over people complaining because children are being removed from traffickers.
> 
> But then again, I've known they were the party of child slavery for a long, long time.


*Apparently you don't even know the definition of human trafficking, (recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons by improper means (such as force, abduction, fraud, or coercion) for an improper purpose including forced labor or sexual exploitation.)  Parents bringing their family with them into the US is not human trafficking.*


----------



## TemplarKormac

Flopper said:


> It is never acceptable to punish children for the misdeeds of parents.



Oh boy, here I go repeating myself.

While there is no legal punishment for the child, there is still punishment given that their parent cared oh so much for them that they sent them across a dangerous and hostile frontier to illegally cross our border. That is an act of blatant cowardice. 

_*The parents*_ are punishing the children, _*we aren't.*_ Get that through your head.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> *They're not illegal because no court has found them guilty of anything.  The question is not whether they should stay or not but whether they should be treated humanely and remain with their parents until the court acts.  *
Click to expand...


So you're saying that everybody that crosses that border is legal until ruled upon?  I don't think so.  Border patrol turns border jumpers around and head home if they find them on the spot.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It is never acceptable to punish children for the misdeeds of parents.*
Click to expand...


So besides the parents, who is punishing them?


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *First of all nobody is being put in jail. They are being detained.  Immigration does not jail people they detain them.  The children will not be charged or found guilty of anything.  Most of the parents will be charged with unlawful presence, a civil offence with no penalty.  The normal procedure is to keep children with their parents.  The new procedure is to take the kids away from their parents promising that they will be united with their children if they sign a voluntary deportation agreement which of course denies them due process of law.   This is an incredibly stupid move on the part of the Orange Clown which will just turn more people against his policies.  *


1.  Who is _"they"_ ? _ "The parents"_ ? Which parents ?

2.  Immigration certainly DOES jail people. Those who violate it's law, US Code 8, Section 1325, are subject to 6 months imprisonment in a federal prison, and 2 YEARS imprisonment for a subsequent offense (of crossing the border without inspection from US immigration authorities).  What do you think the Congressmen who wrote this law did that for ? For their health ?

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

3.  The "normal " procedure is that which the law specifies, and it doesn't specify for kids to be jailed with their parents.  And what occurred with immigration during the Obama administration, is about the farthest thing from normal that anything could ever be.

4. Where did you get this "sign a voluntary deportation agreement" idea ? You got a source link for that ?  And even if this were the case, since said agreement is not mandatory, there is no denial of due process of law.


----------



## Norman

TemplarKormac said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is never acceptable to punish children for the misdeeds of parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy, here I go repeating myself.
> 
> While there is no legal punishment for the child, there is still punishment given that their parent cared oh so much for them that they sent them across a dangerous and hostile frontier to illegally cross our border. That is an act of blatant cowardice.
> 
> _*The parents*_ are punishing the children, _*we aren't.*_ Get that through your head.
Click to expand...


If they are using children as human shields, the children will be casualties. The US laws apply to children. Their stupidity...


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> *They're not illegal because no court has found them guilty of anything.  The question is not whether they should stay or not but whether they should be treated humanely and remain with their parents until the court acts.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since they are essentially jailed until that time, like anyone else who is arrested for a crime, you are suggesting that the children ALSO be jailed, to "remain with their parents".
> 
> Like everything you say, it's ludicrous and stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *First of all nobody is being put in jail. They are being detained.  Immigration does not jail people they detain them.  The children will not be charged or found guilty of anything.  Most of the parents will be charged with unlawful presence, a civil offence with no penalty.  The normal procedure is to keep children with their parents.  The new procedure is to take the kids away from their parents promising that they will be united with their children if they sign a voluntary deportation agreement which of course denies them due process of law.   This is an incredibly stupid move on the part of the Orange Clown which will just turn more people against his policies.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so.  I think those are the kinds of policies that got him elected.
Click to expand...

*Trump was elected because the voters couldn't stand to vote for Clinton.  I doubt that there are many Trump voters that approve of treating children like this and using them as political pawns.   There is certainly a "basket of deplorables"  among Trump voters but not the majority.

According to Pew Research, 80% of all voters say undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay legally and 60% of Trump supporters agree. 
Trump voters want to build the wall, but are more divided on other immigration questions*


----------



## TemplarKormac

Flopper said:


> Parents bringing their family with them into the US is not human trafficking.



Interestingly, when you have to smuggle them across the border, running and hiding from the authorities of the country you illegally entered in the meanwhile, you are essentially trafficking them.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Flopper said:


> I doubt that there are many Trump voters that approve of treating children like this and using them as political pawns



Interesting.

You apparently forgot about the parents using their children as pawns to get across the border. 

Or was that an honest mistake?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Pop23 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...even though 52% of illegals simply overstay their visa? And, of course, although Trumpettes don't believe it, Mexicans actually have mastered the use of ladders and shovels.
> 
> 
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, sure, that's going to happen really quietly as well, right. Not like we can't just push the ladder over, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously do not live down here, Pop. You could walk 50 miles along the Mexican border in Arizona at night and not see a soul. And you are going to push over a rope ladder? Do all of you Trumpetts live in Disneyland?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said the wall won’t have lighting and guards?
> 
> You living in the Stone Age?
Click to expand...


Actually, Pop, if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about, you would not even ask that question. Not only are there no paved roads down there, but no other infrastructure as well. There is no water, gas stations, electricity, or restaurants. more importantly, there are no people, and no places for them to live if there were. The BP in Southern AZ is 85% Latino, because they crossed the border years ago, and nobody else is going to drive all the way down there from Tucson to patrol one of the most inhospitable places in the US.


----------



## koshergrl

Flopper said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't get over people complaining because children are being removed from traffickers.
> 
> But then again, I've known they were the party of child slavery for a long, long time.
> 
> 
> 
> *Apparently you don't even know the definition of human trafficking, (recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons by improper means (such as force, abduction, fraud, or coercion) for an improper purpose including forced labor or sexual exploitation.)  Parents bringing their family with them into the US is not human trafficking.*
Click to expand...


It isn't just parents. It's *family members* and yes you can traffic your own children if you are using them for the purpose of getting people (you) into the country illegally.


----------



## koshergrl

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> *They're not illegal because no court has found them guilty of anything.  The question is not whether they should stay or not but whether they should be treated humanely and remain with their parents until the court acts.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since they are essentially jailed until that time, like anyone else who is arrested for a crime, you are suggesting that the children ALSO be jailed, to "remain with their parents".
> 
> Like everything you say, it's ludicrous and stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *First of all nobody is being put in jail. They are being detained.  Immigration does not jail people they detain them.  The children will not be charged or found guilty of anything.  Most of the parents will be charged with unlawful presence, a civil offence with no penalty.  The normal procedure is to keep children with their parents.  The new procedure is to take the kids away from their parents promising that they will be united with their children if they sign a voluntary deportation agreement which of course denies them due process of law.   This is an incredibly stupid move on the part of the Orange Clown which will just turn more people against his policies.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so.  I think those are the kinds of policies that got him elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump was elected because the voters couldn't stand to vote for Clinton.  I doubt that there are many Trump voters that approve of treating children like this and using them as political pawns.   There is certainly a "basket of deplorables"  among Trump voters but not the majority.
> 
> According to Pew Research, 80% of all voters say undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay legally and 60% of Trump supporters agree.
> Trump voters want to build the wall, but are more divided on other immigration questions*
Click to expand...


The left created this crisis. 

Fuck the left. 

Arrest the traffickers, and take the kids. 

Problem solved.


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> *They're not illegal because no court has found them guilty of anything.  The question is not whether they should stay or not but whether they should be treated humanely and remain with their parents until the court acts.  *
Click to expand...


Gotcha.  So if a mother and father rob a bank, then you're arguing they should be put back on the street if they are parents because then haven't been found "guilty of anything."  You're such a liar, you don't believe that.  You just want Democrat voters.  That explains every position you take and nothing else explains your positions


----------



## kaz

Vandalshandle said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, sure, that's going to happen really quietly as well, right. Not like we can't just push the ladder over, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously do not live down here, Pop. You could walk 50 miles along the Mexican border in Arizona at night and not see a soul. And you are going to push over a rope ladder? Do all of you Trumpetts live in Disneyland?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said the wall won’t have lighting and guards?
> 
> You living in the Stone Age?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Pop, if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about, you would not even ask that question. Not only are there no paved roads down there, but no other infrastructure as well. There is no water, gas stations, electricity, or restaurants. more importantly, there are no people, and no places for them to live if there were. The BP in Southern AZ is 85% Latino, because they crossed the border years ago, and nobody else is going to drive all the way down there from Tucson to patrol one of the most inhospitable places in the US.
Click to expand...


THEY WILL USE ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE NOT RANDOMLY DRIVE ALONG THE WALL YOU STUPID FUCKING DISHONEST PIECE OF SHIT.  WHAT ABOUT THIS DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

And you've ignored the obviously idiotic response you gave that you're sending five year olds and pregnant women down a 30 foot rope


----------



## Vandalshandle

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that as Hispanics become more affluent over time, they are different than whites are and they will continue to support importing low class poor Mexican criminals to overflow our jails, schools, medical centers and welfare rolls?  You're a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's something they don't consider.  The left has a hard time putting themselves in others shoes.
> 
> If I'm going to try and get into a country where I'm clearly a minority, and I understand some may not want me, the best thing I can do is be impressive as all hell that white people are a good thing for their society.  I'm going to want to show them I'm great, and want every other white person who comes there with me to demonstrate the same thing.
> 
> The last thing I would do is welcome or support whites who could care less about their laws, cost them billions of dollars, criminal whites, and gang whites.  I don't want them nowhere near this new country that has graciously accepted me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  Vandal has no idea how high 30 feet is either.  Even the majority of guys would balk at scaling down a 30 foot rope themselves much less sending their 5 year old and pregnant wife down the rope
Click to expand...


Another uneducated clown who has never been down here. You think that a 30 foot wall is going to stop someone who is willing to walk 100 miles through the most inhospitable desert in the USA in 105 degree temperature with only enough food and water to last one day? We find 300 dead illegals per year in AZ who died from exposure, many who had no shoes, while walking through cactus and snake infested desert for days.


----------



## BluesLegend

Breaking: Twice deported illegal loser high on drugs fails to stop, crashes into car at 70mph and kills Texas girl, her father is in intensive care, flees scene.


----------



## protectionist

Missouri_Mike said:


> Mexico already let them in dipshit.


And gave them sanctuary. Which brings up another question.  Since they already got sanctuary/asylum in Mexico, why do they need it after that ?


----------



## protectionist

Vandalshandle said:


> So, you feel sure that if ICE shows up at the Mexican border with a bus full of brown skinned Latinos, with no papers, Mexico will simply say, "Oh, well, they must be ours, so, just send them on over!


What I say is exactly the opposite of that. I said Mexico is STRICT on immigration into Mexico.  Got it now ?


----------



## Vandalshandle

kaz said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man, sure, that's going to happen really quietly as well, right. Not like we can't just push the ladder over, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously do not live down here, Pop. You could walk 50 miles along the Mexican border in Arizona at night and not see a soul. And you are going to push over a rope ladder? Do all of you Trumpetts live in Disneyland?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said the wall won’t have lighting and guards?
> 
> You living in the Stone Age?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Pop, if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about, you would not even ask that question. Not only are there no paved roads down there, but no other infrastructure as well. There is no water, gas stations, electricity, or restaurants. more importantly, there are no people, and no places for them to live if there were. The BP in Southern AZ is 85% Latino, because they crossed the border years ago, and nobody else is going to drive all the way down there from Tucson to patrol one of the most inhospitable places in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THEY WILL USE ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE NOT RANDOMLY DRIVE ALONG THE WALL YOU STUPID FUCKING DISHONEST PIECE OF SHIT.  WHAT ABOUT THIS DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
> 
> And you've ignored the obviously idiotic response you gave that you're sending five year olds and pregnant women down a 30 foot rope
Click to expand...







Oh, and BTW, they already use electronic surveillance. That is how they discovered over 100 tunnels under Nogales in the last 10 years. They also send down heat seeking drones down the Santa Cruz River bed every night. I like to watch them fly by in patterns of three every night from my patio. It does not discourage them at all. But Trump's WALL! Wow. That will show them!


----------



## protectionist

kaz said:


> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...


And be sure to wear steel armor to avoid the concertina wire and alligators on the American side.


----------



## busybee01

Pop23 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human rights abuses are not a tool used by America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but by using these children as tools, you have already violated their human rights.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Trump admin is the only one using children as tools, dope. That's the point.
> They're using the threat of seperation as a deterrent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like a logical deterrent, so unless the parent is so negligent as to knowingly bring a child across the border when they know they will be separated, then it is that parents choice to do so. That is exactly what a deterrent is.
Click to expand...

Terrorizing children is logical. Only a sick twisted mind would think that. The same minds we saw tried at Nuremburg.


----------



## Vandalshandle

protectionist said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you feel sure that if ICE shows up at the Mexican border with a bus full of brown skinned Latinos, with no papers, Mexico will simply say, "Oh, well, they must be ours, so, just send them on over!
> 
> 
> 
> What I say is exactly the opposite of that. I said Mexico is STRICT on immigration into Mexico.  Got it now ?
Click to expand...


Well, then, that being the case, obviously none of the illegals that trump has been ranting about having formed a caravan from Latin America, in route through Mexico to the US, even exist!


----------



## busybee01

protectionist said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.
> 
> 
> 
> So when a cop stops somebody for speeding and DUI, and arrests him, and his kids are separated from him, you'd say this is an _"unnecessary human rights violation"_ ?
> 
> And when the drunk driver is incarcerated, where would you suggest the kids go ?  Into jail with him ?
Click to expand...


You are a moron. The 2 are not comparable. Would you incarcerate someone for jaywalking. What I  would expect from a hateful pea brain like you.


----------



## busybee01

WillHaftawaite said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you understand why President Trump is working hard to fix this problem, Coyote?
> 
> 
> 
> No Tycho our reverent President is to busy tweeting.  In fact, it’s been so noisy I suspect there are birds nesting in his toupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it safe for me to assume that you’re good with democrats allowing people to be lured into unspeakable circumstances?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She will tolerate anything in the name of tolerance...
> Except protection of children. She won't tolerate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are a robot. You  can only say what you are told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are a robot. You can only say what you are told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the same impression reading your posts
Click to expand...


I am glad to be standing up for humane treatment of children and against the Trumpie criminals like you.  What you don't like about me is I think for myself instead of cult members like you.


----------



## Vandalshandle

I don't know which is worse. People prepared to traumatize innocent children to satisfy their xenophobia, or those that are too stupid to understand that virtually anyone with a will can easily find their way under, over, or around a wall if they have a will. Me? I would just hop a train myself. There is one coming up the Santa Cruz River Valley carrying new Fords from the Mexico plant every other day.


----------



## busybee01

protectionist said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is going to jail. If you think we we going to waste money on non-violent offenses like this then you are crazy. Let's jail people for jaywalking.
> 
> 
> 
> So if the congressmen who made the law (US Code 8, Section 1325) were standing in front of you, you'd tell them point-blank that they're crazy for passing it ?
> 
> I think it's a good law, and part of the PROTECTIVE laws that our ancestors provided us with to PROTECT us.  If no one's going to jail for it, they should be.  And in the worst, miserable, hellhole prison we can find, so they won't want to go back there.
> 
> And if you need a tutorial on what we're being protected from, I can supply that, quickly. since I realize that liberals are the most information-deprived people in America, from watching their liberal OMISSION media all the time.
> 
> PS- jaywalking doesn't have the long list of harms that illegal immigration does.
Click to expand...


You are the one who harms this country. I would rather haver illegals than trash like you.


----------



## kaz

Vandalshandle said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that as Hispanics become more affluent over time, they are different than whites are and they will continue to support importing low class poor Mexican criminals to overflow our jails, schools, medical centers and welfare rolls?  You're a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's something they don't consider.  The left has a hard time putting themselves in others shoes.
> 
> If I'm going to try and get into a country where I'm clearly a minority, and I understand some may not want me, the best thing I can do is be impressive as all hell that white people are a good thing for their society.  I'm going to want to show them I'm great, and want every other white person who comes there with me to demonstrate the same thing.
> 
> The last thing I would do is welcome or support whites who could care less about their laws, cost them billions of dollars, criminal whites, and gang whites.  I don't want them nowhere near this new country that has graciously accepted me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  Vandal has no idea how high 30 feet is either.  Even the majority of guys would balk at scaling down a 30 foot rope themselves much less sending their 5 year old and pregnant wife down the rope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another uneducated clown who has never been down here. You think that a 30 foot wall is going to stop someone who is willing to walk 100 miles through the most inhospitable desert in the USA in 105 degree temperature with only enough food and water to last one day? We find 300 dead illegals per year in AZ who died from exposure, many who had no shoes, while walking through cactus and snake infested desert for days.
Click to expand...


Tell me again how illegal aliens are going to have their pregnant wife and five year old kid climb down a 30 foot rope, dishonest loser


----------



## busybee01

protectionist said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Nuremberg trials were about crimes against humanity. This fits.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't know of any law that the Trump admin can be held legally liable for implementing this policy, but you propose that they be held legally liable for what there is no law to hold them legally liable for, right ?  Right, BB ? Right ?
Click to expand...


The Nuremberg trials were about crimes against humanity. That is what he should be tried for along with Sessions and others who are implementing this inhumane policy.


----------



## kaz

Vandalshandle said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man, sure, that's going to happen really quietly as well, right. Not like we can't just push the ladder over, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously do not live down here, Pop. You could walk 50 miles along the Mexican border in Arizona at night and not see a soul. And you are going to push over a rope ladder? Do all of you Trumpetts live in Disneyland?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said the wall won’t have lighting and guards?
> 
> You living in the Stone Age?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Pop, if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about, you would not even ask that question. Not only are there no paved roads down there, but no other infrastructure as well. There is no water, gas stations, electricity, or restaurants. more importantly, there are no people, and no places for them to live if there were. The BP in Southern AZ is 85% Latino, because they crossed the border years ago, and nobody else is going to drive all the way down there from Tucson to patrol one of the most inhospitable places in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THEY WILL USE ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE NOT RANDOMLY DRIVE ALONG THE WALL YOU STUPID FUCKING DISHONEST PIECE OF SHIT.  WHAT ABOUT THIS DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
> 
> And you've ignored the obviously idiotic response you gave that you're sending five year olds and pregnant women down a 30 foot rope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and BTW, they already use electronic surveillance. That is how they discovered over 100 tunnels under Nogales in the last 10 years. They also send down heat seeking drones down the Santa Cruz River bed every night. I like to watch them fly by in patterns of three every night from my patio. It does not discourage them at all. But Trump's WALL! Wow. That will show them!
Click to expand...


So you show the failed solution that isn't working and say look, we don't need to replace this failing solution!

You need to think that stupid shit through before you post it.

You want illegal aliens to have access to come here and vote.  Be honest for once.  You don't want a solution


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Vandalshandle said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that as Hispanics become more affluent over time, they are different than whites are and they will continue to support importing low class poor Mexican criminals to overflow our jails, schools, medical centers and welfare rolls?  You're a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's something they don't consider.  The left has a hard time putting themselves in others shoes.
> 
> If I'm going to try and get into a country where I'm clearly a minority, and I understand some may not want me, the best thing I can do is be impressive as all hell that white people are a good thing for their society.  I'm going to want to show them I'm great, and want every other white person who comes there with me to demonstrate the same thing.
> 
> The last thing I would do is welcome or support whites who could care less about their laws, cost them billions of dollars, criminal whites, and gang whites.  I don't want them nowhere near this new country that has graciously accepted me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  Vandal has no idea how high 30 feet is either.  Even the majority of guys would balk at scaling down a 30 foot rope themselves much less sending their 5 year old and pregnant wife down the rope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another uneducated clown who has never been down here. You think that a 30 foot wall is going to stop someone who is willing to walk 100 miles through the most inhospitable desert in the USA in 105 degree temperature with only enough food and water to last one day? We find 300 dead illegals per year in AZ who died from exposure, many who had no shoes, while walking through cactus and snake infested desert for days.
Click to expand...


That's a shame, and how many of those are children?


----------



## busybee01

protectionist said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, a legal claim. Charging them as illegals and seperating families is a punative action against those involved in a legal process for no other reason than to dter future applicants. An unnecessarily harsh policy.
> 
> 
> 
> *FALSE! * It is to deport those who have no legal status to be here, and who are lucky if they aren't imprisoned for violating US Code 8, Section 1325.
> 
> 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
Click to expand...


Separating the children has nothing to do with deportation procedures. The only reason to do such a inhumane and punitive thing is pure evil. This is the act of criminal regimes like Assad in Syria.


----------



## Hugo Furst

busybee01 said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Tycho our reverent President is to busy tweeting.  In fact, it’s been so noisy I suspect there are birds nesting in his toupe.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it safe for me to assume that you’re good with democrats allowing people to be lured into unspeakable circumstances?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She will tolerate anything in the name of tolerance...
> Except protection of children. She won't tolerate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are a robot. You  can only say what you are told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are a robot. You can only say what you are told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the same impression reading your posts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am glad to be standing up for humane treatment of children and against the Trumpie criminals like you.  What you don't like about me is I think for myself instead of cult members like you.
Click to expand...


of course you do


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

busybee01 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Nuremberg trials were about crimes against humanity. This fits.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't know of any law that the Trump admin can be held legally liable for implementing this policy, but you propose that they be held legally liable for what there is no law to hold them legally liable for, right ?  Right, BB ? Right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Nuremberg trials were about crimes against humanity. That is what he should be tried for along with Sessions and others who are implementing this inhumane policy.
Click to expand...


What's inhumane about it?


----------



## busybee01

Ray From Cleveland said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Nuremberg trials were about crimes against humanity. This fits.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't know of any law that the Trump admin can be held legally liable for implementing this policy, but you propose that they be held legally liable for what there is no law to hold them legally liable for, right ?  Right, BB ? Right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Nuremberg trials were about crimes against humanity. That is what he should be tried for along with Sessions and others who are implementing this inhumane policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's inhumane about it?
Click to expand...


Terrorizing children is not inhumane? You are the rabid animal and are as bad as MS-13.


----------



## protectionist

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.



Yeah, only the smart "thinking" people help foreigners to come here and take 8 million jobs away from Americans, loot the American economy for $138 Billion/year, and stuff their pockets  with tens of Billions$$ of our tax $$$. (not to mention disease, traffic congestion, pollution, scarce resources, added crime, etc  Absolutely briiliant.  Pheeew!! (high-pitched whistle,


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> *They're not illegal because no court has found them guilty of anything.  The question is not whether they should stay or not but whether they should be treated humanely and remain with their parents until the court acts.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since they are essentially jailed until that time, like anyone else who is arrested for a crime, you are suggesting that the children ALSO be jailed, to "remain with their parents".
> 
> Like everything you say, it's ludicrous and stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *First of all nobody is being put in jail. They are being detained.  Immigration does not jail people they detain them.  The children will not be charged or found guilty of anything.  Most of the parents will be charged with unlawful presence, a civil offence with no penalty.  The normal procedure is to keep children with their parents.  The new procedure is to take the kids away from their parents promising that they will be united with their children if they sign a voluntary deportation agreement which of course denies them due process of law.   This is an incredibly stupid move on the part of the Orange Clown which will just turn more people against his policies.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so.  I think those are the kinds of policies that got him elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump was elected because the voters couldn't stand to vote for Clinton.  I doubt that there are many Trump voters that approve of treating children like this and using them as political pawns.   There is certainly a "basket of deplorables"  among Trump voters but not the majority.
> 
> According to Pew Research, 80% of all voters say undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay legally and 60% of Trump supporters agree.
> Trump voters want to build the wall, but are more divided on other immigration questions*
Click to expand...


Well much like last presidential election, let's hope Trump once ignores the polls and sticks to reality.

If you want to use Hillary as the excuse why Trump won, fine with me, but that doesn't explain how he beat out twelve other Republican candidates for the nomination.  They all pretty much had the same message except for Trump.  All the others were pretty passive on immigration except Trump who took an exact opposite stand on the issue. 

So I'll stick to believing that many Americans are on my side instead of what the polls say.  If it's one thing I've learned about polls the last several years, it's that they are created to try and get people what to think instead of telling us what people think.


----------



## protectionist

busybee01 said:


> Terrorizing children is not inhumane? You are the rabid animal and are as bad as MS-13.


So what's YOUR plan ?​


----------



## Pop23

Vandalshandle said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that as Hispanics become more affluent over time, they are different than whites are and they will continue to support importing low class poor Mexican criminals to overflow our jails, schools, medical centers and welfare rolls?  You're a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's something they don't consider.  The left has a hard time putting themselves in others shoes.
> 
> If I'm going to try and get into a country where I'm clearly a minority, and I understand some may not want me, the best thing I can do is be impressive as all hell that white people are a good thing for their society.  I'm going to want to show them I'm great, and want every other white person who comes there with me to demonstrate the same thing.
> 
> The last thing I would do is welcome or support whites who could care less about their laws, cost them billions of dollars, criminal whites, and gang whites.  I don't want them nowhere near this new country that has graciously accepted me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  Vandal has no idea how high 30 feet is either.  Even the majority of guys would balk at scaling down a 30 foot rope themselves much less sending their 5 year old and pregnant wife down the rope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another uneducated clown who has never been down here. You think that a 30 foot wall is going to stop someone who is willing to walk 100 miles through the most inhospitable desert in the USA in 105 degree temperature with only enough food and water to last one day? We find 300 dead illegals per year in AZ who died from exposure, many who had no shoes, while walking through cactus and snake infested desert for days.
Click to expand...


You realize you just answered why the children should be taken from SOB’s that would do that to them, right?


----------



## busybee01

Pop23 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just wrote about parents forcing their kids to commit crimes being sepearated.
> If you aren't talking about charging kids, then what's  the purpose of the point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, where is it written THAT A CHILD MUST BE CHARGED TO BE SEPARATED FROM THE PARENT!. If the parent uses a child, which has, by it's very nature, diminished capability, to participate in criminal activity, then IT IS THE PARENT THAT IS CHARGED WITH THE CRIME, and still the two are separated.
> 
> Clear enough now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You suggested that, fool. I just showed you why.
> The parent committed the crime by crossing illegally. Whatever you mean by "using a child"  or "forcing a kid to shoplift" is irrelevant to that fact. Separation of the family is not mandatory under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can twist like a pretzel all you want. In the practical application of law enforcement or to that matter our judicial system, involving a child in criminal activity most often results in that child being removed from the parent. PERIOD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why remove the child at all?
> Convict the offender, waive the sentence and deport them immediately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, how about just deterring the crime from happening in the first place? I guess if we extend your logic, then, if 1,000,000 people rob a bank, instead of trying to deter bank robberies by making drastic changes in the law, we just allow bank robbers to flood the system, breaking the system, so more bank robberies can occur.
> 
> Cool
Click to expand...


That is the most moronic equivalence I have ever heard. Robbing a bank is a violent act. There is nothing violent about someone crossing the border illegally. Unless they run into the ICE bully boys.


----------



## Pop23

busybee01 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, where is it written THAT A CHILD MUST BE CHARGED TO BE SEPARATED FROM THE PARENT!. If the parent uses a child, which has, by it's very nature, diminished capability, to participate in criminal activity, then IT IS THE PARENT THAT IS CHARGED WITH THE CRIME, and still the two are separated.
> 
> Clear enough now?
> 
> 
> 
> You suggested that, fool. I just showed you why.
> The parent committed the crime by crossing illegally. Whatever you mean by "using a child"  or "forcing a kid to shoplift" is irrelevant to that fact. Separation of the family is not mandatory under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can twist like a pretzel all you want. In the practical application of law enforcement or to that matter our judicial system, involving a child in criminal activity most often results in that child being removed from the parent. PERIOD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why remove the child at all?
> Convict the offender, waive the sentence and deport them immediately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, how about just deterring the crime from happening in the first place? I guess if we extend your logic, then, if 1,000,000 people rob a bank, instead of trying to deter bank robberies by making drastic changes in the law, we just allow bank robbers to flood the system, breaking the system, so more bank robberies can occur.
> 
> Cool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the most moronic equivalence I have ever heard. Robbing a bank is a violent act. There is nothing violent about someone crossing the border illegally. Unless they run into the ICE bully boys.
Click to expand...


Hey dimwit, if you involve your child in going to fetch your drugs for you, or shoplift for you, or involve them in just about any illegal activity, guess what? They will be taken. 

Duh


----------



## busybee01

protectionist said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about asylum seekers at border crossings. I've only posted it a half a dozen times.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
> 
> 
> 
> Could be the Border Patrol has ascertained that no, they are NOT asylum seekers.  Have you consulted with the Border patrol on this ?
Click to expand...


They are not judges. They do not have the right to make those types of judgements. ICE was recently called liars by a federal judge for falsely claiming that a DACA recipient was a member of MS-13.


----------



## busybee01

protectionist said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorizing children is not inhumane? You are the rabid animal and are as bad as MS-13.
> 
> 
> 
> So what's YOUR plan ?​
Click to expand...


Don't separate the children from their parents.


----------



## busybee01

Pop23 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You suggested that, fool. I just showed you why.
> The parent committed the crime by crossing illegally. Whatever you mean by "using a child"  or "forcing a kid to shoplift" is irrelevant to that fact. Separation of the family is not mandatory under the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can twist like a pretzel all you want. In the practical application of law enforcement or to that matter our judicial system, involving a child in criminal activity most often results in that child being removed from the parent. PERIOD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why remove the child at all?
> Convict the offender, waive the sentence and deport them immediately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, how about just deterring the crime from happening in the first place? I guess if we extend your logic, then, if 1,000,000 people rob a bank, instead of trying to deter bank robberies by making drastic changes in the law, we just allow bank robbers to flood the system, breaking the system, so more bank robberies can occur.
> 
> Cool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the most moronic equivalence I have ever heard. Robbing a bank is a violent act. There is nothing violent about someone crossing the border illegally. Unless they run into the ICE bully boys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey dimwit, if you involve your child in going to fetch your drugs for you, or shoplift for you, or involve them in just about any illegal activity, guess what? They will be taken.
> 
> Duh
Click to expand...


You are the dimwit. More idiotic equivalencies. Try jaywalking or a traffic ticket.


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...even though 52% of illegals simply overstay their visa? And, of course, although Trumpettes don't believe it, Mexicans actually have mastered the use of ladders and shovels.
> 
> 
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should be happy we are doing it.
Click to expand...


My concern for my fellow human beings is more important than political gain……..oh never mind .  You’re a conservative.  I doubt you’d understand.


----------



## protectionist

candycorn said:


> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.


I'm part of that larger Hispanic community, and all this is resonating the same way with me now, as it did when I heard Trump's speech about Mexico not sending us their best. It got me to vote for him, as it did for Hispanics, and races all across America.

You still don't get it that keeping illegal aliens out, is what we Americans (all of us) want ?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

busybee01 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Nuremberg trials were about crimes against humanity. This fits.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't know of any law that the Trump admin can be held legally liable for implementing this policy, but you propose that they be held legally liable for what there is no law to hold them legally liable for, right ?  Right, BB ? Right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Nuremberg trials were about crimes against humanity. That is what he should be tried for along with Sessions and others who are implementing this inhumane policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's inhumane about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Terrorizing children is not inhumane? You are the rabid animal and are as bad as MS-13.
Click to expand...


*terrorism*
[ter-uh-riz-uh m]

noun

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
the definition of terrorism

Now which one of these things are happening to these children?  These kids are sent to live with relatives (if they have some living here) or to shelters where they are well cared for, fed until full, and given medical care if needed.  They are showered, given snacks between meals, clean clothing and are enjoying high definition cartoons on big screens.  

If that's what you consider terrorism, I'm sure there are at least a billion kids in other countries who wish they were so terrorized.


----------



## busybee01

flacaltenn said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are using children as hostages. You are no different than terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the left is not???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who wants to treat children as criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Placing them in detention jails with adults who may harm them whether with the parents or not would be criminal..........Then tomorrow you'd be look what you did to these families.....................Can't house them with all the adults...........got news for you.........some aren't so nice coming over.........
> 
> Kids going to other detention centers are for their own protection..............but the INN IS FULL.........only 40,000 beds......
> 
> Brings us to another lie the left pushes...........that those crossing is much smaller............more BS.
> 
> Face it..........your identity politics here is to attack to get Catch and Release back which is basically your real goal of open borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They shouldn't be in detention jails. They need to be in facilities for families. Treating people right has nothing to do with what to do with illegals. Thye should be treated right while they are there and until their status is determined legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have NO f'ing concept of the SCOPE of this problem. We're NOT gonna build "facilities" for 30,000 families at a time, spread over 2000 miles or more of border country. We're gonna review their CLAIMS for asylum and make a judgement and be done with it.
> 
> Even if Uncle Sam BUILT those facilities, it would look more like Gitmo than a Comfort Inn..
Click to expand...


Anything involved with


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should be happy we are doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My concern for my fellow human beings is more important than political gain……..oh never mind .  You’re a conservative.  I doubt you’d understand.
Click to expand...


When you use children to promote your political agenda, trust me, it's all about politics and nothing about human beings.


----------



## protectionist

Vandalshandle said:


> You obviously do not live down here, Pop. You could walk 50 miles along the Mexican border in Arizona at night and not see a soul. And you are going to push over a rope ladder? Do all of you Trumpetts live in Disneyland?


Deja vu.  I think I heard those very words being said on November 7, 2016.


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should be happy we are doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My concern for my fellow human beings is more important than political gain……..oh never mind .  You’re a conservative.  I doubt you’d understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you use children to promote your political agenda, trust me, it's all about politics and nothing about human beings.
Click to expand...


Trust you?  No thanks.


----------



## busybee01

flacaltenn said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are using children as hostages. You are no different than terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the left is not???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who wants to treat children as criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Placing them in detention jails with adults who may harm them whether with the parents or not would be criminal..........Then tomorrow you'd be look what you did to these families.....................Can't house them with all the adults...........got news for you.........some aren't so nice coming over.........
> 
> Kids going to other detention centers are for their own protection..............but the INN IS FULL.........only 40,000 beds......
> 
> Brings us to another lie the left pushes...........that those crossing is much smaller............more BS.
> 
> Face it..........your identity politics here is to attack to get Catch and Release back which is basically your real goal of open borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They shouldn't be in detention jails. They need to be in facilities for families. Treating people right has nothing to do with what to do with illegals. Thye should be treated right while they are there and until their status is determined legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have NO f'ing concept of the SCOPE of this problem. We're NOT gonna build "facilities" for 30,000 families at a time, spread over 2000 miles or more of border country. We're gonna review their CLAIMS for asylum and make a judgement and be done with it.
> 
> Even if Uncle Sam BUILT those facilities, it would look more like Gitmo than a Comfort Inn..
Click to expand...


Anything Trump is involved with would look like Gitmo. That is all thugs like him understand. Either build or find the proper facilities to house families while their claims are abjugated. Taking then children is wrong and inhumane.


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​



Criminals are separated from their children when they are put in prison...should we let criminals out of prison because they will be separated from their children?


----------



## protectionist

Ray From Cleveland said:


> What you on the left don't like about the wall is it's something you can't easily reverse or ignore like policy.  Once it's up, it's staying up.
> 
> Also you on the left dream up of all kinds of ways that lawbreakers will be able to get around the wall as if the Trump administration didn't figure out every single one of those ideas already; as if they didn't have meetings with our experts in the military and border security.
> 
> Do you know how much money 19 billion dollars is in our budget?  It's one third of what we spend on food stamps in just one year.


In the end, we won't pay a dime of it. Mexico will pay for it.


----------



## busybee01

protectionist said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm part of that larger Hispanic community, and all this is resonating the same way with me now, as it did when I heard Trump's speech about Mexico not sending us their best. It got me to vote for him, as it did for Hispanics, and races all across America.
> 
> You still don't get it that keeping illegal aliens out, is what we Americans (all of us) want ?
Click to expand...


Actually that is not true. Americans overwhelmingly support amnesty for illegals and DACA recipients.


----------



## Hugo Furst

busybee01 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the left is not???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who wants to treat children as criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Placing them in detention jails with adults who may harm them whether with the parents or not would be criminal..........Then tomorrow you'd be look what you did to these families.....................Can't house them with all the adults...........got news for you.........some aren't so nice coming over.........
> 
> Kids going to other detention centers are for their own protection..............but the INN IS FULL.........only 40,000 beds......
> 
> Brings us to another lie the left pushes...........that those crossing is much smaller............more BS.
> 
> Face it..........your identity politics here is to attack to get Catch and Release back which is basically your real goal of open borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They shouldn't be in detention jails. They need to be in facilities for families. Treating people right has nothing to do with what to do with illegals. Thye should be treated right while they are there and until their status is determined legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have NO f'ing concept of the SCOPE of this problem. We're NOT gonna build "facilities" for 30,000 families at a time, spread over 2000 miles or more of border country. We're gonna review their CLAIMS for asylum and make a judgement and be done with it.
> 
> Even if Uncle Sam BUILT those facilities, it would look more like Gitmo than a Comfort Inn..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anything Trump is involved with would look like Gitmo. That is all thugs like him understand. Either build or find the proper facilities to house families while their claims are abjugated. Taking then children is wrong and inhumane.
Click to expand...




busybee01 said:


> Anything Trump is involved with would look like Gitmo.


Who set up the facilities the children are kept in?


----------



## busybee01

2aguy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals are separated from their children when they are put in prison...should we let criminals out of prison because they will be separated from their children?
Click to expand...


Who says they are criminals. Innocent until proven guilty. Remember that.


----------



## candycorn

busybee01 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm part of that larger Hispanic community, and all this is resonating the same way with me now, as it did when I heard Trump's speech about Mexico not sending us their best. It got me to vote for him, as it did for Hispanics, and races all across America.
> 
> You still don't get it that keeping illegal aliens out, is what we Americans (all of us) want ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that is not true. Americans overwhelmingly support amnesty for illegals and DACA recipients.
Click to expand...


You’re talking to someone with the intelligence of a brick when you respond to him.

There is absolutely no way to justify ripping kids away from their parents.  Can you imagine if you’re 6 years old, get shipped away from your parents to God knows where.  In the best situation it would scare you to death.  If you’re a special needs kid..OMFG.  All brought to you by the Trump administration…


----------



## busybee01

Ray From Cleveland said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Nuremberg trials were about crimes against humanity. This fits.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't know of any law that the Trump admin can be held legally liable for implementing this policy, but you propose that they be held legally liable for what there is no law to hold them legally liable for, right ?  Right, BB ? Right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Nuremberg trials were about crimes against humanity. That is what he should be tried for along with Sessions and others who are implementing this inhumane policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's inhumane about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Terrorizing children is not inhumane? You are the rabid animal and are as bad as MS-13.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *terrorism*
> [ter-uh-riz-uh m]
> 
> noun
> 
> the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
> the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
> a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
> the definition of terrorism
> 
> Now which one of these things are happening to these children?  These kids are sent to live with relatives (if they have some living here) or to shelters where they are well cared for, fed until full, and given medical care if needed.  They are showered, given snacks between meals, clean clothing and are enjoying high definition cartoons on big screens.
> 
> If that's what you consider terrorism, I'm sure there are at least a billion kids in other countries who wish they were so terrorized.
Click to expand...


Many of these children are dragged away from their parents screaming on terror. All 3 definitions describe what you and Trump want. You really think you can replace their parents. They are put into a foster care system that already does not work.


----------



## Hugo Furst

candycorn said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm part of that larger Hispanic community, and all this is resonating the same way with me now, as it did when I heard Trump's speech about Mexico not sending us their best. It got me to vote for him, as it did for Hispanics, and races all across America.
> 
> You still don't get it that keeping illegal aliens out, is what we Americans (all of us) want ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that is not true. Americans overwhelmingly support amnesty for illegals and DACA recipients.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re talking to someone with the intelligence of a brick when you respond to him.
> 
> There is absolutely no way to justify ripping kids away from their parents.  Can you imagine if you’re 6 years old, get shipped away from your parents to God knows where.  In the best situation it would scare you to death.  If you’re a special needs kid..OMFG.  All brought to you by the Trump administration…
Click to expand...




candycorn said:


> All brought to you by the Trump administration…



Really?

He's the one that started it?


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *It is never acceptable to punish children for the misdeeds of parents.*


So you would put kids in jails and prisons when their parent go there ?  You did say _"never"._


----------



## protectionist

busybee01 said:


> Many of these children are dragged away from their parents screaming on terror. All 3 definitions describe what you and Trump want. You really think you can replace their parents. They are put into a foster care system that already does not work.


How about this ? We do away with asylum 100%.  All migrants coming to our border then must go through standard immigration, or else they are turned away, or get arrested for EWI.


----------



## Coyote

2aguy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals are separated from their children when they are put in prison...should we let criminals out of prison because they will be separated from their children?
Click to expand...


Illegal criminals who have not yet had their hearing are not criminals.  They have not been convicted of anything.  Bad analogy.  Any further justification for this horrible policy?

We didn't do this prior to this  new policy unless there was reason to suspect the adults were not the parents.  Accommodations can be made and were made to keep families together. 

Why is that such a bad thing?


----------



## busybee01

protectionist said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could be that your dopey response is due to not reading the provided link.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
> "Referred to in the case as "Ms. L" and "S.S.," the mother and daughter arrived in San Ysidro, California, Nov. 1. They told border guards they were seeking asylum, according to the court documents. Ms. L passed what's called a "credible fear interview," where an officer determined she and S.S. had a "significant possibility of ultimately receiving asylum."
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't be done that way. They should apply for asylum from their home , back in their home country. The fact you said they *arrived *in San Ysidro, California,  before even talking to border guards, tells us they committed crime of EWI.
> 
> This cart before horse.  Only AFTER being granted asylum, by mail or online, should they even have begun to travel to the US.
Click to expand...


Maybe they will be alive to see it through. If you are in fear of your life then get out.  They are committing no crime.


----------



## candycorn

WillHaftawaite said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm part of that larger Hispanic community, and all this is resonating the same way with me now, as it did when I heard Trump's speech about Mexico not sending us their best. It got me to vote for him, as it did for Hispanics, and races all across America.
> 
> You still don't get it that keeping illegal aliens out, is what we Americans (all of us) want ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that is not true. Americans overwhelmingly support amnesty for illegals and DACA recipients.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re talking to someone with the intelligence of a brick when you respond to him.
> 
> There is absolutely no way to justify ripping kids away from their parents.  Can you imagine if you’re 6 years old, get shipped away from your parents to God knows where.  In the best situation it would scare you to death.  If you’re a special needs kid..OMFG.  All brought to you by the Trump administration…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> All brought to you by the Trump administration…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> He's the one that started it?
Click to expand...


The hard and fast policy of ripping a 18 month old from his mother’s arms; no exceptions…yes.


----------



## OKTexas

candycorn said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm part of that larger Hispanic community, and all this is resonating the same way with me now, as it did when I heard Trump's speech about Mexico not sending us their best. It got me to vote for him, as it did for Hispanics, and races all across America.
> 
> You still don't get it that keeping illegal aliens out, is what we Americans (all of us) want ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that is not true. Americans overwhelmingly support amnesty for illegals and DACA recipients.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re talking to someone with the intelligence of a brick when you respond to him.
> 
> There is absolutely no way to justify ripping kids away from their parents.  Can you imagine if you’re 6 years old, get shipped away from your parents to God knows where.  In the best situation it would scare you to death.  If you’re a special needs kid..OMFG.  All brought to you by the Trump administration…
Click to expand...



Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online

This was posted almost 20 pages ago, seems you idiots either can't read, or you're just here to whine and call others bad people. FOAD!!!!!!


.


----------



## busybee01

protectionist said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time, the system determines the eligibility of the applicant.
> She went through the proper legal channel and you still look for a problem with her. SMH.
> 
> 
> 
> If the illegal aliens are being locked up, and separated from their kids, that means that NO, they did NOT go through a proper legal channel.  If they're being locked up, it's because they crossed the border ILLEGALLY - violation of US Code 8, Section 1325.
Click to expand...


Because Trump and Sessions are animals like you. The Nazis at Nuremburg claimed they were just following orders. That sounds a lot like what you are saying. They should not be locked up.


----------



## busybee01

protectionist said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of these children are dragged away from their parents screaming on terror. All 3 definitions describe what you and Trump want. You really think you can replace their parents. They are put into a foster care system that already does not work.
> 
> 
> 
> How about this ? We do away with asylum 100%.  All migrants coming to our border then must go through standard immigration, or else they are turned away, or get arrested for EWI.
Click to expand...


What I would expect from a animal like you.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *They're not illegal because no court has found them guilty of anything.  The question is not whether they should stay or not but whether they should be treated humanely and remain with their parents until the court acts.  *


When an American burglar is caught, he is arrested, booked and jailed.  He's considered innocent until proven guilty in court, but he remains in jail unless he posts bail.  This could be a long time, and the kids don't "* remain with their parents until the court acts"*


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Coyote said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals are separated from their children when they are put in prison...should we let criminals out of prison because they will be separated from their children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal criminals who have not yet had their hearing are not criminals.  They have not been convicted of anything.  Bad analogy.  Any further justification for this horrible policy?
> 
> We didn't do this prior to this  new policy unless there was reason to suspect the adults were not the parents.  Accommodations can be made and were made to keep families together.
> 
> Why is that such a bad thing?
Click to expand...

 
Because illegal aliens should *never* be allowed back in the general population of the Country. Turning them loose is aiding and abetting an illegal act.


----------



## protectionist

busybee01 said:


> Because Trump and Sessions are animals like you. The Nazis at Nuremburg claimed they were just following orders. That sounds a lot like what you are saying. They should not be locked up.


Sound like maybe YOU should, and I don't mean in a jail.


----------



## Hugo Furst

candycorn said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm part of that larger Hispanic community, and all this is resonating the same way with me now, as it did when I heard Trump's speech about Mexico not sending us their best. It got me to vote for him, as it did for Hispanics, and races all across America.
> 
> You still don't get it that keeping illegal aliens out, is what we Americans (all of us) want ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that is not true. Americans overwhelmingly support amnesty for illegals and DACA recipients.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re talking to someone with the intelligence of a brick when you respond to him.
> 
> There is absolutely no way to justify ripping kids away from their parents.  Can you imagine if you’re 6 years old, get shipped away from your parents to God knows where.  In the best situation it would scare you to death.  If you’re a special needs kid..OMFG.  All brought to you by the Trump administration…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> All brought to you by the Trump administration…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> He's the one that started it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The hard and fast policy of ripping a 18 month old from his mother’s arms; no exceptions…yes.
Click to expand...


got a link to that 'hard and fast' policy, and when it started?


----------



## protectionist

Coyote said:


> Illegal criminals who have not yet had their hearing are not criminals.  They have not been convicted of anything.  Bad analogy.  Any further justification for this horrible policy?
> 
> We didn't do this prior to this  new policy unless there was reason to suspect the adults were not the parents.  Accommodations can be made and were made to keep families together.
> 
> Why is that such a bad thing?


Because it allows the illegals to escape into the population and succeed in invading America.  This was Obama's "catch & release".  He just gave them a summons to appear in court.

They ignored it, and went about being illegal aliens in the US, with all the harms of immigration dumped on the American people, and Democrats getting more VOTES.


----------



## busybee01

protectionist said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where they wete before Sessions decrated this policy.
> 
> 
> 
> Before Sessions and Trump started ENFORCING THE LAW, both parents and kids were being allowed to skate, via "catch & release".  Illegal aliens being allowed to invade our country in violation of our immigration law.
> 
> It doesn't surprise me that a liberal would favor that, with more VOTES for Democrats coming from it. Par for the course.
Click to expand...


A liberal to you is anyone to the left of the KKK. The 70 or 80 percent of people who support amnesty are not Democrats. If they are then Republicans are dead.


----------



## candycorn

WillHaftawaite said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm part of that larger Hispanic community, and all this is resonating the same way with me now, as it did when I heard Trump's speech about Mexico not sending us their best. It got me to vote for him, as it did for Hispanics, and races all across America.
> 
> You still don't get it that keeping illegal aliens out, is what we Americans (all of us) want ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that is not true. Americans overwhelmingly support amnesty for illegals and DACA recipients.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re talking to someone with the intelligence of a brick when you respond to him.
> 
> There is absolutely no way to justify ripping kids away from their parents.  Can you imagine if you’re 6 years old, get shipped away from your parents to God knows where.  In the best situation it would scare you to death.  If you’re a special needs kid..OMFG.  All brought to you by the Trump administration…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> All brought to you by the Trump administration…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> He's the one that started it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The hard and fast policy of ripping a 18 month old from his mother’s arms; no exceptions…yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> got a link to that 'hard and fast' policy, and when it started?
Click to expand...


Sessions announced it the other day.  Do some research.


----------



## OKTexas

candycorn said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that is not true. Americans overwhelmingly support amnesty for illegals and DACA recipients.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re talking to someone with the intelligence of a brick when you respond to him.
> 
> There is absolutely no way to justify ripping kids away from their parents.  Can you imagine if you’re 6 years old, get shipped away from your parents to God knows where.  In the best situation it would scare you to death.  If you’re a special needs kid..OMFG.  All brought to you by the Trump administration…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> All brought to you by the Trump administration…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> He's the one that started it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The hard and fast policy of ripping a 18 month old from his mother’s arms; no exceptions…yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> got a link to that 'hard and fast' policy, and when it started?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sessions announced it the other day.  Do some research.
Click to expand...



Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online


.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Flopper said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> *They're not illegal because no court has found them guilty of anything.  The question is not whether they should stay or not but whether they should be treated humanely and remain with their parents until the court acts.  *
Click to expand...


Or you can ship their parents off and let them decide if they want to stay or go.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> *They're not illegal because no court has found them guilty of anything.  The question is not whether they should stay or not but whether they should be treated humanely and remain with their parents until the court acts.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since they are essentially jailed until that time, like anyone else who is arrested for a crime, you are suggesting that the children ALSO be jailed, to "remain with their parents".
> 
> Like everything you say, it's ludicrous and stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *First of all nobody is being put in jail. They are being detained.  Immigration does not jail people they detain them.  The children will not be charged or found guilty of anything.  Most of the parents will be charged with unlawful presence, a civil offence with no penalty.  The normal procedure is to keep children with their parents.  The new procedure is to take the kids away from their parents promising that they will be united with their children if they sign a voluntary deportation agreement which of course denies them due process of law.   This is an incredibly stupid move on the part of the Orange Clown which will just turn more people against his policies.  *
Click to expand...


First of all, you can stop stating your half-assed notions of how the system works as fact.

Second of all, Sessions said so in the OP's own quote:

_Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. *When adults are prosecuted and jailed,* their children will be separated from them, *just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed.*_

Since this entire conversation is about that quote, it would be nice if you talked about what was actually said.

Third, the quoted article goes on to say this:

_*Adults charged with illegal entry will be turned over to U.S. marshals and sent directly to federal court*. Their children will be transferred to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, which refers them to relatives in the U.S. or to shelters run by private organizations._

So it's pretty clear that the change in policy under discussion in this thread DOES involve the adults being arrested and in custody, which is not a situation into which the children can accompany them.

Furthermore:

_"I want to be clear. DHS does not have a blanket policy on separating families as a deterrent," said Thomas Homan, deputy director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "There is no new policy. This has always been the policy. But you will see more prosecutions because of the commitment to zero tolerance" of illegal border entries._

So NOTHING here is what you jackasses are trying to make it out to be.  The change is not "ripping children from their parents' arms" JUST for the purpose of separating them as a deterrent.  The change is that the adults will not be allowed to lollygag around in the US, waiting for ICE to get around to prosecuting them.  Arrest, custody, prosecution, BOOM.  Kids gotta go SOMEWHERE in the meantime, now don't they?

Also, let's just clear up a few more points on how the system works, and worked even before this change.  Sometimes ICE directly does the arresting, for example in a workplace raid or in the execution of a warrant on the home in the case of being wanted for another crime.  But more often, the person is arrested by the Border Patrol or by another law enforcement agency, all of which DO put the person in jail while they contact ICE to find out what ICE wants to do.  ICE can ask that agency to detain them for up to 48 hours, which means they DO stay in jail for that time.

In the past, ICE would let people be released with instructions to show up for a hearing, which they would then neglect to do; hence, the new policy of rapid prosecution.

I have no idea what you THOUGHT was actually happening, but it NEVER involved simply stopping people for a quick chat in the desert and then letting them wander away.


----------



## busybee01

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the parents are arrested, prosecuted, and jailed, what would you LIKE to do with the children?  Session is correct that this is exactly what we do with the children of American citizens when they are arrested and jailed.
Click to expand...


We do? We don't jail people for jaywalking. Sessions is a animal and a thug.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> *They're not illegal because no court has found them guilty of anything.  The question is not whether they should stay or not but whether they should be treated humanely and remain with their parents until the court acts.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying that everybody that crosses that border is legal until ruled upon?  I don't think so.  Border patrol turns border jumpers around and head home if they find them on the spot.
Click to expand...


I believe it depends on where they find them in relation to the border.


----------



## Cecilie1200

busybee01 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human rights abuses are not a tool used by America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but by using these children as tools, you have already violated their human rights.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Trump admin is the only one using children as tools, dope. That's the point.
> They're using the threat of seperation as a deterrent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like a logical deterrent, so unless the parent is so negligent as to knowingly bring a child across the border when they know they will be separated, then it is that parents choice to do so. That is exactly what a deterrent is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Terrorizing children is logical. Only a sick twisted mind would think that. The same minds we saw tried at Nuremburg.
Click to expand...


Who has the primary responsibility for those children and their well-being?  Wouldn't that be the parents, who decided to bring them along while committing a crime?


----------



## busybee01

Cecilie1200 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...even though 52% of illegals simply overstay their visa? And, of course, although Trumpettes don't believe it, Mexicans actually have mastered the use of ladders and shovels.
> 
> 
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like your erroneous assumption that the "Hispanic community", defined as citizens and legal residents, feel a huge amount of identification with and sympathy for people who jump the line and come here illegally.  Not everyone is the racist bigot you are, thinking of themselves and others as JUST their racial/ethnic group.
> 
> Tell you what:  YOU go with your line of coddling and crying over lawbreakers, and we'll go with our line of enforcing the law and protecting the border, and we'll each worry about our own fallout, rather than this _faux _"This would be best for you, no really" bullshit, as though I really think you're concerned about protecting the GOP.
Click to expand...


The GOP needs to be destroyed. That is the only way to save the GOP.


----------



## Hugo Furst

candycorn said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that is not true. Americans overwhelmingly support amnesty for illegals and DACA recipients.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re talking to someone with the intelligence of a brick when you respond to him.
> 
> There is absolutely no way to justify ripping kids away from their parents.  Can you imagine if you’re 6 years old, get shipped away from your parents to God knows where.  In the best situation it would scare you to death.  If you’re a special needs kid..OMFG.  All brought to you by the Trump administration…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> All brought to you by the Trump administration…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> He's the one that started it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The hard and fast policy of ripping a 18 month old from his mother’s arms; no exceptions…yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> got a link to that 'hard and fast' policy, and when it started?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sessions announced it the other day.  Do some research.
Click to expand...


It started with Sessions the other day?

and yet the pictures go back months, if not years.


----------



## candycorn

OKTexas said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re talking to someone with the intelligence of a brick when you respond to him.
> 
> There is absolutely no way to justify ripping kids away from their parents.  Can you imagine if you’re 6 years old, get shipped away from your parents to God knows where.  In the best situation it would scare you to death.  If you’re a special needs kid..OMFG.  All brought to you by the Trump administration…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> All brought to you by the Trump administration…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> He's the one that started it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The hard and fast policy of ripping a 18 month old from his mother’s arms; no exceptions…yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> got a link to that 'hard and fast' policy, and when it started?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sessions announced it the other day.  Do some research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...




 

Herr Sessions went on to say:
*
“If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,” Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement event in Scottsdale, Ariz. “If you don’t like that, then don’t smuggle children over our border.”

“If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple,” Sessions added, describing the new policy as zero tolerance. “We are dealing with a massive influx of illegal aliens across our Southwest Border. But we’re not going to stand for this.”

Sessions ramped up legal resources at the border recently, sending 35 federal prosecutors and 18 immigration judges to the southwest region to assist with an expected increase in border crossing cases.”
*
As we all know (and now you’ll see a bunch of conservatives with onset amnesia), the authorities can enforce the law or ignore the law at their discretion most times.  Technically, you’re breaking the law if you’re doing 56 in a 55MPH zone.  No cop will ticket you for that though.  Hell, Presidents use signing statements all the time to sidestep laws created by bills that they just sign.   This is a decision the Trump administration is making to ramp up the cruelty because they know it sates their WWE constituency.  Or do they really think that an 18 month old poses a threat to national security?


----------



## Cecilie1200

busybee01 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.
> 
> 
> 
> So when a cop stops somebody for speeding and DUI, and arrests him, and his kids are separated from him, you'd say this is an _"unnecessary human rights violation"_ ?
> 
> And when the drunk driver is incarcerated, where would you suggest the kids go ?  Into jail with him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a moron. The 2 are not comparable. Would you incarcerate someone for jaywalking. What I  would expect from a hateful pea brain like you.
Click to expand...


Speaking of two things that are not comparable:  jaywalking, and sneaking across the border of a foreign country.

SOMEONE here is a moron, but I'm pretty certain it's you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

busybee01 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, a legal claim. Charging them as illegals and seperating families is a punative action against those involved in a legal process for no other reason than to dter future applicants. An unnecessarily harsh policy.
> 
> 
> 
> *FALSE! * It is to deport those who have no legal status to be here, and who are lucky if they aren't imprisoned for violating US Code 8, Section 1325.
> 
> 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Separating the children has nothing to do with deportation procedures. The only reason to do such a inhumane and punitive thing is pure evil. This is the act of criminal regimes like Assad in Syria.
Click to expand...


So glad to hear that you were in too much of a hurry to vent your spleen to be bothered to read the article you're "outraged" about.  It exists, and that's enough for you to be an "infuriated expert", right?


----------



## busybee01

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> For your viewing pleasure. These are merely tunnels under one town, Nogales, 30 miles from where I live.
> 
> tunnels nogales - Yahoo Image Search Results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We will still patrol, and blow a few up. IDK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, now, we do that every down already, and we don't need an 19 billion dollar wall to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you on the left don't like about the wall is it's something you can't easily reverse or ignore like policy.  Once it's up, it's staying up.
> 
> Also you on the left dream up of all kinds of ways that lawbreakers will be able to get around the wall as if the Trump administration didn't figure out every single one of those ideas already; as if they didn't have meetings with our experts in the military and border security.
> 
> Do you know how much money 19 billion dollars is in our budget?  It's one third of what we spend on food stamps in just one year.
Click to expand...


You can always blow it up. Once Trump is defeated we can proceed on that course. Just because it doesn't amount to much doesn't mean we should waste money.


----------



## Hugo Furst

candycorn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> He's the one that started it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The hard and fast policy of ripping a 18 month old from his mother’s arms; no exceptions…yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> got a link to that 'hard and fast' policy, and when it started?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sessions announced it the other day.  Do some research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 196135
> 
> Herr Sessions went on to say:
> *
> “If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,” Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement event in Scottsdale, Ariz. “If you don’t like that, then don’t smuggle children over our border.”
> 
> “If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple,” Sessions added, describing the new policy as zero tolerance. “We are dealing with a massive influx of illegal aliens across our Southwest Border. But we’re not going to stand for this.”
> 
> Sessions ramped up legal resources at the border recently, sending 35 federal prosecutors and 18 immigration judges to the southwest region to assist with an expected increase in border crossing cases.”
> *
> As we all know (and now you’ll see a bunch of conservatives with onset amnesia), the authorities can enforce the law or ignore the law at their discretion most times.  Technically, you’re breaking the law if you’re doing 56 in a 55MPH zone.  No cop will ticket you for that though.  Hell, Presidents use signing statements all the time to sidestep laws created by bills that they just sign.   This is a decision the Trump administration is making to ramp up the cruelty because they know it sates their WWE constituency.  Or do they really think that an 18 month old poses a threat to national security?
Click to expand...




candycorn said:


> and that child will be separated from you as required by law,



Did he make up that law, that day?

or was in in effect earlier?


----------



## candycorn

busybee01 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like your erroneous assumption that the "Hispanic community", defined as citizens and legal residents, feel a huge amount of identification with and sympathy for people who jump the line and come here illegally.  Not everyone is the racist bigot you are, thinking of themselves and others as JUST their racial/ethnic group.
> 
> Tell you what:  YOU go with your line of coddling and crying over lawbreakers, and we'll go with our line of enforcing the law and protecting the border, and we'll each worry about our own fallout, rather than this _faux _"This would be best for you, no really" bullshit, as though I really think you're concerned about protecting the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The GOP needs to be destroyed. That is the only way to save the GOP.
Click to expand...


Hispanic voters will remember this.  Illegal immigration is one thing…the illegals should be deported.  There is a process; they should respect the process barring any special circumstances.  

Hard and fast policies of ripping kids from their mother’s arms is just a function of a heartless administration.


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should be happy we are doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My concern for my fellow human beings is more important than political gain……..oh never mind .  You’re a conservative.  I doubt you’d understand.
Click to expand...


Yeah, your "deep concern" for fellow human beings you've never laid eyes on, much less ever done a fucking thing for.  You're right that we don't understand.  In the real world, saying, "I'm concerned.  No, really, I care!" does not make it so.


----------



## busybee01

Cecilie1200 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.
> 
> 
> 
> So when a cop stops somebody for speeding and DUI, and arrests him, and his kids are separated from him, you'd say this is an _"unnecessary human rights violation"_ ?
> 
> And when the drunk driver is incarcerated, where would you suggest the kids go ?  Into jail with him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a moron. The 2 are not comparable. Would you incarcerate someone for jaywalking. What I  would expect from a hateful pea brain like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of two things that are not comparable:  jaywalking, and sneaking across the border of a foreign country.
> 
> SOMEONE here is a moron, but I'm pretty certain it's you.
Click to expand...


I'm absolutely sure it is you. Comparing violent acts which may result in death to illegally crossing the border which is a non-violent offense.


----------



## candycorn

WillHaftawaite said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The hard and fast policy of ripping a 18 month old from his mother’s arms; no exceptions…yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> got a link to that 'hard and fast' policy, and when it started?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sessions announced it the other day.  Do some research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 196135
> 
> Herr Sessions went on to say:
> *
> “If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,” Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement event in Scottsdale, Ariz. “If you don’t like that, then don’t smuggle children over our border.”
> 
> “If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple,” Sessions added, describing the new policy as zero tolerance. “We are dealing with a massive influx of illegal aliens across our Southwest Border. But we’re not going to stand for this.”
> 
> Sessions ramped up legal resources at the border recently, sending 35 federal prosecutors and 18 immigration judges to the southwest region to assist with an expected increase in border crossing cases.”
> *
> As we all know (and now you’ll see a bunch of conservatives with onset amnesia), the authorities can enforce the law or ignore the law at their discretion most times.  Technically, you’re breaking the law if you’re doing 56 in a 55MPH zone.  No cop will ticket you for that though.  Hell, Presidents use signing statements all the time to sidestep laws created by bills that they just sign.   This is a decision the Trump administration is making to ramp up the cruelty because they know it sates their WWE constituency.  Or do they really think that an 18 month old poses a threat to national security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> and that child will be separated from you as required by law,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did he make up that law, that day?
> 
> or was in in effect earlier?
Click to expand...


You must have missed it:

The *hard and fast policy* of ripping a 18 month old from his mother’s arms; no exceptions…yes.


----------



## flacaltenn

busybee01 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the left is not???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who wants to treat children as criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Placing them in detention jails with adults who may harm them whether with the parents or not would be criminal..........Then tomorrow you'd be look what you did to these families.....................Can't house them with all the adults...........got news for you.........some aren't so nice coming over.........
> 
> Kids going to other detention centers are for their own protection..............but the INN IS FULL.........only 40,000 beds......
> 
> Brings us to another lie the left pushes...........that those crossing is much smaller............more BS.
> 
> Face it..........your identity politics here is to attack to get Catch and Release back which is basically your real goal of open borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They shouldn't be in detention jails. They need to be in facilities for families. Treating people right has nothing to do with what to do with illegals. Thye should be treated right while they are there and until their status is determined legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have NO f'ing concept of the SCOPE of this problem. We're NOT gonna build "facilities" for 30,000 families at a time, spread over 2000 miles or more of border country. We're gonna review their CLAIMS for asylum and make a judgement and be done with it.
> 
> Even if Uncle Sam BUILT those facilities, it would look more like Gitmo than a Comfort Inn..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anything Trump is involved with would look like Gitmo. That is all thugs like him understand. Either build or find the proper facilities to house families while their claims are abjugated. Taking then children is wrong and inhumane.
Click to expand...


Those cages and the policies looked EXACTLY THE SAME under Obama.


----------



## busybee01

Cecilie1200 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, a legal claim. Charging them as illegals and seperating families is a punative action against those involved in a legal process for no other reason than to dter future applicants. An unnecessarily harsh policy.
> 
> 
> 
> *FALSE! * It is to deport those who have no legal status to be here, and who are lucky if they aren't imprisoned for violating US Code 8, Section 1325.
> 
> 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Separating the children has nothing to do with deportation procedures. The only reason to do such a inhumane and punitive thing is pure evil. This is the act of criminal regimes like Assad in Syria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So glad to hear that you were in too much of a hurry to vent your spleen to be bothered to read the article you're "outraged" about.  It exists, and that's enough for you to be an "infuriated expert", right?
Click to expand...


Maybe you need to read it. It says nothing about separating children. That is Trump and Sessions who is doing it.


----------



## flacaltenn

busybee01 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't know of any law that the Trump admin can be held legally liable for implementing this policy, but you propose that they be held legally liable for what there is no law to hold them legally liable for, right ?  Right, BB ? Right ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Nuremberg trials were about crimes against humanity. That is what he should be tried for along with Sessions and others who are implementing this inhumane policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's inhumane about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Terrorizing children is not inhumane? You are the rabid animal and are as bad as MS-13.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *terrorism*
> [ter-uh-riz-uh m]
> 
> noun
> 
> the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
> the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
> a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
> the definition of terrorism
> 
> Now which one of these things are happening to these children?  These kids are sent to live with relatives (if they have some living here) or to shelters where they are well cared for, fed until full, and given medical care if needed.  They are showered, given snacks between meals, clean clothing and are enjoying high definition cartoons on big screens.
> 
> If that's what you consider terrorism, I'm sure there are at least a billion kids in other countries who wish they were so terrorized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of these children are dragged away from their parents screaming on terror. All 3 definitions describe what you and Trump want. You really think you can replace their parents. They are put into a foster care system that already does not work.
Click to expand...


Now you're just making shit up. It's not foster care. It's immigration detention. Where disease and bad guys can harm you... You want PRIVATE rooms with TVs and a fridge?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

busybee01 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't know of any law that the Trump admin can be held legally liable for implementing this policy, but you propose that they be held legally liable for what there is no law to hold them legally liable for, right ?  Right, BB ? Right ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Nuremberg trials were about crimes against humanity. That is what he should be tried for along with Sessions and others who are implementing this inhumane policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's inhumane about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Terrorizing children is not inhumane? You are the rabid animal and are as bad as MS-13.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *terrorism*
> [ter-uh-riz-uh m]
> 
> noun
> 
> the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
> the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
> a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
> the definition of terrorism
> 
> Now which one of these things are happening to these children?  These kids are sent to live with relatives (if they have some living here) or to shelters where they are well cared for, fed until full, and given medical care if needed.  They are showered, given snacks between meals, clean clothing and are enjoying high definition cartoons on big screens.
> 
> If that's what you consider terrorism, I'm sure there are at least a billion kids in other countries who wish they were so terrorized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of these children are dragged away from their parents screaming on terror. All 3 definitions describe what you and Trump want. You really think you can replace their parents. They are put into a foster care system that already does not work.
Click to expand...


The point is they are cared for, not terrorized.  You leftist always try to Clintonize words to make things seem more extreme than they are.  You leftists always blame others instead of who deserves the blame which in this case, is the adults that brought these kids here to a strange country not knowing of the possibilities.  

Now show me these videos of kids screaming as they are being dragged away; something credible of course.


----------



## busybee01

Cecilie1200 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should be happy we are doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My concern for my fellow human beings is more important than political gain……..oh never mind .  You’re a conservative.  I doubt you’d understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, your "deep concern" for fellow human beings you've never laid eyes on, much less ever done a fucking thing for.  You're right that we don't understand.  In the real world, saying, "I'm concerned.  No, really, I care!" does not make it so.
Click to expand...


It is called compassion. Something animals like you do not understand.


----------



## TemplarKormac

candycorn said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like your erroneous assumption that the "Hispanic community", defined as citizens and legal residents, feel a huge amount of identification with and sympathy for people who jump the line and come here illegally.  Not everyone is the racist bigot you are, thinking of themselves and others as JUST their racial/ethnic group.
> 
> Tell you what:  YOU go with your line of coddling and crying over lawbreakers, and we'll go with our line of enforcing the law and protecting the border, and we'll each worry about our own fallout, rather than this _faux _"This would be best for you, no really" bullshit, as though I really think you're concerned about protecting the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The GOP needs to be destroyed. That is the only way to save the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hispanic voters will remember this.  Illegal immigration is one thing…the illegals should be deported.  There is a process; they should respect the process barring any special circumstances.
> 
> Hard and fast policies of ripping kids from their mother’s arms is just a function of a heartless administration.
> 
> View attachment 196136
Click to expand...

At least my clothes came to America legally.


----------



## TemplarKormac

busybee01 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should be happy we are doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My concern for my fellow human beings is more important than political gain……..oh never mind .  You’re a conservative.  I doubt you’d understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, your "deep concern" for fellow human beings you've never laid eyes on, much less ever done a fucking thing for.  You're right that we don't understand.  In the real world, saying, "I'm concerned.  No, really, I care!" does not make it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is called compassion. Something animals like you do not understand.
Click to expand...

Oooh.

Coming from someone who called me and Ray a terrorist!

And about that "animal" thing.... well hmm. Not much I can say to that slight.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm part of that larger Hispanic community, and all this is resonating the same way with me now, as it did when I heard Trump's speech about Mexico not sending us their best. It got me to vote for him, as it did for Hispanics, and races all across America.
> 
> You still don't get it that keeping illegal aliens out, is what we Americans (all of us) want ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that is not true. Americans overwhelmingly support amnesty for illegals and DACA recipients.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re talking to someone with the intelligence of a brick when you respond to him.
> 
> There is absolutely no way to justify ripping kids away from their parents.  Can you imagine if you’re 6 years old, get shipped away from your parents to God knows where.  In the best situation it would scare you to death.  If you’re a special needs kid..OMFG.  All brought to you by the Trump administration…
Click to expand...


No, brought to you by policies of the last administration that gave these illegals the idea we would treat them like honored guests instead of invaders.  

If you take your kid to a porn movie, do you blame the actors in the film if the kid is traumatized?


----------



## koshergrl

busybee01 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like your erroneous assumption that the "Hispanic community", defined as citizens and legal residents, feel a huge amount of identification with and sympathy for people who jump the line and come here illegally.  Not everyone is the racist bigot you are, thinking of themselves and others as JUST their racial/ethnic group.
> 
> Tell you what:  YOU go with your line of coddling and crying over lawbreakers, and we'll go with our line of enforcing the law and protecting the border, and we'll each worry about our own fallout, rather than this _faux _"This would be best for you, no really" bullshit, as though I really think you're concerned about protecting the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The GOP needs to be destroyed. That is the only way to save the GOP.
Click to expand...

You are such a fruitcake. 

Everybody knows that the left views "saving" the same as "destroying" or "killing". 

And it isn't going to happen. You people are finito.


----------



## busybee01

Cecilie1200 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should be happy we are doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My concern for my fellow human beings is more important than political gain……..oh never mind .  You’re a conservative.  I doubt you’d understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, your "deep concern" for fellow human beings you've never laid eyes on, much less ever done a fucking thing for.  You're right that we don't understand.  In the real world, saying, "I'm concerned.  No, really, I care!" does not make it so.
Click to expand...


That is called compassion. Try reading the Bible assuming you are able to read. It says nothing about Americans.


----------



## busybee01

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm part of that larger Hispanic community, and all this is resonating the same way with me now, as it did when I heard Trump's speech about Mexico not sending us their best. It got me to vote for him, as it did for Hispanics, and races all across America.
> 
> You still don't get it that keeping illegal aliens out, is what we Americans (all of us) want ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that is not true. Americans overwhelmingly support amnesty for illegals and DACA recipients.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re talking to someone with the intelligence of a brick when you respond to him.
> 
> There is absolutely no way to justify ripping kids away from their parents.  Can you imagine if you’re 6 years old, get shipped away from your parents to God knows where.  In the best situation it would scare you to death.  If you’re a special needs kid..OMFG.  All brought to you by the Trump administration…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, brought to you by policies of the last administration that gave these illegals the idea we would treat them like honored guests instead of invaders.
> 
> If you take your kid to a porn movie, do you blame the actors in the film if the kid is traumatized?
Click to expand...


You have no clue what you are talking about.


----------



## Hugo Furst

candycorn said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> got a link to that 'hard and fast' policy, and when it started?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sessions announced it the other day.  Do some research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 196135
> 
> Herr Sessions went on to say:
> *
> “If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,” Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement event in Scottsdale, Ariz. “If you don’t like that, then don’t smuggle children over our border.”
> 
> “If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple,” Sessions added, describing the new policy as zero tolerance. “We are dealing with a massive influx of illegal aliens across our Southwest Border. But we’re not going to stand for this.”
> 
> Sessions ramped up legal resources at the border recently, sending 35 federal prosecutors and 18 immigration judges to the southwest region to assist with an expected increase in border crossing cases.”
> *
> As we all know (and now you’ll see a bunch of conservatives with onset amnesia), the authorities can enforce the law or ignore the law at their discretion most times.  Technically, you’re breaking the law if you’re doing 56 in a 55MPH zone.  No cop will ticket you for that though.  Hell, Presidents use signing statements all the time to sidestep laws created by bills that they just sign.   This is a decision the Trump administration is making to ramp up the cruelty because they know it sates their WWE constituency.  Or do they really think that an 18 month old poses a threat to national security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> and that child will be separated from you as required by law,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did he make up that law, that day?
> 
> or was in in effect earlier?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have missed it:
> 
> The *hard and fast policy* of ripping a 18 month old from his mother’s arms; no exceptions…yes.
Click to expand...


I also read 'as required by law'.

when did that  law go in to effect?

Before his speech, after his speech?

July 31, 2016?

Halloween?
Christmas?
Labor Day?

earlier?
Later?


----------



## koshergrl

busybee01 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should be happy we are doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My concern for my fellow human beings is more important than political gain……..oh never mind .  You’re a conservative.  I doubt you’d understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, your "deep concern" for fellow human beings you've never laid eyes on, much less ever done a fucking thing for.  You're right that we don't understand.  In the real world, saying, "I'm concerned.  No, really, I care!" does not make it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is called compassion. Try reading the Bible assuming you are able to read. It says nothing about Americans.
Click to expand...

How is facilitating child smuggling and child slavery "compassionate"?


----------



## TemplarKormac

busybee01 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.
> 
> 
> 
> So when a cop stops somebody for speeding and DUI, and arrests him, and his kids are separated from him, you'd say this is an _"unnecessary human rights violation"_ ?
> 
> And when the drunk driver is incarcerated, where would you suggest the kids go ?  Into jail with him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a moron. The 2 are not comparable. Would you incarcerate someone for jaywalking. What I  would expect from a hateful pea brain like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of two things that are not comparable:  jaywalking, and sneaking across the border of a foreign country.
> 
> SOMEONE here is a moron, but I'm pretty certain it's you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm absolutely sure it is you. Comparing violent acts which may result in death to illegally crossing the border which is a non-violent offense.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter if crossing the border is a "non-violent offense". That is completely irrelevant. Just because you don't shoot someone in the commission of a federal offense doesn't...wait no... shouldn't lessen the severity of the punishment.


----------



## busybee01

flacaltenn said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Nuremberg trials were about crimes against humanity. That is what he should be tried for along with Sessions and others who are implementing this inhumane policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's inhumane about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Terrorizing children is not inhumane? You are the rabid animal and are as bad as MS-13.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *terrorism*
> [ter-uh-riz-uh m]
> 
> noun
> 
> the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
> the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
> a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
> the definition of terrorism
> 
> Now which one of these things are happening to these children?  These kids are sent to live with relatives (if they have some living here) or to shelters where they are well cared for, fed until full, and given medical care if needed.  They are showered, given snacks between meals, clean clothing and are enjoying high definition cartoons on big screens.
> 
> If that's what you consider terrorism, I'm sure there are at least a billion kids in other countries who wish they were so terrorized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of these children are dragged away from their parents screaming on terror. All 3 definitions describe what you and Trump want. You really think you can replace their parents. They are put into a foster care system that already does not work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're just making shit up. It's not foster care. It's immigration detention. Where disease and bad guys can harm you... You want PRIVATE rooms with TVs and a fridge?
Click to expand...


We want humane facilities for  families while their status is determined. We already get the fact you are stupid.


----------



## OKTexas

busybee01 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the parents are arrested, prosecuted, and jailed, what would you LIKE to do with the children?  Session is correct that this is exactly what we do with the children of American citizens when they are arrested and jailed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do? We don't jail people for jaywalking. Sessions is a animal and a thug.
Click to expand...



Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online


.


----------



## busybee01

koshergrl said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like your erroneous assumption that the "Hispanic community", defined as citizens and legal residents, feel a huge amount of identification with and sympathy for people who jump the line and come here illegally.  Not everyone is the racist bigot you are, thinking of themselves and others as JUST their racial/ethnic group.
> 
> Tell you what:  YOU go with your line of coddling and crying over lawbreakers, and we'll go with our line of enforcing the law and protecting the border, and we'll each worry about our own fallout, rather than this _faux _"This would be best for you, no really" bullshit, as though I really think you're concerned about protecting the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The GOP needs to be destroyed. That is the only way to save the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are such a fruitcake.
> 
> Everybody knows that the left views "saving" the same as "destroying" or "killing".
> 
> And it isn't going to happen. You people are finito.
Click to expand...


The GOP is already destroying itself. You animals are finished.


----------



## koshergrl

busybee01 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's inhumane about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorizing children is not inhumane? You are the rabid animal and are as bad as MS-13.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *terrorism*
> [ter-uh-riz-uh m]
> 
> noun
> 
> the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
> the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
> a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
> the definition of terrorism
> 
> Now which one of these things are happening to these children?  These kids are sent to live with relatives (if they have some living here) or to shelters where they are well cared for, fed until full, and given medical care if needed.  They are showered, given snacks between meals, clean clothing and are enjoying high definition cartoons on big screens.
> 
> If that's what you consider terrorism, I'm sure there are at least a billion kids in other countries who wish they were so terrorized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of these children are dragged away from their parents screaming on terror. All 3 definitions describe what you and Trump want. You really think you can replace their parents. They are put into a foster care system that already does not work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're just making shit up. It's not foster care. It's immigration detention. Where disease and bad guys can harm you... You want PRIVATE rooms with TVs and a fridge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We want humane facilities for  families while their status is determined. We already get the fact you are stupid.
Click to expand...


Give us an example of a human facility of the size and scope and for the same types of *immigrants* that the left has invited to our border. 

You know, facilities that will *hold* families safely while trying to figure out who the fuck they are and where they came from and whether or not they are murderers or rapists or terrorists on the run. 

Let's see an example of the sort of facility you want us to emulate.


----------



## TemplarKormac

busybee01 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should be happy we are doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My concern for my fellow human beings is more important than political gain……..oh never mind .  You’re a conservative.  I doubt you’d understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, your "deep concern" for fellow human beings you've never laid eyes on, much less ever done a fucking thing for.  You're right that we don't understand.  In the real world, saying, "I'm concerned.  No, really, I care!" does not make it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is called compassion. Try reading the Bible assuming you are able to read. It says nothing about Americans.
Click to expand...

Ha, don't you dare try to play the religion card. The Bible speaks about how protective God was of the Israelites. They had God enforcing the boundaries of their nation, why can't we as his creations do the same for our own?


----------



## koshergrl

busybee01 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like your erroneous assumption that the "Hispanic community", defined as citizens and legal residents, feel a huge amount of identification with and sympathy for people who jump the line and come here illegally.  Not everyone is the racist bigot you are, thinking of themselves and others as JUST their racial/ethnic group.
> 
> Tell you what:  YOU go with your line of coddling and crying over lawbreakers, and we'll go with our line of enforcing the law and protecting the border, and we'll each worry about our own fallout, rather than this _faux _"This would be best for you, no really" bullshit, as though I really think you're concerned about protecting the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The GOP needs to be destroyed. That is the only way to save the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are such a fruitcake.
> 
> Everybody knows that the left views "saving" the same as "destroying" or "killing".
> 
> And it isn't going to happen. You people are finito.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The GOP is already destroying itself. You animals are finished.
Click to expand...


That's funny.


----------



## busybee01

Ray From Cleveland said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Nuremberg trials were about crimes against humanity. That is what he should be tried for along with Sessions and others who are implementing this inhumane policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's inhumane about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Terrorizing children is not inhumane? You are the rabid animal and are as bad as MS-13.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *terrorism*
> [ter-uh-riz-uh m]
> 
> noun
> 
> the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
> the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
> a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
> the definition of terrorism
> 
> Now which one of these things are happening to these children?  These kids are sent to live with relatives (if they have some living here) or to shelters where they are well cared for, fed until full, and given medical care if needed.  They are showered, given snacks between meals, clean clothing and are enjoying high definition cartoons on big screens.
> 
> If that's what you consider terrorism, I'm sure there are at least a billion kids in other countries who wish they were so terrorized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of these children are dragged away from their parents screaming on terror. All 3 definitions describe what you and Trump want. You really think you can replace their parents. They are put into a foster care system that already does not work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is they are cared for, not terrorized.  You leftist always try to Clintonize words to make things seem more extreme than they are.  You leftists always blame others instead of who deserves the blame which in this case, is the adults that brought these kids here to a strange country not knowing of the possibilities.
> 
> Now show me these videos of kids screaming as they are being dragged away; something credible of course.
Click to expand...


The children are screaming and crying because they are happy. You alt-right types think everyone  is a leftist. The fact is that a majority of voters are to the left of you.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

busybee01 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's inhumane about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorizing children is not inhumane? You are the rabid animal and are as bad as MS-13.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *terrorism*
> [ter-uh-riz-uh m]
> 
> noun
> 
> the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
> the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
> a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
> the definition of terrorism
> 
> Now which one of these things are happening to these children?  These kids are sent to live with relatives (if they have some living here) or to shelters where they are well cared for, fed until full, and given medical care if needed.  They are showered, given snacks between meals, clean clothing and are enjoying high definition cartoons on big screens.
> 
> If that's what you consider terrorism, I'm sure there are at least a billion kids in other countries who wish they were so terrorized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of these children are dragged away from their parents screaming on terror. All 3 definitions describe what you and Trump want. You really think you can replace their parents. They are put into a foster care system that already does not work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is they are cared for, not terrorized.  You leftist always try to Clintonize words to make things seem more extreme than they are.  You leftists always blame others instead of who deserves the blame which in this case, is the adults that brought these kids here to a strange country not knowing of the possibilities.
> 
> Now show me these videos of kids screaming as they are being dragged away; something credible of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The children are screaming and crying because they are happy. You alt-right types think everyone  is a leftist. The fact is that a majority of voters are to the left of you.
Click to expand...


Of course they are, that's why they lost the house, the Senate and the White House along with most of the Governorships across the country.


----------



## busybee01

TemplarKormac said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be happy we are doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My concern for my fellow human beings is more important than political gain……..oh never mind .  You’re a conservative.  I doubt you’d understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, your "deep concern" for fellow human beings you've never laid eyes on, much less ever done a fucking thing for.  You're right that we don't understand.  In the real world, saying, "I'm concerned.  No, really, I care!" does not make it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is called compassion. Try reading the Bible assuming you are able to read. It says nothing about Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha, don't you dare try to play the religion card. The Bible speaks about how protective God was of the Israelites. They had God enforcing the boundaries of their nation, why can't we as his creations do the same for our own?
Click to expand...


God also punished them when they did wrong. After they worshipped a false idol in the desert, they were left to wander until the people who committed the original sin died.


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm part of that larger Hispanic community, and all this is resonating the same way with me now, as it did when I heard Trump's speech about Mexico not sending us their best. It got me to vote for him, as it did for Hispanics, and races all across America.
> 
> You still don't get it that keeping illegal aliens out, is what we Americans (all of us) want ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that is not true. Americans overwhelmingly support amnesty for illegals and DACA recipients.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re talking to someone with the intelligence of a brick when you respond to him.
> 
> There is absolutely no way to justify ripping kids away from their parents.  Can you imagine if you’re 6 years old, get shipped away from your parents to God knows where.  In the best situation it would scare you to death.  If you’re a special needs kid..OMFG.  All brought to you by the Trump administration…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, brought to you by policies of the last administration that gave these illegals the idea we would treat them like honored guests instead of invaders.
> 
> If you take your kid to a porn movie, do you blame the actors in the film if the kid is traumatized?
Click to expand...


Well America isn’t a porn movie…although with Trump as our president, it may look like one.  That a porn star reminds him of his daughter is pretty sick.


----------



## candycorn

busybee01 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should be happy we are doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My concern for my fellow human beings is more important than political gain……..oh never mind .  You’re a conservative.  I doubt you’d understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, your "deep concern" for fellow human beings you've never laid eyes on, much less ever done a fucking thing for.  You're right that we don't understand.  In the real world, saying, "I'm concerned.  No, really, I care!" does not make it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is called compassion. Try reading the Bible assuming you are able to read. It says nothing about Americans.
Click to expand...


Hell, it’s humanity…compassion is an enhancement.


----------



## Pop23

busybee01 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like your erroneous assumption that the "Hispanic community", defined as citizens and legal residents, feel a huge amount of identification with and sympathy for people who jump the line and come here illegally.  Not everyone is the racist bigot you are, thinking of themselves and others as JUST their racial/ethnic group.
> 
> Tell you what:  YOU go with your line of coddling and crying over lawbreakers, and we'll go with our line of enforcing the law and protecting the border, and we'll each worry about our own fallout, rather than this _faux _"This would be best for you, no really" bullshit, as though I really think you're concerned about protecting the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The GOP needs to be destroyed. That is the only way to save the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are such a fruitcake.
> 
> Everybody knows that the left views "saving" the same as "destroying" or "killing".
> 
> And it isn't going to happen. You people are finito.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The GOP is already destroying itself. You animals are finished.
Click to expand...


If I wasn’t laughing so hard I’d yawn


----------



## flacaltenn

ACLU accuses U.S. of separating immigrant families seeking asylum

*Immigration advocates criticized President Barack Obama's administration for opening new family detention facilities in Texas and called for parents and children to be released. The two Texas facilities that it opened were found by a federal judge in 2015 to violate a long-standing 1997 settlement requiring children be released or otherwise held in the "least restrictive setting" available.

That settlement set other standards for the detention of children. The Trump administration has called for ending the settlement as part of its demands for changes to immigration laws.

Top administration officials have said they believe the asylum process is overwhelmed and challenged by people making frivolous claims. Advocates have also accused border agents of unlawfully turning away people who are seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Michelle Brané, director of the migrant rights and justice program for the Women's Refugee Commission, said that through attorneys and social service organizations, she had identified at least 426 immigrant adults and children who had been separated by authorities since Mr. Trump took office in January 2017. Brané said she did not have a comparable figure for Obama's administration.

But Brané said since the new administration began, her office has received far more reports of adults being held in ICE facilities without knowing where their children are. 
*
So here's some points.

1) A SMALL fraction of parents with child are being held. If there is detention, to do DNA testing or check legal records, the CHILDREN BY LAW -- cannot be detained for the act of the parent. The parents are essentially under legal arrest. Children don't go to jail with their parents.

2) With no birth record -- authorities DON'T KNOW the diff between a parent or a coyote or just a fellow border crosser.

3) This fight has going on since about 2011.. And was exacerbated by the MASSIVE influx of 160,000 PARENT-LESS children crashing the border. Many of whom fell under the control of gang or drug elements attempting to mask THEIR entry into the US.

It's a huge mess. THere's NO documentation. No records. No truth. NO ONE here should sit in judgement of those REQUIRED to sort out the chaos. Unless you appreciate the MAGNITUDE of the daily chaos down there. It's got to stop being a migration and start being actual IMMIGRATION..


----------



## OKTexas

candycorn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> He's the one that started it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The hard and fast policy of ripping a 18 month old from his mother’s arms; no exceptions…yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> got a link to that 'hard and fast' policy, and when it started?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sessions announced it the other day.  Do some research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 196135
> 
> Herr Sessions went on to say:
> *
> “If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,” Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement event in Scottsdale, Ariz. “If you don’t like that, then don’t smuggle children over our border.”
> 
> “If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple,” Sessions added, describing the new policy as zero tolerance. “We are dealing with a massive influx of illegal aliens across our Southwest Border. But we’re not going to stand for this.”
> 
> Sessions ramped up legal resources at the border recently, sending 35 federal prosecutors and 18 immigration judges to the southwest region to assist with an expected increase in border crossing cases.”
> *
> As we all know (and now you’ll see a bunch of conservatives with onset amnesia), the authorities can enforce the law or ignore the law at their discretion most times.  Technically, you’re breaking the law if you’re doing 56 in a 55MPH zone.  No cop will ticket you for that though.  Hell, Presidents use signing statements all the time to sidestep laws created by bills that they just sign.   This is a decision the Trump administration is making to ramp up the cruelty because they know it sates their WWE constituency.  Or do they really think that an 18 month old poses a threat to national security?
Click to expand...



Here's an idea for ya, how about we add felony child endangerment  and/or child trafficking to the charges for adults that bring kids to the border illegally? They don't seem to be getting the message that the US is enforcing its borders.

Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online

.


----------



## busybee01

Ray From Cleveland said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorizing children is not inhumane? You are the rabid animal and are as bad as MS-13.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *terrorism*
> [ter-uh-riz-uh m]
> 
> noun
> 
> the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
> the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
> a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
> the definition of terrorism
> 
> Now which one of these things are happening to these children?  These kids are sent to live with relatives (if they have some living here) or to shelters where they are well cared for, fed until full, and given medical care if needed.  They are showered, given snacks between meals, clean clothing and are enjoying high definition cartoons on big screens.
> 
> If that's what you consider terrorism, I'm sure there are at least a billion kids in other countries who wish they were so terrorized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of these children are dragged away from their parents screaming on terror. All 3 definitions describe what you and Trump want. You really think you can replace their parents. They are put into a foster care system that already does not work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is they are cared for, not terrorized.  You leftist always try to Clintonize words to make things seem more extreme than they are.  You leftists always blame others instead of who deserves the blame which in this case, is the adults that brought these kids here to a strange country not knowing of the possibilities.
> 
> Now show me these videos of kids screaming as they are being dragged away; something credible of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The children are screaming and crying because they are happy. You alt-right types think everyone  is a leftist. The fact is that a majority of voters are to the left of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they are, that's why they lost the house, the Senate and the White House along with most of the Governorships across the country.
Click to expand...


The Democrats went too far to the left and Republicans are doing the same thing by moving too far to the right. The Republicans lost 15 seats in the Virginia House of Delegates.


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> *They're not illegal because no court has found them guilty of anything.  The question is not whether they should stay or not but whether they should be treated humanely and remain with their parents until the court acts.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since they are essentially jailed until that time, like anyone else who is arrested for a crime, you are suggesting that the children ALSO be jailed, to "remain with their parents".
> 
> Like everything you say, it's ludicrous and stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *First of all nobody is being put in jail. They are being detained.  Immigration does not jail people they detain them.  The children will not be charged or found guilty of anything.  Most of the parents will be charged with unlawful presence, a civil offence with no penalty.  The normal procedure is to keep children with their parents.  The new procedure is to take the kids away from their parents promising that they will be united with their children if they sign a voluntary deportation agreement which of course denies them due process of law.   This is an incredibly stupid move on the part of the Orange Clown which will just turn more people against his policies.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  Who is _"they"_ ? _ "The parents"_ ? Which parents ?
> 
> 2.  Immigration certainly DOES jail people. Those who violate it's law, US Code 8, Section 1325, are subject to 6 months imprisonment in a federal prison, and 2 YEARS imprisonment for a subsequent offense (of crossing the border with inspection from US immigration authorities).  What do you think the Congressmen who wrote this law did that for ? For their health ?
> 
> 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
> 
> 3.  The "normal " procedure is that which the law specifies, and it doesn't specify for kids to be jailed with their parents.  And what occurred with immigration during the Obama administration, is about the farthest thing from normal that anything could ever be.
> 
> 4. Where did you get this "sign a voluntary deportation agreement" idea ? You got a source link for that ?  And even if this were the case, since said agreement is not mandatory, there is no denial of due process of law.
Click to expand...

*1. The parents and the children are being detained.

2. I was referring to this event. Repeated improper entry after deportation is a felony as is unlawful smuggling of people across the boarder usually for a fee.  They can certainly be jailed and tried but that is not what we're discussing here.  Most of these people will be charged with either Unlawful entry, a criminal misdemeanor or unlawful presence, a civil violation which are the most violations. Those that are arrested are either detained in a detention center or released on their own recognizance. 

3. Prior to 2006, ICE commonly detained parents and children separately. In FY 2006 Congress directed ICE to either “release families,” use “alternatives to detention such as the Intensive Supervised Appearance Program,” or, if necessary, use “appropriate” detention space to house families together.

4. Voluntary Departure is sometimes refereed to as Voluntary Deportation or self deportation.  It is a very common method of getting people that are illegally in the country out of the country.  Most immigration violations qualify for voluntary departure.  Felons are those being charged with a felony do not qualify.  

The benefit for government is saving the cost of deportation which had an average cost of of $10,864 in 2016 and reduction in the backlog of immigration cases waiting for a hearing which are about 200,000 now.

The benefit for detainees is release from detention, time to organize affairs before departure and usually the departure does not prevent them from legally re-entering the country.  The disadvantages are the person has to pay their cost of travel, they gives up their right to due process plus they may not be able get their case reviewed regardless of later evidence uncovered.  US citizens that agreed to voluntary departure have had problems getting their case reviewed even though they uncovered clear evidence of citizenship. 

There has been a lot of controversy surrounding voluntary departure.  Detainees have reported that they have been pressured by ICE to agree to voluntary departure with claims of long detention, transfers to facilities far from their family, etc.

In addition to Voluntary Departure, ICE also uses Voluntary Return as an option.  This occurs when someone tries to enter the country illegally but fails.  Since they haven't made it to through immigration, they may technically not be in violation of US law.  In most cases they are held a few hours and released.  In some cases they are held a few days if there is suspicion of a crime.    *
*Voluntary Departure*
*Laws, Regulations, and Guides Immigration and Nationality Act*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm part of that larger Hispanic community, and all this is resonating the same way with me now, as it did when I heard Trump's speech about Mexico not sending us their best. It got me to vote for him, as it did for Hispanics, and races all across America.
> 
> You still don't get it that keeping illegal aliens out, is what we Americans (all of us) want ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that is not true. Americans overwhelmingly support amnesty for illegals and DACA recipients.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re talking to someone with the intelligence of a brick when you respond to him.
> 
> There is absolutely no way to justify ripping kids away from their parents.  Can you imagine if you’re 6 years old, get shipped away from your parents to God knows where.  In the best situation it would scare you to death.  If you’re a special needs kid..OMFG.  All brought to you by the Trump administration…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, brought to you by policies of the last administration that gave these illegals the idea we would treat them like honored guests instead of invaders.
> 
> If you take your kid to a porn movie, do you blame the actors in the film if the kid is traumatized?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well America isn’t a porn movie…although with Trump as our president, it may look like one.  That a porn star reminds him of his daughter is pretty sick.
Click to expand...


So is anybody who thinks that's what it reminds him of.


----------



## TemplarKormac

busybee01 said:


> God also punished them when they did wrong. After they worshipped a false idol in the desert, they were left to wander until the people who committed the original sin died.


And that has what to do with my post, exactly?


----------



## Vandalshandle

kaz said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that as Hispanics become more affluent over time, they are different than whites are and they will continue to support importing low class poor Mexican criminals to overflow our jails, schools, medical centers and welfare rolls?  You're a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's something they don't consider.  The left has a hard time putting themselves in others shoes.
> 
> If I'm going to try and get into a country where I'm clearly a minority, and I understand some may not want me, the best thing I can do is be impressive as all hell that white people are a good thing for their society.  I'm going to want to show them I'm great, and want every other white person who comes there with me to demonstrate the same thing.
> 
> The last thing I would do is welcome or support whites who could care less about their laws, cost them billions of dollars, criminal whites, and gang whites.  I don't want them nowhere near this new country that has graciously accepted me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  Vandal has no idea how high 30 feet is either.  Even the majority of guys would balk at scaling down a 30 foot rope themselves much less sending their 5 year old and pregnant wife down the rope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another uneducated clown who has never been down here. You think that a 30 foot wall is going to stop someone who is willing to walk 100 miles through the most inhospitable desert in the USA in 105 degree temperature with only enough food and water to last one day? We find 300 dead illegals per year in AZ who died from exposure, many who had no shoes, while walking through cactus and snake infested desert for days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me again how illegal aliens are going to have their pregnant wife and five year old kid climb down a 30 foot rope, dishonest loser
Click to expand...


One last time. they can, and do, go over, under, around, and through walls. If you can not grasp that, than just build your wall all the way to China and to Africa. And airplanes fly higher than 30 feet high. or just walk through the tunnels under Nogales. My wife and I climbed a 40 foot wall out of a cave with rope and carabiner when we were in our 20's, and she was pregnant at the time. There is a rock climbing wall built where I live that kids climb all the time. I even posted a photograph of hundreds of people climbing a 30 foot wall. Since you are too dumb to learn, this conversation is over.


----------



## candycorn

WillHaftawaite said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sessions announced it the other day.  Do some research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 196135
> 
> Herr Sessions went on to say:
> *
> “If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,” Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement event in Scottsdale, Ariz. “If you don’t like that, then don’t smuggle children over our border.”
> 
> “If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple,” Sessions added, describing the new policy as zero tolerance. “We are dealing with a massive influx of illegal aliens across our Southwest Border. But we’re not going to stand for this.”
> 
> Sessions ramped up legal resources at the border recently, sending 35 federal prosecutors and 18 immigration judges to the southwest region to assist with an expected increase in border crossing cases.”
> *
> As we all know (and now you’ll see a bunch of conservatives with onset amnesia), the authorities can enforce the law or ignore the law at their discretion most times.  Technically, you’re breaking the law if you’re doing 56 in a 55MPH zone.  No cop will ticket you for that though.  Hell, Presidents use signing statements all the time to sidestep laws created by bills that they just sign.   This is a decision the Trump administration is making to ramp up the cruelty because they know it sates their WWE constituency.  Or do they really think that an 18 month old poses a threat to national security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> and that child will be separated from you as required by law,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did he make up that law, that day?
> 
> or was in in effect earlier?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have missed it:
> 
> The *hard and fast policy* of ripping a 18 month old from his mother’s arms; no exceptions…yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I also read 'as required by law'.
> 
> when did that  law go in to effect?
> 
> Before his speech, after his speech?
> 
> July 31, 2016?
> 
> Halloween?
> Christmas?
> Labor Day?
> 
> earlier?
> Later?
Click to expand...



Cops ignore the law all the time.  56 in a 55mph zone is breaking the law.  Few if any cops would give a ticket.  
Presidents use signing statements to sidestep laws that the bills they just signed created.  
The feds have ignored the States passing recreational marijuana laws…
There are hundreds of examples of laws that are not enforced, seldom enforced, etc…  
Don’t pretend that you do not know this.

Trump and his gang are making the decision to be barbaric.  Nobody is forcing them to do this; Herr Sessions and company are doing it to please fools like you.


----------



## busybee01

House o


OKTexas said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The hard and fast policy of ripping a 18 month old from his mother’s arms; no exceptions…yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> got a link to that 'hard and fast' policy, and when it started?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sessions announced it the other day.  Do some research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 196135
> 
> Herr Sessions went on to say:
> *
> “If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,” Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement event in Scottsdale, Ariz. “If you don’t like that, then don’t smuggle children over our border.”
> 
> “If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple,” Sessions added, describing the new policy as zero tolerance. “We are dealing with a massive influx of illegal aliens across our Southwest Border. But we’re not going to stand for this.”
> 
> Sessions ramped up legal resources at the border recently, sending 35 federal prosecutors and 18 immigration judges to the southwest region to assist with an expected increase in border crossing cases.”
> *
> As we all know (and now you’ll see a bunch of conservatives with onset amnesia), the authorities can enforce the law or ignore the law at their discretion most times.  Technically, you’re breaking the law if you’re doing 56 in a 55MPH zone.  No cop will ticket you for that though.  Hell, Presidents use signing statements all the time to sidestep laws created by bills that they just sign.   This is a decision the Trump administration is making to ramp up the cruelty because they know it sates their WWE constituency.  Or do they really think that an 18 month old poses a threat to national security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an idea for ya, how about we add felony child endangerment  and/or child trafficking to the charges for adults that bring kids to the border illegally? They don't seem to be getting the message that the US is enforcing its borders.
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I have a better idea. After Trump loses, disband ICE. I would rather have them than trash like you.


----------



## OKTexas

candycorn said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like your erroneous assumption that the "Hispanic community", defined as citizens and legal residents, feel a huge amount of identification with and sympathy for people who jump the line and come here illegally.  Not everyone is the racist bigot you are, thinking of themselves and others as JUST their racial/ethnic group.
> 
> Tell you what:  YOU go with your line of coddling and crying over lawbreakers, and we'll go with our line of enforcing the law and protecting the border, and we'll each worry about our own fallout, rather than this _faux _"This would be best for you, no really" bullshit, as though I really think you're concerned about protecting the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The GOP needs to be destroyed. That is the only way to save the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hispanic voters will remember this.  Illegal immigration is one thing…the illegals should be deported.  There is a process; they should respect the process barring any special circumstances.
> 
> Hard and fast policies of ripping kids from their mother’s arms is just a function of a heartless administration.
> 
> View attachment 196136
Click to expand...



Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online


.


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm part of that larger Hispanic community, and all this is resonating the same way with me now, as it did when I heard Trump's speech about Mexico not sending us their best. It got me to vote for him, as it did for Hispanics, and races all across America.
> 
> You still don't get it that keeping illegal aliens out, is what we Americans (all of us) want ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that is not true. Americans overwhelmingly support amnesty for illegals and DACA recipients.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re talking to someone with the intelligence of a brick when you respond to him.
> 
> There is absolutely no way to justify ripping kids away from their parents.  Can you imagine if you’re 6 years old, get shipped away from your parents to God knows where.  In the best situation it would scare you to death.  If you’re a special needs kid..OMFG.  All brought to you by the Trump administration…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, brought to you by policies of the last administration that gave these illegals the idea we would treat them like honored guests instead of invaders.
> 
> If you take your kid to a porn movie, do you blame the actors in the film if the kid is traumatized?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well America isn’t a porn movie…although with Trump as our president, it may look like one.  That a porn star reminds him of his daughter is pretty sick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So is anybody who thinks that's what it reminds him of.
Click to expand...


Hey, your messiah told the whores he banged that; before he fucked them.  

You’re the one comparing the US to a porn movie.  Not me.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Pop23 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that as Hispanics become more affluent over time, they are different than whites are and they will continue to support importing low class poor Mexican criminals to overflow our jails, schools, medical centers and welfare rolls?  You're a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's something they don't consider.  The left has a hard time putting themselves in others shoes.
> 
> If I'm going to try and get into a country where I'm clearly a minority, and I understand some may not want me, the best thing I can do is be impressive as all hell that white people are a good thing for their society.  I'm going to want to show them I'm great, and want every other white person who comes there with me to demonstrate the same thing.
> 
> The last thing I would do is welcome or support whites who could care less about their laws, cost them billions of dollars, criminal whites, and gang whites.  I don't want them nowhere near this new country that has graciously accepted me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  Vandal has no idea how high 30 feet is either.  Even the majority of guys would balk at scaling down a 30 foot rope themselves much less sending their 5 year old and pregnant wife down the rope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another uneducated clown who has never been down here. You think that a 30 foot wall is going to stop someone who is willing to walk 100 miles through the most inhospitable desert in the USA in 105 degree temperature with only enough food and water to last one day? We find 300 dead illegals per year in AZ who died from exposure, many who had no shoes, while walking through cactus and snake infested desert for days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize you just answered why the children should be taken from SOB’s that would do that to them, right?
Click to expand...


I think that anyone who would traumatize children for their parent's sins should not be allowed to raise them, and these days, that pretty much defines trumpettes.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

busybee01 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> *terrorism*
> [ter-uh-riz-uh m]
> 
> noun
> 
> the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
> the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
> a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
> the definition of terrorism
> 
> Now which one of these things are happening to these children?  These kids are sent to live with relatives (if they have some living here) or to shelters where they are well cared for, fed until full, and given medical care if needed.  They are showered, given snacks between meals, clean clothing and are enjoying high definition cartoons on big screens.
> 
> If that's what you consider terrorism, I'm sure there are at least a billion kids in other countries who wish they were so terrorized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many of these children are dragged away from their parents screaming on terror. All 3 definitions describe what you and Trump want. You really think you can replace their parents. They are put into a foster care system that already does not work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is they are cared for, not terrorized.  You leftist always try to Clintonize words to make things seem more extreme than they are.  You leftists always blame others instead of who deserves the blame which in this case, is the adults that brought these kids here to a strange country not knowing of the possibilities.
> 
> Now show me these videos of kids screaming as they are being dragged away; something credible of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The children are screaming and crying because they are happy. You alt-right types think everyone  is a leftist. The fact is that a majority of voters are to the left of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they are, that's why they lost the house, the Senate and the White House along with most of the Governorships across the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democrats went too far to the left and Republicans are doing the same thing by moving too far to the right. The Republicans lost 15 seats in the Virginia House of Delegates.
Click to expand...


Right.......Virginia, well let's see what happens in 18 if Trump keeps up his ultra-right agenda.  You people live in this make believe world that everybody thinks like you do.  Well as you can see in this topic alone, you are the minority of people in how you feel.  

What you don't like about Trump (our) policies is that they have a chance of working.  If Trump can keep this going, it will deter a lot of newcomers from trying the same stunt as these people, and that will help more children than anything.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that is not true. Americans overwhelmingly support amnesty for illegals and DACA recipients.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re talking to someone with the intelligence of a brick when you respond to him.
> 
> There is absolutely no way to justify ripping kids away from their parents.  Can you imagine if you’re 6 years old, get shipped away from your parents to God knows where.  In the best situation it would scare you to death.  If you’re a special needs kid..OMFG.  All brought to you by the Trump administration…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, brought to you by policies of the last administration that gave these illegals the idea we would treat them like honored guests instead of invaders.
> 
> If you take your kid to a porn movie, do you blame the actors in the film if the kid is traumatized?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well America isn’t a porn movie…although with Trump as our president, it may look like one.  That a porn star reminds him of his daughter is pretty sick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So is anybody who thinks that's what it reminds him of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, your messiah told the whores he banged that; before he fucked them.
> 
> You’re the one comparing the US to a porn movie.  Not me.
Click to expand...


Sorry you missed the point entirely.  But the point was that it's the adults that are responsible for the fate of these children--not Trump.  They brought them into this conflict--not Trump.  They risked the lives of these children--not Trump. 

I understand how you on the left think that government is responsible for children instead of the parents, but our old fashioned values say that the parents are ultimately responsible for the future of their children.  Yet when these adults brought these children into this country illegally, don't blame the adults, blame Trump.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Pop23 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like your erroneous assumption that the "Hispanic community", defined as citizens and legal residents, feel a huge amount of identification with and sympathy for people who jump the line and come here illegally.  Not everyone is the racist bigot you are, thinking of themselves and others as JUST their racial/ethnic group.
> 
> Tell you what:  YOU go with your line of coddling and crying over lawbreakers, and we'll go with our line of enforcing the law and protecting the border, and we'll each worry about our own fallout, rather than this _faux _"This would be best for you, no really" bullshit, as though I really think you're concerned about protecting the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The GOP needs to be destroyed. That is the only way to save the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are such a fruitcake.
> 
> Everybody knows that the left views "saving" the same as "destroying" or "killing".
> 
> And it isn't going to happen. You people are finito.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The GOP is already destroying itself. You animals are finished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I wasn’t laughing so hard I’d yawn
Click to expand...

If I were laughing that hard, I'd be ripped. No more Twinkie jokes. I'd be a toothpick in need of a cheeseburger, like aaronleland.

(Surely I jest!)


----------



## protectionist

candycorn said:


> Hey, your messiah told the whores he banged that; before he fucked them.
> 
> You’re the one comparing the US to a porn movie.  Not me.


Maybe this thread has finally run its course, ya think ?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Yes, I'm bored. I'm going to go now. It was great debating with people who cared to debate instead of calling names and labeling people.


----------



## OKTexas

busybee01 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's inhumane about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorizing children is not inhumane? You are the rabid animal and are as bad as MS-13.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *terrorism*
> [ter-uh-riz-uh m]
> 
> noun
> 
> the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
> the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
> a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
> the definition of terrorism
> 
> Now which one of these things are happening to these children?  These kids are sent to live with relatives (if they have some living here) or to shelters where they are well cared for, fed until full, and given medical care if needed.  They are showered, given snacks between meals, clean clothing and are enjoying high definition cartoons on big screens.
> 
> If that's what you consider terrorism, I'm sure there are at least a billion kids in other countries who wish they were so terrorized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of these children are dragged away from their parents screaming on terror. All 3 definitions describe what you and Trump want. You really think you can replace their parents. They are put into a foster care system that already does not work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're just making shit up. It's not foster care. It's immigration detention. Where disease and bad guys can harm you... You want PRIVATE rooms with TVs and a fridge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We want humane facilities for  families while their status is determined. We already get the fact you are stupid.
Click to expand...



Want in one hand and shit in the other, see which fill up the fastest. Your wants don't set policy.


.


----------



## protectionist

busybee01 said:


> A liberal to you is anyone to the left of the KKK. The 70 or 80 percent of people who support amnesty are not Democrats. If they are then Republicans are dead.


I'll go by THESE %s   (not counting the illegal alien vote) >>


----------



## Flopper

TemplarKormac said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Parents bringing their family with them into the US is not human trafficking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly, when you have to smuggle them across the border, running and hiding from the authorities of the country you illegally entered in the meanwhile, you are essentially trafficking them.
Click to expand...

*No, for smuggling to be trafficking the purposes is forced labor or commercial sexual exploitation, certainly not seeking a new home for the family to escape oppression or poverty.*


----------



## protectionist

busybee01 said:


> We do? We don't jail people for jaywalking. Sessions is a animal and a thug.


But we do jail people for 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien


----------



## Flopper

koshergrl said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't get over people complaining because children are being removed from traffickers.
> 
> But then again, I've known they were the party of child slavery for a long, long time.
> 
> 
> 
> *Apparently you don't even know the definition of human trafficking, (recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons by improper means (such as force, abduction, fraud, or coercion) for an improper purpose including forced labor or sexual exploitation.)  Parents bringing their family with them into the US is not human trafficking.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't just parents. It's *family members* and yes you can traffic your own children if you are using them for the purpose of getting people (you) into the country illegally.
Click to expand...

*Please read the definition of human trafficking and stop beating a dead horse.
What Is Human Trafficking?*


----------



## OKTexas

busybee01 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, a legal claim. Charging them as illegals and seperating families is a punative action against those involved in a legal process for no other reason than to dter future applicants. An unnecessarily harsh policy.
> 
> 
> 
> *FALSE! * It is to deport those who have no legal status to be here, and who are lucky if they aren't imprisoned for violating US Code 8, Section 1325.
> 
> 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Separating the children has nothing to do with deportation procedures. The only reason to do such a inhumane and punitive thing is pure evil. This is the act of criminal regimes like Assad in Syria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So glad to hear that you were in too much of a hurry to vent your spleen to be bothered to read the article you're "outraged" about.  It exists, and that's enough for you to be an "infuriated expert", right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you need to read it. It says nothing about separating children. That is Trump and Sessions who is doing it.
Click to expand...



Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online


.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *No, for smuggling to be trafficking the purposes is forced labor or commercial sexual exploitation, certainly not seeking a new home for the family to escape oppression or poverty.*


Smuggling, trafficking, illegal entry by alien;  they're all crimes.


----------



## koshergrl

busybee01 said:


> House o
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> got a link to that 'hard and fast' policy, and when it started?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sessions announced it the other day.  Do some research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 196135
> 
> Herr Sessions went on to say:
> *
> “If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,” Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement event in Scottsdale, Ariz. “If you don’t like that, then don’t smuggle children over our border.”
> 
> “If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple,” Sessions added, describing the new policy as zero tolerance. “We are dealing with a massive influx of illegal aliens across our Southwest Border. But we’re not going to stand for this.”
> 
> Sessions ramped up legal resources at the border recently, sending 35 federal prosecutors and 18 immigration judges to the southwest region to assist with an expected increase in border crossing cases.”
> *
> As we all know (and now you’ll see a bunch of conservatives with onset amnesia), the authorities can enforce the law or ignore the law at their discretion most times.  Technically, you’re breaking the law if you’re doing 56 in a 55MPH zone.  No cop will ticket you for that though.  Hell, Presidents use signing statements all the time to sidestep laws created by bills that they just sign.   This is a decision the Trump administration is making to ramp up the cruelty because they know it sates their WWE constituency.  Or do they really think that an 18 month old poses a threat to national security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an idea for ya, how about we add felony child endangerment  and/or child trafficking to the charges for adults that bring kids to the border illegally? They don't seem to be getting the message that the US is enforcing its borders.
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a better idea. After Trump loses, disband ICE. I would rather have them than trash like you.
Click to expand...


Of course you would!

Meanwhile, in the real world...

Black Support For Trump Is Rising Into The Danger Zone For Democrats


----------



## protectionist

OKTexas said:


> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online


  Busybee falls on face once again.


----------



## Cecilie1200

busybee01 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.
> 
> 
> 
> So when a cop stops somebody for speeding and DUI, and arrests him, and his kids are separated from him, you'd say this is an _"unnecessary human rights violation"_ ?
> 
> And when the drunk driver is incarcerated, where would you suggest the kids go ?  Into jail with him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a moron. The 2 are not comparable. Would you incarcerate someone for jaywalking. What I  would expect from a hateful pea brain like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of two things that are not comparable:  jaywalking, and sneaking across the border of a foreign country.
> 
> SOMEONE here is a moron, but I'm pretty certain it's you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm absolutely sure it is you. Comparing violent acts which may result in death to illegally crossing the border which is a non-violent offense.
Click to expand...


Call me silly, but I consider invading a foreign country to be far different from crossing a street in a country you belong in.


----------



## koshergrl

Flopper said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't get over people complaining because children are being removed from traffickers.
> 
> But then again, I've known they were the party of child slavery for a long, long time.
> 
> 
> 
> *Apparently you don't even know the definition of human trafficking, (recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons by improper means (such as force, abduction, fraud, or coercion) for an improper purpose including forced labor or sexual exploitation.)  Parents bringing their family with them into the US is not human trafficking.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't just parents. It's *family members* and yes you can traffic your own children if you are using them for the purpose of getting people (you) into the country illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Please read the definition of human trafficking and stop beating a dead horse.
> What Is Human Trafficking?*
Click to expand...

Ah now we change the definition of trafficking. Of course.


----------



## protectionist

busybee01 said:


> The GOP needs to be destroyed. That is the only way to save the GOP.


Is there a doctor in the house ?  I mean really.


----------



## protectionist

busybee01 said:


> You are a moron. The 2 are not comparable. Would you incarcerate someone for jaywalking. What I  would expect from a hateful pea brain like you.


OK. How about this ?  When someone is arrested for bank fraud (no violence involved), and cops arrest him, where would you suggest the kids go ?  Into jail with him ?


----------



## protectionist

busybee01 said:


> The Nuremberg trials were about crimes against humanity. That is what he should be tried for along with Sessions and others who are implementing this inhumane policy.


In other words, you don't know of any LAW that the Trump admin can be held legally liable for implementing this policy, but you propose that they be held legally liable for what there is no law to hold them legally liable for, right ? Right, BB ? Right ?


----------



## OKTexas

busybee01 said:


> House o
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> got a link to that 'hard and fast' policy, and when it started?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sessions announced it the other day.  Do some research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 196135
> 
> Herr Sessions went on to say:
> *
> “If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,” Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement event in Scottsdale, Ariz. “If you don’t like that, then don’t smuggle children over our border.”
> 
> “If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple,” Sessions added, describing the new policy as zero tolerance. “We are dealing with a massive influx of illegal aliens across our Southwest Border. But we’re not going to stand for this.”
> 
> Sessions ramped up legal resources at the border recently, sending 35 federal prosecutors and 18 immigration judges to the southwest region to assist with an expected increase in border crossing cases.”
> *
> As we all know (and now you’ll see a bunch of conservatives with onset amnesia), the authorities can enforce the law or ignore the law at their discretion most times.  Technically, you’re breaking the law if you’re doing 56 in a 55MPH zone.  No cop will ticket you for that though.  Hell, Presidents use signing statements all the time to sidestep laws created by bills that they just sign.   This is a decision the Trump administration is making to ramp up the cruelty because they know it sates their WWE constituency.  Or do they really think that an 18 month old poses a threat to national security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an idea for ya, how about we add felony child endangerment  and/or child trafficking to the charges for adults that bring kids to the border illegally? They don't seem to be getting the message that the US is enforcing its borders.
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a better idea. After Trump loses, disband ICE. I would rather have them than trash like you.
Click to expand...



Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


.


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do? We don't jail people for jaywalking. Sessions is a animal and a thug.
> 
> 
> 
> But we do jail people for 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
Click to expand...

*Yes, but it doesn't make much sense and is done rarely except in extreme cases.  Putting a person in jail for say 6 months or even as much as 2 years before deporting just delays the deportation and adds cost.  Federal guidelines would cut time served almost in half.  For many detainees, it's just 6 months of free food and lodging in a low to medium security prison which is likely to be better than where they'll be deported.  It accomplishing nothing.*


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> Yes, but it doesn't make much sense and is done rarely except in extreme cases.  Putting a person in jail for say 6 months before deporting just delays the deportation and adds cost.  For many detainees, it's just 6 months of free food and lodging in a low to medium security prison which is better than where they'll be deported.


Well, it all depends on HOW you do it. Now if you gave the creepo the first 3 months  (January, February, March) hard labor outside, on the north coast of Alaska, and the second 3 months, (April, May, June), hard labor outside in the Florida Keys, he may not be so anxious to reenter after his deportation.

Oh I almost forgot. No TV, no radio, no computer, no music, no books, no telephone, and a steady diet of bread and water.


----------



## OKTexas

protectionist said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> 
> 
> Busybee falls on face once again.
Click to expand...




Hah, the little fag ignores it and keeps playing the same broken record post after post. So every time it mentions separating kids I'm going to post that link.


.


----------



## flacaltenn

Vandalshandle said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that as Hispanics become more affluent over time, they are different than whites are and they will continue to support importing low class poor Mexican criminals to overflow our jails, schools, medical centers and welfare rolls?  You're a racist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's something they don't consider.  The left has a hard time putting themselves in others shoes.
> 
> If I'm going to try and get into a country where I'm clearly a minority, and I understand some may not want me, the best thing I can do is be impressive as all hell that white people are a good thing for their society.  I'm going to want to show them I'm great, and want every other white person who comes there with me to demonstrate the same thing.
> 
> The last thing I would do is welcome or support whites who could care less about their laws, cost them billions of dollars, criminal whites, and gang whites.  I don't want them nowhere near this new country that has graciously accepted me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  Vandal has no idea how high 30 feet is either.  Even the majority of guys would balk at scaling down a 30 foot rope themselves much less sending their 5 year old and pregnant wife down the rope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another uneducated clown who has never been down here. You think that a 30 foot wall is going to stop someone who is willing to walk 100 miles through the most inhospitable desert in the USA in 105 degree temperature with only enough food and water to last one day? We find 300 dead illegals per year in AZ who died from exposure, many who had no shoes, while walking through cactus and snake infested desert for days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me again how illegal aliens are going to have their pregnant wife and five year old kid climb down a 30 foot rope, dishonest loser
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One last time. they can, and do, go over, under, around, and through walls. If you can not grasp that, than just build your wall all the way to China and to Africa. And airplanes fly higher than 30 feet high. or just walk through the tunnels under Nogales. My wife and I climbed a 40 foot wall out of a cave with rope and carabiner when we were in our 20's, and she was pregnant at the time. There is a rock climbing wall built where I live that kids climb all the time. I even posted a photograph of hundreds of people climbing a 30 foot wall. Since you are too dumb to learn, this conversation is over.
Click to expand...


OTH -- there were 20 Army Rangers that FAILED to scale most of the Prototype wall demonstrations.. It's not something you can sink lines into..  Certainly not "unescorted minors"...


----------



## toobfreak

Coyote said:


> *What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?*



You cannot consider "human cost" in controlling illegal immigration.  A nation's borders must be controlled, enforced at any cost, otherwise you don't have a viable nation.  As soon as you consider human cost, you defeat yourself by setting a threshold that now illegals know that if they go over, they will get in.  Therefore, one cannot allow human cost to be a factor, indeed, the higher the cost the better, because as soon as illegals realize that the potential costs of entering far outweigh the potential benefits, THEY WILL STOP COMING.


----------



## Cecilie1200

busybee01 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should be happy we are doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My concern for my fellow human beings is more important than political gain……..oh never mind .  You’re a conservative.  I doubt you’d understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, your "deep concern" for fellow human beings you've never laid eyes on, much less ever done a fucking thing for.  You're right that we don't understand.  In the real world, saying, "I'm concerned.  No, really, I care!" does not make it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is called compassion. Try reading the Bible assuming you are able to read. It says nothing about Americans.
Click to expand...


No, that is called lazy-assed virtue signaling.  Nowhere in the Bible does it advise us to blat loudly about how "caring" we are, while doing fuck-all to actually help anyone.


----------



## Cecilie1200

busybee01 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's inhumane about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorizing children is not inhumane? You are the rabid animal and are as bad as MS-13.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *terrorism*
> [ter-uh-riz-uh m]
> 
> noun
> 
> the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
> the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
> a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
> the definition of terrorism
> 
> Now which one of these things are happening to these children?  These kids are sent to live with relatives (if they have some living here) or to shelters where they are well cared for, fed until full, and given medical care if needed.  They are showered, given snacks between meals, clean clothing and are enjoying high definition cartoons on big screens.
> 
> If that's what you consider terrorism, I'm sure there are at least a billion kids in other countries who wish they were so terrorized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of these children are dragged away from their parents screaming on terror. All 3 definitions describe what you and Trump want. You really think you can replace their parents. They are put into a foster care system that already does not work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're just making shit up. It's not foster care. It's immigration detention. Where disease and bad guys can harm you... You want PRIVATE rooms with TVs and a fridge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We want humane facilities for  families while their status is determined. We already get the fact you are stupid.
Click to expand...


And WE want people to stay in their own damned countries until they're given permission to come here.  We already get the fact that you don't give a shit about us OR them, or anything except for feeling superior without having to deal with any of the consequences.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They're not illegal because no court has found them guilty of anything.  The question is not whether they should stay or not but whether they should be treated humanely and remain with their parents until the court acts.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since they are essentially jailed until that time, like anyone else who is arrested for a crime, you are suggesting that the children ALSO be jailed, to "remain with their parents".
> 
> Like everything you say, it's ludicrous and stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *First of all nobody is being put in jail. They are being detained.  Immigration does not jail people they detain them.  The children will not be charged or found guilty of anything.  Most of the parents will be charged with unlawful presence, a civil offence with no penalty.  The normal procedure is to keep children with their parents.  The new procedure is to take the kids away from their parents promising that they will be united with their children if they sign a voluntary deportation agreement which of course denies them due process of law.   This is an incredibly stupid move on the part of the Orange Clown which will just turn more people against his policies.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so.  I think those are the kinds of policies that got him elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump was elected because the voters couldn't stand to vote for Clinton.  I doubt that there are many Trump voters that approve of treating children like this and using them as political pawns.   There is certainly a "basket of deplorables"  among Trump voters but not the majority.
> 
> According to Pew Research, 80% of all voters say undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay legally and 60% of Trump supporters agree.
> Trump voters want to build the wall, but are more divided on other immigration questions*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well much like last presidential election, let's hope Trump once ignores the polls and sticks to reality.
> 
> If you want to use Hillary as the excuse why Trump won, fine with me, but that doesn't explain how he beat out twelve other Republican candidates for the nomination.  They all pretty much had the same message except for Trump.  All the others were pretty passive on immigration except Trump who took an exact opposite stand on the issue.
> 
> So I'll stick to believing that many Americans are on my side instead of what the polls say.  If it's one thing I've learned about polls the last several years, it's that they are created to try and get people what to think instead of telling us what people think.
Click to expand...

*Betting against the polls is like betting against House.  You'll win occasional but in the long run, you'll lose.  Gallup correctly picked 80% of presidential elections since WWII.  *


----------



## flacaltenn

koshergrl said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorizing children is not inhumane? You are the rabid animal and are as bad as MS-13.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *terrorism*
> [ter-uh-riz-uh m]
> 
> noun
> 
> the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
> the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
> a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
> the definition of terrorism
> 
> Now which one of these things are happening to these children?  These kids are sent to live with relatives (if they have some living here) or to shelters where they are well cared for, fed until full, and given medical care if needed.  They are showered, given snacks between meals, clean clothing and are enjoying high definition cartoons on big screens.
> 
> If that's what you consider terrorism, I'm sure there are at least a billion kids in other countries who wish they were so terrorized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of these children are dragged away from their parents screaming on terror. All 3 definitions describe what you and Trump want. You really think you can replace their parents. They are put into a foster care system that already does not work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're just making shit up. It's not foster care. It's immigration detention. Where disease and bad guys can harm you... You want PRIVATE rooms with TVs and a fridge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We want humane facilities for  families while their status is determined. We already get the fact you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give us an example of a human facility of the size and scope and for the same types of *immigrants* that the left has invited to our border.
> 
> You know, facilities that will *hold* families safely while trying to figure out who the fuck they are and where they came from and whether or not they are murderers or rapists or terrorists on the run.
> 
> Let's see an example of the sort of facility you want us to emulate.
Click to expand...


Pretty sure what BusyBee and Coyote have in mind would look like this.. But with a Welcome to America banner draped elegantly from the front Promenade.


----------



## Flopper

busybee01 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm part of that larger Hispanic community, and all this is resonating the same way with me now, as it did when I heard Trump's speech about Mexico not sending us their best. It got me to vote for him, as it did for Hispanics, and races all across America.
> 
> You still don't get it that keeping illegal aliens out, is what we Americans (all of us) want ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that is not true. Americans overwhelmingly support amnesty for illegals and DACA recipients.
Click to expand...

*American have been asked time and again by different polling services how they feel about amnesty and deportation.
They overwhelming support amnesty and oppose deportation and building a wall
Immigration*


----------



## Vandalshandle

flacaltenn said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's something they don't consider.  The left has a hard time putting themselves in others shoes.
> 
> If I'm going to try and get into a country where I'm clearly a minority, and I understand some may not want me, the best thing I can do is be impressive as all hell that white people are a good thing for their society.  I'm going to want to show them I'm great, and want every other white person who comes there with me to demonstrate the same thing.
> 
> The last thing I would do is welcome or support whites who could care less about their laws, cost them billions of dollars, criminal whites, and gang whites.  I don't want them nowhere near this new country that has graciously accepted me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  Vandal has no idea how high 30 feet is either.  Even the majority of guys would balk at scaling down a 30 foot rope themselves much less sending their 5 year old and pregnant wife down the rope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another uneducated clown who has never been down here. You think that a 30 foot wall is going to stop someone who is willing to walk 100 miles through the most inhospitable desert in the USA in 105 degree temperature with only enough food and water to last one day? We find 300 dead illegals per year in AZ who died from exposure, many who had no shoes, while walking through cactus and snake infested desert for days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me again how illegal aliens are going to have their pregnant wife and five year old kid climb down a 30 foot rope, dishonest loser
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One last time. they can, and do, go over, under, around, and through walls. If you can not grasp that, than just build your wall all the way to China and to Africa. And airplanes fly higher than 30 feet high. or just walk through the tunnels under Nogales. My wife and I climbed a 40 foot wall out of a cave with rope and carabiner when we were in our 20's, and she was pregnant at the time. There is a rock climbing wall built where I live that kids climb all the time. I even posted a photograph of hundreds of people climbing a 30 foot wall. Since you are too dumb to learn, this conversation is over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OTH -- there were 20 Army Rangers that FAILED to scale most of the Prototype wall demonstrations.. It's not something you can sink lines into..  Certainly not "unescorted minors"...
Click to expand...


Well, Trump told us that they are like professional mountain climbers, and I am SURE that he would not have said that unless it was true!


----------



## Norman

Flopper said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm part of that larger Hispanic community, and all this is resonating the same way with me now, as it did when I heard Trump's speech about Mexico not sending us their best. It got me to vote for him, as it did for Hispanics, and races all across America.
> 
> You still don't get it that keeping illegal aliens out, is what we Americans (all of us) want ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that is not true. Americans overwhelmingly support amnesty for illegals and DACA recipients.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *American have been asked time and again by different polling services how they feel about amnesty and deportation.
> They overwhelming support amnesty and oppose deportation and building a wall
> Immigration*
Click to expand...


The democrat party, who wants to destroy this country may think so.

This poll must have been conducted at CNN headquarters. It's time to build that wall and make America great.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since they are essentially jailed until that time, like anyone else who is arrested for a crime, you are suggesting that the children ALSO be jailed, to "remain with their parents".
> 
> Like everything you say, it's ludicrous and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> *First of all nobody is being put in jail. They are being detained.  Immigration does not jail people they detain them.  The children will not be charged or found guilty of anything.  Most of the parents will be charged with unlawful presence, a civil offence with no penalty.  The normal procedure is to keep children with their parents.  The new procedure is to take the kids away from their parents promising that they will be united with their children if they sign a voluntary deportation agreement which of course denies them due process of law.   This is an incredibly stupid move on the part of the Orange Clown which will just turn more people against his policies.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so.  I think those are the kinds of policies that got him elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump was elected because the voters couldn't stand to vote for Clinton.  I doubt that there are many Trump voters that approve of treating children like this and using them as political pawns.   There is certainly a "basket of deplorables"  among Trump voters but not the majority.
> 
> According to Pew Research, 80% of all voters say undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay legally and 60% of Trump supporters agree.
> Trump voters want to build the wall, but are more divided on other immigration questions*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well much like last presidential election, let's hope Trump once ignores the polls and sticks to reality.
> 
> If you want to use Hillary as the excuse why Trump won, fine with me, but that doesn't explain how he beat out twelve other Republican candidates for the nomination.  They all pretty much had the same message except for Trump.  All the others were pretty passive on immigration except Trump who took an exact opposite stand on the issue.
> 
> So I'll stick to believing that many Americans are on my side instead of what the polls say.  If it's one thing I've learned about polls the last several years, it's that they are created to try and get people what to think instead of telling us what people think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Betting against the polls is like betting against House.  You'll win occasional but in the long run, you'll lose.  Gallup correctly picked 80% of presidential elections since WWII.  *
Click to expand...


Maybe, but I have the pleasure of working with hundreds of different people every week, not one that I'm aware of holds that same opinion or result you or your poll claim, and mind you I live up north where the immigration impact is minimum.  

I remember a few years back when Bill O' was interviewing a poll analyst.  He said that pollsters don't use false results, they use desired results.  For instance, let's say they wanted to show that people were behind green energy, the question to the participants would be something like this: 

"Would you like to see less air and water pollution, and save our planet from catastrophic events, or not?"  

Well, what idiot would like say "or not?"  Then they go out and report that most Americans are behind electric cars or solar panels.  

Look at our economy today.  Trump accomplished the lowest black unemployment rate in history.  We have the lowest overall unemployment in many years.  Stock market is doing fine, and more jobs are likely to be on the way.  Yet the polls have Trump barely over the halfway mark when it comes to economic approval and some with overall approval below the halfway mark. 

So ask yourself: If everything going on today were taking place under Hillary, what do you suppose those poll numbers would be reporting?


----------



## Kondor3

Flopper said:


> ...First of all nobody is being put in jail. They are being detained...


They may consider themselves fortunate; at least, until the present day.



> ...Immigration does not jail people they detain them...


They may consider themselves fortunate; at least, until the present day.



> ...The children will not be charged or found guilty of anything...


True. However, their parents are now being processed as criminals under 8 U.S. Code § 1325 ( Improper entry by alien ). Suspects do not have rights for joint housing.



> ...Most of the parents will be charged with unlawful presence, a civil offence with no penalty...


Until the present day. *Now*, adult Illegal Alien trespassers are being evaluated for both criminal and civil charges under 8 U.S. Code § 1325, which says, in part:

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts:
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.​
(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties:
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection
*Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to*, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.​
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325​


> ...The _normal_ *former historical procedure of convenience* _is_ *was* to keep children with their parents...


Fixed.



> ...The new procedure is to take the kids away from their *Illegal Alien criminal-trespass* parents...


Fixed.



> ...promising that they will be united with their children if they sign a voluntary deportation agreement...


Excellent tactic to reduce clutter in the Immigration Courts... phukking brilliant... and entirely voluntary.



> ...which of course denies them due process of law...


Incorrect. This is tantamount to a Plea Bargain, which lets Illegal Alien criminal-trespass offenders off-the-hook cheaply and easily. Win-Win. Grand idea.

They are very welcome to undergo criminal-trespass hearings and trial if they choose. That's entirely up to them. Frankly, the US is letting them off the hook.



> ...This is an incredibly stupid move...


This is an incredibly *brilliant* move; cutting the Gordian Knot and telling Progressives to go phukk themselves on this topic.



> ...on the part of the Orange Clown which will just turn more people against his policies.


Say what you will about the Imperial Cheeto, but the philosophical battle lines were drawn on this subject on November 8, 2016. You(r side) lost.

Perhaps when the concept pierces your thick skulls, that being seen standing alongside Illegal Aliens rather than your own fellow countrymen is "impolitic" and "unwise", you will have begun the long journey back towards political power and control of government. But you Lefties are not well-known for your adaptability and pragmatism.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should be happy we are doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My concern for my fellow human beings is more important than political gain……..oh never mind .  You’re a conservative.  I doubt you’d understand.
Click to expand...


So much for your lie that you support having a southern border.  That's been your go to argument that you're not 100% Democrat on every position.  Poof, it's gone now.  When the rubber hits the road, you support the Democrat party no matter what their position is.  And you can dispense with the faux claim you're taking the high road


----------



## Pop23

Vandalshandle said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that as Hispanics become more affluent over time, they are different than whites are and they will continue to support importing low class poor Mexican criminals to overflow our jails, schools, medical centers and welfare rolls?  You're a racist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's something they don't consider.  The left has a hard time putting themselves in others shoes.
> 
> If I'm going to try and get into a country where I'm clearly a minority, and I understand some may not want me, the best thing I can do is be impressive as all hell that white people are a good thing for their society.  I'm going to want to show them I'm great, and want every other white person who comes there with me to demonstrate the same thing.
> 
> The last thing I would do is welcome or support whites who could care less about their laws, cost them billions of dollars, criminal whites, and gang whites.  I don't want them nowhere near this new country that has graciously accepted me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  Vandal has no idea how high 30 feet is either.  Even the majority of guys would balk at scaling down a 30 foot rope themselves much less sending their 5 year old and pregnant wife down the rope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another uneducated clown who has never been down here. You think that a 30 foot wall is going to stop someone who is willing to walk 100 miles through the most inhospitable desert in the USA in 105 degree temperature with only enough food and water to last one day? We find 300 dead illegals per year in AZ who died from exposure, many who had no shoes, while walking through cactus and snake infested desert for days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize you just answered why the children should be taken from SOB’s that would do that to them, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that anyone who would traumatize children for their parent's sins should not be allowed to raise them, and these days, that pretty much defines trumpettes.
Click to expand...


So you’re good with parents doing what would normally be considered abuse to their children. 

And who are you to say anyone else shouldn’t raise children?


----------



## kaz

busybee01 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like your erroneous assumption that the "Hispanic community", defined as citizens and legal residents, feel a huge amount of identification with and sympathy for people who jump the line and come here illegally.  Not everyone is the racist bigot you are, thinking of themselves and others as JUST their racial/ethnic group.
> 
> Tell you what:  YOU go with your line of coddling and crying over lawbreakers, and we'll go with our line of enforcing the law and protecting the border, and we'll each worry about our own fallout, rather than this _faux _"This would be best for you, no really" bullshit, as though I really think you're concerned about protecting the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The GOP needs to be destroyed. That is the only way to save the GOP.
Click to expand...



Don't quit your day job


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like your erroneous assumption that the "Hispanic community", defined as citizens and legal residents, feel a huge amount of identification with and sympathy for people who jump the line and come here illegally.  Not everyone is the racist bigot you are, thinking of themselves and others as JUST their racial/ethnic group.
> 
> Tell you what:  YOU go with your line of coddling and crying over lawbreakers, and we'll go with our line of enforcing the law and protecting the border, and we'll each worry about our own fallout, rather than this _faux _"This would be best for you, no really" bullshit, as though I really think you're concerned about protecting the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The GOP needs to be destroyed. That is the only way to save the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hispanic voters will remember this.  Illegal immigration is one thing…the illegals should be deported.  There is a process; they should respect the process barring any special circumstances.
> 
> Hard and fast policies of ripping kids from their mother’s arms is just a function of a heartless administration.
> 
> View attachment 196136
Click to expand...


So your get out of jail free card for being a criminal is to take a kid with you.  You're a real humanitarian, you are ...


----------



## Coyote

toobfreak said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot consider "human cost" in controlling illegal immigration.  A nation's borders must be controlled, enforced at any cost, otherwise you don't have a viable nation.  As soon as you consider human cost, you defeat yourself by setting a threshold that now illegals know that if they go over, they will get in.  Therefore, one cannot allow human cost to be a factor, indeed, the higher the cost the better, because as soon as illegals realize that the potential costs of entering far outweigh the potential benefits, THEY WILL STOP COMING.
Click to expand...


Costs are always a factor and in a civilized society human costs matter.  We could just act like ISIS and no doubt illegal immigration would come to a screeching halt.


----------



## kaz

Vandalshandle said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that as Hispanics become more affluent over time, they are different than whites are and they will continue to support importing low class poor Mexican criminals to overflow our jails, schools, medical centers and welfare rolls?  You're a racist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's something they don't consider.  The left has a hard time putting themselves in others shoes.
> 
> If I'm going to try and get into a country where I'm clearly a minority, and I understand some may not want me, the best thing I can do is be impressive as all hell that white people are a good thing for their society.  I'm going to want to show them I'm great, and want every other white person who comes there with me to demonstrate the same thing.
> 
> The last thing I would do is welcome or support whites who could care less about their laws, cost them billions of dollars, criminal whites, and gang whites.  I don't want them nowhere near this new country that has graciously accepted me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  Vandal has no idea how high 30 feet is either.  Even the majority of guys would balk at scaling down a 30 foot rope themselves much less sending their 5 year old and pregnant wife down the rope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another uneducated clown who has never been down here. You think that a 30 foot wall is going to stop someone who is willing to walk 100 miles through the most inhospitable desert in the USA in 105 degree temperature with only enough food and water to last one day? We find 300 dead illegals per year in AZ who died from exposure, many who had no shoes, while walking through cactus and snake infested desert for days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me again how illegal aliens are going to have their pregnant wife and five year old kid climb down a 30 foot rope, dishonest loser
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One last time. they can, and do, go over, under, around, and through walls. If you can not grasp that, than just build your wall all the way to China and to Africa. And airplanes fly higher than 30 feet high. or just walk through the tunnels under Nogales. My wife and I climbed a 40 foot wall out of a cave with rope and carabiner when we were in our 20's, and she was pregnant at the time. There is a rock climbing wall built where I live that kids climb all the time. I even posted a photograph of hundreds of people climbing a 30 foot wall. Since you are too dumb to learn, this conversation is over.
Click to expand...


You posted a picture of people climbing a wall that was falling apart and it wasn't any fucking 30 feet tall.  Just admit you support an unlimited stream of illegal aliens flowing into our country to vote for our leftist policies.  You don't WANT to stop them.  That is butt obvious.  You're a horrible liar


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> We could just act like ISIS and no doubt illegal immigration would come to a screeching halt.



You can't possibly be that dim witted that you think putting up a physical barrier to stop criminals from entering our country is acting "like ISIS."  You drool a lot, don't you?


----------



## kaz

Vandalshandle said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that as Hispanics become more affluent over time, they are different than whites are and they will continue to support importing low class poor Mexican criminals to overflow our jails, schools, medical centers and welfare rolls?  You're a racist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's something they don't consider.  The left has a hard time putting themselves in others shoes.
> 
> If I'm going to try and get into a country where I'm clearly a minority, and I understand some may not want me, the best thing I can do is be impressive as all hell that white people are a good thing for their society.  I'm going to want to show them I'm great, and want every other white person who comes there with me to demonstrate the same thing.
> 
> The last thing I would do is welcome or support whites who could care less about their laws, cost them billions of dollars, criminal whites, and gang whites.  I don't want them nowhere near this new country that has graciously accepted me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  Vandal has no idea how high 30 feet is either.  Even the majority of guys would balk at scaling down a 30 foot rope themselves much less sending their 5 year old and pregnant wife down the rope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another uneducated clown who has never been down here. You think that a 30 foot wall is going to stop someone who is willing to walk 100 miles through the most inhospitable desert in the USA in 105 degree temperature with only enough food and water to last one day? We find 300 dead illegals per year in AZ who died from exposure, many who had no shoes, while walking through cactus and snake infested desert for days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize you just answered why the children should be taken from SOB’s that would do that to them, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that anyone who would traumatize children for their parent's sins should not be allowed to raise them, and these days, that pretty much defines trumpettes.
Click to expand...


But you do think we should reward parents for traumatizing their kids and forcing children to be raised by parents who are criminals.  Thanks for that humanitarian education


----------



## Coyote

Kondor3 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...First of all nobody is being put in jail. They are being detained...
> 
> 
> 
> They may consider themselves fortunate; at least, until the present day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Immigration does not jail people they detain them...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They may consider themselves fortunate; at least, until the present day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...The children will not be charged or found guilty of anything...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True. However, their parents are now being processed as criminals under 8 U.S. Code § 1325 ( Improper entry by alien ). Suspects do not have rights for joint housing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Most of the parents will be charged with unlawful presence, a civil offence with no penalty...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until the present day. *Now*, adult Illegal Alien trespassers are being evaluated for both criminal and civil charges under 8 U.S. Code § 1325, which says, in part:
> 
> (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts:
> Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.​
> (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties:
> Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
> (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
> 2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection
> *Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to*, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.
> 
> 
> ​
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325​
> 
> 
> 
> ...The _normal_ *former historical procedure of convenience* _is_ *was* to keep children with their parents...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...The new procedure is to take the kids away from their *Illegal Alien criminal-trespass* parents...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...promising that they will be united with their children if they sign a voluntary deportation agreement...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent tactic to reduce clutter in the Immigration Courts... phukking brilliant... and entirely voluntary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...which of course denies them due process of law...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. This is tantamount to a Plea Bargain, which lets Illegal Alien criminal-trespass offenders off-the-hook cheaply and easily. Win-Win. Grand idea.
> 
> They are very welcome to undergo criminal-trespass hearings and trial if they choose. That's entirely up to them. Frankly, the US is letting them off the hook.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...This is an incredibly stupid move...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is an incredibly *brilliant* move; cutting the Gordian Knot and telling Progressives to go phukk themselves on this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...on the part of the Orange Clown which will just turn more people against his policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say what you will about the Imperial Cheeto, but the philosophical battle lines were drawn on this subject on November 8, 2016. You(r side) lost.
> 
> Perhaps when the concept pierces your thick skulls, that being seen standing alongside Illegal Aliens rather than your own fellow countrymen is "impolitic" and "unwise", you will have begun the long journey back towards political power and control of government. But you Lefties are not well-known for your adaptability and pragmatism.
Click to expand...


...promising that they will be united with their children if they sign a voluntary deportation agreement

That is evil.


----------



## kaz

Vandalshandle said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  Vandal has no idea how high 30 feet is either.  Even the majority of guys would balk at scaling down a 30 foot rope themselves much less sending their 5 year old and pregnant wife down the rope
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another uneducated clown who has never been down here. You think that a 30 foot wall is going to stop someone who is willing to walk 100 miles through the most inhospitable desert in the USA in 105 degree temperature with only enough food and water to last one day? We find 300 dead illegals per year in AZ who died from exposure, many who had no shoes, while walking through cactus and snake infested desert for days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me again how illegal aliens are going to have their pregnant wife and five year old kid climb down a 30 foot rope, dishonest loser
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One last time. they can, and do, go over, under, around, and through walls. If you can not grasp that, than just build your wall all the way to China and to Africa. And airplanes fly higher than 30 feet high. or just walk through the tunnels under Nogales. My wife and I climbed a 40 foot wall out of a cave with rope and carabiner when we were in our 20's, and she was pregnant at the time. There is a rock climbing wall built where I live that kids climb all the time. I even posted a photograph of hundreds of people climbing a 30 foot wall. Since you are too dumb to learn, this conversation is over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OTH -- there were 20 Army Rangers that FAILED to scale most of the Prototype wall demonstrations.. It's not something you can sink lines into..  Certainly not "unescorted minors"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, Trump told us that they are like professional mountain climbers, and I am SURE that he would not have said that unless it was true!
Click to expand...


Your story about having rock climbed in your 20s is obviously a lie since you think anyone can do it, pregnant women (you admitted your wife was also in her 20s and an experienced rock climber), children, old people, fat people.  A 30 foot wall might as well not be there.  You're a total liar


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...First of all nobody is being put in jail. They are being detained...
> 
> 
> 
> They may consider themselves fortunate; at least, until the present day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Immigration does not jail people they detain them...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They may consider themselves fortunate; at least, until the present day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...The children will not be charged or found guilty of anything...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True. However, their parents are now being processed as criminals under 8 U.S. Code § 1325 ( Improper entry by alien ). Suspects do not have rights for joint housing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Most of the parents will be charged with unlawful presence, a civil offence with no penalty...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until the present day. *Now*, adult Illegal Alien trespassers are being evaluated for both criminal and civil charges under 8 U.S. Code § 1325, which says, in part:
> 
> (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts:
> Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.​
> (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties:
> Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
> (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
> 2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection
> *Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to*, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.
> 
> 
> ​
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325​
> 
> 
> 
> ...The _normal_ *former historical procedure of convenience* _is_ *was* to keep children with their parents...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...The new procedure is to take the kids away from their *Illegal Alien criminal-trespass* parents...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...promising that they will be united with their children if they sign a voluntary deportation agreement...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent tactic to reduce clutter in the Immigration Courts... phukking brilliant... and entirely voluntary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...which of course denies them due process of law...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. This is tantamount to a Plea Bargain, which lets Illegal Alien criminal-trespass offenders off-the-hook cheaply and easily. Win-Win. Grand idea.
> 
> They are very welcome to undergo criminal-trespass hearings and trial if they choose. That's entirely up to them. Frankly, the US is letting them off the hook.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...This is an incredibly stupid move...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is an incredibly *brilliant* move; cutting the Gordian Knot and telling Progressives to go phukk themselves on this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...on the part of the Orange Clown which will just turn more people against his policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say what you will about the Imperial Cheeto, but the philosophical battle lines were drawn on this subject on November 8, 2016. You(r side) lost.
> 
> Perhaps when the concept pierces your thick skulls, that being seen standing alongside Illegal Aliens rather than your own fellow countrymen is "impolitic" and "unwise", you will have begun the long journey back towards political power and control of government. But you Lefties are not well-known for your adaptability and pragmatism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...promising that they will be united with their children if they sign a voluntary deportation agreement
> 
> That is evil.
Click to expand...


Yes, we should also ensure that if they sign it and come back, they will lose their children and go to jail and there will be no offer of a voluntary deportation agreement.

You're right, this way they will just abuse their children and drag them across the desert again.

You people are just so shallowly obvious that you want criminals to come here by the millions to vote for Democrats.  If we stop them, we are ISIS!  Moron


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> *terrorism*
> [ter-uh-riz-uh m]
> 
> noun
> 
> the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
> the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
> a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
> the definition of terrorism
> 
> Now which one of these things are happening to these children?  These kids are sent to live with relatives (if they have some living here) or to shelters where they are well cared for, fed until full, and given medical care if needed.  They are showered, given snacks between meals, clean clothing and are enjoying high definition cartoons on big screens.
> 
> If that's what you consider terrorism, I'm sure there are at least a billion kids in other countries who wish they were so terrorized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many of these children are dragged away from their parents screaming on terror. All 3 definitions describe what you and Trump want. You really think you can replace their parents. They are put into a foster care system that already does not work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're just making shit up. It's not foster care. It's immigration detention. Where disease and bad guys can harm you... You want PRIVATE rooms with TVs and a fridge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We want humane facilities for  families while their status is determined. We already get the fact you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give us an example of a human facility of the size and scope and for the same types of *immigrants* that the left has invited to our border.
> 
> You know, facilities that will *hold* families safely while trying to figure out who the fuck they are and where they came from and whether or not they are murderers or rapists or terrorists on the run.
> 
> Let's see an example of the sort of facility you want us to emulate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty sure what BusyBee and Coyote have in mind would look like this.. But with a Welcome to America banner draped elegantly from the front Promenade.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure you are wrong.

Opposing  ripping away their children while they are awaiting a hearing is hardly equivalent to this and was not necessary before. There were adequate facilities that managed to keep families intact.

Wtf is wrong with people!  Opposing this policy is now equivalent to wanting open borders and five star hotels for them?  Illegal immigrants are now equated with murders and rapists?

This country has gon in a truly evil direction.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

candycorn said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico has the right to do whatever they wish. If they wish to deny the entry of those we catch crossing FROM MEXICO ILLEGALLY, that is something that can only be addressed by a border wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...even though 52% of illegals simply overstay their visa? And, of course, although Trumpettes don't believe it, Mexicans actually have mastered the use of ladders and shovels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
Click to expand...


What you fail to write in your one in four comment is the fact Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and other communities are grouped into that figure and you want to play that figure as Mexican and El Salvadoran.

Also the discussion is about parents that illegally come here with their child and not those already here for years...

Also from 2009 to 2011 Democrats could have fixed the system and yet those like you ignore this fact!

All these problems you see today is your party failure to address and fix the broken system and if and when Democrats win again I doubt anything will be done because let face reality this wedge issue will never be fix because if it were then you lose that issue!

Finally, you better remember that even with the growing Hispanic communities in the State of Texas and New Mexico those States stay Red and Purple while the only true Blue State is California...

Now you might want to ask why is that and please if you attempt to use racism as your reasoning, well New Mexico Governor is not white and  SenatorTed Cruz is not white either...

I know how dare I point out reality that Hispanics understand that the Democratic Party has done little to fix the issue while blowing a lot of hot air!

So as you and the OP'er cry about what is being done, well maybe when your political party gains control again the two of you will demand they fix the system, but my guess this issue will be forgotten by then...


----------



## Kondor3

Coyote said:


> ......promising that they will be united with their children if they sign a voluntary deportation agreement That is evil.


Incorrect.

That is "*Deterrence*" ...a.k.a. "_cutting the Gordian Knot_".

It is also proving to be damned effective.

Don't want to be subjected to that?

Don't cross the US border or overstay without our express prior consent.

As provided by United States law.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of these children are dragged away from their parents screaming on terror. All 3 definitions describe what you and Trump want. You really think you can replace their parents. They are put into a foster care system that already does not work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just making shit up. It's not foster care. It's immigration detention. Where disease and bad guys can harm you... You want PRIVATE rooms with TVs and a fridge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We want humane facilities for  families while their status is determined. We already get the fact you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give us an example of a human facility of the size and scope and for the same types of *immigrants* that the left has invited to our border.
> 
> You know, facilities that will *hold* families safely while trying to figure out who the fuck they are and where they came from and whether or not they are murderers or rapists or terrorists on the run.
> 
> Let's see an example of the sort of facility you want us to emulate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty sure what BusyBee and Coyote have in mind would look like this.. But with a Welcome to America banner draped elegantly from the front Promenade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty sure you are wrong.
> 
> Opposing  ripping away their children while they are awaiting a hearing is hardly equivalent to this and was not necessary before. There were adequate facilities that managed to keep families intact.
> 
> Wtf is wrong with people!  Opposing this policy is now equivalent to wanting open borders and five star hotels for them?  Illegal immigrants are now equated with murders and rapists?
> 
> This country has gon in a truly evil direction.
Click to expand...


Enforcing our immigration laws is not evil and if so then all Nations are evil!

Again, you should be upset with the parent and their homeland government and not our laws and enforcing them.

It is illegal to enter this country without proper authorization and it should be dealt with until your political party grows a pair to fix the system they promised to fix back in 2008!


----------



## Kondor3

kaz said:


> ...You people are just so shallowly obvious that you want criminals to come here by the millions to vote for Democrats...


Nahhhhh... they don't necessarily want "criminals"... they just want legions of grateful new voters... *and they want to dilute the white vote*.

Now... *THAT* is "racist" .

What pi$$e$ them off to no end, is that Mainstream America has finally admitted that to themselves, and has begun acting upon it.

Nobody likes to see a "sucker" wise-up.


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of these children are dragged away from their parents screaming on terror. All 3 definitions describe what you and Trump want. You really think you can replace their parents. They are put into a foster care system that already does not work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just making shit up. It's not foster care. It's immigration detention. Where disease and bad guys can harm you... You want PRIVATE rooms with TVs and a fridge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We want humane facilities for  families while their status is determined. We already get the fact you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give us an example of a human facility of the size and scope and for the same types of *immigrants* that the left has invited to our border.
> 
> You know, facilities that will *hold* families safely while trying to figure out who the fuck they are and where they came from and whether or not they are murderers or rapists or terrorists on the run.
> 
> Let's see an example of the sort of facility you want us to emulate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty sure what BusyBee and Coyote have in mind would look like this.. But with a Welcome to America banner draped elegantly from the front Promenade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty sure you are wrong.
> 
> Opposing  ripping away their children while they are awaiting a hearing is hardly equivalent to this and was not necessary before. There were adequate facilities that managed to keep families intact.
> 
> Wtf is wrong with people!  Opposing this policy is now equivalent to wanting open borders and five star hotels for them?  Illegal immigrants are now equated with murders and rapists?
> 
> This country has gon in a truly evil direction.
Click to expand...


Making sure child abusers get to keep their kids.  You're just a pillar of humanity.

And that you want to assure criminals they won't be punished is such a stupid strategy.  We need to assure them that they will.

You need to keep your eye on the Sparrow.  Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.  Don't do it ...   Doing the time includes losing your kids.  We need to assure them that they will lose their kids, so don't commit crimes with your kids in tow


----------



## candycorn

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...even though 52% of illegals simply overstay their visa? And, of course, although Trumpettes don't believe it, Mexicans actually have mastered the use of ladders and shovels.
> 
> 
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you fail to write in your one in four comment is the fact Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and other communities are grouped into that figure and you want to play that figure as Mexican and El Salvadoran.
> 
> Also the discussion is about parents that illegally come here with their child and not those already here for years...
> 
> Also from 2009 to 2011 Democrats could have fixed the system and yet those like you ignore this fact!
> 
> All these problems you see today is your party failure to address and fix the broken system and if and when Democrats win again I doubt anything will be done because let face reality this wedge issue will never be fix because if it were then you lose that issue!
> 
> Finally, you better remember that even with the growing Hispanic communities in the State of Texas and New Mexico those States stay Red and Purple while the only true Blue State is California...
> 
> Now you might want to ask why is that and please if you attempt to use racism as your reasoning, well New Mexico Governor is not white and  SenatorTed Cruz is not white either...
> 
> I know how dare I point out reality that Hispanics understand that the Democratic Party has done little to fix the issue while blowing a lot of hot air!
> 
> So as you and the OP'er cry about what is being done, well maybe when your political party gains control again the two of you will demand they fix the system, but my guess this issue will be forgotten by then...
Click to expand...


Not a democrat.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try climbing over a 30 foot wall with a ladder.
> 
> Oh, and take your family with you ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a problem. Pull an 18 wheeler up next to the wall, and put a 15 foot ladder on top of it, and a robe ladder on the other side.
> 
> You guys don't really think these things through very much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you fail to write in your one in four comment is the fact Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and other communities are grouped into that figure and you want to play that figure as Mexican and El Salvadoran.
> 
> Also the discussion is about parents that illegally come here with their child and not those already here for years...
> 
> Also from 2009 to 2011 Democrats could have fixed the system and yet those like you ignore this fact!
> 
> All these problems you see today is your party failure to address and fix the broken system and if and when Democrats win again I doubt anything will be done because let face reality this wedge issue will never be fix because if it were then you lose that issue!
> 
> Finally, you better remember that even with the growing Hispanic communities in the State of Texas and New Mexico those States stay Red and Purple while the only true Blue State is California...
> 
> Now you might want to ask why is that and please if you attempt to use racism as your reasoning, well New Mexico Governor is not white and  SenatorTed Cruz is not white either...
> 
> I know how dare I point out reality that Hispanics understand that the Democratic Party has done little to fix the issue while blowing a lot of hot air!
> 
> So as you and the OP'er cry about what is being done, well maybe when your political party gains control again the two of you will demand they fix the system, but my guess this issue will be forgotten by then...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a democrat.
Click to expand...

You vote for them


----------



## Hugo Furst

candycorn said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 196135
> 
> Herr Sessions went on to say:
> *
> “If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,” Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement event in Scottsdale, Ariz. “If you don’t like that, then don’t smuggle children over our border.”
> 
> “If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple,” Sessions added, describing the new policy as zero tolerance. “We are dealing with a massive influx of illegal aliens across our Southwest Border. But we’re not going to stand for this.”
> 
> Sessions ramped up legal resources at the border recently, sending 35 federal prosecutors and 18 immigration judges to the southwest region to assist with an expected increase in border crossing cases.”
> *
> As we all know (and now you’ll see a bunch of conservatives with onset amnesia), the authorities can enforce the law or ignore the law at their discretion most times.  Technically, you’re breaking the law if you’re doing 56 in a 55MPH zone.  No cop will ticket you for that though.  Hell, Presidents use signing statements all the time to sidestep laws created by bills that they just sign.   This is a decision the Trump administration is making to ramp up the cruelty because they know it sates their WWE constituency.  Or do they really think that an 18 month old poses a threat to national security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> and that child will be separated from you as required by law,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did he make up that law, that day?
> 
> or was in in effect earlier?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have missed it:
> 
> The *hard and fast policy* of ripping a 18 month old from his mother’s arms; no exceptions…yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I also read 'as required by law'.
> 
> when did that  law go in to effect?
> 
> Before his speech, after his speech?
> 
> July 31, 2016?
> 
> Halloween?
> Christmas?
> Labor Day?
> 
> earlier?
> Later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Cops ignore the law all the time.  56 in a 55mph zone is breaking the law.  Few if any cops would give a ticket.
> Presidents use signing statements to sidestep laws that the bills they just signed created.
> The feds have ignored the States passing recreational marijuana laws…
> There are hundreds of examples of laws that are not enforced, seldom enforced, etc…
> Don’t pretend that you do not know this.
> 
> Trump and his gang are making the decision to be barbaric.  Nobody is forcing them to do this; Herr Sessions and company are doing it to please fools like you.
Click to expand...

are you saying you can't find the law he's referring to, and have no idea how long it's been on the books?


----------



## candycorn

WillHaftawaite said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 196135
> 
> Herr Sessions went on to say:
> *
> “If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,” Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement event in Scottsdale, Ariz. “If you don’t like that, then don’t smuggle children over our border.”
> 
> “If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple,” Sessions added, describing the new policy as zero tolerance. “We are dealing with a massive influx of illegal aliens across our Southwest Border. But we’re not going to stand for this.”
> 
> Sessions ramped up legal resources at the border recently, sending 35 federal prosecutors and 18 immigration judges to the southwest region to assist with an expected increase in border crossing cases.”
> *
> As we all know (and now you’ll see a bunch of conservatives with onset amnesia), the authorities can enforce the law or ignore the law at their discretion most times.  Technically, you’re breaking the law if you’re doing 56 in a 55MPH zone.  No cop will ticket you for that though.  Hell, Presidents use signing statements all the time to sidestep laws created by bills that they just sign.   This is a decision the Trump administration is making to ramp up the cruelty because they know it sates their WWE constituency.  Or do they really think that an 18 month old poses a threat to national security?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> and that child will be separated from you as required by law,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did he make up that law, that day?
> 
> or was in in effect earlier?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have missed it:
> 
> The *hard and fast policy* of ripping a 18 month old from his mother’s arms; no exceptions…yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I also read 'as required by law'.
> 
> when did that  law go in to effect?
> 
> Before his speech, after his speech?
> 
> July 31, 2016?
> 
> Halloween?
> Christmas?
> Labor Day?
> 
> earlier?
> Later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Cops ignore the law all the time.  56 in a 55mph zone is breaking the law.  Few if any cops would give a ticket.
> Presidents use signing statements to sidestep laws that the bills they just signed created.
> The feds have ignored the States passing recreational marijuana laws…
> There are hundreds of examples of laws that are not enforced, seldom enforced, etc…
> Don’t pretend that you do not know this.
> 
> Trump and his gang are making the decision to be barbaric.  Nobody is forcing them to do this; Herr Sessions and company are doing it to please fools like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you saying you can't find the law he's referring to, and have no idea how long it's been on the books?
Click to expand...


are you saying you can’t find a dictionary to help you understand the English words I used?


----------



## Hugo Furst

candycorn said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did he make up that law, that day?
> 
> or was in in effect earlier?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have missed it:
> 
> The *hard and fast policy* of ripping a 18 month old from his mother’s arms; no exceptions…yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I also read 'as required by law'.
> 
> when did that  law go in to effect?
> 
> Before his speech, after his speech?
> 
> July 31, 2016?
> 
> Halloween?
> Christmas?
> Labor Day?
> 
> earlier?
> Later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Cops ignore the law all the time.  56 in a 55mph zone is breaking the law.  Few if any cops would give a ticket.
> Presidents use signing statements to sidestep laws that the bills they just signed created.
> The feds have ignored the States passing recreational marijuana laws…
> There are hundreds of examples of laws that are not enforced, seldom enforced, etc…
> Don’t pretend that you do not know this.
> 
> Trump and his gang are making the decision to be barbaric.  Nobody is forcing them to do this; Herr Sessions and company are doing it to please fools like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you saying you can't find the law he's referring to, and have no idea how long it's been on the books?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you saying you can’t find a dictionary to help you understand the English words I used?
Click to expand...

still deflecting?


----------



## candycorn

WillHaftawaite said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must have missed it:
> 
> The *hard and fast policy* of ripping a 18 month old from his mother’s arms; no exceptions…yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also read 'as required by law'.
> 
> when did that  law go in to effect?
> 
> Before his speech, after his speech?
> 
> July 31, 2016?
> 
> Halloween?
> Christmas?
> Labor Day?
> 
> earlier?
> Later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Cops ignore the law all the time.  56 in a 55mph zone is breaking the law.  Few if any cops would give a ticket.
> Presidents use signing statements to sidestep laws that the bills they just signed created.
> The feds have ignored the States passing recreational marijuana laws…
> There are hundreds of examples of laws that are not enforced, seldom enforced, etc…
> Don’t pretend that you do not know this.
> 
> Trump and his gang are making the decision to be barbaric.  Nobody is forcing them to do this; Herr Sessions and company are doing it to please fools like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you saying you can't find the law he's referring to, and have no idea how long it's been on the books?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you saying you can’t find a dictionary to help you understand the English words I used?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still deflecting?
Click to expand...


still illiterate?  See, I can just answer questions with question too.


----------



## Hugo Furst

candycorn said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also read 'as required by law'.
> 
> when did that  law go in to effect?
> 
> Before his speech, after his speech?
> 
> July 31, 2016?
> 
> Halloween?
> Christmas?
> Labor Day?
> 
> earlier?
> Later?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cops ignore the law all the time.  56 in a 55mph zone is breaking the law.  Few if any cops would give a ticket.
> Presidents use signing statements to sidestep laws that the bills they just signed created.
> The feds have ignored the States passing recreational marijuana laws…
> There are hundreds of examples of laws that are not enforced, seldom enforced, etc…
> Don’t pretend that you do not know this.
> 
> Trump and his gang are making the decision to be barbaric.  Nobody is forcing them to do this; Herr Sessions and company are doing it to please fools like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you saying you can't find the law he's referring to, and have no idea how long it's been on the books?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you saying you can’t find a dictionary to help you understand the English words I used?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still deflecting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> still illiterate?  See, I can just answer questions with question too.
Click to expand...

 and still deflecting.

Original question:

When was the law enacted?


instead of an answer, you supply Mother Goose stories, limericks, and fairy tales, and other deflections .

is it that you CAN'T supply the answer, or that you're AFRAID to supply the answer?


----------



## candycorn

WillHaftawaite said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cops ignore the law all the time.  56 in a 55mph zone is breaking the law.  Few if any cops would give a ticket.
> Presidents use signing statements to sidestep laws that the bills they just signed created.
> The feds have ignored the States passing recreational marijuana laws…
> There are hundreds of examples of laws that are not enforced, seldom enforced, etc…
> Don’t pretend that you do not know this.
> 
> Trump and his gang are making the decision to be barbaric.  Nobody is forcing them to do this; Herr Sessions and company are doing it to please fools like you.
> 
> 
> 
> are you saying you can't find the law he's referring to, and have no idea how long it's been on the books?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you saying you can’t find a dictionary to help you understand the English words I used?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still deflecting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> still illiterate?  See, I can just answer questions with question too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and still deflecting.
> 
> Original question:
> 
> When was the law enacted?
> 
> 
> instead of an answer, you supply Mother Goose stories, limericks, and fairy tales, and other deflections .
> 
> is it that you CAN'T supply the answer, or that you're AFRAID to supply the answer?
Click to expand...


Is it that you can’t find a dictionary to look up my plainly written answers or that you are too embarrassed to admit you can’t read? 

This is fun….


----------



## Hugo Furst

candycorn said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you saying you can't find the law he's referring to, and have no idea how long it's been on the books?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you saying you can’t find a dictionary to help you understand the English words I used?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still deflecting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> still illiterate?  See, I can just answer questions with question too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and still deflecting.
> 
> Original question:
> 
> When was the law enacted?
> 
> 
> instead of an answer, you supply Mother Goose stories, limericks, and fairy tales, and other deflections .
> 
> is it that you CAN'T supply the answer, or that you're AFRAID to supply the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it that you can’t find a dictionary to look up my plainly written answers or that you are too embarrassed to admit you can’t read?
> 
> This is fun….
Click to expand...



what answer?

I have yet to see a response stating when the law was written, or enacted.

Should I make it easier on you?

Under which president was it enacted?

Reagan?
Bush 1?
Clinton?
Bush 2?
Obama?
Trump?

can you stop playing games long enough to answer that?


----------



## toobfreak

Coyote said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot consider "human cost" in controlling illegal immigration.  A nation's borders must be controlled, enforced at any cost, otherwise you don't have a viable nation.  As soon as you consider human cost, you defeat yourself by setting a threshold that now illegals know that if they go over, they will get in.  Therefore, one cannot allow human cost to be a factor, indeed, the higher the cost the better, because as soon as illegals realize that the potential costs of entering far outweigh the potential benefits, THEY WILL STOP COMING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Costs are always a factor and in a civilized society human costs matter.  We could just act like ISIS and no doubt illegal immigration would come to a screeching halt.
Click to expand...



Black and white reasoning.  Cost is always a factor?  If you or your child is drowning, is cost a factor?  Is there a point you will stop trying to save yourself or your kid?  You don't have to be ISIS to halt illegal aliens invading our borders, but merely be effective at stopping them so that they see the USA is no longer an option.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...First of all nobody is being put in jail. They are being detained...
> 
> 
> 
> They may consider themselves fortunate; at least, until the present day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Immigration does not jail people they detain them...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They may consider themselves fortunate; at least, until the present day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...The children will not be charged or found guilty of anything...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True. However, their parents are now being processed as criminals under 8 U.S. Code § 1325 ( Improper entry by alien ). Suspects do not have rights for joint housing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Most of the parents will be charged with unlawful presence, a civil offence with no penalty...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until the present day. *Now*, adult Illegal Alien trespassers are being evaluated for both criminal and civil charges under 8 U.S. Code § 1325, which says, in part:
> 
> (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts:
> Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.​
> (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties:
> Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
> (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
> 2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection
> *Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to*, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.
> 
> 
> ​
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325​
> 
> 
> 
> ...The _normal_ *former historical procedure of convenience* _is_ *was* to keep children with their parents...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...The new procedure is to take the kids away from their *Illegal Alien criminal-trespass* parents...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...promising that they will be united with their children if they sign a voluntary deportation agreement...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent tactic to reduce clutter in the Immigration Courts... phukking brilliant... and entirely voluntary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...which of course denies them due process of law...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. This is tantamount to a Plea Bargain, which lets Illegal Alien criminal-trespass offenders off-the-hook cheaply and easily. Win-Win. Grand idea.
> 
> They are very welcome to undergo criminal-trespass hearings and trial if they choose. That's entirely up to them. Frankly, the US is letting them off the hook.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...This is an incredibly stupid move...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is an incredibly *brilliant* move; cutting the Gordian Knot and telling Progressives to go phukk themselves on this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...on the part of the Orange Clown which will just turn more people against his policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say what you will about the Imperial Cheeto, but the philosophical battle lines were drawn on this subject on November 8, 2016. You(r side) lost.
> 
> Perhaps when the concept pierces your thick skulls, that being seen standing alongside Illegal Aliens rather than your own fellow countrymen is "impolitic" and "unwise", you will have begun the long journey back towards political power and control of government. But you Lefties are not well-known for your adaptability and pragmatism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...promising that they will be united with their children if they sign a voluntary deportation agreement
> 
> That is evil.
Click to expand...


It's also purely a figment of your imagination, which means the evil is something inside you.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of these children are dragged away from their parents screaming on terror. All 3 definitions describe what you and Trump want. You really think you can replace their parents. They are put into a foster care system that already does not work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just making shit up. It's not foster care. It's immigration detention. Where disease and bad guys can harm you... You want PRIVATE rooms with TVs and a fridge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We want humane facilities for  families while their status is determined. We already get the fact you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give us an example of a human facility of the size and scope and for the same types of *immigrants* that the left has invited to our border.
> 
> You know, facilities that will *hold* families safely while trying to figure out who the fuck they are and where they came from and whether or not they are murderers or rapists or terrorists on the run.
> 
> Let's see an example of the sort of facility you want us to emulate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty sure what BusyBee and Coyote have in mind would look like this.. But with a Welcome to America banner draped elegantly from the front Promenade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty sure you are wrong.
> 
> Opposing  ripping away their children while they are awaiting a hearing is hardly equivalent to this and was not necessary before. There were adequate facilities that managed to keep families intact.
> 
> Wtf is wrong with people!  Opposing this policy is now equivalent to wanting open borders and five star hotels for them?  Illegal immigrants are now equated with murders and rapists?
> 
> This country has gon in a truly evil direction.
Click to expand...


You are advocating smuggling children across borders.

Think about that.


----------



## koshergrl

Vandalshandle said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that as Hispanics become more affluent over time, they are different than whites are and they will continue to support importing low class poor Mexican criminals to overflow our jails, schools, medical centers and welfare rolls?  You're a racist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's something they don't consider.  The left has a hard time putting themselves in others shoes.
> 
> If I'm going to try and get into a country where I'm clearly a minority, and I understand some may not want me, the best thing I can do is be impressive as all hell that white people are a good thing for their society.  I'm going to want to show them I'm great, and want every other white person who comes there with me to demonstrate the same thing.
> 
> The last thing I would do is welcome or support whites who could care less about their laws, cost them billions of dollars, criminal whites, and gang whites.  I don't want them nowhere near this new country that has graciously accepted me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  Vandal has no idea how high 30 feet is either.  Even the majority of guys would balk at scaling down a 30 foot rope themselves much less sending their 5 year old and pregnant wife down the rope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another uneducated clown who has never been down here. You think that a 30 foot wall is going to stop someone who is willing to walk 100 miles through the most inhospitable desert in the USA in 105 degree temperature with only enough food and water to last one day? We find 300 dead illegals per year in AZ who died from exposure, many who had no shoes, while walking through cactus and snake infested desert for days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize you just answered why the children should be taken from SOB’s that would do that to them, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that anyone who would traumatize children for their parent's sins should not be allowed to raise them, and these days, that pretty much defines trumpettes.
Click to expand...


I think that anybody who maintains child smugglers should be allowed to spend quality time with their charges after they're busted smuggling them is probably engaged in child sex trafficking themselves.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...First of all nobody is being put in jail. They are being detained...
> 
> 
> 
> They may consider themselves fortunate; at least, until the present day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Immigration does not jail people they detain them...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They may consider themselves fortunate; at least, until the present day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...The children will not be charged or found guilty of anything...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True. However, their parents are now being processed as criminals under 8 U.S. Code § 1325 ( Improper entry by alien ). Suspects do not have rights for joint housing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Most of the parents will be charged with unlawful presence, a civil offence with no penalty...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until the present day. *Now*, adult Illegal Alien trespassers are being evaluated for both criminal and civil charges under 8 U.S. Code § 1325, which says, in part:
> 
> (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts:
> Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.​
> (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties:
> Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
> (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
> 2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection
> *Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to*, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.
> 
> 
> ​
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325​
> 
> 
> 
> ...The _normal_ *former historical procedure of convenience* _is_ *was* to keep children with their parents...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...The new procedure is to take the kids away from their *Illegal Alien criminal-trespass* parents...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...promising that they will be united with their children if they sign a voluntary deportation agreement...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent tactic to reduce clutter in the Immigration Courts... phukking brilliant... and entirely voluntary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...which of course denies them due process of law...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. This is tantamount to a Plea Bargain, which lets Illegal Alien criminal-trespass offenders off-the-hook cheaply and easily. Win-Win. Grand idea.
> 
> They are very welcome to undergo criminal-trespass hearings and trial if they choose. That's entirely up to them. Frankly, the US is letting them off the hook.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...This is an incredibly stupid move...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is an incredibly *brilliant* move; cutting the Gordian Knot and telling Progressives to go phukk themselves on this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...on the part of the Orange Clown which will just turn more people against his policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say what you will about the Imperial Cheeto, but the philosophical battle lines were drawn on this subject on November 8, 2016. You(r side) lost.
> 
> Perhaps when the concept pierces your thick skulls, that being seen standing alongside Illegal Aliens rather than your own fellow countrymen is "impolitic" and "unwise", you will have begun the long journey back towards political power and control of government. But you Lefties are not well-known for your adaptability and pragmatism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...promising that they will be united with their children if they sign a voluntary deportation agreement
> 
> That is evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also *purely a figment of your imagination*, which means the evil is something inside you.
Click to expand...


No.  It isn't.  I quoted it from the post above nitwit.  Learn to read.


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just making shit up. It's not foster care. It's immigration detention. Where disease and bad guys can harm you... You want PRIVATE rooms with TVs and a fridge?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We want humane facilities for  families while their status is determined. We already get the fact you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give us an example of a human facility of the size and scope and for the same types of *immigrants* that the left has invited to our border.
> 
> You know, facilities that will *hold* families safely while trying to figure out who the fuck they are and where they came from and whether or not they are murderers or rapists or terrorists on the run.
> 
> Let's see an example of the sort of facility you want us to emulate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty sure what BusyBee and Coyote have in mind would look like this.. But with a Welcome to America banner draped elegantly from the front Promenade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty sure you are wrong.
> 
> Opposing  ripping away their children while they are awaiting a hearing is hardly equivalent to this and was not necessary before. There were adequate facilities that managed to keep families intact.
> 
> Wtf is wrong with people!  Opposing this policy is now equivalent to wanting open borders and five star hotels for them?  Illegal immigrants are now equated with murders and rapists?
> 
> This country has gon in a truly evil direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are advocating smuggling children across borders.
> 
> Think about that.
Click to expand...


Why should I think about something you are making up?


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's something they don't consider.  The left has a hard time putting themselves in others shoes.
> 
> If I'm going to try and get into a country where I'm clearly a minority, and I understand some may not want me, the best thing I can do is be impressive as all hell that white people are a good thing for their society.  I'm going to want to show them I'm great, and want every other white person who comes there with me to demonstrate the same thing.
> 
> The last thing I would do is welcome or support whites who could care less about their laws, cost them billions of dollars, criminal whites, and gang whites.  I don't want them nowhere near this new country that has graciously accepted me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  Vandal has no idea how high 30 feet is either.  Even the majority of guys would balk at scaling down a 30 foot rope themselves much less sending their 5 year old and pregnant wife down the rope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another uneducated clown who has never been down here. You think that a 30 foot wall is going to stop someone who is willing to walk 100 miles through the most inhospitable desert in the USA in 105 degree temperature with only enough food and water to last one day? We find 300 dead illegals per year in AZ who died from exposure, many who had no shoes, while walking through cactus and snake infested desert for days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize you just answered why the children should be taken from SOB’s that would do that to them, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that anyone who would traumatize children for their parent's sins should not be allowed to raise them, and these days, that pretty much defines trumpettes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that anybody who maintains child smugglers should be allowed to spend quality time with their charges after they're busted smuggling them is probably engaged in child sex trafficking themselves.
Click to expand...


Who is advocating child smugglers?  Or is that what you call all parents who take their children with them?


----------



## Pop23

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We want humane facilities for  families while their status is determined. We already get the fact you are stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give us an example of a human facility of the size and scope and for the same types of *immigrants* that the left has invited to our border.
> 
> You know, facilities that will *hold* families safely while trying to figure out who the fuck they are and where they came from and whether or not they are murderers or rapists or terrorists on the run.
> 
> Let's see an example of the sort of facility you want us to emulate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty sure what BusyBee and Coyote have in mind would look like this.. But with a Welcome to America banner draped elegantly from the front Promenade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty sure you are wrong.
> 
> Opposing  ripping away their children while they are awaiting a hearing is hardly equivalent to this and was not necessary before. There were adequate facilities that managed to keep families intact.
> 
> Wtf is wrong with people!  Opposing this policy is now equivalent to wanting open borders and five star hotels for them?  Illegal immigrants are now equated with murders and rapists?
> 
> This country has gon in a truly evil direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are advocating smuggling children across borders.
> 
> Think about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should I think about something you are making up?
Click to expand...


No, it's not made up. We have literally millions of children in this country that were smuggled in.


----------



## Pop23

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  Vandal has no idea how high 30 feet is either.  Even the majority of guys would balk at scaling down a 30 foot rope themselves much less sending their 5 year old and pregnant wife down the rope
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another uneducated clown who has never been down here. You think that a 30 foot wall is going to stop someone who is willing to walk 100 miles through the most inhospitable desert in the USA in 105 degree temperature with only enough food and water to last one day? We find 300 dead illegals per year in AZ who died from exposure, many who had no shoes, while walking through cactus and snake infested desert for days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize you just answered why the children should be taken from SOB’s that would do that to them, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that anyone who would traumatize children for their parent's sins should not be allowed to raise them, and these days, that pretty much defines trumpettes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that anybody who maintains child smugglers should be allowed to spend quality time with their charges after they're busted smuggling them is probably engaged in child sex trafficking themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is advocating child smugglers?  Or is that what you call all parents who take their children with them?
Click to expand...


When a child is smuggled in, then by definition they are smuggled in.


----------



## Coyote

toobfreak said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot consider "human cost" in controlling illegal immigration.  A nation's borders must be controlled, enforced at any cost, otherwise you don't have a viable nation.  As soon as you consider human cost, you defeat yourself by setting a threshold that now illegals know that if they go over, they will get in.  Therefore, one cannot allow human cost to be a factor, indeed, the higher the cost the better, because as soon as illegals realize that the potential costs of entering far outweigh the potential benefits, THEY WILL STOP COMING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Costs are always a factor and in a civilized society human costs matter.  We could just act like ISIS and no doubt illegal immigration would come to a screeching halt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Black and white reasoning.  Cost is always a factor?  If you or your child is drowning, is cost a factor?  Is there a point you will stop trying to save yourself or your kid?  You don't have to be ISIS to halt illegal aliens invading our borders, but merely be effective at stopping them so that they see the USA is no longer an option.
Click to expand...



You can be VERY affective by acting like ISIS.  No question they won't come.  You can be VERY affective by implementing brutal measures.  Like what is being done with this policy.

So where do you draw the line?  Why is it OK to rip children from their parents while awaiting a hearing but not ok to shoot them at the border and put their heads on stakes?  Because of cost?

We have had effective policies, a decrease in illegal immigration over time, popular support for increased border security, more rapid deportations of criminals and other measures.  Why do we have to further and invoke more brutal measures?

And please, let's stop pretending that ALL these parents are human traffickers trafficking children.  That's a pathetic excuse for this policy when immigration inforcement has ALWAYS had the leeway to remove children when they suspect the parents are not the parents.  People are now pretending they are trying to prevent human trafficking as a way of supporting a punative and brutal policy against ALL illegal immigrants.


----------



## Coyote

Pop23 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another uneducated clown who has never been down here. You think that a 30 foot wall is going to stop someone who is willing to walk 100 miles through the most inhospitable desert in the USA in 105 degree temperature with only enough food and water to last one day? We find 300 dead illegals per year in AZ who died from exposure, many who had no shoes, while walking through cactus and snake infested desert for days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize you just answered why the children should be taken from SOB’s that would do that to them, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that anyone who would traumatize children for their parent's sins should not be allowed to raise them, and these days, that pretty much defines trumpettes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that anybody who maintains child smugglers should be allowed to spend quality time with their charges after they're busted smuggling them is probably engaged in child sex trafficking themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is advocating child smugglers?  Or is that what you call all parents who take their children with them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When a child is smuggled in, then by definition they are smuggled in.
Click to expand...



Yes.  It is made up.  You are just creating a strawman. * No one one in this thread supports child trafficking.*  Except maybe those engaged in it.  No one opposes immigration's right to remove a child they SUSPECT is being trafficked.  That's been a long standing policy. 

The rationale for this new policy has nothing to do with preventing child trafficking, though that is the excuse some supporters using.  Even Sessions isn't pretending it's about that.  It's intended as a punative and harsh measure to deter illegal immigration.  There are plenty of ways to deter it without descending to this.  It's cruel and there is no other way to put it.

Fund more judges to speed up hearings and deportations.  Increase manpower and electronic border security.   There are better ways that don't involve subjecting children to this kind of trauma and worse - losing them in our already overburdened and problematic child care system that isn't meant to handle this.


----------



## Coyote

Pop23 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another uneducated clown who has never been down here. You think that a 30 foot wall is going to stop someone who is willing to walk 100 miles through the most inhospitable desert in the USA in 105 degree temperature with only enough food and water to last one day? We find 300 dead illegals per year in AZ who died from exposure, many who had no shoes, while walking through cactus and snake infested desert for days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize you just answered why the children should be taken from SOB’s that would do that to them, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that anyone who would traumatize children for their parent's sins should not be allowed to raise them, and these days, that pretty much defines trumpettes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that anybody who maintains child smugglers should be allowed to spend quality time with their charges after they're busted smuggling them is probably engaged in child sex trafficking themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is advocating child smugglers?  Or is that what you call all parents who take their children with them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When a child is smuggled in, then by definition they are smuggled in.
Click to expand...


You are playing with semantics here and you know it.  I'm not going to play your games.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...First of all nobody is being put in jail. They are being detained...
> 
> 
> 
> They may consider themselves fortunate; at least, until the present day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Immigration does not jail people they detain them...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They may consider themselves fortunate; at least, until the present day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...The children will not be charged or found guilty of anything...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True. However, their parents are now being processed as criminals under 8 U.S. Code § 1325 ( Improper entry by alien ). Suspects do not have rights for joint housing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Most of the parents will be charged with unlawful presence, a civil offence with no penalty...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until the present day. *Now*, adult Illegal Alien trespassers are being evaluated for both criminal and civil charges under 8 U.S. Code § 1325, which says, in part:
> 
> (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts:
> Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.​
> (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties:
> Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
> (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
> 2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection
> *Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to*, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.
> 
> 
> ​
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325​
> 
> 
> 
> ...The _normal_ *former historical procedure of convenience* _is_ *was* to keep children with their parents...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...The new procedure is to take the kids away from their *Illegal Alien criminal-trespass* parents...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...promising that they will be united with their children if they sign a voluntary deportation agreement...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent tactic to reduce clutter in the Immigration Courts... phukking brilliant... and entirely voluntary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...which of course denies them due process of law...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. This is tantamount to a Plea Bargain, which lets Illegal Alien criminal-trespass offenders off-the-hook cheaply and easily. Win-Win. Grand idea.
> 
> They are very welcome to undergo criminal-trespass hearings and trial if they choose. That's entirely up to them. Frankly, the US is letting them off the hook.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...This is an incredibly stupid move...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is an incredibly *brilliant* move; cutting the Gordian Knot and telling Progressives to go phukk themselves on this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...on the part of the Orange Clown which will just turn more people against his policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say what you will about the Imperial Cheeto, but the philosophical battle lines were drawn on this subject on November 8, 2016. You(r side) lost.
> 
> Perhaps when the concept pierces your thick skulls, that being seen standing alongside Illegal Aliens rather than your own fellow countrymen is "impolitic" and "unwise", you will have begun the long journey back towards political power and control of government. But you Lefties are not well-known for your adaptability and pragmatism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...promising that they will be united with their children if they sign a voluntary deportation agreement
> 
> That is evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also *purely a figment of your imagination*, which means the evil is something inside you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It isn't.  I quoted it from the post above nitwit.  Learn to read.
Click to expand...


I DID read.  I read you finding someone saying what you wanted to believe, and simply assuming that OF COURSE it was correct about what was happening, because that's ALSO what you want to believe.

Learn to think, lackwit.


----------



## Coyote

When you look up "child smuggling" - you get "child trafficking" defined as:

*Trafficking of children* (aka "Child Labor" and "Child Exploitation) is a form of human trafficking and is defined as the "recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, and/or receipt" of a child for *the purpose of slavery, forced labor and exploitation*.[1]:Article 3 (c) This definition is substantially wider than the same document's definition of "trafficking in persons".[1]:Article 3 (a) Children may also be trafficked for the purpose of adoption.

Illegal immigrants traveling with their own children are not trafficking in children.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...First of all nobody is being put in jail. They are being detained...
> 
> 
> 
> They may consider themselves fortunate; at least, until the present day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Immigration does not jail people they detain them...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They may consider themselves fortunate; at least, until the present day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...The children will not be charged or found guilty of anything...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True. However, their parents are now being processed as criminals under 8 U.S. Code § 1325 ( Improper entry by alien ). Suspects do not have rights for joint housing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Most of the parents will be charged with unlawful presence, a civil offence with no penalty...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until the present day. *Now*, adult Illegal Alien trespassers are being evaluated for both criminal and civil charges under 8 U.S. Code § 1325, which says, in part:
> 
> (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts:
> Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.​
> (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties:
> Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
> (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
> 2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection
> *Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to*, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.
> 
> 
> ​
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325​
> 
> 
> 
> ...The _normal_ *former historical procedure of convenience* _is_ *was* to keep children with their parents...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...The new procedure is to take the kids away from their *Illegal Alien criminal-trespass* parents...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...promising that they will be united with their children if they sign a voluntary deportation agreement...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent tactic to reduce clutter in the Immigration Courts... phukking brilliant... and entirely voluntary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...which of course denies them due process of law...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. This is tantamount to a Plea Bargain, which lets Illegal Alien criminal-trespass offenders off-the-hook cheaply and easily. Win-Win. Grand idea.
> 
> They are very welcome to undergo criminal-trespass hearings and trial if they choose. That's entirely up to them. Frankly, the US is letting them off the hook.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...This is an incredibly stupid move...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is an incredibly *brilliant* move; cutting the Gordian Knot and telling Progressives to go phukk themselves on this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...on the part of the Orange Clown which will just turn more people against his policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say what you will about the Imperial Cheeto, but the philosophical battle lines were drawn on this subject on November 8, 2016. You(r side) lost.
> 
> Perhaps when the concept pierces your thick skulls, that being seen standing alongside Illegal Aliens rather than your own fellow countrymen is "impolitic" and "unwise", you will have begun the long journey back towards political power and control of government. But you Lefties are not well-known for your adaptability and pragmatism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...promising that they will be united with their children if they sign a voluntary deportation agreement
> 
> That is evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also *purely a figment of your imagination*, which means the evil is something inside you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It isn't.  I quoted it from the post above nitwit.  Learn to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I DID read.  I read you finding someone saying what you wanted to believe, and simply assuming that OF COURSE it was correct about what was happening, because that's ALSO what you want to believe.
> 
> Learn to think, lackwit.
Click to expand...


Clearly your reading comprehension skills are smaller than your mouth.  I merely quoted from the post.  There is nothing there that I made up.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We want humane facilities for  families while their status is determined. We already get the fact you are stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give us an example of a human facility of the size and scope and for the same types of *immigrants* that the left has invited to our border.
> 
> You know, facilities that will *hold* families safely while trying to figure out who the fuck they are and where they came from and whether or not they are murderers or rapists or terrorists on the run.
> 
> Let's see an example of the sort of facility you want us to emulate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty sure what BusyBee and Coyote have in mind would look like this.. But with a Welcome to America banner draped elegantly from the front Promenade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty sure you are wrong.
> 
> Opposing  ripping away their children while they are awaiting a hearing is hardly equivalent to this and was not necessary before. There were adequate facilities that managed to keep families intact.
> 
> Wtf is wrong with people!  Opposing this policy is now equivalent to wanting open borders and five star hotels for them?  Illegal immigrants are now equated with murders and rapists?
> 
> This country has gon in a truly evil direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are advocating smuggling children across borders.
> 
> Think about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should I think about something you are making up?
Click to expand...


And pretending that isn't what you are advocating proves you're a liar. 

You are defending the practice of keeping the victims of child smugglers with their smugglers. 

And you also advocate letting child smugglers across the border with limited interference. 

That is why we have the human/child trafficking crisis in the world right now. Idiots like you defending the child traffickers and doing everything you can to make it easier for them to smuggle, traffic, and sell children back and forth across the border.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Coyote said:


> Who is advocating child smugglers? Or is that what you call all parents who take their children with them?


That is EXACTLY what I would call parents who illegally smuggle their children into a foreign country.  That is the very DEFINITION of a child smuggler.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> When you look up "child smuggling" - you get "child trafficking" defined as:
> 
> *Trafficking of children* (aka "Child Labor" and "Child Exploitation) is a form of human trafficking and is defined as the "recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, and/or receipt" of a child for *the purpose of slavery, forced labor and exploitation*.[1]:Article 3 (c) This definition is substantially wider than the same document's definition of "trafficking in persons".[1]:Article 3 (a) Children may also be trafficked for the purpose of adoption.
> 
> Illegal immigrants traveling with their own children are not trafficking in children.


What do you call it when someone pays someone to move a child illegally across the border?

Exploitation. Trafficking. It is by definition what we are talking about here. 

But the criminal, human trafficking, baby killing, sex trade loving left, per usual, is going to change the language because they don't like the fact that they are in fact defending smuggling/trafficking. So they will pretend that smuggling/trafficking is actually something DIFFERENT.


----------



## koshergrl

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is advocating child smugglers? Or is that what you call all parents who take their children with them?
> 
> 
> 
> That is EXACTLY what I would call parents who illegally smuggle their children into a foreign country.  That is the very DEFINITION of a child smuggler.
Click to expand...

It's useless these people have been bred, and bribed, to defend these practices.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Coyote said:


> When you look up "child smuggling" - you get "child trafficking" defined as:
> 
> *Trafficking of children* (aka "Child Labor" and "Child Exploitation) is a form of human trafficking and is defined as the "recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, and/or receipt" of a child for *the purpose of slavery, forced labor and exploitation*.[1]:Article 3 (c) This definition is substantially wider than the same document's definition of "trafficking in persons".[1]:Article 3 (a) Children may also be trafficked for the purpose of adoption.
> 
> Illegal immigrants traveling with their own children are not trafficking in children.


Hmmmmm....


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

A person using his/her child as a shield against a government taking legal action to deport that person is EXPLOITATION.  Taking that child with is illegal, and therefore trafficking and smuggling.  

Take that sympathy bullshit and blow it out your America-hating, communist asses.  IT IS SMUGGLING/TRAFFICKING!!!


----------



## koshergrl

Eight immigrant children were released to human traffickers who pretended to be *familiy*.

“These kids, regardless of their immigration status, deserve to be treated properly, not abused or trafficked,” Portman said in the subcommittee. “This is all about accountability.”

"“If you smuggle an illegal alien across the border, then we’ll prosecute you. … If you’re smuggling a child, then we’re going to prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you, probably, as required by law. If you don’t want your child separated, then don’t bring them across the border illegally. It’s not our fault that somebody does that.”

The U.S. lost track of 1,475 immigrant children last year. Here’s why people are outraged now.


----------



## Toro

Parents taking their kids across borders are now “child smugglers.”


----------



## ph3iron

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


How many?
A few million in a country of 350 million?
Omg


----------



## ph3iron

ph3iron said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> How many?
> A few million in a country of 350 million?
> Omg
Click to expand...

I think immigrants have always been the smartest and aggressive of people
Always been that way


----------



## ph3iron

9thIDdoc said:


> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.


And which christianchurch do you go to?
Mr old white fart sucking off commie benefits


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Toro said:


> Parents taking their kids across borders are now “child smugglers.”


Correct.

They have always been child smugglers.  

To Smuggle:

convey (someone or something) somewhere secretly and illicitly.
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1.....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.183....0.ijKEIr1frGo
Definition of SMUGGLE
the definition of smuggle


----------



## Cecilie1200

Now that the hysterical leftists have screamed over the headlines and what they THINK the stories under them said, tossed in about a million suppositions stated as fact, screamed over THEM, and otherwise pitched a blue hissy fit over any and every thing that they could possibly pretend was happening, how about we take a calm, reasoned look at the facts and the other side of the story.

(If you're planning to be "outraged" over the "biased" source, please remember that we started this furor over the blind belief in a story titled "Anguish at the Southwest Border", and piss off.)

Separating Kids at Border: The Truth | National Review

_For the longest time, illegal immigration was driven by single males from Mexico. Over the last decade, the flow has shifted to women, children, and family units from Central America. This poses challenges we haven’t confronted before and has made what once were relatively minor wrinkles in the law loom very large._

Oh, look.  An actual, reality-based motive for the policy change that the left didn't even bother to look for or consider, because it was so much more fun to just leap wildly to the conclusion that it's "hate", and "racism", and "eeeeeevil".

_The Trump administration isn’t changing the rules that pertain to separating an adult from the child. Those remain the same. Separation happens only if officials find that the adult is falsely claiming to be the child’s parent, or is a threat to the child, or is put into criminal proceedings._

So basically, everything the leftists here have based their caterwauling on has been false, either through a complete ignorance of the concept of finding the facts, or through flat-out lying.  No one is suddenly "ripping children away from their parents at the border", and we actually ARE talking about adults who are being incarcerated.

_It’s the last that is operative here. The past practice had been to give a free pass to an adult who is part of a family unit. The new Trump policy is to prosecute all adults. The idea is to send a signal that we are serious about our laws and to create a deterrent against re-entry. (Illegal entry is a misdemeanor, illegal re-entry a felony.)_

Again, no one is doing anything different with the children than they ever have.  Children have ALWAYS been placed into some sort of state care when their parents/guardians are taken into custody.  The change has been in what happens to the adults.  Instead of being allowed to callously and cold-bloodedly use their children as human shields to protect themselves from the consequences of their law-breaking choices, the adults are getting the same results as any other criminal:  get arrested, get jailed, get prosecuted.

_When a migrant is prosecuted for illegal entry, he or she is taken into custody by the U.S. Marshals. In no circumstance anywhere in the U.S. do the marshals care for the children of people they take into custody. The child is taken into the custody of HHS, who cares for them at temporary shelters.

The criminal proceedings are exceptionally short, assuming there is no aggravating factor such as a prior illegal entity or another crime. The migrants generally plead guilty, and they are then sentenced to time served, typically all in the same day, although practices vary along the border. After this, they are returned to the custody of ICE.
_
And hey, last time I checked, the Constitution guarantees a right to a speedy trial, and you don't get much frigging speedier than "all in the same day", so yay for respecting rights.

_If the adult then wants to go home, in keeping with the expedited order of removal that is issued as a matter of course, it’s relatively simple. The adult should be reunited quickly with his or her child, and the family returned home as a unit. In this scenario, there’s only a very brief separation._

So no more overblown vapors about "terrorizing the children, the trauma!"  I sincerely doubt one day in a shelter is wigging them out any more than the process of sneaking across the border did.  And once again, the primary responsibility for the mental and emotional well-being of the child belongs to the parent, who decided to drag them along on this whole crazy crime deal in the hopes of using them to protect themselves.

_Where it becomes much more of an issue is if the adult files an asylum claim. In that scenario, the adults are almost certainly going to be detained longer than the government is allowed to hold their children.

That’s because of something called the Flores Consent Decree from 1997. It says that unaccompanied children can be held only 20 days. A ruling by the Ninth Circuit extended this 20-day limit to children who come as part of family units. So even if we want to hold a family unit together, we are forbidden from doing so._

Oh, look.  Actual laws, on the books long before Trump showed up, which must be and are observed.  It's almost like the Trump administration isn't just going off half-cocked and making up "eeeevil" shit on the fly, but actually working within the legal system largely promulgated by YOU LEFTISTS.
_
The clock ticking on the time the government can hold a child will almost always run out before an asylum claim is settled. The migrant is allowed ten days to seek an attorney, and there may be continuances or other complications.

This creates the choice of either releasing the adults and children together into the country pending the ajudication of the asylum claim, or holding the adults and releasing the children. If the adult is held, HHS places the child with a responsible party in the U.S., ideally a relative (migrants are likely to have family and friends here).
_
So what it looks like is that the government has been bending over backward to try to accommodate and care for these children being dragged here as law-breaking tools by their parents, only to have the parents use those kids to manipulate the system even further.  Kinda makes the new policy look like a reasonable compromise between protecting the kids AND protecting the country, doesn't it?

_Even if Flores didn’t exist, the government would be very constrained in how many family units it can accommodate. ICE has only about 3,000 family spaces in shelters. It is also limited in its overall space at the border, which is overwhelmed by the ongoing influx. This means that — whatever the Trump administration would prefer to do — many adults are still swiftly released._
_
O_h, but why not just release ALL the adults who have brought their handy little human shields along, "for the chirren", you ask?  Turns out, the government is actually trying to help the adults while also doing their jobs.

_Even if Flores didn’t exist, the government would be very constrained in how many family units it can accommodate. ICE has only about 3,000 family spaces in shelters. It is also limited in its overall space at the border, which is overwhelmed by the ongoing influx. This means that — whatever the Trump administration would prefer to do — many adults are still swiftly released._

And then there's the part that the adults were aiming for the first place, the main reason they brought the kids along to be used.

_Second, if an adult is released while the claim is pending, the chances of ever finding that person again once he or she is in the country are dicey, to say the least. It is tantamount to allowing the migrant to live here, no matter what the merits of the case._

So no, I'm going to say the "human cost" of housing kids in a temporary shelter for a whole day, or with relatives or a with a family for longer, when it is THEIR OWN PARENTS who started this and who choose to extend the whole process, is not going to lose me any sleep, particularly when it's the exact same "human cost" that we pay for prosecuting ANYONE for a crime, if that person has happened to procreate prior to breaking the law.

_A few points about all this:

1) Family units can go home quickly. The option that both honors our laws and keeps family units together is a swift return home after prosecution. But immigrant advocates hate it because they want the migrants to stay in the United States. How you view this question will depend a lot on how you view the motivation of the migrants (and how seriously you take our laws and our border).

2) There’s a better way to claim asylum. Every indication is that the migrant flow to the United States is discretionary. It nearly dried up at the beginning of the Trump administration when migrants believed that they had no chance of getting into the United States. Now, it is going in earnest again because the message got out that, despite the rhetoric, the policy at the border hasn’t changed. This strongly suggests that the flow overwhelmingly consists of economic migrants who would prefer to live in the United States, rather than victims of persecution in their home country who have no option but to get out.

Even if a migrant does have a credible fear of persecution, there is a legitimate way to pursue that claim, and it does not involve entering the United States illegally. First, such people should make their asylum claim in the first country where they feel safe, i.e., Mexico or some other country they are traversing to get here. Second, if for some reason they are threatened everywhere but the United States, they should show up at a port of entry and make their claim there rather than crossing the border illegally.

3) There is a significant moral cost to not enforcing the border. There is obviously a moral cost to separating a parent from a child and almost everyone would prefer not to do it. But, under current policy and with the current resources, the only practical alternative is letting family units who show up at the border live in the country for the duration. Not only does this make a mockery of our laws, it creates an incentive for people to keep bringing children with them.

Needless to say, children should not be making this journey that is fraught with peril. But there is now a premium on bringing children because of how we have handled these cases. They are considered chits.
_
So obviously, we are ALREADY caring more about the well-being of these children than their own damned parents do.  We are not obligated to "care" even more, to the point where we sacrifice our own country - and our own children who reside in it and who will have to grow up to deal with the aftermath of disastrous immigration policies - for the bleeding hearts of a bunch of people too stupid to find out what they're outraged about before they start screaming.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

HappyJoy said:


> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?


How about the unnecessary smuggling of those children into the U.S. to begin with?  How about the unnecessary separation of children from their criminal parents who go to jail?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They may consider themselves fortunate; at least, until the present day.
> 
> 
> They may consider themselves fortunate; at least, until the present day.
> 
> 
> True. However, their parents are now being processed as criminals under 8 U.S. Code § 1325 ( Improper entry by alien ). Suspects do not have rights for joint housing.
> 
> 
> Until the present day. *Now*, adult Illegal Alien trespassers are being evaluated for both criminal and civil charges under 8 U.S. Code § 1325, which says, in part:
> 
> (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts:
> Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.​
> (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties:
> Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
> (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
> 2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection
> *Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to*, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.
> 
> 
> ​
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325​
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> 
> Excellent tactic to reduce clutter in the Immigration Courts... phukking brilliant... and entirely voluntary.
> 
> 
> Incorrect. This is tantamount to a Plea Bargain, which lets Illegal Alien criminal-trespass offenders off-the-hook cheaply and easily. Win-Win. Grand idea.
> 
> They are very welcome to undergo criminal-trespass hearings and trial if they choose. That's entirely up to them. Frankly, the US is letting them off the hook.
> 
> 
> This is an incredibly *brilliant* move; cutting the Gordian Knot and telling Progressives to go phukk themselves on this topic.
> 
> 
> Say what you will about the Imperial Cheeto, but the philosophical battle lines were drawn on this subject on November 8, 2016. You(r side) lost.
> 
> Perhaps when the concept pierces your thick skulls, that being seen standing alongside Illegal Aliens rather than your own fellow countrymen is "impolitic" and "unwise", you will have begun the long journey back towards political power and control of government. But you Lefties are not well-known for your adaptability and pragmatism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...promising that they will be united with their children if they sign a voluntary deportation agreement
> 
> That is evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also *purely a figment of your imagination*, which means the evil is something inside you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It isn't.  I quoted it from the post above nitwit.  Learn to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I DID read.  I read you finding someone saying what you wanted to believe, and simply assuming that OF COURSE it was correct about what was happening, because that's ALSO what you want to believe.
> 
> Learn to think, lackwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly your reading comprehension skills are smaller than your mouth.  I merely quoted from the post.  There is nothing there that I made up.
Click to expand...


Clearly, YOUR reading comprehension skills are small enough to fit in a gnat's ear.

"I merely quoted the post."  Yes, and the post remains NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE TOPIC.  It's just something you picked out randomly because it said what you wanted to hear.

And you continue to invent the whole "use the children to coerce the people to voluntarily deport" conspiracy right out of your own demented pseudo-brain.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ph3iron said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> How many?
> A few million in a country of 350 million?
> Omg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think immigrants have always been the smartest and aggressive of people
> Always been that way
Click to expand...


First . . . stop with the sloppy language.  There are immigrants, and then there are illegal immigrants.  Two different groups of people, and two completely different issues.

Second, I don't see anything particularly smart about breaking the law, but that's just me.  And aggressive is mostly not a positive trait, particularly when it's aimed at the aforementioned breaking the law.


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of these children are dragged away from their parents screaming on terror. All 3 definitions describe what you and Trump want. You really think you can replace their parents. They are put into a foster care system that already does not work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just making shit up. It's not foster care. It's immigration detention. Where disease and bad guys can harm you... You want PRIVATE rooms with TVs and a fridge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We want humane facilities for  families while their status is determined. We already get the fact you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give us an example of a human facility of the size and scope and for the same types of *immigrants* that the left has invited to our border.
> 
> You know, facilities that will *hold* families safely while trying to figure out who the fuck they are and where they came from and whether or not they are murderers or rapists or terrorists on the run.
> 
> Let's see an example of the sort of facility you want us to emulate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty sure what BusyBee and Coyote have in mind would look like this.. But with a Welcome to America banner draped elegantly from the front Promenade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty sure you are wrong.
> 
> Opposing  ripping away their children while they are awaiting a hearing is hardly equivalent to this and was not necessary before. There were adequate facilities that managed to keep families intact.
> 
> Wtf is wrong with people!  Opposing this policy is now equivalent to wanting open borders and five star hotels for them?  Illegal immigrants are now equated with murders and rapists?
> 
> This country has gon in a truly evil direction.
Click to expand...

Having separate housing's for those detained is for their own protection.  It is a liability if the children get harmed or raped being detained with adults awaiting a hearing.

If they were allowed to be detained together and something happened the left would be in arms of not protecting them.

Bottom line.  The left want Catch and release which is the same as Welcome to America.  Open borders.  They don't show up for hearings under that policy and blend into the country.

Immigration is s numbers game.  There are too many in plight South of the border to take them all in.  The problem there is not OUR fault.  These countries did it to themselves and expect us to take care of them for their own mistakes.

They need to retake their countries from the drug Lord's and stop the need to flee here.

This thread is identity politics now.  Your evil BS.  Sell that snake oil somewhere else


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot consider "human cost" in controlling illegal immigration.  A nation's borders must be controlled, enforced at any cost, otherwise you don't have a viable nation.  As soon as you consider human cost, you defeat yourself by setting a threshold that now illegals know that if they go over, they will get in.  Therefore, one cannot allow human cost to be a factor, indeed, the higher the cost the better, because as soon as illegals realize that the potential costs of entering far outweigh the potential benefits, THEY WILL STOP COMING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Costs are always a factor and in a civilized society human costs matter.  We could just act like ISIS and no doubt illegal immigration would come to a screeching halt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Black and white reasoning.  Cost is always a factor?  If you or your child is drowning, is cost a factor?  Is there a point you will stop trying to save yourself or your kid?  You don't have to be ISIS to halt illegal aliens invading our borders, but merely be effective at stopping them so that they see the USA is no longer an option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can be VERY affective by acting like ISIS.  No question they won't come.  You can be VERY affective by implementing brutal measures.  Like what is being done with this policy.
> 
> So where do you draw the line?  Why is it OK to rip children from their parents while awaiting a hearing but not ok to shoot them at the border and put their heads on stakes?  Because of cost?
> 
> We have had effective policies, a decrease in illegal immigration over time, popular support for increased border security, more rapid deportations of criminals and other measures.  Why do we have to further and invoke more brutal measures?
> 
> And please, let's stop pretending that ALL these parents are human traffickers trafficking children.  That's a pathetic excuse for this policy when immigration inforcement has ALWAYS had the leeway to remove children when they suspect the parents are not the parents.  People are now pretending they are trying to prevent human trafficking as a way of supporting a punative and brutal policy against ALL illegal immigrants.
Click to expand...

To compare us to ISIS is laughable.  To compare the two to drug cartels they run from wouldn't be ,

There men need to arm up and send the drug cartels to hell.  Then there would be no reason to run


----------



## toobfreak

Coyote said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot consider "human cost" in controlling illegal immigration.  A nation's borders must be controlled, enforced at any cost, otherwise you don't have a viable nation.  As soon as you consider human cost, you defeat yourself by setting a threshold that now illegals know that if they go over, they will get in.  Therefore, one cannot allow human cost to be a factor, indeed, the higher the cost the better, because as soon as illegals realize that the potential costs of entering far outweigh the potential benefits, THEY WILL STOP COMING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Costs are always a factor and in a civilized society human costs matter.  We could just act like ISIS and no doubt illegal immigration would come to a screeching halt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Black and white reasoning.  Cost is always a factor?  If you or your child is drowning, is cost a factor?  Is there a point you will stop trying to save yourself or your kid?  You don't have to be ISIS to halt illegal aliens invading our borders, but merely be effective at stopping them so that they see the USA is no longer an option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can be VERY affective by acting like ISIS.  No question they won't come.  You can be VERY affective by implementing brutal measures.  Like what is being done with this policy.
> 
> So where do you draw the line?  Why is it OK to rip children from their parents while awaiting a hearing but not ok to shoot them at the border and put their heads on stakes?  Because of cost?
> 
> We have had effective policies, a decrease in illegal immigration over time, popular support for increased border security, more rapid deportations of criminals and other measures.  Why do we have to further and invoke more brutal measures?
> 
> And please, let's stop pretending that ALL these parents are human traffickers trafficking children.  That's a pathetic excuse for this policy when immigration inforcement has ALWAYS had the leeway to remove children when they suspect the parents are not the parents.  People are now pretending they are trying to prevent human trafficking as a way of supporting a punative and brutal policy against ALL illegal immigrants.
Click to expand...



I don't know why parents and kids are being separated.  But brutality?  If you want to see brutality, go try invading the border of North Korea, Russia or Iran and get caught.  Then talk to me.  Sorry, I just do not have any patience for invaders.  Let the USA take care of its own people first.  That we are feeding, housing and caring for all these unwanted people we didn't ask for instead of outright shooting them in the head right at the border is all the magnanimity I care to share.   If it still isn't good enough, let them go south and invade Nicaragua or Honduras instead.  The USA can't keep being the blanket solution to all of the rest of the world's failings and problems forever and ever.


----------



## Flopper

eagle1462010 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just making shit up. It's not foster care. It's immigration detention. Where disease and bad guys can harm you... You want PRIVATE rooms with TVs and a fridge?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We want humane facilities for  families while their status is determined. We already get the fact you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give us an example of a human facility of the size and scope and for the same types of *immigrants* that the left has invited to our border.
> 
> You know, facilities that will *hold* families safely while trying to figure out who the fuck they are and where they came from and whether or not they are murderers or rapists or terrorists on the run.
> 
> Let's see an example of the sort of facility you want us to emulate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty sure what BusyBee and Coyote have in mind would look like this.. But with a Welcome to America banner draped elegantly from the front Promenade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty sure you are wrong.
> 
> Opposing  ripping away their children while they are awaiting a hearing is hardly equivalent to this and was not necessary before. There were adequate facilities that managed to keep families intact.
> 
> Wtf is wrong with people!  Opposing this policy is now equivalent to wanting open borders and five star hotels for them?  Illegal immigrants are now equated with murders and rapists?
> 
> This country has gon in a truly evil direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Having separate housing's for those detained is for their own protection.  It is a liability if the children get harmed or raped being detained with adults awaiting a hearing.
> 
> If they were allowed to be detained together and something happened the left would be in arms of not protecting them.
> 
> Bottom line.  The left want Catch and release which is the same as Welcome to America.  Open borders.  They don't show up for hearings under that policy and blend into the country.
> 
> Immigration is s numbers game.  There are too many in plight South of the border to take them all in.  The problem there is not OUR fault.  These countries did it to themselves and expect us to take care of them for their own mistakes.
> 
> They need to retake their countries from the drug Lord's and stop the need to flee here.
> 
> This thread is identity politics now.  Your evil BS.  Sell that snake oil somewhere else
Click to expand...

*Eventually, we have to take a practically workable approach to illegal immigration. Deportation at best keeps the number of illegal immigrants from increasing. 80% of all deportees are captured within a short distance of the boarder.  The other 20% (internal deportations) come from the rest of the country.  At the current rate that Trump is deporting, it will take between 150 and 230 years to deport all illegal immigrants.  The actually time would probably be a lot longer because we will not always have a zealot such as Trump in the White House and a republican congress.

It's very unlikely that the wall across the Mexican boarder will be built.  Trump has already shot down the idea of a wall that spans the boarder.  His last word I heard was he was planning to build a wall in certainly places and upgrade fencing.  However, even if the wall is build, this may not significantly reduce illegal immigration.  If we are successful in reducing Southern boarder crossings, we have to consider our other boarders.   We have nearly 100,000 miles of boarder including our shoreline and the Canadian boarder. which are largely unguarded compared to our southern boarder.  As crossing our Southern boarder get's harder, people will turn to other alternatives which will not be as costly as you might think.

One thing rarely mentioned is cost. Using ICE's on cost figures, the cost per deportee in 2016 is $10,854.  Best estimates are that there are 12 million illegal immigrants in the country. If you do the math, you will see that comes out to over 120 billion dollars.  To that we have to add the 12 billion/yr. in Social Security illegal immigrants pay that they will never draw plus income tax paid and sales tax.  Then there is additional cost to get our crops picked, custodial services, landscaping, etc.*


----------



## eagle1462010

Flopper said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We want humane facilities for  families while their status is determined. We already get the fact you are stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give us an example of a human facility of the size and scope and for the same types of *immigrants* that the left has invited to our border.
> 
> You know, facilities that will *hold* families safely while trying to figure out who the fuck they are and where they came from and whether or not they are murderers or rapists or terrorists on the run.
> 
> Let's see an example of the sort of facility you want us to emulate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty sure what BusyBee and Coyote have in mind would look like this.. But with a Welcome to America banner draped elegantly from the front Promenade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty sure you are wrong.
> 
> Opposing  ripping away their children while they are awaiting a hearing is hardly equivalent to this and was not necessary before. There were adequate facilities that managed to keep families intact.
> 
> Wtf is wrong with people!  Opposing this policy is now equivalent to wanting open borders and five star hotels for them?  Illegal immigrants are now equated with murders and rapists?
> 
> This country has gon in a truly evil direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Having separate housing's for those detained is for their own protection.  It is a liability if the children get harmed or raped being detained with adults awaiting a hearing.
> 
> If they were allowed to be detained together and something happened the left would be in arms of not protecting them.
> 
> Bottom line.  The left want Catch and release which is the same as Welcome to America.  Open borders.  They don't show up for hearings under that policy and blend into the country.
> 
> Immigration is s numbers game.  There are too many in plight South of the border to take them all in.  The problem there is not OUR fault.  These countries did it to themselves and expect us to take care of them for their own mistakes.
> 
> They need to retake their countries from the drug Lord's and stop the need to flee here.
> 
> This thread is identity politics now.  Your evil BS.  Sell that snake oil somewhere else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Eventually, we have to take a practically workable approach to illegal immigration. Deportation at best keeps the number of illegal immigrants from increasing. 80% of all deportees are captured within a short distance of the boarder.  The other 20% (internal deportations) come from the rest of the country.  At the current rate that Trump is deporting, it will take between 150 and 230 years to deport all illegal immigrants.  The actually time would probably be a lot longer because we will not always have a zealot such as Trump in the White House and a republican congress.
> 
> It's very unlikely that the wall across the Mexican boarder will be built.  Trump has already shot down that idea of wall that spans the boarder.  His last word I heard was he was planning to build a wall in certainly places and upgrade fencing.  However, even if the wall is build, this may not significantly reduce illegal immigration.  If we are successful in reducing Southern boarder crossings, we have to consider our other boarders.   We have nearly 100,000 miles of boarder including our shoreline and the Canadian boarder. which are largely unguarded compared to our southern boarder.  As crossing our Southern boarder get's harder, people will turn to other alternatives which will not be as costly as you might think.
> 
> One thing rarely mentioned is cost. Using ICE's on cost figures, the cost per deportee in 2016 is $10,854.  Best estimates are that there are 12 million illegal immigrants in the country. If you do the math, you will see that comes out to over 120 billion dollars.  To that we have to add the 12 billion/yr. in Social Security illegal immigrants pay that they will never draw plus income tax paid and sales tax.  Then there is additional cost to get our crops picked, custodial services, landscaping, etc.*
Click to expand...

The cost of them staying is much higher.  welfare schooling etc.

They detained 100 k in 2 months and that doesn't count the ones getting through.  That adds close to a million more per year under Catch and Release.

That's not a viable option


----------



## Vandalshandle

I am fed up with illegal children crossing from Mexico through my back yard leaving a trail of lollipop sticks, and reeking of sour ball candy, while singing nursey rhymes in Spanish, and begging for tamales at my back door. They should all be rounded up and deported to Spain, or wherever the hell they come from. Most of them are Hillary voters, having been bribed with promises of free disposable diapers.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Pretty sure you are wrong.
> 
> Opposing ripping away their children while they are awaiting a hearing is hardly equivalent to this and was not necessary before. There were adequate facilities that managed to keep families intact.



And then you wonder why they keep coming?  Bet you next time they will think of this before attempting to make another journey here.


----------



## eagle1462010

Vandalshandle said:


> I am fed up with illegal children crossing from Mexico through my back yard leaving a trail of lollipop sticks, and reeking of sour ball candy, while singing nursey rhymes in Spanish, and begging for tamales at my back door. They should all be rounded up and deported to Spain, or wherever the hell they come from. Most of them are Hillary voters, having been bribed with promises of free disposable diapers.


Then you pay for them.  Not the tax payers who want our border secure.

You want Catch and release and Amnesty for all.  We don't.  It's that simple.

Play the you are Mother Terisa to someone else.


----------



## eagle1462010

How about California becoming part of Mexico.  Everyone is leaving the Socialist Paradise and being replaced by illegals.  Might as well become part of Mexico


----------



## Flopper

eagle1462010 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give us an example of a human facility of the size and scope and for the same types of *immigrants* that the left has invited to our border.
> 
> You know, facilities that will *hold* families safely while trying to figure out who the fuck they are and where they came from and whether or not they are murderers or rapists or terrorists on the run.
> 
> Let's see an example of the sort of facility you want us to emulate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure what BusyBee and Coyote have in mind would look like this.. But with a Welcome to America banner draped elegantly from the front Promenade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty sure you are wrong.
> 
> Opposing  ripping away their children while they are awaiting a hearing is hardly equivalent to this and was not necessary before. There were adequate facilities that managed to keep families intact.
> 
> Wtf is wrong with people!  Opposing this policy is now equivalent to wanting open borders and five star hotels for them?  Illegal immigrants are now equated with murders and rapists?
> 
> This country has gon in a truly evil direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Having separate housing's for those detained is for their own protection.  It is a liability if the children get harmed or raped being detained with adults awaiting a hearing.
> 
> If they were allowed to be detained together and something happened the left would be in arms of not protecting them.
> 
> Bottom line.  The left want Catch and release which is the same as Welcome to America.  Open borders.  They don't show up for hearings under that policy and blend into the country.
> 
> Immigration is s numbers game.  There are too many in plight South of the border to take them all in.  The problem there is not OUR fault.  These countries did it to themselves and expect us to take care of them for their own mistakes.
> 
> They need to retake their countries from the drug Lord's and stop the need to flee here.
> 
> This thread is identity politics now.  Your evil BS.  Sell that snake oil somewhere else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Eventually, we have to take a practically workable approach to illegal immigration. Deportation at best keeps the number of illegal immigrants from increasing. 80% of all deportees are captured within a short distance of the boarder.  The other 20% (internal deportations) come from the rest of the country.  At the current rate that Trump is deporting, it will take between 150 and 230 years to deport all illegal immigrants.  The actually time would probably be a lot longer because we will not always have a zealot such as Trump in the White House and a republican congress.
> 
> It's very unlikely that the wall across the Mexican boarder will be built.  Trump has already shot down that idea of wall that spans the boarder.  His last word I heard was he was planning to build a wall in certainly places and upgrade fencing.  However, even if the wall is build, this may not significantly reduce illegal immigration.  If we are successful in reducing Southern boarder crossings, we have to consider our other boarders.   We have nearly 100,000 miles of boarder including our shoreline and the Canadian boarder. which are largely unguarded compared to our southern boarder.  As crossing our Southern boarder get's harder, people will turn to other alternatives which will not be as costly as you might think.
> 
> One thing rarely mentioned is cost. Using ICE's on cost figures, the cost per deportee in 2016 is $10,854.  Best estimates are that there are 12 million illegal immigrants in the country. If you do the math, you will see that comes out to over 120 billion dollars.  To that we have to add the 12 billion/yr. in Social Security illegal immigrants pay that they will never draw plus income tax paid and sales tax.  Then there is additional cost to get our crops picked, custodial services, landscaping, etc.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The cost of them staying is much higher.  welfare schooling etc.
> 
> They detained 100 k in 2 months and that doesn't count the ones getting through.  That adds close to a million more per year under Catch and Release.
> 
> That's not a viable option
Click to expand...

*The evidence is pretty sketchy and mostly anecdotal.  Federal law makes it illegal to spend any federal dollars on aid to illegal immigrants.  If you think state employees are approving application for aid without proof of citizenship, you've sadly mistaken.  I recently looked at a state application for financial aid in my state. First it's felony not to reveal non-US citizenship.  All persons on the application must supply birth dates and social security numbers.  If they can't be verified electronically then an in office interview is scheduled.  If anyone in the family is not a US citizen, they have to list the citizenship of everyone in the household and provide proof that they are legally in the country.  Primary proof of citizenship is birth certificates or passports.  If they are not available, then there's a number of secondary supporting documents required.  Most of the rhetoric about illegals on welfare goes back to the early 90's when there was little required to get aid.

What is important about deportation stats is not the total deportations but internal deportations, (those picked up more than 30 miles from the border) because this is where the vast majority of our illegals reside, not on the boarder.  Most of the immigrants picked up are found crossing the boarder or close by.  Removing these people keeps the number in the US from rising but does little to reduce the overall total.  

To really reduce the 12 million illegal immigrants in the US we have to start large scale deportations from all of major cities, and that's not going to be easy for a number of reasons.  First, ICE has to have cooperation from cities and towns.  Secondly, expedited deportation can not be used for internal deportation or for those who have been in the US for more than a year.  The deportation has to work it's way through immigration court which currently has a backlog of over 200,000 cases. Once in immigration court, the detainee has the right to counsel, right to a hearing to request release while waiting for a court appearance which can take months.  At the court appearance the judge is in control. He or she can grant postponements for a number of reasons.  Even after the judge signs the deportation order, the detainee can request a review by a 3 judge panel which typically takes 30 to 90 days.  Then the person can be deported.  It can easily take 6 mos. to a year to deport without expedited deportation.  If there are applications pending for asylum, it can take longer.*


----------



## Vandalshandle

Do you know what it is like to have to go out every morning and collect discarded Mexican pacifiers from the children's immigration path from the back yard? I've had enough!


----------



## eagle1462010

Flopper said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure what BusyBee and Coyote have in mind would look like this.. But with a Welcome to America banner draped elegantly from the front Promenade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure you are wrong.
> 
> Opposing  ripping away their children while they are awaiting a hearing is hardly equivalent to this and was not necessary before. There were adequate facilities that managed to keep families intact.
> 
> Wtf is wrong with people!  Opposing this policy is now equivalent to wanting open borders and five star hotels for them?  Illegal immigrants are now equated with murders and rapists?
> 
> This country has gon in a truly evil direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Having separate housing's for those detained is for their own protection.  It is a liability if the children get harmed or raped being detained with adults awaiting a hearing.
> 
> If they were allowed to be detained together and something happened the left would be in arms of not protecting them.
> 
> Bottom line.  The left want Catch and release which is the same as Welcome to America.  Open borders.  They don't show up for hearings under that policy and blend into the country.
> 
> Immigration is s numbers game.  There are too many in plight South of the border to take them all in.  The problem there is not OUR fault.  These countries did it to themselves and expect us to take care of them for their own mistakes.
> 
> They need to retake their countries from the drug Lord's and stop the need to flee here.
> 
> This thread is identity politics now.  Your evil BS.  Sell that snake oil somewhere else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Eventually, we have to take a practically workable approach to illegal immigration. Deportation at best keeps the number of illegal immigrants from increasing. 80% of all deportees are captured within a short distance of the boarder.  The other 20% (internal deportations) come from the rest of the country.  At the current rate that Trump is deporting, it will take between 150 and 230 years to deport all illegal immigrants.  The actually time would probably be a lot longer because we will not always have a zealot such as Trump in the White House and a republican congress.
> 
> It's very unlikely that the wall across the Mexican boarder will be built.  Trump has already shot down that idea of wall that spans the boarder.  His last word I heard was he was planning to build a wall in certainly places and upgrade fencing.  However, even if the wall is build, this may not significantly reduce illegal immigration.  If we are successful in reducing Southern boarder crossings, we have to consider our other boarders.   We have nearly 100,000 miles of boarder including our shoreline and the Canadian boarder. which are largely unguarded compared to our southern boarder.  As crossing our Southern boarder get's harder, people will turn to other alternatives which will not be as costly as you might think.
> 
> One thing rarely mentioned is cost. Using ICE's on cost figures, the cost per deportee in 2016 is $10,854.  Best estimates are that there are 12 million illegal immigrants in the country. If you do the math, you will see that comes out to over 120 billion dollars.  To that we have to add the 12 billion/yr. in Social Security illegal immigrants pay that they will never draw plus income tax paid and sales tax.  Then there is additional cost to get our crops picked, custodial services, landscaping, etc.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The cost of them staying is much higher.  welfare schooling etc.
> 
> They detained 100 k in 2 months and that doesn't count the ones getting through.  That adds close to a million more per year under Catch and Release.
> 
> That's not a viable option
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The evidence is pretty sketchy and mostly anecdotal.  Federal law makes it illegal to spend any federal dollars on aid to illegal immigrants.  If you think state employees are approving application for aid without proof of citizenship, you've sadly mistaken.  I recently looked at a state application for financial aid in my state. First it's felony not to reveal non-US citizenship.  All persons on the application must supply birth dates and social security numbers.  If they can't be verified electronically then an in office interview is scheduled.  If anyone in the family is not a US citizen, they have to list the citizenship of everyone in the household and provide proof that they are legally in the country.  Primary proof of citizenship is birth certificates or passports.  If they are not available, then there's a number of secondary supporting documents required.  Most of the rhetoric about illegals on welfare goes back to the early 90's when there was little required to get aid.
> 
> What is important about deportation stats is not the total deportations but internal deportations, (those picked up more than 30 miles from the border) because this is where the vast majority of our illegals reside, not on the boarder.  Most of the immigrants picked up are found crossing the boarder or close by.  Removing these people keeps the number in the US from rising but does little to reduce the overall total.
> 
> To really reduce the 12 million illegal immigrants in the US we have to start large scale deportations from all of major cities, and that's not going to be easy for a number of reasons.  First, ICE has to have cooperation from cities and towns.  Secondly, expedited deportation can not be used for internal deportation or for those who have been in the US for more than a year.  The deportation has to work it's way through immigration court which currently has a backlog of over 200,000 cases. Once in immigration court, the detainee has the right to counsel, right to a hearing to request release while waiting for a court appearance which can take months.  At the court appearance the judge is in control. He or she can grant postponements for a number of reasons.  Even after the judge signs the deportation order, the detainee can request a review by a 3 judge panel which typically takes 30 to 90 days.  Then the person can be deported.  It can easily take 6 mos. to a year to deport without expedited deportation.  If there are applications pending for asylum, it can take longer.*
Click to expand...

So.....

Just ignore it and say Welcome.  If the Gop had any balls wedw get rid of the loop holes and turn them straight back around.  Problem solved


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> There are plenty of ways to deter it without descending to this. It's cruel and there is no other way to put it.



Can you explain what is cruel about it?  



Coyote said:


> Fund more judges to speed up hearings and deportations.



That's one of the first things Trump did.  But if your boat is sinking, you can't expect to get anywhere by bailing out the water with a pail unless you fix the hole first.  



Coyote said:


> Increase manpower and electronic border security.



Democrats are stopping any and all efforts to manually secure the border.  Blame them.


----------



## eagle1462010

Vandalshandle said:


> Do you know what it is like to have to go out every morning and collect discarded Mexican pacifiers from the children's immigration path from the back yard? I've had enough!


Yeah.  I heard herds of babies were crawling across the border .not a single stroller.  The shame.   I also heard Americans forced them to come here.  Terrible.  Just plain terrible.

And they all had diaper rash.

Heard their parents made them crawl


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure you are wrong.
> 
> Opposing ripping away their children while they are awaiting a hearing is hardly equivalent to this and was not necessary before. There were adequate facilities that managed to keep families intact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then you wonder why they keep coming?  Bet you next time they will think of this before attempting to make another journey here.
Click to expand...


And there actually are NOT adequate facilities for families, which is why so many of them ended up being released for a promise to return, which they then never did.  Hence the change in policy.

But Coyote's position is "Fuck reality, fuck the USA, I want THIS to be right, and so it IS right, no matter what!"


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Toro said:


> Parents taking their kids across borders are now “child smugglers.”
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 196200



If they took heroin across the border, are they drug smugglers?


----------



## koshergrl

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...promising that they will be united with their children if they sign a voluntary deportation agreement
> 
> That is evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's also *purely a figment of your imagination*, which means the evil is something inside you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It isn't.  I quoted it from the post above nitwit.  Learn to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I DID read.  I read you finding someone saying what you wanted to believe, and simply assuming that OF COURSE it was correct about what was happening, because that's ALSO what you want to believe.
> 
> Learn to think, lackwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly your reading comprehension skills are smaller than your mouth.  I merely quoted from the post.  There is nothing there that I made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly, YOUR reading comprehension skills are small enough to fit in a gnat's ear.
> 
> "I merely quoted the post."  Yes, and the post remains NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE TOPIC.  It's just something you picked out randomly because it said what you wanted to hear.
> 
> And you continue to invent the whole "use the children to coerce the people to voluntarily deport" conspiracy right out of your own demented pseudo-brain.
Click to expand...

She makes shit up.


----------



## koshergrl

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Parents taking their kids across borders are now “child smugglers.”
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 196200
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they took heroin across the border, are they drug smugglers?
Click to expand...


----------



## Frankeneinstein

koshergrl said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Parents taking their kids across borders are now “child smugglers.”
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 196200
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they took heroin across the border, are they drug smugglers?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> To really reduce the 12 million illegal immigrants in the US we have to start large scale deportations from all of major cities, and that's not going to be easy for a number of reasons.



No, if we really wanted to reduce the number of illegals, all we have to do is pass a law that anybody caught here illegally faces a minimum five year prison sentence.  It could be more depending on how good the judge feels that day. 

At least 11 million of the illegals  will be running to that border so fast it would make your head spin.


----------



## Cecilie1200

koshergrl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's also *purely a figment of your imagination*, which means the evil is something inside you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It isn't.  I quoted it from the post above nitwit.  Learn to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I DID read.  I read you finding someone saying what you wanted to believe, and simply assuming that OF COURSE it was correct about what was happening, because that's ALSO what you want to believe.
> 
> Learn to think, lackwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly your reading comprehension skills are smaller than your mouth.  I merely quoted from the post.  There is nothing there that I made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly, YOUR reading comprehension skills are small enough to fit in a gnat's ear.
> 
> "I merely quoted the post."  Yes, and the post remains NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE TOPIC.  It's just something you picked out randomly because it said what you wanted to hear.
> 
> And you continue to invent the whole "use the children to coerce the people to voluntarily deport" conspiracy right out of your own demented pseudo-brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She makes shit up.
Click to expand...


Yup, that's pretty much what I've been saying.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *American have been asked time and again by different polling services how they feel about amnesty and deportation.
> They overwhelming support amnesty and oppose deportation and building a wall
> Immigration*


_"polling services"_ ?  LOL.  You mean the same polling services that on November 7, 2016 said Hillary Clinton was going to win easily ?

The Americans were really asked about it on November 8, 2016.     Here's how they answered >>


----------



## Cecilie1200

eagle1462010 said:


> How about California becoming part of Mexico.  Everyone is leaving the Socialist Paradise and being replaced by illegals.  Might as well become part of Mexico



Fuck that.  There's some very good quality, valuable real estate there.  It's only the leftists living there that are useless.  Mexico can have them.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of ways to deter it without descending to this. It's cruel and there is no other way to put it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain what is cruel about it?
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fund more judges to speed up hearings and deportations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's one of the first things Trump did.  But if your boat is sinking, you can't expect to get anywhere by bailing out the water with a pail unless you fix the hole first.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Increase manpower and electronic border security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats are stopping any and all efforts to manually secure the border.  Blame them.
Click to expand...


Funny thing is, she says, "Fund more judges to speed up hearings and deportations", like it's some brilliant alternative she's come up with that no one else saw, because her leftism makes her so superior and more compassionate, but HER OWN DAMNED LINK said that that's the cornerstone of the program she's bitching about.  If she had bothered to read more than the headline before shouting, "Eureka!  Something else I can hate Trump for!" she would know that.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> To really reduce the 12 million illegal immigrants in the US we have to start large scale deportations from all of major cities, and that's not going to be easy for a number of reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, if we really wanted to reduce the number of illegals, all we have to do is pass a law that anybody caught here illegally faces a minimum five year prison sentence.  It could be more depending on how good the judge feels that day.
> 
> At least 11 million of the illegals  will be running to that border so fast it would make your head spin.
Click to expand...

*Those people from Honduras would probably consider 5 years in a federal prison free room and board, far better than what awaits them at home.  It just delays deportation and cost a bunch of money.   This is one of the reasons we rarely imprison someone for illegal entry.   *


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of ways to deter it without descending to this. It's cruel and there is no other way to put it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain what is cruel about it?
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fund more judges to speed up hearings and deportations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's one of the first things Trump did.  But if your boat is sinking, you can't expect to get anywhere by bailing out the water with a pail unless you fix the hole first.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Increase manpower and electronic border security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats are stopping any and all efforts to manually secure the border.  Blame them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny thing is, she says, "Fund more judges to speed up hearings and deportations", like it's some brilliant alternative she's come up with that no one else saw, because her leftism makes her so superior and more compassionate, but HER OWN DAMNED LINK said that that's the cornerstone of the program she's bitching about.  If she had bothered to read more than the headline before shouting, "Eureka!  Something else I can hate Trump for!" she would know that.
Click to expand...


She drifted from stopping illegals from coming here to what to do about deportations once they do get here. 

So we try to speed up the process because we have so many illegals.  Okay, why do we have so many illegals?  Because we didn't put up much of a deterrent from them coming here.  Now that Trump is putting up a very small deterrent, she's complaining about the deterrent.  

It's like watching a cat chase his tail.  Either we are going to start creating more and more deterrents or we're not.  If we're not, then expect more people to do the same as the ones that just got here, and yes, with their kids as well.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> To really reduce the 12 million illegal immigrants in the US we have to start large scale deportations from all of major cities, and that's not going to be easy for a number of reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, if we really wanted to reduce the number of illegals, all we have to do is pass a law that anybody caught here illegally faces a minimum five year prison sentence.  It could be more depending on how good the judge feels that day.
> 
> At least 11 million of the illegals  will be running to that border so fast it would make your head spin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Those people from Honduras would probably consider 5 years in a federal prison free room and board, far better than what awaits them at home.  It just delays deportation and cost a bunch of money.   This is one of the reasons we rarely imprison someone for illegal entry.   *
Click to expand...


No, it's because it's only considered a misdemeanor.  If it was a first degree felony, we would reduce our immigration population by at least 90%, and reduce border crossings by even more.


----------



## protectionist

Ray From Cleveland said:


> No, if we really wanted to reduce the number of illegals, all we have to do is pass a law that anybody caught here illegally faces a minimum five year prison sentence.  It could be more depending on how good the judge feels that day.
> 
> At least 11 million of the illegals  will be running to that border so fast it would make your head spin.


A bill like that was attempted, proposed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).  It was called the   Stop Illegal Reentry Act, and also "Kate's Law", named after Kate Steinle, who was killed by an illegal alien, in San Francisco.  The bill was defeated by Democrats who voted solidly against it.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> To really reduce the 12 million illegal immigrants in the US we have to start large scale deportations from all of major cities, and that's not going to be easy for a number of reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, if we really wanted to reduce the number of illegals, all we have to do is pass a law that anybody caught here illegally faces a minimum five year prison sentence.  It could be more depending on how good the judge feels that day.
> 
> 
> At least 11 million of the illegals  will be running to that border so fast it would make your head spin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Those people from Honduras would probably consider 5 years in a federal prison free room and board, far better than what awaits them at home.  It just delays deportation and cost a bunch of money.   This is one of the reasons we rarely imprison someone for illegal entry.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's because it's only considered a misdemeanor.  If it was a first degree felony, we would reduce our immigration population by at least 90%, and reduce border crossings by even more.
Click to expand...

*For first time offenders, it's a misdemeanor.  Although Trump devotees consider it on par with rape or murder, the penalty makes it about as serious as trespassing.  Of course the real punishment is deportation.  However, immigration courts don't punish people.  Deportation is only a change of immigration status since this is being handled in a civil not a criminal court.

For repeat offenders it can be tried as a felony.   In the federal system an imprisonment penalty of one year or over is considered a felony.  My understanding is Trump is moving repeat offenders to criminal court which is not likely to consider the reason for the crime nor the effect of conviction on the family plus there is no huge backlog. So they should be open and shut cases, ideal for plea bargains.    However, in a criminal court the defendant is entitled to a jury trial unlike immigration court.    

I seriously doubt that any penalty other than death for illegal entry would have any effect on illegal immigration.  From the questions I read on the Internet from people facing deportation, they don't have a clue how our legal system works and know even less about immigration courts or laws and these are probably the smart ones.*


----------



## protectionist

Ray From Cleveland said:


> No, it's because it's only considered a misdemeanor.  If it was a first degree felony, we would reduce our immigration population by at least 90%, and reduce border crossings by even more.


It would also be a better deterrent, if the prison time was made to be very uncomfortable.  Something that after their imprisonment, illegals would not want to risk repeating.


----------



## Vandalshandle

protectionist said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because it's only considered a misdemeanor.  If it was a first degree felony, we would reduce our immigration population by at least 90%, and reduce border crossings by even more.
> 
> 
> 
> It would also be a better deterrent, if the prison time was made to be very uncomfortable.  Something that after their imprisonment, illegals would not want to risk repeating.
Click to expand...


..and here it comes, folks! The argument for the resumption of torture by the USA! (que, "Stars and Stripes Forever").


----------



## protectionist

Vandalshandle said:


> ..and here it comes, folks! The argument for the resumption of torture by the USA! (que, "Stars and Stripes Forever").


_"torture"_ ?  Your word, not mine.


----------



## Vandalshandle

protectionist said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..and here it comes, folks! The argument for the resumption of torture by the USA! (que, "Stars and Stripes Forever").
> 
> 
> 
> _"torture"_ ?  Your word, not mine.
Click to expand...


How's that alligator pond from San Diego to Brownsville that you have been advocating, working out?


----------



## abrere

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​




bs, the stupid jerks should not HAVE kids. They know damned well what causes kids, how to prevent it, and they also know damned well that they can't afford kids. So they come here to steal our jobs and mooch off of the taxpayer. I say eff em. Let them stay where they are, stop having kids and soon, labor will be worth something where they live.


----------



## protectionist

candycorn said:


> My concern for my fellow human beings is more important than political gain……..oh never mind .  You’re a conservative.  I doubt you’d understand.


Oh, but we conservatives DO INDEED "understand".  What we understand is the difference between conservatives like us, and liberals like you.  As Obama calling himself a _"citizen of the world", _your liberal , internationalist perspective is concern for your _"fellow human beings"........_

while we nationalist, (citizens of the USA) ​conservatives',  concern is for our fellow AMERICANS (including the many harms of immigration), first and foremost.


----------



## protectionist

busybee01 said:


> Don't separate the children from their parents.


So if an American couple are arrested for some white collar crime, and are sentenced to 20 years, and they have a 1 year old child, that kid should be in their prison cell with them, until the kid reaches 21 years of age, right ?  Right ?


----------



## protectionist

busybee01 said:


> They are not judges. They do not have the right to make those types of judgements. ICE was recently called liars by a federal judge for falsely claiming that a DACA recipient was a member of MS-13.


So if thousands of migrants appeared at the border, and all claimed for asylum, you would let them all in, to be sent to a court later ?  If so, where would you suggest that they be during the interim ?


----------



## Coyote

protectionist said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't separate the children from their parents.
> 
> 
> 
> So if an American couple are arrested for some white collar crime, and are sentenced to 20 years, and they have a 1 year old child, that kid should be in their prison cell with them, until the kid reaches 21 years of age, right ?  Right ?
Click to expand...


Entering the country illegally is a misdeamener.  You realize that don't you?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Coyote said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't separate the children from their parents.
> 
> 
> 
> So if an American couple are arrested for some white collar crime, and are sentenced to 20 years, and they have a 1 year old child, that kid should be in their prison cell with them, until the kid reaches 21 years of age, right ?  Right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Entering the country illegally is a misdeamener.  You realize that don't you?
Click to expand...


Fifty years ago, my step father got a second DUI, which was a felony in our state. In Protectionist's world, the whole family would have served time. Separately, of course.


----------



## HappyJoy

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary smuggling of those children into the U.S. to begin with?  How about the unnecessary separation of children from their criminal parents who go to jail?
Click to expand...


They aren't in jail, they are not convicted. Also, many of the kids being separated are from parents who are legally entering as refugees.


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't separate the children from their parents.
> 
> 
> 
> So if an American couple are arrested for some white collar crime, and are sentenced to 20 years, and they have a 1 year old child, that kid should be in their prison cell with them, until the kid reaches 21 years of age, right ?  Right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Entering the country illegally is a misdeamener.  You realize that don't you?
Click to expand...

Felony the second time.


----------



## eagle1462010

Throw them to the wolves........Human trafficking........2014.  DHS hand them over to traffickers awaiting their trial............Forced enslavement...take their whole paycheck.


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## eagle1462010

Immigration in the Omnibus: No Wall Funding, but Gains for Trump

*Detention Beds*

*President’s request:* Currently, the government is required to fill at least 34,000 beds across all immigration detention centers each night. Congress has continued this mandate over many years, despite objections raised by the Obama administration. Trump sought $1.2 billion to expand the mandate to 45,700 beds by the end of FY2017.
*Omnibus bill:* Congress approved $526 million for additional beds, raising the number available to 39,324. Congress also approved $33 million for additional transportation and removal costs, as well as $57 million for alternatives to detention.
*Immigration courts*

*President’s Request:* The president’s FY2017 request did not ask for additional immigration court funding. However, the FY2018 budget blueprint called for the hiring of 75 new judge teams. The new resources would aim to speed up case processing in immigration courts, where the backlog has surpassed 542,000 cases, with an average wait time of 677 days.
*Omnibus bill:* The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) budget has been increased by $20 million to $440 million for FY2017, which allows for the creation of 10 additional immigration judge teams this fiscal year.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of ways to deter it without descending to this. It's cruel and there is no other way to put it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain what is cruel about it?
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fund more judges to speed up hearings and deportations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's one of the first things Trump did.  But if your boat is sinking, you can't expect to get anywhere by bailing out the water with a pail unless you fix the hole first.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Increase manpower and electronic border security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats are stopping any and all efforts to manually secure the border.  Blame them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny thing is, she says,* "Fund more judges to speed up hearings and deportations",* like it's some brilliant alternative she's come up with that no one else saw, because her leftism makes her so superior and more compassionate, but HER OWN DAMNED LINK said that that's the cornerstone of the program she's bitching about.  If she had bothered to read more than the headline before shouting, "Eureka!  Something else I can hate Trump for!" she would know that.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I never claimed credit for that, it's been in the news. You need get to out more.  Meanwhile, please feel to extol the virtues of ripping babies from the arms of their mothers in hour effort to "stop" illegal immigration.  A pity you can't put all that energy into stopping rape and murder and child abuse.  Oops.  You support child abuse don't you?  Never mind then.  Your warped priorities will hopefuly be just another page in our countries book of shame in a few years.


----------



## Coyote

eagle1462010 said:


>



Those aren't DACA dreamers but then, honesty isn't your strong point is it?


----------



## koshergrl

Vandalshandle said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't separate the children from their parents.
> 
> 
> 
> So if an American couple are arrested for some white collar crime, and are sentenced to 20 years, and they have a 1 year old child, that kid should be in their prison cell with them, until the kid reaches 21 years of age, right ?  Right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Entering the country illegally is a misdeamener.  You realize that don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fifty years ago, my step father got a second DUI, which was a felony in our state. In Protectionist's world, the whole family would have served time. Separately, of course.
Click to expand...


If your stepfather had the kids in the car, the kids should have been immediately removed from his care for their safety.


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of ways to deter it without descending to this. It's cruel and there is no other way to put it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain what is cruel about it?
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fund more judges to speed up hearings and deportations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's one of the first things Trump did.  But if your boat is sinking, you can't expect to get anywhere by bailing out the water with a pail unless you fix the hole first.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Increase manpower and electronic border security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats are stopping any and all efforts to manually secure the border.  Blame them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny thing is, she says,* "Fund more judges to speed up hearings and deportations",* like it's some brilliant alternative she's come up with that no one else saw, because her leftism makes her so superior and more compassionate, but HER OWN DAMNED LINK said that that's the cornerstone of the program she's bitching about.  If she had bothered to read more than the headline before shouting, "Eureka!  Something else I can hate Trump for!" she would know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I never claimed credit for that, it's been in the news. You need get to out more.  Meanwhile, please feel to extol the virtues of ripping babies from the arms of their mothers in hour effort to "stop" illegal immigration.  A pity you can't put all that energy into stopping rape and murder and child abuse.  Oops.  You support child abuse don't you?  Never mind then.  Your warped priorities will hopefuly be just another page in our countries book of shame in a few years.
Click to expand...

On the second offense it is a felony..........and those get put into prison with some very bad people.........Let's put the children into prison with drug traffickers and Human Traffickers.

In the Omnibus they only gave Trump half what he requested for more beds.
They also weren't so nice on implementing E-Verify............didn't give enough for more judges but more judges for immigration courts did happen..........

Everything some have complained about here was proposed.................

Want more beds and speedy trials.............how about voting to fund it.


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't DACA dreamers but then, honesty isn't your strong point is it?
Click to expand...

You confuse Sarcasm for Truth or dare...................meme was sent to hit a raw nerve ending..........mission accomplished.......

Why did the Dems not fund more for more beds and judges..........it was proposed.


----------



## Coyote

...
[QUOTE="eagle1462010 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of ways to deter it without descending to this. It's cruel and there is no other way to put it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain what is cruel about it?
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fund more judges to speed up hearings and deportations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's one of the first things Trump did.  But if your boat is sinking, you can't expect to get anywhere by bailing out the water with a pail unless you fix the hole first.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Increase manpower and electronic border security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats are stopping any and all efforts to manually secure the border.  Blame them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny thing is, she says,* "Fund more judges to speed up hearings and deportations",* like it's some brilliant alternative she's come up with that no one else saw, because her leftism makes her so superior and more compassionate, but HER OWN DAMNED LINK said that that's the cornerstone of the program she's bitching about.  If she had bothered to read more than the headline before shouting, "Eureka!  Something else I can hate Trump for!" she would know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I never claimed credit for that, it's been in the news. You need get to out more.  Meanwhile, please feel to extol the virtues of ripping babies from the arms of their mothers in hour effort to "stop" illegal immigration.  A pity you can't put all that energy into stopping rape and murder and child abuse.  Oops.  You support child abuse don't you?  Never mind then.  Your warped priorities will hopefuly be just another page in our countries book of shame in a few years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the second offense it is a felony..........and those get put into prison with some very bad people.........Let's put the children into prison with drug traffickers and Human Traffickers.
> 
> In the Omnibus they only gave Trump half what he requested for more beds.
> They also weren't so nice on implementing E-Verify............didn't give enough for more judges but more judges for immigration courts did happen..........
> 
> Everything some have complained about here was proposed.................
> 
> *Want more beds and speedy trials.............how about voting to fund it*.
Click to expand...


Sure.  But I sure as hell won't vote for tearing children from their families.  Strange but - that wasn't necessary before.  Nor was it the policy.  Now suddenly, it must be done.  And folks pretend it's for the good of the children.  I say bullshit on that.  Not when there are other accommodations for families.


----------



## Coyote

eagle1462010 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't DACA dreamers but then, honesty isn't your strong point is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You confuse Sarcasm for Truth or dare...................meme was sent to hit a raw nerve ending..........mission accomplished.......
> 
> Why did the Dems not fund more for more beds and judges..........it was proposed.
Click to expand...


What else was in the same bill?


----------



## Coyote

eagle1462010 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't DACA dreamers but then, honesty isn't your strong point is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You confuse Sarcasm for Truth or dare...................meme was sent to hit a raw nerve ending..........mission accomplished.......
> 
> Why did the Dems not fund more for more beds and judges..........it was proposed.
Click to expand...


When people post memes, it's because they believe they have at least a kernal of truth in them if not much more.


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't DACA dreamers but then, honesty isn't your strong point is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You confuse Sarcasm for Truth or dare...................meme was sent to hit a raw nerve ending..........mission accomplished.......
> 
> Why did the Dems not fund more for more beds and judges..........it was proposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What else was in the same bill?
Click to expand...

Immigration in Trump’s Budget Blueprint

Omnibus isn't your standard bill of goods now is it................

Now.............show me the solutions from the Dems other than the Save the children political campaign your side is trying now................

Show me the bills to increase beds and space at detention centers.........and show me increased requests for judges and courts to speed up the time for processing immigration.................

They didn't propose it and only gave a little funding.........then want to bitch about it later.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> ...
> [QUOTE="eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of ways to deter it without descending to this. It's cruel and there is no other way to put it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain what is cruel about it?
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fund more judges to speed up hearings and deportations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's one of the first things Trump did.  But if your boat is sinking, you can't expect to get anywhere by bailing out the water with a pail unless you fix the hole first.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Increase manpower and electronic border security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats are stopping any and all efforts to manually secure the border.  Blame them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny thing is, she says,* "Fund more judges to speed up hearings and deportations",* like it's some brilliant alternative she's come up with that no one else saw, because her leftism makes her so superior and more compassionate, but HER OWN DAMNED LINK said that that's the cornerstone of the program she's bitching about.  If she had bothered to read more than the headline before shouting, "Eureka!  Something else I can hate Trump for!" she would know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I never claimed credit for that, it's been in the news. You need get to out more.  Meanwhile, please feel to extol the virtues of ripping babies from the arms of their mothers in hour effort to "stop" illegal immigration.  A pity you can't put all that energy into stopping rape and murder and child abuse.  Oops.  You support child abuse don't you?  Never mind then.  Your warped priorities will hopefuly be just another page in our countries book of shame in a few years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the second offense it is a felony..........and those get put into prison with some very bad people.........Let's put the children into prison with drug traffickers and Human Traffickers.
> 
> In the Omnibus they only gave Trump half what he requested for more beds.
> They also weren't so nice on implementing E-Verify............didn't give enough for more judges but more judges for immigration courts did happen..........
> 
> Everything some have complained about here was proposed.................
> 
> *Want more beds and speedy trials.............how about voting to fund it*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  But I sure as hell won't vote for tearing children from their families.  Strange but - that wasn't necessary before.  Nor was it the policy.  Now suddenly, it must be done.  And folks pretend it's for the good of the children.  I say bullshit on that.  Not when there are other accommodations for families.
Click to expand...


Obama hadn't advertised the fact that we would let illegals with children get a free pass before. 

Human trafficking and child smuggling has become epidemic. And it's because of people like you.


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't DACA dreamers but then, honesty isn't your strong point is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You confuse Sarcasm for Truth or dare...................meme was sent to hit a raw nerve ending..........mission accomplished.......
> 
> Why did the Dems not fund more for more beds and judges..........it was proposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When people post memes, it's because they believe they have at least a kernal of truth in them if not much more.
Click to expand...

That is a opinion and your opinion doesn't out weigh mine..................

And it is also a sign that some of us are tired of hearing your BS save the children campaign..................Bitch at us with no solutions offered............

Again tell me the ANGELS OF MERCY DEMS PROPOSALS.......................


----------



## eagle1462010

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> [QUOTE="eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain what is cruel about it?
> 
> That's one of the first things Trump did.  But if your boat is sinking, you can't expect to get anywhere by bailing out the water with a pail unless you fix the hole first.
> 
> Democrats are stopping any and all efforts to manually secure the border.  Blame them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing is, she says,* "Fund more judges to speed up hearings and deportations",* like it's some brilliant alternative she's come up with that no one else saw, because her leftism makes her so superior and more compassionate, but HER OWN DAMNED LINK said that that's the cornerstone of the program she's bitching about.  If she had bothered to read more than the headline before shouting, "Eureka!  Something else I can hate Trump for!" she would know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I never claimed credit for that, it's been in the news. You need get to out more.  Meanwhile, please feel to extol the virtues of ripping babies from the arms of their mothers in hour effort to "stop" illegal immigration.  A pity you can't put all that energy into stopping rape and murder and child abuse.  Oops.  You support child abuse don't you?  Never mind then.  Your warped priorities will hopefuly be just another page in our countries book of shame in a few years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the second offense it is a felony..........and those get put into prison with some very bad people.........Let's put the children into prison with drug traffickers and Human Traffickers.
> 
> In the Omnibus they only gave Trump half what he requested for more beds.
> They also weren't so nice on implementing E-Verify............didn't give enough for more judges but more judges for immigration courts did happen..........
> 
> Everything some have complained about here was proposed.................
> 
> *Want more beds and speedy trials.............how about voting to fund it*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  But I sure as hell won't vote for tearing children from their families.  Strange but - that wasn't necessary before.  Nor was it the policy.  Now suddenly, it must be done.  And folks pretend it's for the good of the children.  I say bullshit on that.  Not when there are other accommodations for families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama hadn't advertised the fact that we would let illegals with children get a free pass before.
> 
> Human trafficking and child smuggling has become epidemic. And it's because of people like you.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that they Lied their little asses off on how TOUGH OBAMA WAS on illegals..........Utter BS.............Catch and Release was a 
Welcome to America Door Mat...............................Same thing they want now .............

And their Lies were caught on this issue by posting pictures from under Obama................and then they move on dot org and shrug off their LIES as normal................

They offer NO PLAN but basic Amnesty...............then claim they aren't for Open borders..............They are either very confused or they are complete IDIOTS.


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> ...
> [QUOTE="eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of ways to deter it without descending to this. It's cruel and there is no other way to put it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain what is cruel about it?
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fund more judges to speed up hearings and deportations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's one of the first things Trump did.  But if your boat is sinking, you can't expect to get anywhere by bailing out the water with a pail unless you fix the hole first.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Increase manpower and electronic border security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats are stopping any and all efforts to manually secure the border.  Blame them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny thing is, she says,* "Fund more judges to speed up hearings and deportations",* like it's some brilliant alternative she's come up with that no one else saw, because her leftism makes her so superior and more compassionate, but HER OWN DAMNED LINK said that that's the cornerstone of the program she's bitching about.  If she had bothered to read more than the headline before shouting, "Eureka!  Something else I can hate Trump for!" she would know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I never claimed credit for that, it's been in the news. You need get to out more.  Meanwhile, please feel to extol the virtues of ripping babies from the arms of their mothers in hour effort to "stop" illegal immigration.  A pity you can't put all that energy into stopping rape and murder and child abuse.  Oops.  You support child abuse don't you?  Never mind then.  Your warped priorities will hopefuly be just another page in our countries book of shame in a few years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the second offense it is a felony..........and those get put into prison with some very bad people.........Let's put the children into prison with drug traffickers and Human Traffickers.
> 
> In the Omnibus they only gave Trump half what he requested for more beds.
> They also weren't so nice on implementing E-Verify............didn't give enough for more judges but more judges for immigration courts did happen..........
> 
> Everything some have complained about here was proposed.................
> 
> *Want more beds and speedy trials.............how about voting to fund it*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  But I sure as hell won't vote for tearing children from their families.  Strange but - that wasn't necessary before.  Nor was it the policy.  Now suddenly, it must be done.  And folks pretend it's for the good of the children.  I say bullshit on that.  Not when there are other accommodations for families.
Click to expand...

Of course it wasn't done under Catch and Release............aka IGNORING THE LAWS OF THE REPUBLIC.............when it suits you............

You only need to follow the law when you choose correct........or is OBAMA A GOD.............with his pen and a phone.........do whatever he wants..........

Again ............other than Amnesty and Catch and Release...........what are their bills to fix this..........

Dems are Very good at Bitching at others ideas..........and then not having solutions themselves..........go get some pom poms and do your chant from the Cheap Seats in the bleachers

In the mean time............our laws are now being enforced and Catch and Release is over..............No more Welcome Mat........and children will NOT BE HOUSED WITH HARD CORE CRIMINALS.................As has been standard policy for a very long time...........But you just noticed.......for political reasons.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

protectionist said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because it's only considered a misdemeanor.  If it was a first degree felony, we would reduce our immigration population by at least 90%, and reduce border crossings by even more.
> 
> 
> 
> It would also be a better deterrent, if the prison time was made to be very uncomfortable.  Something that after their imprisonment, illegals would not want to risk repeating.
Click to expand...


That will never happen with liberal courts around.  So the best thing we can do is put up as many deterrents as we can to keep them away from our borders.  If it means you don't see your kids for a while,  too fn bad.  Nobody invited you here in the first place, and you knew that possibility existed when you decided to drag your little rugrats with you to the US.  

But now these troublemakers want to turn American citizens against each other drawing on our sympathy and once again, cause more problems for us.  

Who needs it?  Don't we have enough problems of our own without people importing more problems for us?  I'm so sick of the left using children as a bargaining chip to get their political agendas across against our will.  My signature says it best.


----------



## Coyote

eagle1462010 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't DACA dreamers but then, honesty isn't your strong point is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You confuse Sarcasm for Truth or dare...................meme was sent to hit a raw nerve ending..........mission accomplished.......
> 
> Why did the Dems not fund more for more beds and judges..........it was proposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When people post memes, it's because they believe they have at least a kernal of truth in them if not much more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a opinion and your opinion doesn't out weigh mine..................
> 
> And it is also a sign that some of us are tired of hearing your BS save the children campaign..................Bitch at us with no solutions offered............
> 
> Again tell me the ANGELS OF MERCY DEMS PROPOSALS.......................
Click to expand...


I've offered solutions doofus.  Not my fault you don't like them.  If you prefer child abuse, that is your choice.


----------



## Coyote

eagle1462010 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> [QUOTE="eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain what is cruel about it?
> 
> That's one of the first things Trump did.  But if your boat is sinking, you can't expect to get anywhere by bailing out the water with a pail unless you fix the hole first.
> 
> Democrats are stopping any and all efforts to manually secure the border.  Blame them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing is, she says,* "Fund more judges to speed up hearings and deportations",* like it's some brilliant alternative she's come up with that no one else saw, because her leftism makes her so superior and more compassionate, but HER OWN DAMNED LINK said that that's the cornerstone of the program she's bitching about.  If she had bothered to read more than the headline before shouting, "Eureka!  Something else I can hate Trump for!" she would know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I never claimed credit for that, it's been in the news. You need get to out more.  Meanwhile, please feel to extol the virtues of ripping babies from the arms of their mothers in hour effort to "stop" illegal immigration.  A pity you can't put all that energy into stopping rape and murder and child abuse.  Oops.  You support child abuse don't you?  Never mind then.  Your warped priorities will hopefuly be just another page in our countries book of shame in a few years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the second offense it is a felony..........and those get put into prison with some very bad people.........Let's put the children into prison with drug traffickers and Human Traffickers.
> 
> In the Omnibus they only gave Trump half what he requested for more beds.
> They also weren't so nice on implementing E-Verify............didn't give enough for more judges but more judges for immigration courts did happen..........
> 
> Everything some have complained about here was proposed.................
> 
> *Want more beds and speedy trials.............how about voting to fund it*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  But I sure as hell won't vote for tearing children from their families.  Strange but - that wasn't necessary before.  Nor was it the policy.  Now suddenly, it must be done.  And folks pretend it's for the good of the children.  I say bullshit on that.  Not when there are other accommodations for families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it wasn't done under Catch and Release............aka IGNORING THE LAWS OF THE REPUBLIC.............when it suits you............
> 
> You only need to follow the law when you choose correct........or is OBAMA A GOD.............with his pen and a phone.........do whatever he wants..........
> 
> Again ............other than Amnesty and Catch and Release...........what are their bills to fix this..........
> 
> Dems are Very good at Bitching at others ideas..........and then not having solutions themselves..........go get some pom poms and do your chant from the Cheap Seats in the bleachers
> 
> In the mean time............our laws are now being enforced and Catch and Release is over..............No more Welcome Mat........*and children will NOT BE HOUSED WITH HARD CORE CRIMINALS.................As has been standard policy for a very long time*...........But you just noticed.......for political reasons.
Click to expand...


Link showing that these children were housed with hardcore criminals?


----------



## WillowTree

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


What would you have us dew dear?


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't DACA dreamers but then, honesty isn't your strong point is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You confuse Sarcasm for Truth or dare...................meme was sent to hit a raw nerve ending..........mission accomplished.......
> 
> Why did the Dems not fund more for more beds and judges..........it was proposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When people post memes, it's because they believe they have at least a kernal of truth in them if not much more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a opinion and your opinion doesn't out weigh mine..................
> 
> And it is also a sign that some of us are tired of hearing your BS save the children campaign..................Bitch at us with no solutions offered............
> 
> Again tell me the ANGELS OF MERCY DEMS PROPOSALS.......................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've offered solutions doofus.  Not my fault you don't like them.  If you prefer child abuse, that is your choice.
Click to expand...

It is child abuse if you put them in prison.............Dems policies have encouraged more to come...........and their REFUSAL to fund more facilities gives them NO MORAL ground on this issue.....................If they want to end the over crowding then they need to get off their Liberal Asses and do something other than Whine.................

And this we are Abusing Children is a political tactic for the coming election...........Your just practicing your next political junta.

You gave solutions.........I didn't see them.........been busy................Now show me the Dems bills they tried to pass................over then Amnesty and open borders.............Catch and Release is open borders.........Might as well bring home border agents and say FUCK IT under that policy.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> To really reduce the 12 million illegal immigrants in the US we have to start large scale deportations from all of major cities, and that's not going to be easy for a number of reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, if we really wanted to reduce the number of illegals, all we have to do is pass a law that anybody caught here illegally faces a minimum five year prison sentence.  It could be more depending on how good the judge feels that day.
> 
> 
> At least 11 million of the illegals  will be running to that border so fast it would make your head spin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Those people from Honduras would probably consider 5 years in a federal prison free room and board, far better than what awaits them at home.  It just delays deportation and cost a bunch of money.   This is one of the reasons we rarely imprison someone for illegal entry.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's because it's only considered a misdemeanor.  If it was a first degree felony, we would reduce our immigration population by at least 90%, and reduce border crossings by even more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *For first time offenders, it's a misdemeanor.  Although Trump devotees consider it on par with rape or murder, the penalty makes it about as serious as trespassing.  Of course the real punishment is deportation.  However, immigration courts don't punish people.  Deportation is only a change of immigration status since this is being handled in a civil not a criminal court.
> 
> For repeat offenders it can be tried as a felony.   In the federal system an imprisonment penalty of one year or over is considered a felony.  My understanding is Trump is moving repeat offenders to criminal court which is not likely to consider the reason for the crime nor the effect of conviction on the family plus there is no huge backlog. So they should be open and shut cases, ideal for plea bargains.    However, in a criminal court the defendant is entitled to a jury trial unlike immigration court.
> 
> I seriously doubt that any penalty other than death for illegal entry would have any effect on illegal immigration.  From the questions I read on the Internet from people facing deportation, they don't have a clue how our legal system works and know even less about immigration courts or laws and these are probably the smart ones.*
Click to expand...


I don't buy that one minute.  Third world countries are not totally void of news and communications.  Right..........they didn't know.  That's like asking a convict in prison if they did the crime.  Nine times out of ten they will deny it.  

Create a strong enough deterrent and it will reduce the number of illegals greatly.  Put up signs within ten miles of our border of what the penalties are here so nobody can use that excuse anymore.


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> [QUOTE="eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing is, she says,* "Fund more judges to speed up hearings and deportations",* like it's some brilliant alternative she's come up with that no one else saw, because her leftism makes her so superior and more compassionate, but HER OWN DAMNED LINK said that that's the cornerstone of the program she's bitching about.  If she had bothered to read more than the headline before shouting, "Eureka!  Something else I can hate Trump for!" she would know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I never claimed credit for that, it's been in the news. You need get to out more.  Meanwhile, please feel to extol the virtues of ripping babies from the arms of their mothers in hour effort to "stop" illegal immigration.  A pity you can't put all that energy into stopping rape and murder and child abuse.  Oops.  You support child abuse don't you?  Never mind then.  Your warped priorities will hopefuly be just another page in our countries book of shame in a few years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the second offense it is a felony..........and those get put into prison with some very bad people.........Let's put the children into prison with drug traffickers and Human Traffickers.
> 
> In the Omnibus they only gave Trump half what he requested for more beds.
> They also weren't so nice on implementing E-Verify............didn't give enough for more judges but more judges for immigration courts did happen..........
> 
> Everything some have complained about here was proposed.................
> 
> *Want more beds and speedy trials.............how about voting to fund it*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  But I sure as hell won't vote for tearing children from their families.  Strange but - that wasn't necessary before.  Nor was it the policy.  Now suddenly, it must be done.  And folks pretend it's for the good of the children.  I say bullshit on that.  Not when there are other accommodations for families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it wasn't done under Catch and Release............aka IGNORING THE LAWS OF THE REPUBLIC.............when it suits you............
> 
> You only need to follow the law when you choose correct........or is OBAMA A GOD.............with his pen and a phone.........do whatever he wants..........
> 
> Again ............other than Amnesty and Catch and Release...........what are their bills to fix this..........
> 
> Dems are Very good at Bitching at others ideas..........and then not having solutions themselves..........go get some pom poms and do your chant from the Cheap Seats in the bleachers
> 
> In the mean time............our laws are now being enforced and Catch and Release is over..............No more Welcome Mat........*and children will NOT BE HOUSED WITH HARD CORE CRIMINALS.................As has been standard policy for a very long time*...........But you just noticed.......for political reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link showing that these children were housed with hardcore criminals?
Click to expand...

Jesus........use google...........Private companies run the jails were those who are considered criminal go to........including second offenses which are considered a Felony................They put the bad guys there as well.

You demand answers from me................yet REFUSE to give the bills from the Dems to fix this..............must be nice to demand when you give nothing in return.


----------



## Coyote

eagle1462010 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't DACA dreamers but then, honesty isn't your strong point is it?
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse Sarcasm for Truth or dare...................meme was sent to hit a raw nerve ending..........mission accomplished.......
> 
> Why did the Dems not fund more for more beds and judges..........it was proposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When people post memes, it's because they believe they have at least a kernal of truth in them if not much more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a opinion and your opinion doesn't out weigh mine..................
> 
> And it is also a sign that some of us are tired of hearing your BS save the children campaign..................Bitch at us with no solutions offered............
> 
> Again tell me the ANGELS OF MERCY DEMS PROPOSALS.......................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've offered solutions doofus.  Not my fault you don't like them.  If you prefer child abuse, that is your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is child abuse if you put them in prison.............Dems policies have encouraged more to come...........and their REFUSAL to fund more facilities gives them NO MORAL ground on this issue.....................If they want to end the over crowding then they need to get off their Liberal Asses and do something other than Whine.................
> 
> And this we are Abusing Children is a political tactic for the coming election...........Your just practicing your next political junta.
> 
> You gave solutions.........I didn't see them.........been busy................Now show me the Dems bills they tried to pass................over then Amnesty and open borders.............Catch and Release is open borders.........Might as well bring home border agents and say FUCK IT under that policy.
Click to expand...


So why is we MUST HAVE this particular policy?  There are family facilities that can hold them prior to their hearing, something mentioned before but ignored by you.  Why do you so fiercely defend THIS particular policy?  Do you believe that if we ditch this PARTICULAR policy, we will lose our war against immigration and they will come flooding in murdering and raping us in our beds or something?  Do you believe if we say this PARTICULAR policy sucks, that means there are NO OTHER alternatives?

So why do you need to defend it?  Because you Republicans can't just say it sucks?  No...wait, a lot of Republicans don't much like it either.  You Trumpists then?  This one policy MUST BE RETAINED?


----------



## Coyote

eagle1462010 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> [QUOTE="eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I never claimed credit for that, it's been in the news. You need get to out more.  Meanwhile, please feel to extol the virtues of ripping babies from the arms of their mothers in hour effort to "stop" illegal immigration.  A pity you can't put all that energy into stopping rape and murder and child abuse.  Oops.  You support child abuse don't you?  Never mind then.  Your warped priorities will hopefuly be just another page in our countries book of shame in a few years.
> 
> 
> 
> On the second offense it is a felony..........and those get put into prison with some very bad people.........Let's put the children into prison with drug traffickers and Human Traffickers.
> 
> In the Omnibus they only gave Trump half what he requested for more beds.
> They also weren't so nice on implementing E-Verify............didn't give enough for more judges but more judges for immigration courts did happen..........
> 
> Everything some have complained about here was proposed.................
> 
> *Want more beds and speedy trials.............how about voting to fund it*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  But I sure as hell won't vote for tearing children from their families.  Strange but - that wasn't necessary before.  Nor was it the policy.  Now suddenly, it must be done.  And folks pretend it's for the good of the children.  I say bullshit on that.  Not when there are other accommodations for families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it wasn't done under Catch and Release............aka IGNORING THE LAWS OF THE REPUBLIC.............when it suits you............
> 
> You only need to follow the law when you choose correct........or is OBAMA A GOD.............with his pen and a phone.........do whatever he wants..........
> 
> Again ............other than Amnesty and Catch and Release...........what are their bills to fix this..........
> 
> Dems are Very good at Bitching at others ideas..........and then not having solutions themselves..........go get some pom poms and do your chant from the Cheap Seats in the bleachers
> 
> In the mean time............our laws are now being enforced and Catch and Release is over..............No more Welcome Mat........*and children will NOT BE HOUSED WITH HARD CORE CRIMINALS.................As has been standard policy for a very long time*...........But you just noticed.......for political reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link showing that these children were housed with hardcore criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus........use google...........Private companies run the jails were those who are considered criminal go to........including second offenses which are considered a Felony................They put the bad guys there as well.
> 
> You demand answers from me................yet REFUSE to give the bills from the Dems to fix this..............must be nice to demand when you give nothing in return.
Click to expand...


Don't dodge.  Link showing that *these children were housed with hardcore criminals*?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

protectionist said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, if we really wanted to reduce the number of illegals, all we have to do is pass a law that anybody caught here illegally faces a minimum five year prison sentence.  It could be more depending on how good the judge feels that day.
> 
> At least 11 million of the illegals  will be running to that border so fast it would make your head spin.
> 
> 
> 
> A bill like that was attempted, proposed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).  It was called the   Stop Illegal Reentry Act, and also "Kate's Law", named after Kate Steinle, who was killed by an illegal alien, in San Francisco.  The bill was defeated by Democrats who voted solidly against it.
Click to expand...


And this is where Republicans are to blame.  Put those bills back up there and vote on them again......right before reelection.  Let's see who are the real Americans and who are the traitors, because Kate's law was introduced with a Democrat majority in the Senate.


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> To really reduce the 12 million illegal immigrants in the US we have to start large scale deportations from all of major cities, and that's not going to be easy for a number of reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, if we really wanted to reduce the number of illegals, all we have to do is pass a law that anybody caught here illegally faces a minimum five year prison sentence.  It could be more depending on how good the judge feels that day.
> 
> 
> At least 11 million of the illegals  will be running to that border so fast it would make your head spin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Those people from Honduras would probably consider 5 years in a federal prison free room and board, far better than what awaits them at home.  It just delays deportation and cost a bunch of money.   This is one of the reasons we rarely imprison someone for illegal entry.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's because it's only considered a misdemeanor.  If it was a first degree felony, we would reduce our immigration population by at least 90%, and reduce border crossings by even more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *For first time offenders, it's a misdemeanor.  Although Trump devotees consider it on par with rape or murder, the penalty makes it about as serious as trespassing.  Of course the real punishment is deportation.  However, immigration courts don't punish people.  Deportation is only a change of immigration status since this is being handled in a civil not a criminal court.
> 
> For repeat offenders it can be tried as a felony.   In the federal system an imprisonment penalty of one year or over is considered a felony.  My understanding is Trump is moving repeat offenders to criminal court which is not likely to consider the reason for the crime nor the effect of conviction on the family plus there is no huge backlog. So they should be open and shut cases, ideal for plea bargains.    However, in a criminal court the defendant is entitled to a jury trial unlike immigration court.
> 
> I seriously doubt that any penalty other than death for illegal entry would have any effect on illegal immigration.  From the questions I read on the Internet from people facing deportation, they don't have a clue how our legal system works and know even less about immigration courts or laws and these are probably the smart ones.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't buy that one minute.  Third world countries are not totally void of news and communications.  Right..........they didn't know.  That's like asking a convict in prison if they did the crime.  Nine times out of ten they will deny it.
> 
> Create a strong enough deterrent and it will reduce the number of illegals greatly.  Put up signs within ten miles of our border of what the penalties are here so nobody can use that excuse anymore.
Click to expand...



Cut their heads off and put then on stakes across our borders and sell their children to human traffickers.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, if we really wanted to reduce the number of illegals, all we have to do is pass a law that anybody caught here illegally faces a minimum five year prison sentence.  It could be more depending on how good the judge feels that day.
> 
> 
> At least 11 million of the illegals  will be running to that border so fast it would make your head spin.
> 
> 
> 
> *Those people from Honduras would probably consider 5 years in a federal prison free room and board, far better than what awaits them at home.  It just delays deportation and cost a bunch of money.   This is one of the reasons we rarely imprison someone for illegal entry.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's because it's only considered a misdemeanor.  If it was a first degree felony, we would reduce our immigration population by at least 90%, and reduce border crossings by even more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *For first time offenders, it's a misdemeanor.  Although Trump devotees consider it on par with rape or murder, the penalty makes it about as serious as trespassing.  Of course the real punishment is deportation.  However, immigration courts don't punish people.  Deportation is only a change of immigration status since this is being handled in a civil not a criminal court.
> 
> For repeat offenders it can be tried as a felony.   In the federal system an imprisonment penalty of one year or over is considered a felony.  My understanding is Trump is moving repeat offenders to criminal court which is not likely to consider the reason for the crime nor the effect of conviction on the family plus there is no huge backlog. So they should be open and shut cases, ideal for plea bargains.    However, in a criminal court the defendant is entitled to a jury trial unlike immigration court.
> 
> I seriously doubt that any penalty other than death for illegal entry would have any effect on illegal immigration.  From the questions I read on the Internet from people facing deportation, they don't have a clue how our legal system works and know even less about immigration courts or laws and these are probably the smart ones.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't buy that one minute.  Third world countries are not totally void of news and communications.  Right..........they didn't know.  That's like asking a convict in prison if they did the crime.  Nine times out of ten they will deny it.
> 
> Create a strong enough deterrent and it will reduce the number of illegals greatly.  Put up signs within ten miles of our border of what the penalties are here so nobody can use that excuse anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Cut their heads off and put then on stakes across our borders and sell their children to human traffickers.
Click to expand...


Right, because that's the same thing, isn't it?  Then you wonder why we can't take you people seriously.


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse Sarcasm for Truth or dare...................meme was sent to hit a raw nerve ending..........mission accomplished.......
> 
> Why did the Dems not fund more for more beds and judges..........it was proposed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When people post memes, it's because they believe they have at least a kernal of truth in them if not much more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a opinion and your opinion doesn't out weigh mine..................
> 
> And it is also a sign that some of us are tired of hearing your BS save the children campaign..................Bitch at us with no solutions offered............
> 
> Again tell me the ANGELS OF MERCY DEMS PROPOSALS.......................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've offered solutions doofus.  Not my fault you don't like them.  If you prefer child abuse, that is your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is child abuse if you put them in prison.............Dems policies have encouraged more to come...........and their REFUSAL to fund more facilities gives them NO MORAL ground on this issue.....................If they want to end the over crowding then they need to get off their Liberal Asses and do something other than Whine.................
> 
> And this we are Abusing Children is a political tactic for the coming election...........Your just practicing your next political junta.
> 
> You gave solutions.........I didn't see them.........been busy................Now show me the Dems bills they tried to pass................over then Amnesty and open borders.............Catch and Release is open borders.........Might as well bring home border agents and say FUCK IT under that policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why is we MUST HAVE this particular policy?  There are family facilities that can hold them prior to their hearing, something mentioned before but ignored by you.  Why do you so fiercely defend THIS particular policy?  Do you believe that if we ditch this PARTICULAR policy, we will lose our war against immigration and they will come flooding in murdering and raping us in our beds or something?  Do you believe if we say this PARTICULAR policy sucks, that means there are NO OTHER alternatives?
> 
> So why do you need to defend it?  Because you Republicans can't just say it sucks?  No...wait, a lot of Republicans don't much like it either.  You Trumpists then?  This one policy MUST BE RETAINED?
Click to expand...

Show me the family facilities..............and when convicted of a felony with children.............do they get a pass like under Obama.............

If charged with a Felony...........they go to the House.............kids don't go with them.........

After being caught the first time they are WARNED it is a FELONY if caught again..............yet they do it anyway..........whether they bring their kids or not..........

Show me the family facilities of ICE.....................


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Those people from Honduras would probably consider 5 years in a federal prison free room and board, far better than what awaits them at home.  It just delays deportation and cost a bunch of money.   This is one of the reasons we rarely imprison someone for illegal entry.   *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because it's only considered a misdemeanor.  If it was a first degree felony, we would reduce our immigration population by at least 90%, and reduce border crossings by even more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *For first time offenders, it's a misdemeanor.  Although Trump devotees consider it on par with rape or murder, the penalty makes it about as serious as trespassing.  Of course the real punishment is deportation.  However, immigration courts don't punish people.  Deportation is only a change of immigration status since this is being handled in a civil not a criminal court.
> 
> For repeat offenders it can be tried as a felony.   In the federal system an imprisonment penalty of one year or over is considered a felony.  My understanding is Trump is moving repeat offenders to criminal court which is not likely to consider the reason for the crime nor the effect of conviction on the family plus there is no huge backlog. So they should be open and shut cases, ideal for plea bargains.    However, in a criminal court the defendant is entitled to a jury trial unlike immigration court.
> 
> I seriously doubt that any penalty other than death for illegal entry would have any effect on illegal immigration.  From the questions I read on the Internet from people facing deportation, they don't have a clue how our legal system works and know even less about immigration courts or laws and these are probably the smart ones.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't buy that one minute.  Third world countries are not totally void of news and communications.  Right..........they didn't know.  That's like asking a convict in prison if they did the crime.  Nine times out of ten they will deny it.
> 
> Create a strong enough deterrent and it will reduce the number of illegals greatly.  Put up signs within ten miles of our border of what the penalties are here so nobody can use that excuse anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Cut their heads off and put then on stakes across our borders and sell their children to human traffickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, because that's the same thing, isn't it?  Then you wonder why we can't take you people seriously.
Click to expand...


How is that any different then conflating all illegal immigrants with murderers and rapists and child traffickers?  Because they're the same right?


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> [QUOTE="eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the second offense it is a felony..........and those get put into prison with some very bad people.........Let's put the children into prison with drug traffickers and Human Traffickers.
> 
> In the Omnibus they only gave Trump half what he requested for more beds.
> They also weren't so nice on implementing E-Verify............didn't give enough for more judges but more judges for immigration courts did happen..........
> 
> Everything some have complained about here was proposed.................
> 
> *Want more beds and speedy trials.............how about voting to fund it*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  But I sure as hell won't vote for tearing children from their families.  Strange but - that wasn't necessary before.  Nor was it the policy.  Now suddenly, it must be done.  And folks pretend it's for the good of the children.  I say bullshit on that.  Not when there are other accommodations for families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it wasn't done under Catch and Release............aka IGNORING THE LAWS OF THE REPUBLIC.............when it suits you............
> 
> You only need to follow the law when you choose correct........or is OBAMA A GOD.............with his pen and a phone.........do whatever he wants..........
> 
> Again ............other than Amnesty and Catch and Release...........what are their bills to fix this..........
> 
> Dems are Very good at Bitching at others ideas..........and then not having solutions themselves..........go get some pom poms and do your chant from the Cheap Seats in the bleachers
> 
> In the mean time............our laws are now being enforced and Catch and Release is over..............No more Welcome Mat........*and children will NOT BE HOUSED WITH HARD CORE CRIMINALS.................As has been standard policy for a very long time*...........But you just noticed.......for political reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link showing that these children were housed with hardcore criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus........use google...........Private companies run the jails were those who are considered criminal go to........including second offenses which are considered a Felony................They put the bad guys there as well.
> 
> You demand answers from me................yet REFUSE to give the bills from the Dems to fix this..............must be nice to demand when you give nothing in return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't dodge.  Link showing that *these children were housed with hardcore criminals*?
Click to expand...

I'm working 12 hour shifts right now........don't have time to play your stupid game right now.........google it.....it's there............They are mostly Private prisons........................do you deny the second offense is a felony.................Let's put felons in family centers............LOL

You want Catch and Release...............and you sure as hell don't want our borders secure.............That policy is OPEN BORDERS............why did they even bother to detain ANYONE under Obama.............when they let them go anyway..................

Kind of a Waste of time.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because it's only considered a misdemeanor.  If it was a first degree felony, we would reduce our immigration population by at least 90%, and reduce border crossings by even more.
> 
> 
> 
> *For first time offenders, it's a misdemeanor.  Although Trump devotees consider it on par with rape or murder, the penalty makes it about as serious as trespassing.  Of course the real punishment is deportation.  However, immigration courts don't punish people.  Deportation is only a change of immigration status since this is being handled in a civil not a criminal court.
> 
> For repeat offenders it can be tried as a felony.   In the federal system an imprisonment penalty of one year or over is considered a felony.  My understanding is Trump is moving repeat offenders to criminal court which is not likely to consider the reason for the crime nor the effect of conviction on the family plus there is no huge backlog. So they should be open and shut cases, ideal for plea bargains.    However, in a criminal court the defendant is entitled to a jury trial unlike immigration court.
> 
> I seriously doubt that any penalty other than death for illegal entry would have any effect on illegal immigration.  From the questions I read on the Internet from people facing deportation, they don't have a clue how our legal system works and know even less about immigration courts or laws and these are probably the smart ones.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't buy that one minute.  Third world countries are not totally void of news and communications.  Right..........they didn't know.  That's like asking a convict in prison if they did the crime.  Nine times out of ten they will deny it.
> 
> Create a strong enough deterrent and it will reduce the number of illegals greatly.  Put up signs within ten miles of our border of what the penalties are here so nobody can use that excuse anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Cut their heads off and put then on stakes across our borders and sell their children to human traffickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, because that's the same thing, isn't it?  Then you wonder why we can't take you people seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different then conflating all illegal immigrants with murderers and rapists and child traffickers?  Because they're the same right?
Click to expand...


A much much higher probability than cutting off people's heads, don't you think?  Do these people bring identification that the children with them are actually theirs?  Of course not.  We just have to take their word for it.


----------



## eagle1462010

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *For first time offenders, it's a misdemeanor.  Although Trump devotees consider it on par with rape or murder, the penalty makes it about as serious as trespassing.  Of course the real punishment is deportation.  However, immigration courts don't punish people.  Deportation is only a change of immigration status since this is being handled in a civil not a criminal court.
> 
> For repeat offenders it can be tried as a felony.   In the federal system an imprisonment penalty of one year or over is considered a felony.  My understanding is Trump is moving repeat offenders to criminal court which is not likely to consider the reason for the crime nor the effect of conviction on the family plus there is no huge backlog. So they should be open and shut cases, ideal for plea bargains.    However, in a criminal court the defendant is entitled to a jury trial unlike immigration court.
> 
> I seriously doubt that any penalty other than death for illegal entry would have any effect on illegal immigration.  From the questions I read on the Internet from people facing deportation, they don't have a clue how our legal system works and know even less about immigration courts or laws and these are probably the smart ones.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't buy that one minute.  Third world countries are not totally void of news and communications.  Right..........they didn't know.  That's like asking a convict in prison if they did the crime.  Nine times out of ten they will deny it.
> 
> Create a strong enough deterrent and it will reduce the number of illegals greatly.  Put up signs within ten miles of our border of what the penalties are here so nobody can use that excuse anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Cut their heads off and put then on stakes across our borders and sell their children to human traffickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, because that's the same thing, isn't it?  Then you wonder why we can't take you people seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different then conflating all illegal immigrants with murderers and rapists and child traffickers?  Because they're the same right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A much much higher probability than cutting off people's heads, don't you think?  Do these people bring identification that the children with them are actually theirs?  Of course not.  We just have to take their word for it.
Click to expand...

Them using it is pure desperation for a new tactic of the SAVE THE CHILDREN CAMPAIGN for office in November.

They are just trolling the idea right now...............experimental..............


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *For first time offenders, it's a misdemeanor.  Although Trump devotees consider it on par with rape or murder, the penalty makes it about as serious as trespassing.  Of course the real punishment is deportation.  However, immigration courts don't punish people.  Deportation is only a change of immigration status since this is being handled in a civil not a criminal court.
> 
> For repeat offenders it can be tried as a felony.   In the federal system an imprisonment penalty of one year or over is considered a felony.  My understanding is Trump is moving repeat offenders to criminal court which is not likely to consider the reason for the crime nor the effect of conviction on the family plus there is no huge backlog. So they should be open and shut cases, ideal for plea bargains.    However, in a criminal court the defendant is entitled to a jury trial unlike immigration court.
> 
> I seriously doubt that any penalty other than death for illegal entry would have any effect on illegal immigration.  From the questions I read on the Internet from people facing deportation, they don't have a clue how our legal system works and know even less about immigration courts or laws and these are probably the smart ones.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't buy that one minute.  Third world countries are not totally void of news and communications.  Right..........they didn't know.  That's like asking a convict in prison if they did the crime.  Nine times out of ten they will deny it.
> 
> Create a strong enough deterrent and it will reduce the number of illegals greatly.  Put up signs within ten miles of our border of what the penalties are here so nobody can use that excuse anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Cut their heads off and put then on stakes across our borders and sell their children to human traffickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, because that's the same thing, isn't it?  Then you wonder why we can't take you people seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different then conflating all illegal immigrants with murderers and rapists and child traffickers?  Because they're the same right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A much much higher probability than cutting off people's heads, don't you think?  Do these people bring identification that the children with them are actually theirs?  Of course not.  We just have to take their word for it.
Click to expand...


There is a much higher probability that they are their kids don't you think?


----------



## Coyote

eagle1462010 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  But I sure as hell won't vote for tearing children from their families.  Strange but - that wasn't necessary before.  Nor was it the policy.  Now suddenly, it must be done.  And folks pretend it's for the good of the children.  I say bullshit on that.  Not when there are other accommodations for families.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it wasn't done under Catch and Release............aka IGNORING THE LAWS OF THE REPUBLIC.............when it suits you............
> 
> You only need to follow the law when you choose correct........or is OBAMA A GOD.............with his pen and a phone.........do whatever he wants..........
> 
> Again ............other than Amnesty and Catch and Release...........what are their bills to fix this..........
> 
> Dems are Very good at Bitching at others ideas..........and then not having solutions themselves..........go get some pom poms and do your chant from the Cheap Seats in the bleachers
> 
> In the mean time............our laws are now being enforced and Catch and Release is over..............No more Welcome Mat........*and children will NOT BE HOUSED WITH HARD CORE CRIMINALS.................As has been standard policy for a very long time*...........But you just noticed.......for political reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link showing that these children were housed with hardcore criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus........use google...........Private companies run the jails were those who are considered criminal go to........including second offenses which are considered a Felony................They put the bad guys there as well.
> 
> You demand answers from me................yet REFUSE to give the bills from the Dems to fix this..............must be nice to demand when you give nothing in return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't dodge.  Link showing that *these children were housed with hardcore criminals*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm working 12 hour shifts right now........don't have time to play your stupid game right now.........google it.....it's there............They are mostly Private prisons........................do you deny the second offense is a felony.................Let's put felons in family centers............LOL
> 
> You want Catch and Release...............and you sure as hell don't want our borders secure.............That policy is OPEN BORDERS............why did they even bother to detain ANYONE under Obama.............when they let them go anyway..................
> 
> Kind of a Waste of time.
Click to expand...



Then you sure as hell shouldn't have time to be messing about on a silly political messageboard I would think.  If you don't have a link, then fine.  Stop farting around.

Why do you think this is a good policy?  It wasn't necessary before.  Why now?


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it wasn't done under Catch and Release............aka IGNORING THE LAWS OF THE REPUBLIC.............when it suits you............
> 
> You only need to follow the law when you choose correct........or is OBAMA A GOD.............with his pen and a phone.........do whatever he wants..........
> 
> Again ............other than Amnesty and Catch and Release...........what are their bills to fix this..........
> 
> Dems are Very good at Bitching at others ideas..........and then not having solutions themselves..........go get some pom poms and do your chant from the Cheap Seats in the bleachers
> 
> In the mean time............our laws are now being enforced and Catch and Release is over..............No more Welcome Mat........*and children will NOT BE HOUSED WITH HARD CORE CRIMINALS.................As has been standard policy for a very long time*...........But you just noticed.......for political reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link showing that these children were housed with hardcore criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus........use google...........Private companies run the jails were those who are considered criminal go to........including second offenses which are considered a Felony................They put the bad guys there as well.
> 
> You demand answers from me................yet REFUSE to give the bills from the Dems to fix this..............must be nice to demand when you give nothing in return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't dodge.  Link showing that *these children were housed with hardcore criminals*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm working 12 hour shifts right now........don't have time to play your stupid game right now.........google it.....it's there............They are mostly Private prisons........................do you deny the second offense is a felony.................Let's put felons in family centers............LOL
> 
> You want Catch and Release...............and you sure as hell don't want our borders secure.............That policy is OPEN BORDERS............why did they even bother to detain ANYONE under Obama.............when they let them go anyway..................
> 
> Kind of a Waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you sure as hell shouldn't have time to be messing about on a silly political messageboard I would think.  If you don't have a link, then fine.  Stop farting around.
> 
> Why do you think this is a good policy?  It wasn't necessary before.  Why now?
Click to expand...

I showed Trump's request..........more beds.......more agents........more judges and staff...........E-Verify.............

and I agree............

Now the Dems plan is ........................here it is





































There you go.


----------



## eagle1462010

Night folks...........enough for one night..................arguing with the Double Standards and Identity politics of the left.


----------



## Contumacious

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​




"Conservatives" proclaim to love the Constitution as it was ORIGINALLY INTENDED. But when it comes to sticking to immigrants everything goes.

*NO AUTHORITY WAS EVER GRANTED TO FEDGOV TO INTERDICT DETAIN AND DEPORT . WHATEVER AUTHORITY IT HAS WAS ****USURPED**** BY RACIST MOTHERFUCKING "JUDGES".*


.


----------



## pismoe

Vandalshandle said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man, sure, that's going to happen really quietly as well, right. Not like we can't just push the ladder over, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously do not live down here, Pop. You could walk 50 miles along the Mexican border in Arizona at night and not see a soul. And you are going to push over a rope ladder? Do all of you Trumpetts live in Disneyland?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said the wall won’t have lighting and guards?
> 
> You living in the Stone Age?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Pop, if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about, you would not even ask that question. Not only are there no paved roads down there, but no other infrastructure as well. There is no water, gas stations, electricity, or restaurants. more importantly, there are no people, and no places for them to live if there were. The BP in Southern AZ is 85% Latino, because they crossed the border years ago, and nobody else is going to drive all the way down there from Tucson to patrol one of the most inhospitable places in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THEY WILL USE ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE NOT RANDOMLY DRIVE ALONG THE WALL YOU STUPID FUCKING DISHONEST PIECE OF SHIT.  WHAT ABOUT THIS DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
> 
> And you've ignored the obviously idiotic response you gave that you're sending five year olds and pregnant women down a 30 foot rope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and BTW, they already use electronic surveillance. That is how they discovered over 100 tunnels under Nogales in the last 10 years. They also send down heat seeking drones down the Santa Cruz River bed every night. I like to watch them fly by in patterns of three every night from my patio. It does not discourage them at all. But Trump's WALL! Wow. That will show them!
Click to expand...

-----------------------------  aw , the WALL if done is simply a poke in the eyes to mexican third worlders from my point of view ,   Its simply an insult from ME to mexicans and other 'otm'   VS .


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't separate the children from their parents.
> 
> 
> 
> So if an American couple are arrested for some white collar crime, and are sentenced to 20 years, and they have a 1 year old child, that kid should be in their prison cell with them, until the kid reaches 21 years of age, right ?  Right ?
Click to expand...

*That's not a fair comparison. No one is goes to jail for 20 years for unlawful entry into the US or unlawful presence.  There is no reason why parents should be separated from their children while they are being detained.  They can be held in family detention centers.  If the adults are convicted of a crime and sent to prison, then the children should should be turned over to an agency for placement.  If they are deported they should be turned back over to parents. 

Separating these children from their parents is a disaster waiting to happen particular with the younger kids.  The Trump administration has made separating kids of detained parents a policy which means there're going have thousands of them.  When these kids start turning up missing or worse and can't be returned to the parents, the democrats will have a field day.*


----------



## Coyote

eagle1462010 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link showing that these children were housed with hardcore criminals?
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus........use google...........Private companies run the jails were those who are considered criminal go to........including second offenses which are considered a Felony................They put the bad guys there as well.
> 
> You demand answers from me................yet REFUSE to give the bills from the Dems to fix this..............must be nice to demand when you give nothing in return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't dodge.  Link showing that *these children were housed with hardcore criminals*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm working 12 hour shifts right now........don't have time to play your stupid game right now.........google it.....it's there............They are mostly Private prisons........................do you deny the second offense is a felony.................Let's put felons in family centers............LOL
> 
> You want Catch and Release...............and you sure as hell don't want our borders secure.............That policy is OPEN BORDERS............why did they even bother to detain ANYONE under Obama.............when they let them go anyway..................
> 
> Kind of a Waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you sure as hell shouldn't have time to be messing about on a silly political messageboard I would think.  If you don't have a link, then fine.  Stop farting around.
> 
> Why do you think this is a good policy?  It wasn't necessary before.  Why now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I showed Trump's request..........more beds.......more agents........more judges and staff...........E-Verify.............
> 
> and I agree............
> 
> Now the Dems plan is ........................here it is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go.
Click to expand...



Let's see...what have the Dems done...

2013...many attempts to pass bills....so here are two....

House Democrats have released their own immigration bill. Here’s what it does.

This year....Schumer offered Trump his wall in exchange for strong DACA protections...Trump reneged at the last minute and the offer was taken off the table.  Analysis | Schumer offered Trump something Democrats hate for something Republicans broadly like

Of course the Dems are the minority party now, so their bills aren't even going to get to the floor.

Now what have Republicans done besides creating a POLICY (not a bill) to forceably remove children from every illegal immigrant and asylum seeker that crosses the border.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Contumacious said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Conservatives" proclaim to love the Constitution as it was ORIGINALLY INTENDED. But when it comes to sticking to immigrants everything goes.
> 
> *NO AUTHORITY WAS EVER GRANTED TO FEDGOV TO INTERDICT DETAIN AND DEPORT . WHATEVER AUTHORITY IT HAS WAS ****USURPED**** BY RACIST MOTHERFUCKING "JUDGES".*
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Thanks for that post.  Another open-border leftist.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it wasn't done under Catch and Release............aka IGNORING THE LAWS OF THE REPUBLIC.............when it suits you............
> 
> You only need to follow the law when you choose correct........or is OBAMA A GOD.............with his pen and a phone.........do whatever he wants..........
> 
> Again ............other than Amnesty and Catch and Release...........what are their bills to fix this..........
> 
> Dems are Very good at Bitching at others ideas..........and then not having solutions themselves..........go get some pom poms and do your chant from the Cheap Seats in the bleachers
> 
> In the mean time............our laws are now being enforced and Catch and Release is over..............No more Welcome Mat........*and children will NOT BE HOUSED WITH HARD CORE CRIMINALS.................As has been standard policy for a very long time*...........But you just noticed.......for political reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link showing that these children were housed with hardcore criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus........use google...........Private companies run the jails were those who are considered criminal go to........including second offenses which are considered a Felony................They put the bad guys there as well.
> 
> You demand answers from me................yet REFUSE to give the bills from the Dems to fix this..............must be nice to demand when you give nothing in return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't dodge.  Link showing that *these children were housed with hardcore criminals*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm working 12 hour shifts right now........don't have time to play your stupid game right now.........google it.....it's there............They are mostly Private prisons........................do you deny the second offense is a felony.................Let's put felons in family centers............LOL
> 
> You want Catch and Release...............and you sure as hell don't want our borders secure.............That policy is OPEN BORDERS............why did they even bother to detain ANYONE under Obama.............when they let them go anyway..................
> 
> Kind of a Waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you sure as hell shouldn't have time to be messing about on a silly political messageboard I would think.  If you don't have a link, then fine.  Stop farting around.
> 
> Why do you think this is a good policy?  It wasn't necessary before.  Why now?
Click to expand...


Why do you think every policy has to be based on necessity?  How about he just wanted to do it to send a message to future law breakers coming to this country?


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link showing that these children were housed with hardcore criminals?
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus........use google...........Private companies run the jails were those who are considered criminal go to........including second offenses which are considered a Felony................They put the bad guys there as well.
> 
> You demand answers from me................yet REFUSE to give the bills from the Dems to fix this..............must be nice to demand when you give nothing in return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't dodge.  Link showing that *these children were housed with hardcore criminals*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm working 12 hour shifts right now........don't have time to play your stupid game right now.........google it.....it's there............They are mostly Private prisons........................do you deny the second offense is a felony.................Let's put felons in family centers............LOL
> 
> You want Catch and Release...............and you sure as hell don't want our borders secure.............That policy is OPEN BORDERS............why did they even bother to detain ANYONE under Obama.............when they let them go anyway..................
> 
> Kind of a Waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you sure as hell shouldn't have time to be messing about on a silly political messageboard I would think.  If you don't have a link, then fine.  Stop farting around.
> 
> Why do you think this is a good policy?  It wasn't necessary before.  Why now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think every policy has to be based on necessity?  How about he just wanted to do it to send a message to future law breakers coming to this country?
Click to expand...


Because it crosses the line to cruel and abusive tactics and if it is unnecessary, why do it?  Hyperbole yes - but, just go put heads on stakes.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't buy that one minute.  Third world countries are not totally void of news and communications.  Right..........they didn't know.  That's like asking a convict in prison if they did the crime.  Nine times out of ten they will deny it.
> 
> Create a strong enough deterrent and it will reduce the number of illegals greatly.  Put up signs within ten miles of our border of what the penalties are here so nobody can use that excuse anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cut their heads off and put then on stakes across our borders and sell their children to human traffickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, because that's the same thing, isn't it?  Then you wonder why we can't take you people seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different then conflating all illegal immigrants with murderers and rapists and child traffickers?  Because they're the same right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A much much higher probability than cutting off people's heads, don't you think?  Do these people bring identification that the children with them are actually theirs?  Of course not.  We just have to take their word for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a much higher probability that they are their kids don't you think?
Click to expand...


I don't know and I don't think our government has anyway of knowing.  That's the point brought up by others.  We are not going to spend the money to do a DNA test on each family to find out either.  

This is now our policy.  If you don't like our policy, stay in your own country and wait for a Democrat President before trying to come here.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus........use google...........Private companies run the jails were those who are considered criminal go to........including second offenses which are considered a Felony................They put the bad guys there as well.
> 
> You demand answers from me................yet REFUSE to give the bills from the Dems to fix this..............must be nice to demand when you give nothing in return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't dodge.  Link showing that *these children were housed with hardcore criminals*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm working 12 hour shifts right now........don't have time to play your stupid game right now.........google it.....it's there............They are mostly Private prisons........................do you deny the second offense is a felony.................Let's put felons in family centers............LOL
> 
> You want Catch and Release...............and you sure as hell don't want our borders secure.............That policy is OPEN BORDERS............why did they even bother to detain ANYONE under Obama.............when they let them go anyway..................
> 
> Kind of a Waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you sure as hell shouldn't have time to be messing about on a silly political messageboard I would think.  If you don't have a link, then fine.  Stop farting around.
> 
> Why do you think this is a good policy?  It wasn't necessary before.  Why now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think every policy has to be based on necessity?  How about he just wanted to do it to send a message to future law breakers coming to this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it crosses the line to cruel and abusive tactics and if it is unnecessary, why do it?  Hyperbole yes - but, just go put heads on stakes.
Click to expand...


You never learn, do you?  That tactic has zero chance of changing anybody's mind here or anyplace else.  Extremism is desperation and everybody knows it.  

There is nothing cruel and abusive about taking starving kids, putting them in a shelter, getting them cleaned up, fed, medical treatment if necessary, or otherwise sending them to live with relatives already in the US.  What could possibly be cruel about that?


----------



## Flopper

abrere said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bs, the stupid jerks should not HAVE kids. They know damned well what causes kids, how to prevent it, and they also know damned well that they can't afford kids. So they come here to steal our jobs and mooch off of the taxpayer. I say eff em. Let them stay where they are, stop having kids and soon, labor will be worth something where they live.
Click to expand...

*When they came to the US seeking asylums, they probably didn't expect the first thing the US would do was take away kids.  There mistake was not realizing that "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" was just all bullshit.  They should have just stayed in Honduras and taken their chances with Mara Salvatrucha and the Barrio 18. *


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't dodge.  Link showing that *these children were housed with hardcore criminals*?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm working 12 hour shifts right now........don't have time to play your stupid game right now.........google it.....it's there............They are mostly Private prisons........................do you deny the second offense is a felony.................Let's put felons in family centers............LOL
> 
> You want Catch and Release...............and you sure as hell don't want our borders secure.............That policy is OPEN BORDERS............why did they even bother to detain ANYONE under Obama.............when they let them go anyway..................
> 
> Kind of a Waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you sure as hell shouldn't have time to be messing about on a silly political messageboard I would think.  If you don't have a link, then fine.  Stop farting around.
> 
> Why do you think this is a good policy?  It wasn't necessary before.  Why now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think every policy has to be based on necessity?  How about he just wanted to do it to send a message to future law breakers coming to this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it crosses the line to cruel and abusive tactics and if it is unnecessary, why do it?  Hyperbole yes - but, just go put heads on stakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never learn, do you?  That tactic has zero chance of changing anybody's mind here or anyplace else.  Extremism is desperation and everybody knows it.
> 
> There is nothing cruel and abusive about taking starving kids, putting them in a shelter, getting them cleaned up, fed, medical treatment if necessary, or otherwise sending them to live with relatives already in the US.  What could possibly be cruel about that?
Click to expand...


Extremism?  Like starving kids?  You mean it's not possible to help the mothers and kids together?   Really?  Lying has zero chance of changing anyone's mind either.


----------



## koshergrl

eagle1462010 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't DACA dreamers but then, honesty isn't your strong point is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You confuse Sarcasm for Truth or dare...................meme was sent to hit a raw nerve ending..........mission accomplished.......
> 
> Why did the Dems not fund more for more beds and judges..........it was proposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When people post memes, it's because they believe they have at least a kernal of truth in them if not much more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a opinion and your opinion doesn't out weigh mine..................
> 
> And it is also a sign that some of us are tired of hearing your BS save the children campaign..................Bitch at us with no solutions offered............
> 
> Again tell me the ANGELS OF MERCY DEMS PROPOSALS.......................
Click to expand...

The dem proposal is that we let child smugglers operate with impunity, and that we subsidize sex traffickers via welfare, free abortions no quesitons asked for their stables, and allow them access to our schools via refugee settlement programs.


----------



## pismoe

third worlders should learn to build decent societies  Flopper  .


----------



## Vandalshandle

Flopper said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't separate the children from their parents.
> 
> 
> 
> So if an American couple are arrested for some white collar crime, and are sentenced to 20 years, and they have a 1 year old child, that kid should be in their prison cell with them, until the kid reaches 21 years of age, right ?  Right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That's not a fair comparison. No one is goes to jail for 20 years for unlawful entry into the US or unlawful presence.  There is no reason why parents should be separated from their children while they are being detained.  They can be held in family detention centers.  If the adults are convicted of a crime and sent to prison, then the children should should be turned over to an agency for placement.  If they are deported they should be turned back over to parents.
> 
> Separating these children from their parents is a disaster waiting to happen particular with the younger kids.  The Trump administration has made separating kids of detained parents a policy which means there're going have thousands of them.  When these kids start turning up missing or worse and can't be returned to the parents, the democrats will have a field day.*
Click to expand...


I lived in New Orleans for 10 years, and down there, I learned what happens to kids without parents..

Gangs.


----------



## Flopper

eagle1462010 said:


> Immigration in the Omnibus: No Wall Funding, but Gains for Trump
> 
> *Detention Beds*
> 
> *President’s request:* Currently, the government is required to fill at least 34,000 beds across all immigration detention centers each night. Congress has continued this mandate over many years, despite objections raised by the Obama administration. Trump sought $1.2 billion to expand the mandate to 45,700 beds by the end of FY2017.
> *Omnibus bill:* Congress approved $526 million for additional beds, raising the number available to 39,324. Congress also approved $33 million for additional transportation and removal costs, as well as $57 million for alternatives to detention.
> *Immigration courts*
> 
> *President’s Request:* The president’s FY2017 request did not ask for additional immigration court funding. However, the FY2018 budget blueprint called for the hiring of 75 new judge teams. The new resources would aim to speed up case processing in immigration courts, where the backlog has surpassed 542,000 cases, with an average wait time of 677 days.
> *Omnibus bill:* The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) budget has been increased by $20 million to $440 million for FY2017, which allows for the creation of 10 additional immigration judge teams this fiscal year.


*There are so many empty FEMA trailers (about 60,000) around the country, the government has been selling them.  The army is spending half billion dollars a year maintaining empty facilities.  There is plenty of room for detainees and their families.  Trump is just going after the kids to punish the parents, exactly what I would expect of him.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm working 12 hour shifts right now........don't have time to play your stupid game right now.........google it.....it's there............They are mostly Private prisons........................do you deny the second offense is a felony.................Let's put felons in family centers............LOL
> 
> You want Catch and Release...............and you sure as hell don't want our borders secure.............That policy is OPEN BORDERS............why did they even bother to detain ANYONE under Obama.............when they let them go anyway..................
> 
> Kind of a Waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you sure as hell shouldn't have time to be messing about on a silly political messageboard I would think.  If you don't have a link, then fine.  Stop farting around.
> 
> Why do you think this is a good policy?  It wasn't necessary before.  Why now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think every policy has to be based on necessity?  How about he just wanted to do it to send a message to future law breakers coming to this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it crosses the line to cruel and abusive tactics and if it is unnecessary, why do it?  Hyperbole yes - but, just go put heads on stakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never learn, do you?  That tactic has zero chance of changing anybody's mind here or anyplace else.  Extremism is desperation and everybody knows it.
> 
> There is nothing cruel and abusive about taking starving kids, putting them in a shelter, getting them cleaned up, fed, medical treatment if necessary, or otherwise sending them to live with relatives already in the US.  What could possibly be cruel about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Extremism?  Like starving kids?  You mean it's not possible to help the mothers and kids together?   Really?  Lying has zero chance of changing anyone's mind either.
Click to expand...


What am I lying about?  You mean those kids were well fed on the trip to our border?


----------



## pismoe

Vandalshandle said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't separate the children from their parents.
> 
> 
> 
> So if an American couple are arrested for some white collar crime, and are sentenced to 20 years, and they have a 1 year old child, that kid should be in their prison cell with them, until the kid reaches 21 years of age, right ?  Right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That's not a fair comparison. No one is goes to jail for 20 years for unlawful entry into the US or unlawful presence.  There is no reason why parents should be separated from their children while they are being detained.  They can be held in family detention centers.  If the adults are convicted of a crime and sent to prison, then the children should should be turned over to an agency for placement.  If they are deported they should be turned back over to parents.
> 
> Separating these children from their parents is a disaster waiting to happen particular with the younger kids.  The Trump administration has made separating kids of detained parents a policy which means there're going have thousands of them.  When these kids start turning up missing or worse and can't be returned to the parents, the democrats will have a field day.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lived in New Orleans for 10 years, and down there, I learned what happens to kids without parents..
> 
> Gangs.
Click to expand...

----------------------------------------its a good State for guns and gun carry eh .   No need to fear gangs , just carry a high capacity pistol and maybe a backup magazine   VS. .


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> abrere said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bs, the stupid jerks should not HAVE kids. They know damned well what causes kids, how to prevent it, and they also know damned well that they can't afford kids. So they come here to steal our jobs and mooch off of the taxpayer. I say eff em. Let them stay where they are, stop having kids and soon, labor will be worth something where they live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When they came to the US seeking asylums, they probably didn't expect the first thing the US would do was take away kids.  There mistake was not realizing that "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" was just all bullshit.  They should have just stayed in Honduras and taken their chances with Mara Salvatrucha and the Barrio 18. *
Click to expand...


Then what were they expecting and who gave them the reason for expecting it?


----------



## Vandalshandle

pismoe said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't separate the children from their parents.
> 
> 
> 
> So if an American couple are arrested for some white collar crime, and are sentenced to 20 years, and they have a 1 year old child, that kid should be in their prison cell with them, until the kid reaches 21 years of age, right ?  Right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That's not a fair comparison. No one is goes to jail for 20 years for unlawful entry into the US or unlawful presence.  There is no reason why parents should be separated from their children while they are being detained.  They can be held in family detention centers.  If the adults are convicted of a crime and sent to prison, then the children should should be turned over to an agency for placement.  If they are deported they should be turned back over to parents.
> 
> Separating these children from their parents is a disaster waiting to happen particular with the younger kids.  The Trump administration has made separating kids of detained parents a policy which means there're going have thousands of them.  When these kids start turning up missing or worse and can't be returned to the parents, the democrats will have a field day.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lived in New Orleans for 10 years, and down there, I learned what happens to kids without parents..
> 
> Gangs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----------------------------------------its a good State for guns and gun carry eh .   No need to fear gangs , just carry a high capacity pistol and maybe a backup magazine   VS. .
Click to expand...



Absolutely. There is nothing like a shootout with a gang of 14 year-olds for a memorable Mardi Gras.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

pismoe said:


> third worlders should learn to build decent societies  Flopper  .



As long as they have a place to flock to, these countries are nothing but breeding grounds for future US troubles.  

Our country didn't come effortlessly either.  We had to fight a lot of wars, sometimes killing each other.  Freedom is something that costs a lot of lives.  It's about time people in these countries start fighting for themselves, otherwise in 100 years, they will still be coming here.


----------



## pismoe

Vandalshandle said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't separate the children from their parents.
> 
> 
> 
> So if an American couple are arrested for some white collar crime, and are sentenced to 20 years, and they have a 1 year old child, that kid should be in their prison cell with them, until the kid reaches 21 years of age, right ?  Right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That's not a fair comparison. No one is goes to jail for 20 years for unlawful entry into the US or unlawful presence.  There is no reason why parents should be separated from their children while they are being detained.  They can be held in family detention centers.  If the adults are convicted of a crime and sent to prison, then the children should should be turned over to an agency for placement.  If they are deported they should be turned back over to parents.
> 
> Separating these children from their parents is a disaster waiting to happen particular with the younger kids.  The Trump administration has made separating kids of detained parents a policy which means there're going have thousands of them.  When these kids start turning up missing or worse and can't be returned to the parents, the democrats will have a field day.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lived in New Orleans for 10 years, and down there, I learned what happens to kids without parents..
> 
> Gangs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----------------------------------------its a good State for guns and gun carry eh .   No need to fear gangs , just carry a high capacity pistol and maybe a backup magazine   VS. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. There is nothing like a shootout with a gang of 14 year-olds for a memorable Mardi Gras.
Click to expand...

---------------------------------   you'd make the news and the gang of scum would be reduced or eliminated if you are a good shot  VS ..


----------



## pismoe

widdle 14 year olds , most would only need one shot i reckon VS..


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> third worlders should learn to build decent societies  Flopper  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as they have a place to flock to, these countries are nothing but breeding grounds for future US troubles.
> 
> Our country didn't come effortlessly either.  We had to fight a lot of wars, sometimes killing each other.  Freedom is something that costs a lot of lives.  It's about time people in these countries *start fighting for themselves*, otherwise in 100 years, they will still be coming here.
Click to expand...


Most of us have never had to.

Nor have we lived under the conditions and violence in those countries.  In fact many of us have ancestors that came here fleeing those kinds of things.

Sure sounds like a  nice story though.


----------



## pismoe

MOST eh ??     MY ancestors built the greatest society the world has ever seen [the USA] and they were fighting brutal indigenous gangs all the time   Coyote .


----------



## Tresha91203

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> *They're not illegal because no court has found them guilty of anything.  The question is not whether they should stay or not but whether they should be treated humanely and remain with their parents until the court acts.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since they are essentially jailed until that time, like anyone else who is arrested for a crime, you are suggesting that the children ALSO be jailed, to "remain with their parents".
> 
> Like everything you say, it's ludicrous and stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, because they aren’t actually in a jail, accommodations are made for families just as they are for children.  Great idea don’t you think?
Click to expand...


There is no more room at the family detention centers. Perhaps congress should get off their asses and address this, like Trump is calling for.


----------



## Coyote

Tresha91203 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> *They're not illegal because no court has found them guilty of anything.  The question is not whether they should stay or not but whether they should be treated humanely and remain with their parents until the court acts.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since they are essentially jailed until that time, like anyone else who is arrested for a crime, you are suggesting that the children ALSO be jailed, to "remain with their parents".
> 
> Like everything you say, it's ludicrous and stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, because they aren’t actually in a jail, accommodations are made for families just as they are for children.  Great idea don’t you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no more room at the family detention centers. Perhaps congress should get off their asses and address this, like Trump is calling for.
Click to expand...


Doesn't do any good when Trump won't sign anything.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> third worlders should learn to build decent societies  Flopper  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as they have a place to flock to, these countries are nothing but breeding grounds for future US troubles.
> 
> Our country didn't come effortlessly either.  We had to fight a lot of wars, sometimes killing each other.  Freedom is something that costs a lot of lives.  It's about time people in these countries *start fighting for themselves*, otherwise in 100 years, they will still be coming here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of us have never had to.
> 
> Nor have we lived under the conditions and violence in those countries.  In fact many of us have ancestors that came here fleeing those kinds of things.
> 
> Sure sounds like a  nice story though.
Click to expand...


It's not a story.  Ever hear of the Civil War?  

Just because most of us never had to doesn't mean nobody did.  We lost a lot of Americans to create and maintain this great place we call America.  But that doesn't mean this great place is open to the world.  What you want is never ending immigration until the point these people take over our country and turn it into one of theirs which will happen if we don't have massive restrictions on our borders.  

We don't have 12 million illegals here because we did enough, we have them because at times we didn't do anything.  It's about time we start.


----------



## pismoe

more like 25 to 30 million Ray , just sayng as the 11 million number is from years ago .  ---------  just a comment .


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> third worlders should learn to build decent societies  Flopper  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as they have a place to flock to, these countries are nothing but breeding grounds for future US troubles.
> 
> Our country didn't come effortlessly either.  We had to fight a lot of wars, sometimes killing each other.  Freedom is something that costs a lot of lives.  It's about time people in these countries *start fighting for themselves*, otherwise in 100 years, they will still be coming here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of us have never had to.
> 
> Nor have we lived under the conditions and violence in those countries.  In fact many of us have ancestors that came here fleeing those kinds of things.
> 
> Sure sounds like a  nice story though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a story.  Ever hear of the Civil War?
> 
> Just because most of us never had to doesn't mean nobody did.  We lost a lot of Americans to create and maintain this great place we call America.  But that doesn't mean this great place is open to the world.*  What you want is never ending immigration until the point these people take over our country and turn it into one of theirs which will happen if we don't have massive restrictions on our borders.  *
> 
> We don't have 12 million illegals here because we did enough, we have them because at times we didn't do anything.  It's about time we start.
Click to expand...


What you are saying is exactly what was said about every other immigration group - they don't assimilate.  Yet they do.  I'm tired of the constant (and false) argument that if I oppose certain policies I MUST be for open borders and unrestricted immigration.

I'm not.


----------



## Tresha91203

Coyote said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> *They're not illegal because no court has found them guilty of anything.  The question is not whether they should stay or not but whether they should be treated humanely and remain with their parents until the court acts.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since they are essentially jailed until that time, like anyone else who is arrested for a crime, you are suggesting that the children ALSO be jailed, to "remain with their parents".
> 
> Like everything you say, it's ludicrous and stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, because they aren’t actually in a jail, accommodations are made for families just as they are for children.  Great idea don’t you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no more room at the family detention centers. Perhaps congress should get off their asses and address this, like Trump is calling for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't do any good when Trump won't sign anything.
Click to expand...


It's the job of congress. Trump is calling them out to fix it. They haven't.

It's not Trump's fault...yet. Right now, it is the law. Congress needs to fix it. IF Trump doesn't sign a clean bill to fix it, THEN it can be his fault for you.

This is just another "attack Trump" mission, like "Trump fired all the ambassadors." Remember how that one fizzled, too, when it was revealed that it was like that loong before Trump? This is just like that.


----------



## Flopper

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> [QUOTE="eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain what is cruel about it?
> 
> That's one of the first things Trump did.  But if your boat is sinking, you can't expect to get anywhere by bailing out the water with a pail unless you fix the hole first.
> 
> Democrats are stopping any and all efforts to manually secure the border.  Blame them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing is, she says,* "Fund more judges to speed up hearings and deportations",* like it's some brilliant alternative she's come up with that no one else saw, because her leftism makes her so superior and more compassionate, but HER OWN DAMNED LINK said that that's the cornerstone of the program she's bitching about.  If she had bothered to read more than the headline before shouting, "Eureka!  Something else I can hate Trump for!" she would know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I never claimed credit for that, it's been in the news. You need get to out more.  Meanwhile, please feel to extol the virtues of ripping babies from the arms of their mothers in hour effort to "stop" illegal immigration.  A pity you can't put all that energy into stopping rape and murder and child abuse.  Oops.  You support child abuse don't you?  Never mind then.  Your warped priorities will hopefuly be just another page in our countries book of shame in a few years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the second offense it is a felony..........and those get put into prison with some very bad people.........Let's put the children into prison with drug traffickers and Human Traffickers.
> 
> In the Omnibus they only gave Trump half what he requested for more beds.
> They also weren't so nice on implementing E-Verify............didn't give enough for more judges but more judges for immigration courts did happen..........
> 
> Everything some have complained about here was proposed.................
> 
> *Want more beds and speedy trials.............how about voting to fund it*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  But I sure as hell won't vote for tearing children from their families.  Strange but - that wasn't necessary before.  Nor was it the policy.  Now suddenly, it must be done.  And folks pretend it's for the good of the children.  I say bullshit on that.  Not when there are other accommodations for families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama hadn't advertised the fact that we would let illegals with children get a free pass before.
> 
> Human trafficking and child smuggling has become epidemic. And it's because of people like you.
Click to expand...

*Parents bring their kids to America seeking protection for their family from violence and poverty is not human trafficking.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> [QUOTE="eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing is, she says,* "Fund more judges to speed up hearings and deportations",* like it's some brilliant alternative she's come up with that no one else saw, because her leftism makes her so superior and more compassionate, but HER OWN DAMNED LINK said that that's the cornerstone of the program she's bitching about.  If she had bothered to read more than the headline before shouting, "Eureka!  Something else I can hate Trump for!" she would know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I never claimed credit for that, it's been in the news. You need get to out more.  Meanwhile, please feel to extol the virtues of ripping babies from the arms of their mothers in hour effort to "stop" illegal immigration.  A pity you can't put all that energy into stopping rape and murder and child abuse.  Oops.  You support child abuse don't you?  Never mind then.  Your warped priorities will hopefuly be just another page in our countries book of shame in a few years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the second offense it is a felony..........and those get put into prison with some very bad people.........Let's put the children into prison with drug traffickers and Human Traffickers.
> 
> In the Omnibus they only gave Trump half what he requested for more beds.
> They also weren't so nice on implementing E-Verify............didn't give enough for more judges but more judges for immigration courts did happen..........
> 
> Everything some have complained about here was proposed.................
> 
> *Want more beds and speedy trials.............how about voting to fund it*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  But I sure as hell won't vote for tearing children from their families.  Strange but - that wasn't necessary before.  Nor was it the policy.  Now suddenly, it must be done.  And folks pretend it's for the good of the children.  I say bullshit on that.  Not when there are other accommodations for families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama hadn't advertised the fact that we would let illegals with children get a free pass before.
> 
> Human trafficking and child smuggling has become epidemic. And it's because of people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Parent bring their kids to America seeking protection for their family from violence and poverty is not human trafficking.*
Click to expand...


So again I ask, if they bring illegal narcotics with them, is that not drug trafficking?


----------



## pismoe

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> third worlders should learn to build decent societies  Flopper  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as they have a place to flock to, these countries are nothing but breeding grounds for future US troubles.
> 
> Our country didn't come effortlessly either.  We had to fight a lot of wars, sometimes killing each other.  Freedom is something that costs a lot of lives.  It's about time people in these countries *start fighting for themselves*, otherwise in 100 years, they will still be coming here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of us have never had to.
> 
> Nor have we lived under the conditions and violence in those countries.  In fact many of us have ancestors that came here fleeing those kinds of things.
> 
> Sure sounds like a  nice story though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a story.  Ever hear of the Civil War?
> 
> Just because most of us never had to doesn't mean nobody did.  We lost a lot of Americans to create and maintain this great place we call America.  But that doesn't mean this great place is open to the world.*  What you want is never ending immigration until the point these people take over our country and turn it into one of theirs which will happen if we don't have massive restrictions on our borders.  *
> 
> We don't have 12 million illegals here because we did enough, we have them because at times we didn't do anything.  It's about time we start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are saying is exactly what was said about every other immigration group - they don't assimilate.  Yet they do.  I'm tired of the constant (and false) argument that if I oppose certain policies I MUST be for open borders and unrestricted immigration.
> 
> I'm not.
Click to expand...

-------------------------------------  USA has a census population of right around 310 million in 2010 . And thats not counting illegals .   Thats enough for the USA  no matter what you support or don't support Coyote .


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> [QUOTE="eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I never claimed credit for that, it's been in the news. You need get to out more.  Meanwhile, please feel to extol the virtues of ripping babies from the arms of their mothers in hour effort to "stop" illegal immigration.  A pity you can't put all that energy into stopping rape and murder and child abuse.  Oops.  You support child abuse don't you?  Never mind then.  Your warped priorities will hopefuly be just another page in our countries book of shame in a few years.
> 
> 
> 
> On the second offense it is a felony..........and those get put into prison with some very bad people.........Let's put the children into prison with drug traffickers and Human Traffickers.
> 
> In the Omnibus they only gave Trump half what he requested for more beds.
> They also weren't so nice on implementing E-Verify............didn't give enough for more judges but more judges for immigration courts did happen..........
> 
> Everything some have complained about here was proposed.................
> 
> *Want more beds and speedy trials.............how about voting to fund it*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  But I sure as hell won't vote for tearing children from their families.  Strange but - that wasn't necessary before.  Nor was it the policy.  Now suddenly, it must be done.  And folks pretend it's for the good of the children.  I say bullshit on that.  Not when there are other accommodations for families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama hadn't advertised the fact that we would let illegals with children get a free pass before.
> 
> Human trafficking and child smuggling has become epidemic. And it's because of people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Parent bring their kids to America seeking protection for their family from violence and poverty is not human trafficking.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So again I ask, if they bring illegal narcotics with them, is that not drug trafficking?
Click to expand...

No.

Drug trafficking involves trade in illegal drugs - cultivation, manufacture, distribution and sale.  If they are bringing illegal drugs with them with the intent to distribute and sell, then yes - it is drug trafficking.

Human trafficking involves trade in humans for the purposes of slavery, sexual exploitation or forced labor.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> third worlders should learn to build decent societies  Flopper  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as they have a place to flock to, these countries are nothing but breeding grounds for future US troubles.
> 
> Our country didn't come effortlessly either.  We had to fight a lot of wars, sometimes killing each other.  Freedom is something that costs a lot of lives.  It's about time people in these countries *start fighting for themselves*, otherwise in 100 years, they will still be coming here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of us have never had to.
> 
> Nor have we lived under the conditions and violence in those countries.  In fact many of us have ancestors that came here fleeing those kinds of things.
> 
> Sure sounds like a  nice story though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a story.  Ever hear of the Civil War?
> 
> Just because most of us never had to doesn't mean nobody did.  We lost a lot of Americans to create and maintain this great place we call America.  But that doesn't mean this great place is open to the world.*  What you want is never ending immigration until the point these people take over our country and turn it into one of theirs which will happen if we don't have massive restrictions on our borders.  *
> 
> We don't have 12 million illegals here because we did enough, we have them because at times we didn't do anything.  It's about time we start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are saying is exactly what was said about every other immigration group - they don't assimilate.  Yet they do.  I'm tired of the constant (and false) argument that if I oppose certain policies I MUST be for open borders and unrestricted immigration.
> 
> I'm not.
Click to expand...


Oh, sure they assimilate.  Why didn't I have to press 1 on my phone to speak our language 20 years ago?  Why were signs on the doors in English only 20 years ago and not today?  Why do they ask me what language I want my ballot in when I vote; something they never had to ask 20 years ago?  

I'm a truck driver and run into a lot of foreigners who are taking American jobs and keeping our wages low.  Many of them don't know a word of English, yet they are on the road driving right next to your minivan on our highways with a 75,000 lbs killing machine.  

Many of them are not assimilating.  They are changing our country instead.


----------



## Coyote

Flopper said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> [QUOTE="eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing is, she says,* "Fund more judges to speed up hearings and deportations",* like it's some brilliant alternative she's come up with that no one else saw, because her leftism makes her so superior and more compassionate, but HER OWN DAMNED LINK said that that's the cornerstone of the program she's bitching about.  If she had bothered to read more than the headline before shouting, "Eureka!  Something else I can hate Trump for!" she would know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I never claimed credit for that, it's been in the news. You need get to out more.  Meanwhile, please feel to extol the virtues of ripping babies from the arms of their mothers in hour effort to "stop" illegal immigration.  A pity you can't put all that energy into stopping rape and murder and child abuse.  Oops.  You support child abuse don't you?  Never mind then.  Your warped priorities will hopefuly be just another page in our countries book of shame in a few years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the second offense it is a felony..........and those get put into prison with some very bad people.........Let's put the children into prison with drug traffickers and Human Traffickers.
> 
> In the Omnibus they only gave Trump half what he requested for more beds.
> They also weren't so nice on implementing E-Verify............didn't give enough for more judges but more judges for immigration courts did happen..........
> 
> Everything some have complained about here was proposed.................
> 
> *Want more beds and speedy trials.............how about voting to fund it*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  But I sure as hell won't vote for tearing children from their families.  Strange but - that wasn't necessary before.  Nor was it the policy.  Now suddenly, it must be done.  And folks pretend it's for the good of the children.  I say bullshit on that.  Not when there are other accommodations for families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama hadn't advertised the fact that we would let illegals with children get a free pass before.
> 
> Human trafficking and child smuggling has become epidemic. And it's because of people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Parent bring their kids to America seeking protection for their family from violence and poverty is not human trafficking.*
Click to expand...


The definition of trafficking is getting stretched to the point of absurd.  According to this logic, for example - if a parent smuggled their child into a restaurant that didn't allow children, they would be engaged in human trafficking.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> [QUOTE="eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the second offense it is a felony..........and those get put into prison with some very bad people.........Let's put the children into prison with drug traffickers and Human Traffickers.
> 
> In the Omnibus they only gave Trump half what he requested for more beds.
> They also weren't so nice on implementing E-Verify............didn't give enough for more judges but more judges for immigration courts did happen..........
> 
> Everything some have complained about here was proposed.................
> 
> *Want more beds and speedy trials.............how about voting to fund it*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  But I sure as hell won't vote for tearing children from their families.  Strange but - that wasn't necessary before.  Nor was it the policy.  Now suddenly, it must be done.  And folks pretend it's for the good of the children.  I say bullshit on that.  Not when there are other accommodations for families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama hadn't advertised the fact that we would let illegals with children get a free pass before.
> 
> Human trafficking and child smuggling has become epidemic. And it's because of people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Parent bring their kids to America seeking protection for their family from violence and poverty is not human trafficking.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So again I ask, if they bring illegal narcotics with them, is that not drug trafficking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> Drug trafficking involves trade in illegal drugs - cultivation, manufacture, distribution and sale.  If they are bringing illegal drugs with them with the intent to distribute and sell, then yes - it is drug trafficking.
> 
> Human trafficking involves trade in humans for the purposes of slavery, sexual exploitation or forced labor.
Click to expand...


So if a foreigner comes here with a pound of heroin, he is not drug trafficking?  Yet if he comes here with an illegal kid, he's not human trafficking?


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> third worlders should learn to build decent societies  Flopper  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as they have a place to flock to, these countries are nothing but breeding grounds for future US troubles.
> 
> Our country didn't come effortlessly either.  We had to fight a lot of wars, sometimes killing each other.  Freedom is something that costs a lot of lives.  It's about time people in these countries *start fighting for themselves*, otherwise in 100 years, they will still be coming here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of us have never had to.
> 
> Nor have we lived under the conditions and violence in those countries.  In fact many of us have ancestors that came here fleeing those kinds of things.
> 
> Sure sounds like a  nice story though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a story.  Ever hear of the Civil War?
> 
> Just because most of us never had to doesn't mean nobody did.  We lost a lot of Americans to create and maintain this great place we call America.  But that doesn't mean this great place is open to the world.*  What you want is never ending immigration until the point these people take over our country and turn it into one of theirs which will happen if we don't have massive restrictions on our borders.  *
> 
> We don't have 12 million illegals here because we did enough, we have them because at times we didn't do anything.  It's about time we start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are saying is exactly what was said about every other immigration group - they don't assimilate.  Yet they do.  I'm tired of the constant (and false) argument that if I oppose certain policies I MUST be for open borders and unrestricted immigration.
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, sure they assimilate.  Why didn't I have to press 1 on my phone to speak our language 20 years ago?  Why were signs on the doors in English only 20 years ago and not today?  Why do they ask me what language I want my ballot in when I vote; something they never had to ask 20 years ago?
> 
> I'm a truck driver and run into a lot of foreigners who are taking American jobs and keeping our wages low.  Many of them don't know a word of English, yet they are on the road driving right next to your minivan on our highways with a 75,000 lbs killing machine.
> 
> Many of them are not assimilating.  They are changing our country instead.
Click to expand...



Yes, they eventually assimilate.  There were foreign language newspapers, signs, stores etc in immigrant enclaves.  Chinatown, the Yiddish of the East European Jews, Japanese, Italians.  There is no evidence that immigrants today assimilate any less than immigrants yesterday and the arguments made back then were exactly the same.


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  But I sure as hell won't vote for tearing children from their families.  Strange but - that wasn't necessary before.  Nor was it the policy.  Now suddenly, it must be done.  And folks pretend it's for the good of the children.  I say bullshit on that.  Not when there are other accommodations for families.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama hadn't advertised the fact that we would let illegals with children get a free pass before.
> 
> Human trafficking and child smuggling has become epidemic. And it's because of people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Parent bring their kids to America seeking protection for their family from violence and poverty is not human trafficking.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So again I ask, if they bring illegal narcotics with them, is that not drug trafficking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> Drug trafficking involves trade in illegal drugs - cultivation, manufacture, distribution and sale.  If they are bringing illegal drugs with them with the intent to distribute and sell, then yes - it is drug trafficking.
> 
> Human trafficking involves trade in humans for the purposes of slavery, sexual exploitation or forced labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if a foreigner comes here with a pound of heroin, he is not drug trafficking?  Yet if he comes here with an illegal kid, he's not human trafficking?
Click to expand...


If he is coming in with a pound of heroin do you honestly think it's for his own personal use?  I can assure you the DEA will not think so.  He is trafficking.

If a foreigner comes in with a kid chances are very high it is his/her kid, but immigration authorities are trained to spot possible human trafficking.  You don't just assume every family is a trafficker and rip away their kids.  Honestly this kind of argument is nothing more then a cover to justify this policy.  They aren't seriously worried about traffickers.  Sessions and Trump specifically stated WHY they are doing it, to act as a deterrant to illegal immigrants (including legal asylum speakers).  It's not about trafficking - that's just a feel-good claim to support a horrible policy.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama hadn't advertised the fact that we would let illegals with children get a free pass before.
> 
> Human trafficking and child smuggling has become epidemic. And it's because of people like you.
> 
> 
> 
> *Parent bring their kids to America seeking protection for their family from violence and poverty is not human trafficking.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So again I ask, if they bring illegal narcotics with them, is that not drug trafficking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> Drug trafficking involves trade in illegal drugs - cultivation, manufacture, distribution and sale.  If they are bringing illegal drugs with them with the intent to distribute and sell, then yes - it is drug trafficking.
> 
> Human trafficking involves trade in humans for the purposes of slavery, sexual exploitation or forced labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if a foreigner comes here with a pound of heroin, he is not drug trafficking?  Yet if he comes here with an illegal kid, he's not human trafficking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he is coming in with a pound of heroin do you honestly think it's for his own personal use?  I can assure you the DEA will not think so.  He is trafficking.
> 
> If a foreigner comes in with a kid chances are very high it is his/her kid, but immigration authorities are trained to spot possible human trafficking.  You don't just assume every family is a trafficker and rip away their kids.  Honestly this kind of argument is nothing more then a cover to justify this policy.  They aren't seriously worried about traffickers.  Sessions and Trump specifically stated WHY they are doing it, to act as a deterrant to illegal immigrants (including legal asylum speakers).  It's not about trafficking - that's just a feel-good claim to support a horrible policy.
Click to expand...


Actually what I read is that Trump and Sessions are denying it has anything to do with being a deterrent. 

So let's say a foreigner tries to get into this country with an ounce of heroin.  You don't think he'll be arrested and sentenced?  

If you are bringing a child into this country illegally, that is against our laws just like if you bring in any amount of recreation narcotics into this country.


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Parent bring their kids to America seeking protection for their family from violence and poverty is not human trafficking.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So again I ask, if they bring illegal narcotics with them, is that not drug trafficking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> Drug trafficking involves trade in illegal drugs - cultivation, manufacture, distribution and sale.  If they are bringing illegal drugs with them with the intent to distribute and sell, then yes - it is drug trafficking.
> 
> Human trafficking involves trade in humans for the purposes of slavery, sexual exploitation or forced labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if a foreigner comes here with a pound of heroin, he is not drug trafficking?  Yet if he comes here with an illegal kid, he's not human trafficking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he is coming in with a pound of heroin do you honestly think it's for his own personal use?  I can assure you the DEA will not think so.  He is trafficking.
> 
> If a foreigner comes in with a kid chances are very high it is his/her kid, but immigration authorities are trained to spot possible human trafficking.  You don't just assume every family is a trafficker and rip away their kids.  Honestly this kind of argument is nothing more then a cover to justify this policy.  They aren't seriously worried about traffickers.  Sessions and Trump specifically stated WHY they are doing it, to act as a deterrant to illegal immigrants (including legal asylum speakers).  It's not about trafficking - that's just a feel-good claim to support a horrible policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually what I read is that Trump and Sessions are denying it has anything to do with being a deterrent.
> 
> So let's say a foreigner tries to get into this country with an ounce of heroin.  You don't think he'll be arrested and sentenced?
> 
> If you are bringing a child into this country illegally, that is against our laws just like if you bring in any amount of recreation narcotics into this country.
Click to expand...



How the Trump Administration Got Comfortable Separating Immigrant Kids from Their Parents
_Two months into Donald Trump’s Presidency, John Kelly, then the Secretary of Homeland Security, publicly confirmed that his department was considering separating immigrant parents from their children at the border, *as a way of discouraging families from crossing illegally.*_​
They openly said that was their intent.  Now they are lying about it?

Bringing YOUR child into the country illegally is not the same as human trafficking.  That's like arguing that jaywalking is the same as murder.

And likewise, with the heroin - yes, you will be arrested for bringing in an ounce of heroin, but you will not be charged with drug trafficking.  No one is saying you would not be arrested for possession.  You are trying to confuse the terms.


----------



## Flopper

pismoe said:


> third worlders should learn to build decent societies  Flopper  .


*It's easy to sit in relative luxury and peace and pontificate on why the Third World doesn't fix it's on problems.  If you spend all of your time avoiding starvation and keeping a roof over the head of your family there is no time to build a decent society.  

We never built a decent society we inherited it from immigrants that came here from all over the world to grow and prosper in the richest nation on earth. *


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So again I ask, if they bring illegal narcotics with them, is that not drug trafficking?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Drug trafficking involves trade in illegal drugs - cultivation, manufacture, distribution and sale.  If they are bringing illegal drugs with them with the intent to distribute and sell, then yes - it is drug trafficking.
> 
> Human trafficking involves trade in humans for the purposes of slavery, sexual exploitation or forced labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if a foreigner comes here with a pound of heroin, he is not drug trafficking?  Yet if he comes here with an illegal kid, he's not human trafficking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he is coming in with a pound of heroin do you honestly think it's for his own personal use?  I can assure you the DEA will not think so.  He is trafficking.
> 
> If a foreigner comes in with a kid chances are very high it is his/her kid, but immigration authorities are trained to spot possible human trafficking.  You don't just assume every family is a trafficker and rip away their kids.  Honestly this kind of argument is nothing more then a cover to justify this policy.  They aren't seriously worried about traffickers.  Sessions and Trump specifically stated WHY they are doing it, to act as a deterrant to illegal immigrants (including legal asylum speakers).  It's not about trafficking - that's just a feel-good claim to support a horrible policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually what I read is that Trump and Sessions are denying it has anything to do with being a deterrent.
> 
> So let's say a foreigner tries to get into this country with an ounce of heroin.  You don't think he'll be arrested and sentenced?
> 
> If you are bringing a child into this country illegally, that is against our laws just like if you bring in any amount of recreation narcotics into this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How the Trump Administration Got Comfortable Separating Immigrant Kids from Their Parents
> _Two months into Donald Trump’s Presidency, John Kelly, then the Secretary of Homeland Security, publicly confirmed that his department was considering separating immigrant parents from their children at the border, *as a way of discouraging families from crossing illegally.*_​
> They openly said that was their intent.  Now they are lying about it?
> 
> Bringing YOUR child into the country illegally is not the same as human trafficking.  That's like arguing that jaywalking is the same as murder.
> 
> And likewise, with the heroin - yes, you will be arrested for bringing in an ounce of heroin, but you will not be charged with drug trafficking.  No one is saying you would not be arrested for possession.  You are trying to confuse the terms.
Click to expand...


From your article: 

_*Hamilton told us that over the next few days we’d need to generate paperwork laying out everything we could do to deter immigrants from coming to the U.S. illegally,” a person who attended the meeting told me.*_

He said, she said, but nothing that is outlined in policy. 

As for the similarities between bringing in heroin or children, both are illegal.  We have no idea what you brought the heroin in for like we have no idea what you brought the children here for.  What we do know is that you're not supposed to do either so they are removed from your possession. 

As great as this country is, we have enough of our own problems.  We have race problems, violence problems, medical care problems, debt problems.  And we will solve our problems without foreigners.  We will work on our problems without you, and you work on your problems without us.  But don't bring your problems here and then complain how we handle them.  We didn't want your problems in the first place.  You forced your problems onto us.  

And if these people don't like the way we handle the problems they brought us, the solution is simple: don't bring us anymore of your problems.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> [QUOTE="eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I never claimed credit for that, it's been in the news. You need get to out more.  Meanwhile, please feel to extol the virtues of ripping babies from the arms of their mothers in hour effort to "stop" illegal immigration.  A pity you can't put all that energy into stopping rape and murder and child abuse.  Oops.  You support child abuse don't you?  Never mind then.  Your warped priorities will hopefuly be just another page in our countries book of shame in a few years.
> 
> 
> 
> On the second offense it is a felony..........and those get put into prison with some very bad people.........Let's put the children into prison with drug traffickers and Human Traffickers.
> 
> In the Omnibus they only gave Trump half what he requested for more beds.
> They also weren't so nice on implementing E-Verify............didn't give enough for more judges but more judges for immigration courts did happen..........
> 
> Everything some have complained about here was proposed.................
> 
> *Want more beds and speedy trials.............how about voting to fund it*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  But I sure as hell won't vote for tearing children from their families.  Strange but - that wasn't necessary before.  Nor was it the policy.  Now suddenly, it must be done.  And folks pretend it's for the good of the children.  I say bullshit on that.  Not when there are other accommodations for families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama hadn't advertised the fact that we would let illegals with children get a free pass before.
> 
> Human trafficking and child smuggling has become epidemic. And it's because of people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Parent bring their kids to America seeking protection for their family from violence and poverty is not human trafficking.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So again I ask, if they bring illegal narcotics with them, is that not drug trafficking?
Click to expand...

*It’s not drug trafficking, but fears of gang violence at home and poverty that brings most illegal immigrants to the settle in the US.  Drug traffickers have little interest in living the US.  They run drugs across the boarder and return to Central and South America where they can live like kings.  They are not part of 11 million undocumented immigrants in America.   

Data on immigrants and crime are incomplete, but a range of studies show there is no evidence immigrants commit more crimes than native-born Americans.  In fact, first-generation immigrants are predisposed to lower crime rates than native-born Americans. (The Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for restrictive immigration laws, has a detailed report showing the shortfalls of immigrant crime data.)

It is true that many undocumented immigrants seek employment in less that legal enterprises but that is not because of their past are the fact they are in America but rather because they are undocumented which limits job and educational opportunities as well the opportunity to assimilate into American society.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> [QUOTE="eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the second offense it is a felony..........and those get put into prison with some very bad people.........Let's put the children into prison with drug traffickers and Human Traffickers.
> 
> In the Omnibus they only gave Trump half what he requested for more beds.
> They also weren't so nice on implementing E-Verify............didn't give enough for more judges but more judges for immigration courts did happen..........
> 
> Everything some have complained about here was proposed.................
> 
> *Want more beds and speedy trials.............how about voting to fund it*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  But I sure as hell won't vote for tearing children from their families.  Strange but - that wasn't necessary before.  Nor was it the policy.  Now suddenly, it must be done.  And folks pretend it's for the good of the children.  I say bullshit on that.  Not when there are other accommodations for families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama hadn't advertised the fact that we would let illegals with children get a free pass before.
> 
> Human trafficking and child smuggling has become epidemic. And it's because of people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Parent bring their kids to America seeking protection for their family from violence and poverty is not human trafficking.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So again I ask, if they bring illegal narcotics with them, is that not drug trafficking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It’s not drug trafficking, but fears of gang violence at home and poverty that brings most illegal immigrants to the settle in the US.  Drug traffickers have little interest in living the US.  They run drugs across the boarder and return to Central and South America where they can live like kings.  They are not part of 11 million undocumented immigrants in America.
> 
> Data on immigrants and crime are incomplete, but a range of studies show there is no evidence immigrants commit more crimes than native-born Americans.  In fact, first-generation immigrants are predisposed to lower crime rates than native-born Americans. (The Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for restrictive immigration laws, has a detailed report showing the shortfalls of immigrant crime data.)
> 
> It is true that many undocumented immigrants seek employment in less that legal enterprises but that is not because of their past are the fact they are in America but rather because they are undocumented which limits job and educational opportunities as well the opportunity to assimilate into American society.*
Click to expand...



Illegal immigrants responsible for almost three-fourths of federal drug possession sentences in 2014

Report: Illegals Committed 600,000 Crimes in Texas in 6 Yrs

Illegals commit crimes at double the rate of native-born: Study


----------



## protectionist

Coyote said:


> Entering the country illegally is a misdeamener.  You realize that don't you?


1.  Not if it's a second offense or more.  Those are felonies punishable by 2 YEARS imprisonment, for each offense.

2.  We could ask the question >>  if an American couple are arrested for some white collar misdemeanor, and are sentenced to 6 months in a federal prison, and they have a 1 year old child, should that kid should be in their prison cell with them, for that 6 months time ? (so as to prevent their separation ?)


----------



## protectionist

Vandalshandle said:


> Fifty years ago, my step father got a second DUI, which was a felony in our state. In Protectionist's world, the whole family would have served time. Separately, of course.


 I don't know how you managed to come up with that very oddball notion.   I'm one of the ones who see separation of family members as the ordinary procedure. 

It's the liberals demanding togetherness, that would fit the scenario you describe.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  But I sure as hell won't vote for tearing children from their families.  Strange but - that wasn't necessary before.  Nor was it the policy.  Now suddenly, it must be done.  And folks pretend it's for the good of the children.  I say bullshit on that.  Not when there are other accommodations for families.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama hadn't advertised the fact that we would let illegals with children get a free pass before.
> 
> Human trafficking and child smuggling has become epidemic. And it's because of people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Parent bring their kids to America seeking protection for their family from violence and poverty is not human trafficking.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So again I ask, if they bring illegal narcotics with them, is that not drug trafficking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It’s not drug trafficking, but fears of gang violence at home and poverty that brings most illegal immigrants to the settle in the US.  Drug traffickers have little interest in living the US.  They run drugs across the boarder and return to Central and South America where they can live like kings.  They are not part of 11 million undocumented immigrants in America.
> 
> Data on immigrants and crime are incomplete, but a range of studies show there is no evidence immigrants commit more crimes than native-born Americans.  In fact, first-generation immigrants are predisposed to lower crime rates than native-born Americans. (The Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for restrictive immigration laws, has a detailed report showing the shortfalls of immigrant crime data.)
> 
> It is true that many undocumented immigrants seek employment in less that legal enterprises but that is not because of their past are the fact they are in America but rather because they are undocumented which limits job and educational opportunities as well the opportunity to assimilate into American society.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal immigrants responsible for almost three-fourths of federal drug possession sentences in 2014
> 
> Report: Illegals Committed 600,000 Crimes in Texas in 6 Yrs
> 
> Illegals commit crimes at double the rate of native-born: Study
Click to expand...

*You're picking age groups, states and time frames to support your contention plus the fact that every illegal immigrant is guilty of a crime just by being here.*


----------



## Andylusion

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> third worlders should learn to build decent societies  Flopper  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as they have a place to flock to, these countries are nothing but breeding grounds for future US troubles.
> 
> Our country didn't come effortlessly either.  We had to fight a lot of wars, sometimes killing each other.  Freedom is something that costs a lot of lives.  It's about time people in these countries *start fighting for themselves*, otherwise in 100 years, they will still be coming here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of us have never had to.
> 
> Nor have we lived under the conditions and violence in those countries.  In fact many of us have ancestors that came here fleeing those kinds of things.
> 
> Sure sounds like a  nice story though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a story.  Ever hear of the Civil War?
> 
> Just because most of us never had to doesn't mean nobody did.  We lost a lot of Americans to create and maintain this great place we call America.  But that doesn't mean this great place is open to the world.*  What you want is never ending immigration until the point these people take over our country and turn it into one of theirs which will happen if we don't have massive restrictions on our borders.  *
> 
> We don't have 12 million illegals here because we did enough, we have them because at times we didn't do anything.  It's about time we start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are saying is exactly what was said about every other immigration group - they don't assimilate.  Yet they do.  I'm tired of the constant (and false) argument that if I oppose certain policies I MUST be for open borders and unrestricted immigration.
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, sure they assimilate.  Why didn't I have to press 1 on my phone to speak our language 20 years ago?  Why were signs on the doors in English only 20 years ago and not today?  Why do they ask me what language I want my ballot in when I vote; something they never had to ask 20 years ago?
> 
> I'm a truck driver and run into a lot of foreigners who are taking American jobs and keeping our wages low.  Many of them don't know a word of English, yet they are on the road driving right next to your minivan on our highways with a 75,000 lbs killing machine.
> 
> Many of them are not assimilating.  They are changing our country instead.
Click to expand...


On this I actually agree with Ray.

If you immigrate to Germany, you are required.... REQUIRED.... to learn German.  It's not an option.   You must do it.

If you go to Denmark, you are required to learn how to swim with co-eds.  It's not an option.  You must do it.

Why?   Because in Germany they speak German, and you need to learn German to be a productive useful citizen that is not a burden on the country.   Because in Denmark, there are waterways everywhere, and in order to both be able to save yourself, and your fellow citizens, no matter what gender you are, or they are, you need to know how to swim and save people.

I mention both of these, because both of these countries have deported immigrants who refused to learn German, or learn how to swim with co-eds.

There was some Muslim women that went to Denmark with her family, but refused to learn how to swim.  They shipped her butt back to where she came from, and rightly so.   There was a Muslim man who refused to learn German because Arabic is all he needed.  They shipped his butt back to where he came from.

So where I differ from the right-wingers on here, is that I have no problem at all, with immigrants coming to this country.  I find most of the immigrants, with some exceptions, to be wonderful people that I love coming here, and I am particular to Christian immigrants.

However, where I agree with the right-wing completely and if it were up to me, I'd have it be required by law, is that they MUST INTEGRATE.   They must learn English, they must learn US customs.   They need to learn to how to take a bath.  They need to learn how to speak and read properly.

This is one of the very few areas, that I actually support Federal programs for it.  Generally I'm against all Federal programs, but I would be supportive of a program for teaching basic American etiquette, and American language.  (meaning American English).

You want to come here?  Great!  Fantastic.  Come on in, but you dump your culture that you came from, and you adapt to American Culture.   None of this multi-cultural crap that hasn't worked for the last 50+ years.   You come here, that's wonderful, but you become an American.  You don't want to?  That's fine.  Stay where you are.   You can come when you want to be an American.


----------



## protectionist

Vandalshandle said:


> How's that alligator pond from San Diego to Brownsville that you have been advocating, working out?


Excellent, if they ever get it going. And if they need alligators, we've got plenty here in Florida we're more than happy to donate, for the cause of deterring illegal aliens.  You betcha.


----------



## Thinker101

Andylusion said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as they have a place to flock to, these countries are nothing but breeding grounds for future US troubles.
> 
> Our country didn't come effortlessly either.  We had to fight a lot of wars, sometimes killing each other.  Freedom is something that costs a lot of lives.  It's about time people in these countries *start fighting for themselves*, otherwise in 100 years, they will still be coming here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us have never had to.
> 
> Nor have we lived under the conditions and violence in those countries.  In fact many of us have ancestors that came here fleeing those kinds of things.
> 
> Sure sounds like a  nice story though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a story.  Ever hear of the Civil War?
> 
> Just because most of us never had to doesn't mean nobody did.  We lost a lot of Americans to create and maintain this great place we call America.  But that doesn't mean this great place is open to the world.*  What you want is never ending immigration until the point these people take over our country and turn it into one of theirs which will happen if we don't have massive restrictions on our borders.  *
> 
> We don't have 12 million illegals here because we did enough, we have them because at times we didn't do anything.  It's about time we start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are saying is exactly what was said about every other immigration group - they don't assimilate.  Yet they do.  I'm tired of the constant (and false) argument that if I oppose certain policies I MUST be for open borders and unrestricted immigration.
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, sure they assimilate.  Why didn't I have to press 1 on my phone to speak our language 20 years ago?  Why were signs on the doors in English only 20 years ago and not today?  Why do they ask me what language I want my ballot in when I vote; something they never had to ask 20 years ago?
> 
> I'm a truck driver and run into a lot of foreigners who are taking American jobs and keeping our wages low.  Many of them don't know a word of English, yet they are on the road driving right next to your minivan on our highways with a 75,000 lbs killing machine.
> 
> Many of them are not assimilating.  They are changing our country instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On this I actually agree with Ray.
> 
> If you immigrate to Germany, you are required.... REQUIRED.... to learn German.  It's not an option.   You must do it.
> 
> If you go to Denmark, you are required to learn how to swim with co-eds.  It's not an option.  You must do it.
> 
> Why?   Because in Germany they speak German, and you need to learn German to be a productive useful citizen that is not a burden on the country.   Because in Denmark, there are waterways everywhere, and in order to both be able to save yourself, and your fellow citizens, no matter what gender you are, or they are, you need to know how to swim and save people.
> 
> I mention both of these, because both of these countries have deported immigrants who refused to learn German, or learn how to swim with co-eds.
> 
> There was some Muslim women that went to Denmark with her family, but refused to learn how to swim.  They shipped her butt back to where she came from, and rightly so.   There was a Muslim man who refused to learn German because Arabic is all he needed.  They shipped his butt back to where he came from.
> 
> So where I differ from the right-wingers on here, is that I have no problem at all, with immigrants coming to this country.  I find most of the immigrants, with some exceptions, to be wonderful people that I love coming here, and I am particular to Christian immigrants.
> 
> However, where I agree with the right-wing completely and if it were up to me, I'd have it be required by law, is that they MUST INTEGRATE.   They must learn English, they must learn US customs.   They need to learn to how to take a bath.  They need to learn how to speak and read properly.
> 
> This is one of the very few areas, that I actually support Federal programs for it.  Generally I'm against all Federal programs, but I would be supportive of a program for teaching basic American etiquette, and American language.  (meaning American English).
> 
> You want to come here?  Great!  Fantastic.  Come on in, but you dump your culture that you came from, and you adapt to American Culture.   None of this multi-cultural crap that hasn't worked for the last 50+ years.   You come here, that's wonderful, but you become an American.  You don't want to?  That's fine.  Stay where you are.   You can come when you want to be an American.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately the "integration" would be the first thing liberals jump on, claiming it is racist.


----------



## protectionist

Coyote said:


> Sure.  But I sure as hell won't vote for tearing children from their families.  Strange but - that wasn't necessary before.  Nor was it the policy.  Now suddenly, it must be done.  And folks pretend it's for the good of the children.  I say bullshit on that.  Not when there are other accommodations for families.


Before (during the Obama years), illegal aliens weren't detained. They had catch & release.  They get a ticket to appear in court, laugh at it, tear it up, and walk away.  No more of that now.

So what's your stance on American kids being torn from their families when the family member(s) goes to jail ?


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *That's not a fair comparison. No one is goes to jail for 20 years for unlawful entry into the US or unlawful presence.  There is no reason why parents should be separated from their children while they are being detained.  They can be held in family detention centers.  If the adults are convicted of a crime and sent to prison, then the children should should be turned over to an agency for placement.  If they are deported they should be turned back over to parents.
> 
> Separating these children from their parents is a disaster waiting to happen particular with the younger kids.  The Trump administration has made separating kids of detained parents a policy which means there're going have thousands of them.  When these kids start turning up missing or worse and can't be returned to the parents, the democrats will have a field day.*



OK so we could ask the question >> if an American couple are arrested for some white collar misdemeanor, and are sentenced to 6 months in a federal prison, and they have a 1 year old child, should that kid should be in their prison cell with them, for that 6 months time ? (so as to prevent their separation ?)
Is this opposition to separation only for foreigners ?

And no,  the Trump administration has not made separating kids of detained parents, a policy.  It has always been the policy for kids of criminal parents to stay home, while parent serves time. Been that way for 200+ years in America,


----------



## protectionist

Vandalshandle said:


> I lived in New Orleans for 10 years, and down there, I learned what happens to kids without parents..
> 
> Gangs.


When the parents are criminals, the kids might be better off with foster parents who are law abiding.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *There are so many empty FEMA trailers (about 60,000) around the country, the government has been selling them.  The army is spending half billion dollars a year maintaining empty facilities.  There is plenty of room for detainees and their families.  Trump is just going after the kids to punish the parents, exactly what I would expect of him.*


FEMA trailers are for victims of natural disasters (who have broken no laws).  To the contrary, the illegal alien invaders are criminals who must be guarded, to prevent their escape, (like they did with Obama's catch & release).  FEMA trailers don't match the situation.


----------



## protectionist

Coyote said:


> Doesn't do any good when Trump won't sign anything.


He has signed dozens (if not hundreds) of bills and EOs.


----------



## protectionist

busybee01 said:


> Who says they are criminals. Innocent until proven guilty. Remember that.


There should be immigration judges all along the border.  Video tape the illegals climbing over the fence, and have judges prove them guilty right there (the ones who don't get eaten by alligators). Send them right back.


----------



## GWV5903

Coyote said:


> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.



I don't hate them, never have. What I do not like is the imbeciles who use them for political gain. They are always welcome when the follow our laws, it's pretty simple, but somehow you're are unable to see this...  



Coyote said:


> You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable. I hope they rot in hell for this. 700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system. I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.



Their parents know they are braking our laws and so do you, as usual you justify lawless actions by non citizens...


----------



## protectionist

busybee01 said:


> We do? We don't jail people for jaywalking. Sessions is a animal and a thug.


We talking about US Code 8, Section 1325, not jaywalking.


----------



## protectionist

GWV5903 said:


> Their parents know they are breaking our laws and so do you, as usual you justify lawless actions by non citizens...


Exactly correct. Illegal aliens disrespect our laws (and therefore us as well), and for quite some time, have been coached by their rogue government in Mexico, to do it.  This guidebook was printed by the Mexican govt, tutoring migrants on how to get into the US (illegally) and evade US immigration authorities.

Another example of Trump's CORRECT statement about _"When Mexico *sends its people*, they’re not sending their best."_


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Andylusion said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as they have a place to flock to, these countries are nothing but breeding grounds for future US troubles.
> 
> Our country didn't come effortlessly either.  We had to fight a lot of wars, sometimes killing each other.  Freedom is something that costs a lot of lives.  It's about time people in these countries *start fighting for themselves*, otherwise in 100 years, they will still be coming here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us have never had to.
> 
> Nor have we lived under the conditions and violence in those countries.  In fact many of us have ancestors that came here fleeing those kinds of things.
> 
> Sure sounds like a  nice story though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a story.  Ever hear of the Civil War?
> 
> Just because most of us never had to doesn't mean nobody did.  We lost a lot of Americans to create and maintain this great place we call America.  But that doesn't mean this great place is open to the world.*  What you want is never ending immigration until the point these people take over our country and turn it into one of theirs which will happen if we don't have massive restrictions on our borders.  *
> 
> We don't have 12 million illegals here because we did enough, we have them because at times we didn't do anything.  It's about time we start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are saying is exactly what was said about every other immigration group - they don't assimilate.  Yet they do.  I'm tired of the constant (and false) argument that if I oppose certain policies I MUST be for open borders and unrestricted immigration.
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, sure they assimilate.  Why didn't I have to press 1 on my phone to speak our language 20 years ago?  Why were signs on the doors in English only 20 years ago and not today?  Why do they ask me what language I want my ballot in when I vote; something they never had to ask 20 years ago?
> 
> I'm a truck driver and run into a lot of foreigners who are taking American jobs and keeping our wages low.  Many of them don't know a word of English, yet they are on the road driving right next to your minivan on our highways with a 75,000 lbs killing machine.
> 
> Many of them are not assimilating.  They are changing our country instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On this I actually agree with Ray.
> 
> If you immigrate to Germany, you are required.... REQUIRED.... to learn German.  It's not an option.   You must do it.
> 
> If you go to Denmark, you are required to learn how to swim with co-eds.  It's not an option.  You must do it.
> 
> Why?   Because in Germany they speak German, and you need to learn German to be a productive useful citizen that is not a burden on the country.   Because in Denmark, there are waterways everywhere, and in order to both be able to save yourself, and your fellow citizens, no matter what gender you are, or they are, you need to know how to swim and save people.
> 
> I mention both of these, because both of these countries have deported immigrants who refused to learn German, or learn how to swim with co-eds.
> 
> There was some Muslim women that went to Denmark with her family, but refused to learn how to swim.  They shipped her butt back to where she came from, and rightly so.   There was a Muslim man who refused to learn German because Arabic is all he needed.  They shipped his butt back to where he came from.
> 
> So where I differ from the right-wingers on here, is that I have no problem at all, with immigrants coming to this country.  I find most of the immigrants, with some exceptions, to be wonderful people that I love coming here, and I am particular to Christian immigrants.
> 
> However, where I agree with the right-wing completely and if it were up to me, I'd have it be required by law, is that they MUST INTEGRATE.   They must learn English, they must learn US customs.   They need to learn to how to take a bath.  They need to learn how to speak and read properly.
> 
> This is one of the very few areas, that I actually support Federal programs for it.  Generally I'm against all Federal programs, but I would be supportive of a program for teaching basic American etiquette, and American language.  (meaning American English).
> 
> You want to come here?  Great!  Fantastic.  Come on in, but you dump your culture that you came from, and you adapt to American Culture.   None of this multi-cultural crap that hasn't worked for the last 50+ years.   You come here, that's wonderful, but you become an American.  You don't want to?  That's fine.  Stay where you are.   You can come when you want to be an American.
Click to expand...



The problem is they don't come here to be American, they come here to use America.  

We don't have as much of a problem with immigrants up north as they do in the south, but from what I understand, they pack 12 people in a two bedroom house and after all expenses are met, they send the rest of their money back over the border.  

We do have a system for integration, and that is to only allow 1 million people a year to come here.  At one point in the early 1900's they just about closed down the border to allow people to assimilate because they were getting like the immigrants that are here today and changing the country.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama hadn't advertised the fact that we would let illegals with children get a free pass before.
> 
> Human trafficking and child smuggling has become epidemic. And it's because of people like you.
> 
> 
> 
> *Parent bring their kids to America seeking protection for their family from violence and poverty is not human trafficking.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So again I ask, if they bring illegal narcotics with them, is that not drug trafficking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It’s not drug trafficking, but fears of gang violence at home and poverty that brings most illegal immigrants to the settle in the US.  Drug traffickers have little interest in living the US.  They run drugs across the boarder and return to Central and South America where they can live like kings.  They are not part of 11 million undocumented immigrants in America.
> 
> Data on immigrants and crime are incomplete, but a range of studies show there is no evidence immigrants commit more crimes than native-born Americans.  In fact, first-generation immigrants are predisposed to lower crime rates than native-born Americans. (The Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for restrictive immigration laws, has a detailed report showing the shortfalls of immigrant crime data.)
> 
> It is true that many undocumented immigrants seek employment in less that legal enterprises but that is not because of their past are the fact they are in America but rather because they are undocumented which limits job and educational opportunities as well the opportunity to assimilate into American society.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal immigrants responsible for almost three-fourths of federal drug possession sentences in 2014
> 
> Report: Illegals Committed 600,000 Crimes in Texas in 6 Yrs
> 
> Illegals commit crimes at double the rate of native-born: Study
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You're picking age groups, states and time frames to support your contention plus the fact that every illegal immigrant is guilty of a crime just by being here.*
Click to expand...


No, they are talking about real crimes.  Maybe not murder in every case, but they are not including being illegal.  You don't get locked up in the federal prison on a drug charge simply because you are here illegally.  

The more of these people we allow to come or stay here, the more problems we will have with criminal immigrants of any kind.  But even if they are no trouble whatsoever, it doesn't justify coming here illegally.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't dodge.  Link showing that *these children were housed with hardcore criminals*?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm working 12 hour shifts right now........don't have time to play your stupid game right now.........google it.....it's there............They are mostly Private prisons........................do you deny the second offense is a felony.................Let's put felons in family centers............LOL
> 
> You want Catch and Release...............and you sure as hell don't want our borders secure.............That policy is OPEN BORDERS............why did they even bother to detain ANYONE under Obama.............when they let them go anyway..................
> 
> Kind of a Waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you sure as hell shouldn't have time to be messing about on a silly political messageboard I would think.  If you don't have a link, then fine.  Stop farting around.
> 
> Why do you think this is a good policy?  It wasn't necessary before.  Why now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think every policy has to be based on necessity?  How about he just wanted to do it to send a message to future law breakers coming to this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it crosses the line to cruel and abusive tactics and if it is unnecessary, why do it?  Hyperbole yes - but, just go put heads on stakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never learn, do you?  That tactic has zero chance of changing anybody's mind here or anyplace else.  Extremism is desperation and everybody knows it.
> 
> There is nothing cruel and abusive about taking starving kids, putting them in a shelter, getting them cleaned up, fed, medical treatment if necessary, or otherwise sending them to live with relatives already in the US.  What could possibly be cruel about that?
Click to expand...


Particularly since we do it to children who are actual citizens all the time, and the left never has a bad word to say about it.  To the contrary, when the people involved are US citizens, leftists tend to think children are better off in the hands of the government than with their parents.

It's also important to note all the things that have been pointed out several times, which the leftists here steadfastly refuse to acknowledge:  this policy is intended in part to PROTECT those children.  Many of the children who enter this country illegally AREN'T with their parents or legal guardians.  Unaccompanied minors have become a huge problem for ICE in recent years.  Sometimes, those children are being brought in here by non-parents for nefarious purposes, and we have no real way of knowing which are which.  Sometimes, they're just sent by the parents, and they're in the company of coyotes.  Trust me, coyotes are among the worst people on the planet.  They think nothing of killing an entire group of illegals they're smuggling in, if they think it will keep them from getting caught and prosecuted.

Even when the child IS with his parents, the scenario we're talking about is that their parents have been ARRESTED.  They are no longer free to take care of the child.  Utopian fantasies aside, we do NOT have adequate facilities to house families, and the condition of the facilities we DO have was an open scandal under the Obama administration, although the left didn't want to spend money to improve them, because they wanted the excuse to demand that we simply release people into the population and "trust" them to come back for their hearings.  Only a fool would think that would work.

Changing the policy to prosecute the adults faster is the only way to protect our country from a river of illegals just wandering in whenever they want, while also allowing us to reunite the child and parent as soon as possible.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> abrere said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bs, the stupid jerks should not HAVE kids. They know damned well what causes kids, how to prevent it, and they also know damned well that they can't afford kids. So they come here to steal our jobs and mooch off of the taxpayer. I say eff em. Let them stay where they are, stop having kids and soon, labor will be worth something where they live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When they came to the US seeking asylums, they probably didn't expect the first thing the US would do was take away kids.  There mistake was not realizing that "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" was just all bullshit.  They should have just stayed in Honduras and taken their chances with Mara Salvatrucha and the Barrio 18. *
Click to expand...


Their expectations and lack of preparation are not our problem or responsibility.  Anyone who thought they were going to just ignore the law and have no consequences is too stupid for us to want them to be part of our country.

I don't believe they ARE that stupid.  They know perfectly well that they're breaking the law, and that law enforcement IS looking for them, and IS going to arrest them.  And they WILL know very soon that being arrested no longer means sitting around in a family detention center for months, or being released into the population to vanish.  You just put your finger on a huge reason why this is a good policy.

Their mistake was in thinking that a stupid little poem 1) is just a poem, and 2) is talking about LEGAL immigration, not a free-for-all.  If you're quite done with your attempt to tug heartstrings and bypass intelligence, perhaps we can get back to discussing border control like rational adults.

They SHOULD have stayed in Honduras.  You at least got that right.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration in the Omnibus: No Wall Funding, but Gains for Trump
> 
> *Detention Beds*
> 
> *President’s request:* Currently, the government is required to fill at least 34,000 beds across all immigration detention centers each night. Congress has continued this mandate over many years, despite objections raised by the Obama administration. Trump sought $1.2 billion to expand the mandate to 45,700 beds by the end of FY2017.
> *Omnibus bill:* Congress approved $526 million for additional beds, raising the number available to 39,324. Congress also approved $33 million for additional transportation and removal costs, as well as $57 million for alternatives to detention.
> *Immigration courts*
> 
> *President’s Request:* The president’s FY2017 request did not ask for additional immigration court funding. However, the FY2018 budget blueprint called for the hiring of 75 new judge teams. The new resources would aim to speed up case processing in immigration courts, where the backlog has surpassed 542,000 cases, with an average wait time of 677 days.
> *Omnibus bill:* The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) budget has been increased by $20 million to $440 million for FY2017, which allows for the creation of 10 additional immigration judge teams this fiscal year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There are so many empty FEMA trailers (about 60,000) around the country, the government has been selling them.  The army is spending half billion dollars a year maintaining empty facilities.  There is plenty of room for detainees and their families.  Trump is just going after the kids to punish the parents, exactly what I would expect of him.*
Click to expand...


And that makes better sense than simply processing and deporting them all faster how?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> [QUOTE="eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing is, she says,* "Fund more judges to speed up hearings and deportations",* like it's some brilliant alternative she's come up with that no one else saw, because her leftism makes her so superior and more compassionate, but HER OWN DAMNED LINK said that that's the cornerstone of the program she's bitching about.  If she had bothered to read more than the headline before shouting, "Eureka!  Something else I can hate Trump for!" she would know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I never claimed credit for that, it's been in the news. You need get to out more.  Meanwhile, please feel to extol the virtues of ripping babies from the arms of their mothers in hour effort to "stop" illegal immigration.  A pity you can't put all that energy into stopping rape and murder and child abuse.  Oops.  You support child abuse don't you?  Never mind then.  Your warped priorities will hopefuly be just another page in our countries book of shame in a few years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the second offense it is a felony..........and those get put into prison with some very bad people.........Let's put the children into prison with drug traffickers and Human Traffickers.
> 
> In the Omnibus they only gave Trump half what he requested for more beds.
> They also weren't so nice on implementing E-Verify............didn't give enough for more judges but more judges for immigration courts did happen..........
> 
> Everything some have complained about here was proposed.................
> 
> *Want more beds and speedy trials.............how about voting to fund it*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  But I sure as hell won't vote for tearing children from their families.  Strange but - that wasn't necessary before.  Nor was it the policy.  Now suddenly, it must be done.  And folks pretend it's for the good of the children.  I say bullshit on that.  Not when there are other accommodations for families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama hadn't advertised the fact that we would let illegals with children get a free pass before.
> 
> Human trafficking and child smuggling has become epidemic. And it's because of people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Parents bring their kids to America seeking protection for their family from violence and poverty is not human trafficking.*
Click to expand...


Yeah, except how are we supposed to know which ones are actual parents, and which ones are lying through their teeth?  You like to pretend there's no issue with unaccompanied minors crossing the border that has to be factored into our policies, but that's not the case.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Parent bring their kids to America seeking protection for their family from violence and poverty is not human trafficking.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So again I ask, if they bring illegal narcotics with them, is that not drug trafficking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> Drug trafficking involves trade in illegal drugs - cultivation, manufacture, distribution and sale.  If they are bringing illegal drugs with them with the intent to distribute and sell, then yes - it is drug trafficking.
> 
> Human trafficking involves trade in humans for the purposes of slavery, sexual exploitation or forced labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if a foreigner comes here with a pound of heroin, he is not drug trafficking?  Yet if he comes here with an illegal kid, he's not human trafficking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he is coming in with a pound of heroin do you honestly think it's for his own personal use?  I can assure you the DEA will not think so.  He is trafficking.
> 
> If a foreigner comes in with a kid chances are very high it is his/her kid, but immigration authorities are trained to spot possible human trafficking.  You don't just assume every family is a trafficker and rip away their kids.  Honestly this kind of argument is nothing more then a cover to justify this policy.  They aren't seriously worried about traffickers.  Sessions and Trump specifically stated WHY they are doing it, to act as a deterrant to illegal immigrants (including legal asylum speakers).  It's not about trafficking - that's just a feel-good claim to support a horrible policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually what I read is that Trump and Sessions are denying it has anything to do with being a deterrent.
> 
> So let's say a foreigner tries to get into this country with an ounce of heroin.  You don't think he'll be arrested and sentenced?
> 
> If you are bringing a child into this country illegally, that is against our laws just like if you bring in any amount of recreation narcotics into this country.
Click to expand...


I don't think it's intended primarily as a deterrent, but it certainly will work as one.

Mostly, it's intended to alleviate problems in the system which the current laws won't let them fix any other way.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> third worlders should learn to build decent societies  Flopper  .
> 
> 
> 
> *It's easy to sit in relative luxury and peace and pontificate on why the Third World doesn't fix it's on problems.  If you spend all of your time avoiding starvation and keeping a roof over the head of your family there is no time to build a decent society.
> 
> We never built a decent society we inherited it from immigrants that came here from all over the world to grow and prosper in the richest nation on earth. *
Click to expand...


It's easy to sit in relative luxury and peace, far away from the border and with little knowledge and no responsibility for making the system work, and pontificate on "brilliant" quick fixes and immediately assume that the only reason that's NOT what's being done must be hatred and eeeeevil, instead of considering the possibility that the people who ACTUALLY have to make things work have a point when they tell us that we don't have the ability to do it that way.

Maybe YOU didn't work to contribute anything to building this society, but don't project your lazy parasitism to the rest of us.  Most Americans work hard every day to continue building and maintaining this society, and we usually have to fight assholes like you who want to tear it apart and/or give it away to the first beggar who comes by with a sob story.  Furthermore, you're cordially invited to stop conflating my ancestors, who certainly did not feel justified to just wander into someone else's country and make themselves at home, with people who do.

If you want to deny that this country is your home and belongs to you and that you have a proprietary right to protect it, that's your lookout.  But none of the rest of us are obligated to join you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us have never had to.
> 
> Nor have we lived under the conditions and violence in those countries.  In fact many of us have ancestors that came here fleeing those kinds of things.
> 
> Sure sounds like a  nice story though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a story.  Ever hear of the Civil War?
> 
> Just because most of us never had to doesn't mean nobody did.  We lost a lot of Americans to create and maintain this great place we call America.  But that doesn't mean this great place is open to the world.*  What you want is never ending immigration until the point these people take over our country and turn it into one of theirs which will happen if we don't have massive restrictions on our borders.  *
> 
> We don't have 12 million illegals here because we did enough, we have them because at times we didn't do anything.  It's about time we start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are saying is exactly what was said about every other immigration group - they don't assimilate.  Yet they do.  I'm tired of the constant (and false) argument that if I oppose certain policies I MUST be for open borders and unrestricted immigration.
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, sure they assimilate.  Why didn't I have to press 1 on my phone to speak our language 20 years ago?  Why were signs on the doors in English only 20 years ago and not today?  Why do they ask me what language I want my ballot in when I vote; something they never had to ask 20 years ago?
> 
> I'm a truck driver and run into a lot of foreigners who are taking American jobs and keeping our wages low.  Many of them don't know a word of English, yet they are on the road driving right next to your minivan on our highways with a 75,000 lbs killing machine.
> 
> Many of them are not assimilating.  They are changing our country instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On this I actually agree with Ray.
> 
> If you immigrate to Germany, you are required.... REQUIRED.... to learn German.  It's not an option.   You must do it.
> 
> If you go to Denmark, you are required to learn how to swim with co-eds.  It's not an option.  You must do it.
> 
> Why?   Because in Germany they speak German, and you need to learn German to be a productive useful citizen that is not a burden on the country.   Because in Denmark, there are waterways everywhere, and in order to both be able to save yourself, and your fellow citizens, no matter what gender you are, or they are, you need to know how to swim and save people.
> 
> I mention both of these, because both of these countries have deported immigrants who refused to learn German, or learn how to swim with co-eds.
> 
> There was some Muslim women that went to Denmark with her family, but refused to learn how to swim.  They shipped her butt back to where she came from, and rightly so.   There was a Muslim man who refused to learn German because Arabic is all he needed.  They shipped his butt back to where he came from.
> 
> So where I differ from the right-wingers on here, is that I have no problem at all, with immigrants coming to this country.  I find most of the immigrants, with some exceptions, to be wonderful people that I love coming here, and I am particular to Christian immigrants.
> 
> However, where I agree with the right-wing completely and if it were up to me, I'd have it be required by law, is that they MUST INTEGRATE.   They must learn English, they must learn US customs.   They need to learn to how to take a bath.  They need to learn how to speak and read properly.
> 
> This is one of the very few areas, that I actually support Federal programs for it.  Generally I'm against all Federal programs, but I would be supportive of a program for teaching basic American etiquette, and American language.  (meaning American English).
> 
> You want to come here?  Great!  Fantastic.  Come on in, but you dump your culture that you came from, and you adapt to American Culture.   None of this multi-cultural crap that hasn't worked for the last 50+ years.   You come here, that's wonderful, but you become an American.  You don't want to?  That's fine.  Stay where you are.   You can come when you want to be an American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is they don't come here to be American, they come here to use America.
> 
> We don't have as much of a problem with immigrants up north as they do in the south, but from what I understand, they pack 12 people in a two bedroom house and after all expenses are met, they send the rest of their money back over the border.
> 
> We do have a system for integration, and that is to only allow 1 million people a year to come here.  At one point in the early 1900's they just about closed down the border to allow people to assimilate because they were getting like the immigrants that are here today and changing the country.
Click to expand...


You are correct.  I lived in an apartment complex once, in Tucson, where ICE raided another apartment right after I moved in.  You would not have BELIEVED the number of people they took out of that two-bedroom apartment in handcuffs.  It was like a clown car.  And THEN they started clearing out boxes and containers, and going through them for contraband.  Holy shit.  Took hours, and the amount of stuff they found . . . yow.


----------



## pismoe

and outside of apartments , check out downtown LosAngeles , the close city of Van Nuys , Lancaster , and many other places in California which are really changed into 'mexico' and south america .


----------



## Flopper

Andylusion said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as they have a place to flock to, these countries are nothing but breeding grounds for future US troubles.
> 
> Our country didn't come effortlessly either.  We had to fight a lot of wars, sometimes killing each other.  Freedom is something that costs a lot of lives.  It's about time people in these countries *start fighting for themselves*, otherwise in 100 years, they will still be coming here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us have never had to.
> 
> Nor have we lived under the conditions and violence in those countries.  In fact many of us have ancestors that came here fleeing those kinds of things.
> 
> Sure sounds like a  nice story though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a story.  Ever hear of the Civil War?
> 
> Just because most of us never had to doesn't mean nobody did.  We lost a lot of Americans to create and maintain this great place we call America.  But that doesn't mean this great place is open to the world.*  What you want is never ending immigration until the point these people take over our country and turn it into one of theirs which will happen if we don't have massive restrictions on our borders.  *
> 
> We don't have 12 million illegals here because we did enough, we have them because at times we didn't do anything.  It's about time we start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are saying is exactly what was said about every other immigration group - they don't assimilate.  Yet they do.  I'm tired of the constant (and false) argument that if I oppose certain policies I MUST be for open borders and unrestricted immigration.
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, sure they assimilate.  Why didn't I have to press 1 on my phone to speak our language 20 years ago?  Why were signs on the doors in English only 20 years ago and not today?  Why do they ask me what language I want my ballot in when I vote; something they never had to ask 20 years ago?
> 
> I'm a truck driver and run into a lot of foreigners who are taking American jobs and keeping our wages low.  Many of them don't know a word of English, yet they are on the road driving right next to your minivan on our highways with a 75,000 lbs killing machine.
> 
> Many of them are not assimilating.  They are changing our country instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On this I actually agree with Ray.
> 
> If you immigrate to Germany, you are required.... REQUIRED.... to learn German.  It's not an option.   You must do it.
> 
> If you go to Denmark, you are required to learn how to swim with co-eds.  It's not an option.  You must do it.
> 
> Why?   Because in Germany they speak German, and you need to learn German to be a productive useful citizen that is not a burden on the country.   Because in Denmark, there are waterways everywhere, and in order to both be able to save yourself, and your fellow citizens, no matter what gender you are, or they are, you need to know how to swim and save people.
> 
> I mention both of these, because both of these countries have deported immigrants who refused to learn German, or learn how to swim with co-eds.
> 
> There was some Muslim women that went to Denmark with her family, but refused to learn how to swim.  They shipped her butt back to where she came from, and rightly so.   There was a Muslim man who refused to learn German because Arabic is all he needed.  They shipped his butt back to where he came from.
> 
> So where I differ from the right-wingers on here, is that I have no problem at all, with immigrants coming to this country.  I find most of the immigrants, with some exceptions, to be wonderful people that I love coming here, and I am particular to Christian immigrants.
> 
> However, where I agree with the right-wing completely and if it were up to me, I'd have it be required by law, is that they MUST INTEGRATE.   They must learn English, they must learn US customs.   They need to learn to how to take a bath.  They need to learn how to speak and read properly.
> 
> This is one of the very few areas, that I actually support Federal programs for it.  Generally I'm against all Federal programs, but I would be supportive of a program for teaching basic American etiquette, and American language.  (meaning American English).
> 
> You want to come here?  Great!  Fantastic.  Come on in, but you dump your culture that you came from, and you adapt to American Culture.   None of this multi-cultural crap that hasn't worked for the last 50+ years.   You come here, that's wonderful, but you become an American.  You don't want to?  That's fine.  Stay where you are.   You can come when you want to be an American.
Click to expand...

*Immigrants assimilate faster in America than ever before and there's good reason.  Long before they come to America, they are watching American TV and movies, eating hamburgers at McDonald and shopping at Amazon.  In many countries English is a required language in school. American pop music, best sellers, and current news is all over the world.  

Many people assume that the European immigrants of generations past assimilated quickly, unlike Latin American, Asian, or Muslim immigrants today. Not true. Lasting ethnic enclaves like Greektowns and Little Italys were typical. Today’s immigrants actually learn English and forget their native languages faster than did the earlier newcomers. Similarly, romanticized memories lead many to believe that, unlike today’s immigrants, their ancestors made it up the ladder on their own steam–also a distortion. In the end, the supposedly unassimilable children and grandchildren of earlier immigrants became regular Americans, often to the chagrin of parents who hoped that their traditions would be more lasting.

Today’s immigrants assimilate faster than the Europeans who came before them
*


----------



## BrokeLoser

Flopper said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us have never had to.
> 
> Nor have we lived under the conditions and violence in those countries.  In fact many of us have ancestors that came here fleeing those kinds of things.
> 
> Sure sounds like a  nice story though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a story.  Ever hear of the Civil War?
> 
> Just because most of us never had to doesn't mean nobody did.  We lost a lot of Americans to create and maintain this great place we call America.  But that doesn't mean this great place is open to the world.*  What you want is never ending immigration until the point these people take over our country and turn it into one of theirs which will happen if we don't have massive restrictions on our borders.  *
> 
> We don't have 12 million illegals here because we did enough, we have them because at times we didn't do anything.  It's about time we start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are saying is exactly what was said about every other immigration group - they don't assimilate.  Yet they do.  I'm tired of the constant (and false) argument that if I oppose certain policies I MUST be for open borders and unrestricted immigration.
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, sure they assimilate.  Why didn't I have to press 1 on my phone to speak our language 20 years ago?  Why were signs on the doors in English only 20 years ago and not today?  Why do they ask me what language I want my ballot in when I vote; something they never had to ask 20 years ago?
> 
> I'm a truck driver and run into a lot of foreigners who are taking American jobs and keeping our wages low.  Many of them don't know a word of English, yet they are on the road driving right next to your minivan on our highways with a 75,000 lbs killing machine.
> 
> Many of them are not assimilating.  They are changing our country instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On this I actually agree with Ray.
> 
> If you immigrate to Germany, you are required.... REQUIRED.... to learn German.  It's not an option.   You must do it.
> 
> If you go to Denmark, you are required to learn how to swim with co-eds.  It's not an option.  You must do it.
> 
> Why?   Because in Germany they speak German, and you need to learn German to be a productive useful citizen that is not a burden on the country.   Because in Denmark, there are waterways everywhere, and in order to both be able to save yourself, and your fellow citizens, no matter what gender you are, or they are, you need to know how to swim and save people.
> 
> I mention both of these, because both of these countries have deported immigrants who refused to learn German, or learn how to swim with co-eds.
> 
> There was some Muslim women that went to Denmark with her family, but refused to learn how to swim.  They shipped her butt back to where she came from, and rightly so.   There was a Muslim man who refused to learn German because Arabic is all he needed.  They shipped his butt back to where he came from.
> 
> So where I differ from the right-wingers on here, is that I have no problem at all, with immigrants coming to this country.  I find most of the immigrants, with some exceptions, to be wonderful people that I love coming here, and I am particular to Christian immigrants.
> 
> However, where I agree with the right-wing completely and if it were up to me, I'd have it be required by law, is that they MUST INTEGRATE.   They must learn English, they must learn US customs.   They need to learn to how to take a bath.  They need to learn how to speak and read properly.
> 
> This is one of the very few areas, that I actually support Federal programs for it.  Generally I'm against all Federal programs, but I would be supportive of a program for teaching basic American etiquette, and American language.  (meaning American English).
> 
> You want to come here?  Great!  Fantastic.  Come on in, but you dump your culture that you came from, and you adapt to American Culture.   None of this multi-cultural crap that hasn't worked for the last 50+ years.   You come here, that's wonderful, but you become an American.  You don't want to?  That's fine.  Stay where you are.   You can come when you want to be an American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Immigrants assimilate faster in America than ever before and there's good reason.  Long before they come to America, they are watching American TV and movies.  In many countries English is a required language in school. American pop music, best sellers, and current news is all over the world.
> 
> Many people assume that the European immigrants of generations past assimilated quickly, unlike Latin American, Asian, or Muslim immigrants today. Not true. Lasting ethnic enclaves like Greektowns and Little Italys were typical. Today’s immigrants actually learn English and forget their native languages faster than did the earlier newcomers. Similarly, romanticized memories lead many to believe that, unlike today’s immigrants, their ancestors made it up the ladder on their own steam–also a distortion. In the end, the supposedly unassimilable children and grandchildren of earlier immigrants became regular Americans, often to the chagrin of parents who hoped that their traditions would be more lasting.
> 
> Today’s immigrants assimilate faster than the Europeans who came before them*
Click to expand...


Nobody sane and truly in touch is buying that big bunch of total bullshit. Sorry.


----------



## pismoe

one of the problems with these imported is that many still view 'mexico' and south america as their homelands and when in the USA they are just a short hop skip and jump away from their homelands .  As far as TV , they all have 'dishes' that recieve tv from their homelands .  As far as language , they have  ghettos full of imports that ALL speak 'spanish' and most are catholic .  Just a few comments Flopper .


----------



## JakeStarkey

Anyone legally presenting themselves at the border for entry to the county should never be separated from their children.

Illegal behavior of kidnapping children from the parents under cover of the law  should spark the militias to form to protect the immigrants and their children.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Flopper said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us have never had to.
> 
> Nor have we lived under the conditions and violence in those countries.  In fact many of us have ancestors that came here fleeing those kinds of things.
> 
> Sure sounds like a  nice story though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a story.  Ever hear of the Civil War?
> 
> Just because most of us never had to doesn't mean nobody did.  We lost a lot of Americans to create and maintain this great place we call America.  But that doesn't mean this great place is open to the world.*  What you want is never ending immigration until the point these people take over our country and turn it into one of theirs which will happen if we don't have massive restrictions on our borders.  *
> 
> We don't have 12 million illegals here because we did enough, we have them because at times we didn't do anything.  It's about time we start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are saying is exactly what was said about every other immigration group - they don't assimilate.  Yet they do.  I'm tired of the constant (and false) argument that if I oppose certain policies I MUST be for open borders and unrestricted immigration.
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, sure they assimilate.  Why didn't I have to press 1 on my phone to speak our language 20 years ago?  Why were signs on the doors in English only 20 years ago and not today?  Why do they ask me what language I want my ballot in when I vote; something they never had to ask 20 years ago?
> 
> I'm a truck driver and run into a lot of foreigners who are taking American jobs and keeping our wages low.  Many of them don't know a word of English, yet they are on the road driving right next to your minivan on our highways with a 75,000 lbs killing machine.
> 
> Many of them are not assimilating.  They are changing our country instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On this I actually agree with Ray.
> 
> If you immigrate to Germany, you are required.... REQUIRED.... to learn German.  It's not an option.   You must do it.
> 
> If you go to Denmark, you are required to learn how to swim with co-eds.  It's not an option.  You must do it.
> 
> Why?   Because in Germany they speak German, and you need to learn German to be a productive useful citizen that is not a burden on the country.   Because in Denmark, there are waterways everywhere, and in order to both be able to save yourself, and your fellow citizens, no matter what gender you are, or they are, you need to know how to swim and save people.
> 
> I mention both of these, because both of these countries have deported immigrants who refused to learn German, or learn how to swim with co-eds.
> 
> There was some Muslim women that went to Denmark with her family, but refused to learn how to swim.  They shipped her butt back to where she came from, and rightly so.   There was a Muslim man who refused to learn German because Arabic is all he needed.  They shipped his butt back to where he came from.
> 
> So where I differ from the right-wingers on here, is that I have no problem at all, with immigrants coming to this country.  I find most of the immigrants, with some exceptions, to be wonderful people that I love coming here, and I am particular to Christian immigrants.
> 
> However, where I agree with the right-wing completely and if it were up to me, I'd have it be required by law, is that they MUST INTEGRATE.   They must learn English, they must learn US customs.   They need to learn to how to take a bath.  They need to learn how to speak and read properly.
> 
> This is one of the very few areas, that I actually support Federal programs for it.  Generally I'm against all Federal programs, but I would be supportive of a program for teaching basic American etiquette, and American language.  (meaning American English).
> 
> You want to come here?  Great!  Fantastic.  Come on in, but you dump your culture that you came from, and you adapt to American Culture.   None of this multi-cultural crap that hasn't worked for the last 50+ years.   You come here, that's wonderful, but you become an American.  You don't want to?  That's fine.  Stay where you are.   You can come when you want to be an American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Immigrants assimilate faster in America than ever before and there's good reason.  Long before they come to America, they are watching American TV and movies, eating hamburgers at McDonald and shopping at Amazon.  In many countries English is a required language in school. American pop music, best sellers, and current news is all over the world.
> 
> Many people assume that the European immigrants of generations past assimilated quickly, unlike Latin American, Asian, or Muslim immigrants today. Not true. Lasting ethnic enclaves like Greektowns and Little Italys were typical. Today’s immigrants actually learn English and forget their native languages faster than did the earlier newcomers. Similarly, romanticized memories lead many to believe that, unlike today’s immigrants, their ancestors made it up the ladder on their own steam–also a distortion. In the end, the supposedly unassimilable children and grandchildren of earlier immigrants became regular Americans, often to the chagrin of parents who hoped that their traditions would be more lasting.
> 
> Today’s immigrants assimilate faster than the Europeans who came before them*
Click to expand...


I’m born and raised in Southern Mexifornia...not long ago one would be very hard pressed to find Mexicans speaking Spanish aloud in public. There are now entire cities here where English is a secondary language. I’ve gone into banks in the Inland Empire (a wetback super shithole) where nothing but Spanish was being spoken...wetback shit being played on T.V. monitors.


----------



## BrokeLoser

JakeStarkey said:


> Anyone legally presenting themselves at the border for entry to the county should never be separated from their children.
> 
> Illegal behavior of kidnapping children from the parents under cover of the law  should spark the militias to form to protect the immigrants and their children.



You’re trying real hard Jake...nobody with DOCUMENTATION “legally” crossing our border / “presenting themselves” is being hassled in any way.
What makes you think they are?


----------



## JakeStarkey

BrokeLoser said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone legally presenting themselves at the border for entry to the county should never be separated from their children.
> 
> Illegal behavior of kidnapping children from the parents under cover of the law  should spark the militias to form to protect the immigrants and their children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re trying real hard Jake...nobody with DOCUMENTATION “legally” crossing our border / “presenting themselves” is being hassled in any way.
> What makes you think they are?
Click to expand...

You have no link for your assertion, do you?


----------



## BrokeLoser

JakeStarkey said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone legally presenting themselves at the border for entry to the county should never be separated from their children.
> 
> Illegal behavior of kidnapping children from the parents under cover of the law  should spark the militias to form to protect the immigrants and their children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re trying real hard Jake...nobody with DOCUMENTATION “legally” crossing our border / “presenting themselves” is being hassled in any way.
> What makes you think they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no link for your assertion, do you?
Click to expand...


You need a link to know that travelers properly permitted to travel aren’t being hassled?


----------



## pismoe

pismoe said:


> one of the problems with these imported is that many still view 'mexico' and south america as their homelands and when in the USA they are just a short hop skip and jump away from their homelands .  As far as TV , they all have 'dishes' that recieve tv from their homelands .  As far as language , they have  ghettos full of imports that ALL speak 'spanish' and most are catholic .  Just a few comments Flopper .


----------------------------------------------------   And i mention 'catholic' because many 'catholics' aid and abet these foreign invaders  Flopper .   The 'catholic' churches need the 'catholic' peasants and third worlders and their money donations and bodies in the pews and supporting the catholic churches   Flopper .


----------



## pismoe

BrokeLoser said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone legally presenting themselves at the border for entry to the county should never be separated from their children.
> 
> Illegal behavior of kidnapping children from the parents under cover of the law  should spark the militias to form to protect the immigrants and their children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re trying real hard Jake...nobody with DOCUMENTATION “legally” crossing our border / “presenting themselves” is being hassled in any way.
> What makes you think they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no link for your assertion, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need a link to know that travelers properly permitted to travel aren’t being hassled?
Click to expand...

---------------------   there is a well planned out conspiracy to harass and detain LEGAL Travelers , if you didn't know  BLoser .


----------



## JakeStarkey

BrokeLoser said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone legally presenting themselves at the border for entry to the county should never be separated from their children.
> 
> Illegal behavior of kidnapping children from the parents under cover of the law  should spark the militias to form to protect the immigrants and their children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re trying real hard Jake...nobody with DOCUMENTATION “legally” crossing our border / “presenting themselves” is being hassled in any way.
> What makes you think they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no link for your assertion, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need a link to know that travelers properly permitted to travel aren’t being hassled?
Click to expand...

Are children not being separated from parents at the border when they present themselves iaw law and regulations?

You that is the case admit by your refusal to deny with links that such is happening.  Those who leave funnies admit it as well.

Thank you.


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *That's not a fair comparison. No one is goes to jail for 20 years for unlawful entry into the US or unlawful presence.  There is no reason why parents should be separated from their children while they are being detained.  They can be held in family detention centers.  If the adults are convicted of a crime and sent to prison, then the children should should be turned over to an agency for placement.  If they are deported they should be turned back over to parents.
> 
> Separating these children from their parents is a disaster waiting to happen particular with the younger kids.  The Trump administration has made separating kids of detained parents a policy which means there're going have thousands of them.  When these kids start turning up missing or worse and can't be returned to the parents, the democrats will have a field day.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK so we could ask the question >> if an American couple are arrested for some white collar misdemeanor, and are sentenced to 6 months in a federal prison, and they have a 1 year old child, should that kid should be in their prison cell with them, for that 6 months time ? (so as to prevent their separation ?)
> Is this opposition to separation only for foreigners ?
> 
> And no, the Trump administration has not made separating kids of detained parents, a policy.  It has always been the policy for kids of criminal parents to stay home, while parent serves time. Been that way for 200+ years in America,
Click to expand...

*Again, your comparison is invalid.  Young children taken from American parents typical have a support structure of relatives, friends, and schools that will care for them while their parents are away.  That is rarely the case with undocumented immigrants newly arrived in America.  If the children are removed while parents are in detention they are typically placed with other immigrant families often undocumented and passed on to others to be lost in the system.  This is a traumatic event in the lives of the children that often does irreparable damage.   And it is so unnecessary.  ICE has family detention centers established by congress in 2006.  Also, there are tens of thousands of vacant FEMA trailers scatter all over the country that can be used for detention.  

I have never suggested that children be placed in prison with parents. The children should stay with their parents while they are being detained in family detention centers.   If a judge decides the parents should spend 6 mos in prison then the children should be remove.  However, since most of the parents will be 1st time offenders they will be deported without prison time. 

The intention of the Trump administration is to punish the parents by taking the children away.   This is an old tactic that works, hold the kids hostage and you'll get whatever you want from their parents. *


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *That's not a fair comparison. No one is goes to jail for 20 years for unlawful entry into the US or unlawful presence.  There is no reason why parents should be separated from their children while they are being detained.  They can be held in family detention centers.  If the adults are convicted of a crime and sent to prison, then the children should should be turned over to an agency for placement.  If they are deported they should be turned back over to parents.
> 
> Separating these children from their parents is a disaster waiting to happen particular with the younger kids.  The Trump administration has made separating kids of detained parents a policy which means there're going have thousands of them.  When these kids start turning up missing or worse and can't be returned to the parents, the democrats will have a field day.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK so we could ask the question >> if an American couple are arrested for some white collar misdemeanor, and are sentenced to 6 months in a federal prison, and they have a 1 year old child, should that kid should be in their prison cell with them, for that 6 months time ? (so as to prevent their separation ?)
> Is this opposition to separation only for foreigners ?
> 
> And no, the Trump administration has not made separating kids of detained parents, a policy.  It has always been the policy for kids of criminal parents to stay home, while parent serves time. Been that way for 200+ years in America,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Again, your comparison is invalid.  Young children taken from American parents typical have a support structure of relatives, friends, and schools that will care for them while their parents are away.  That is rarely the case with undocumented immigrants newly arrived in America.  If the children are removed while parents are in detention they are typically placed with other immigrant families often undocumented and passed on to others to be lost in the system.  This is a traumatic event in the lives of the children that often does irreparable damage.   And it is so unnecessary.  ICE has family detention centers established by congress in 2006.  Also, there are tens of thousands of vacant FEMA trailers scatter all over the country that can be used for detention.
> 
> I have never suggested that children be placed in prison with parents. The children should stay with their parents while they are being detained in family detention centers.   If a judge decides the parents should spend 6 mos in prison then the children should be remove.  However, since most of the parents will be 1st time offenders they will be deported without prison time.
> 
> The intention of the Trump administration is to punish the parents by taking the children away.   This is an old tactic that works, hold the kids hostage and you'll get whatever you want from their parents. *
Click to expand...


I doubt these people care two-shits about these kids.  If they did, they never would have brought these children with them.  If I decided I was going to take a very dangerous journey across Mexico and maybe end up having my kids taken away, then I'm going alone and will send for them later unless they are really not my kids and I don't really care about them.


----------



## Flopper

pismoe said:


> one of the problems with these imported is that many still view 'mexico' and south america as their homelands and when in the USA they are just a short hop skip and jump away from their homelands .  As far as TV , they all have 'dishes' that recieve tv from their homelands .  As far as language , they have  ghettos full of imports that ALL speak 'spanish' and most are catholic .  Just a few comments Flopper .


*I think what you are seeing is undocumented immigrants that exist in many families of legal immigrants.  Undocumented immigrant do not assimilate primarily because they are undocumented.  They live in a subculture dominated by secrecy and fear.  They have to avoid associating with strangers, joining organizations that would call attentions to themselves.  Avoid employment in places that are unsafe. Avoid the  police.  Keep their children away from other kids believed to be unsafe.  Stay in areas where their are many Latinos. Also, family members that are legal citizens have to be careful not to expose the family to unwanted attention.  This is why so many undocumented immigrants hope to return someday to their country of origin so they can be free of the fear.  As the Mexican economy has improved over the last few years, many are doing just that.

Assimilation is one of the major benefits of legalization. Millions of people would be able to join the America culture, improve their education, get better jobs, open new businesses, and take part in their community.    *


----------



## Coyote

BrokeLoser said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a story.  Ever hear of the Civil War?
> 
> Just because most of us never had to doesn't mean nobody did.  We lost a lot of Americans to create and maintain this great place we call America.  But that doesn't mean this great place is open to the world.*  What you want is never ending immigration until the point these people take over our country and turn it into one of theirs which will happen if we don't have massive restrictions on our borders.  *
> 
> We don't have 12 million illegals here because we did enough, we have them because at times we didn't do anything.  It's about time we start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are saying is exactly what was said about every other immigration group - they don't assimilate.  Yet they do.  I'm tired of the constant (and false) argument that if I oppose certain policies I MUST be for open borders and unrestricted immigration.
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, sure they assimilate.  Why didn't I have to press 1 on my phone to speak our language 20 years ago?  Why were signs on the doors in English only 20 years ago and not today?  Why do they ask me what language I want my ballot in when I vote; something they never had to ask 20 years ago?
> 
> I'm a truck driver and run into a lot of foreigners who are taking American jobs and keeping our wages low.  Many of them don't know a word of English, yet they are on the road driving right next to your minivan on our highways with a 75,000 lbs killing machine.
> 
> Many of them are not assimilating.  They are changing our country instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On this I actually agree with Ray.
> 
> If you immigrate to Germany, you are required.... REQUIRED.... to learn German.  It's not an option.   You must do it.
> 
> If you go to Denmark, you are required to learn how to swim with co-eds.  It's not an option.  You must do it.
> 
> Why?   Because in Germany they speak German, and you need to learn German to be a productive useful citizen that is not a burden on the country.   Because in Denmark, there are waterways everywhere, and in order to both be able to save yourself, and your fellow citizens, no matter what gender you are, or they are, you need to know how to swim and save people.
> 
> I mention both of these, because both of these countries have deported immigrants who refused to learn German, or learn how to swim with co-eds.
> 
> There was some Muslim women that went to Denmark with her family, but refused to learn how to swim.  They shipped her butt back to where she came from, and rightly so.   There was a Muslim man who refused to learn German because Arabic is all he needed.  They shipped his butt back to where he came from.
> 
> So where I differ from the right-wingers on here, is that I have no problem at all, with immigrants coming to this country.  I find most of the immigrants, with some exceptions, to be wonderful people that I love coming here, and I am particular to Christian immigrants.
> 
> However, where I agree with the right-wing completely and if it were up to me, I'd have it be required by law, is that they MUST INTEGRATE.   They must learn English, they must learn US customs.   They need to learn to how to take a bath.  They need to learn how to speak and read properly.
> 
> This is one of the very few areas, that I actually support Federal programs for it.  Generally I'm against all Federal programs, but I would be supportive of a program for teaching basic American etiquette, and American language.  (meaning American English).
> 
> You want to come here?  Great!  Fantastic.  Come on in, but you dump your culture that you came from, and you adapt to American Culture.   None of this multi-cultural crap that hasn't worked for the last 50+ years.   You come here, that's wonderful, but you become an American.  You don't want to?  That's fine.  Stay where you are.   You can come when you want to be an American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Immigrants assimilate faster in America than ever before and there's good reason.  Long before they come to America, they are watching American TV and movies.  In many countries English is a required language in school. American pop music, best sellers, and current news is all over the world.
> 
> Many people assume that the European immigrants of generations past assimilated quickly, unlike Latin American, Asian, or Muslim immigrants today. Not true. Lasting ethnic enclaves like Greektowns and Little Italys were typical. Today’s immigrants actually learn English and forget their native languages faster than did the earlier newcomers. Similarly, romanticized memories lead many to believe that, unlike today’s immigrants, their ancestors made it up the ladder on their own steam–also a distortion. In the end, the supposedly unassimilable children and grandchildren of earlier immigrants became regular Americans, often to the chagrin of parents who hoped that their traditions would be more lasting.
> 
> Today’s immigrants assimilate faster than the Europeans who came before them*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody sane and truly in touch is buying that big bunch of total bullshit. Sorry.
Click to expand...

We have an annual Italian Heritage festival.  They wave Italian flags.


----------



## pismoe

and Italy is thousands of miles away so former Italians became Americans Coyote .


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *That's not a fair comparison. No one is goes to jail for 20 years for unlawful entry into the US or unlawful presence.  There is no reason why parents should be separated from their children while they are being detained.  They can be held in family detention centers.  If the adults are convicted of a crime and sent to prison, then the children should should be turned over to an agency for placement.  If they are deported they should be turned back over to parents.
> 
> Separating these children from their parents is a disaster waiting to happen particular with the younger kids.  The Trump administration has made separating kids of detained parents a policy which means there're going have thousands of them.  When these kids start turning up missing or worse and can't be returned to the parents, the democrats will have a field day.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK so we could ask the question >> if an American couple are arrested for some white collar misdemeanor, and are sentenced to 6 months in a federal prison, and they have a 1 year old child, should that kid should be in their prison cell with them, for that 6 months time ? (so as to prevent their separation ?)
> Is this opposition to separation only for foreigners ?
> 
> And no, the Trump administration has not made separating kids of detained parents, a policy.  It has always been the policy for kids of criminal parents to stay home, while parent serves time. Been that way for 200+ years in America,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Again, your comparison is invalid.  Young children taken from American parents typical have a support structure of relatives, friends, and schools that will care for them while their parents are away.  That is rarely the case with undocumented immigrants newly arrived in America.  If the children are removed while parents are in detention they are typically placed with other immigrant families often undocumented and passed on to others to be lost in the system.  This is a traumatic event in the lives of the children that often does irreparable damage.   And it is so unnecessary.  ICE has family detention centers established by congress in 2006.  Also, there are tens of thousands of vacant FEMA trailers scatter all over the country that can be used for detention.
> 
> I have never suggested that children be placed in prison with parents. The children should stay with their parents while they are being detained in family detention centers.   If a judge decides the parents should spend 6 mos in prison then the children should be remove.  However, since most of the parents will be 1st time offenders they will be deported without prison time.
> 
> The intention of the Trump administration is to punish the parents by taking the children away.   This is an old tactic that works, hold the kids hostage and you'll get whatever you want from their parents. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt these people care two-shits about these kids.  If they did, they never would have brought these children with them.  If I decided I was going to take a very dangerous journey across Mexico and maybe end up having my kids taken away, then I'm going alone and will send for them later unless they are really not my kids and I don't really care about them.
Click to expand...

*Well, they can't exactly send them off to a Swiss boarding school or leave them with their rich aunt.  So they do the same thing immigrants to America have done for over two centuries.  They pack of the family and take their chances at new life in America.*


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *That's not a fair comparison. No one is goes to jail for 20 years for unlawful entry into the US or unlawful presence.  There is no reason why parents should be separated from their children while they are being detained.  They can be held in family detention centers.  If the adults are convicted of a crime and sent to prison, then the children should should be turned over to an agency for placement.  If they are deported they should be turned back over to parents.
> 
> Separating these children from their parents is a disaster waiting to happen particular with the younger kids.  The Trump administration has made separating kids of detained parents a policy which means there're going have thousands of them.  When these kids start turning up missing or worse and can't be returned to the parents, the democrats will have a field day.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK so we could ask the question >> if an American couple are arrested for some white collar misdemeanor, and are sentenced to 6 months in a federal prison, and they have a 1 year old child, should that kid should be in their prison cell with them, for that 6 months time ? (so as to prevent their separation ?)
> Is this opposition to separation only for foreigners ?
> 
> And no, the Trump administration has not made separating kids of detained parents, a policy.  It has always been the policy for kids of criminal parents to stay home, while parent serves time. Been that way for 200+ years in America,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Again, your comparison is invalid.  Young children taken from American parents typical have a support structure of relatives, friends, and schools that will care for them while their parents are away.  That is rarely the case with undocumented immigrants newly arrived in America.  If the children are removed while parents are in detention they are typically placed with other immigrant families often undocumented and passed on to others to be lost in the system.  This is a traumatic event in the lives of the children that often does irreparable damage.   And it is so unnecessary.  ICE has family detention centers established by congress in 2006.  Also, there are tens of thousands of vacant FEMA trailers scatter all over the country that can be used for detention.
> 
> I have never suggested that children be placed in prison with parents. The children should stay with their parents while they are being detained in family detention centers.   If a judge decides the parents should spend 6 mos in prison then the children should be remove.  However, since most of the parents will be 1st time offenders they will be deported without prison time.
> 
> The intention of the Trump administration is to punish the parents by taking the children away.   This is an old tactic that works, hold the kids hostage and you'll get whatever you want from their parents. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt these people care two-shits about these kids.  If they did, they never would have brought these children with them.  If I decided I was going to take a very dangerous journey across Mexico and maybe end up having my kids taken away, then I'm going alone and will send for them later unless they are really not my kids and I don't really care about them.
Click to expand...

If you were leaving a dangerous, violent, lawless environment To save your kids, why on earth would you leave them behind?


----------



## Coyote

pismoe said:


> and Italy is thousands of miles away so former Italians became Americans Coyote .


And so do other immigrants.  It is amazing!


----------



## Kondor3

JakeStarkey said:


> Anyone legally presenting themselves at the border for entry to the county should never be separated from their children....


Absolutely correct.

However, anyone illegally CROSSING onto United States soil (or overstaying) without our express prior consent should be arrested and charged with a crime.

Anyone charged with a crime and a flight-risk must be detained and therefore must be separated from their dependent(s).



> ...Illegal behavior of kidnapping children from the parents under cover of the law...


Fortunate for us, then, that no such "illegal behavior" has occurred.



> ...should spark the militias to form to protect the immigrants and their children.


Typical internationalist-globalist-progressive... foment armed rebellion against the United States; standing alongside Beaners rather than your fellow Americans.

You fools still haven't learned _The Lesson _of November 8 2016.

Given that the Democratic Party is now controlled by Leftist-Progressive idealogues, it seems unlikely that you ever will.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> [QUOTE="eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I never claimed credit for that, it's been in the news. You need get to out more.  Meanwhile, please feel to extol the virtues of ripping babies from the arms of their mothers in hour effort to "stop" illegal immigration.  A pity you can't put all that energy into stopping rape and murder and child abuse.  Oops.  You support child abuse don't you?  Never mind then.  Your warped priorities will hopefuly be just another page in our countries book of shame in a few years.
> 
> 
> 
> On the second offense it is a felony..........and those get put into prison with some very bad people.........Let's put the children into prison with drug traffickers and Human Traffickers.
> 
> In the Omnibus they only gave Trump half what he requested for more beds.
> They also weren't so nice on implementing E-Verify............didn't give enough for more judges but more judges for immigration courts did happen..........
> 
> Everything some have complained about here was proposed.................
> 
> *Want more beds and speedy trials.............how about voting to fund it*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  But I sure as hell won't vote for tearing children from their families.  Strange but - that wasn't necessary before.  Nor was it the policy.  Now suddenly, it must be done.  And folks pretend it's for the good of the children.  I say bullshit on that.  Not when there are other accommodations for families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama hadn't advertised the fact that we would let illegals with children get a free pass before.
> 
> Human trafficking and child smuggling has become epidemic. And it's because of people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Parents bring their kids to America seeking protection for their family from violence and poverty is not human trafficking.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, except how are we supposed to know which ones are actual parents, and which ones are lying through their teeth?  You like to pretend there's no issue with unaccompanied minors crossing the border that has to be factored into our policies, but that's not the case.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure they can tell otherwise every family with kids, legal or otherwise crossing a border either way should be stopped, and have their kids confiscated.


----------



## Kondor3

Coyote said:


> ...I am pretty sure they can tell otherwise every family with kids, legal or otherwise crossing a border either way should be stopped, and have their kids confiscated.


No need to stop anyone on their way out... only on their way in... and the kids are not being 'confiscated'... merely taken into protective custody while parents are processed.

There's a really simple cure for that... don't cross onto US soil without our express prior consent... break our laws, and you're in deep $hit.

We owe Illegal Aliens *nothing*.

Time to put Sheriff Joe Arpaio in charge of Immigrant Detention Centers on the southern border.


----------



## Coyote

protectionist said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  But I sure as hell won't vote for tearing children from their families.  Strange but - that wasn't necessary before.  Nor was it the policy.  Now suddenly, it must be done.  And folks pretend it's for the good of the children.  I say bullshit on that.  Not when there are other accommodations for families.
> 
> 
> 
> Before (during the Obama years), illegal aliens weren't detained. They had catch & release.  They get a ticket to appear in court, laugh at it, tear it up, and walk away.  No more of that now.
> 
> So what's your stance on American kids being torn from their families when the family member(s) goes to jail ?
Click to expand...

Usually he kids go with a relative or the other parent, and the other has gone to court, been convicted and sentenced.  They work very hard to keep them within the family and I have never heard of it being used as a deterrent.  

Do they take your kids away when you get a parking ticket?


----------



## pismoe

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *That's not a fair comparison. No one is goes to jail for 20 years for unlawful entry into the US or unlawful presence.  There is no reason why parents should be separated from their children while they are being detained.  They can be held in family detention centers.  If the adults are convicted of a crime and sent to prison, then the children should should be turned over to an agency for placement.  If they are deported they should be turned back over to parents.
> 
> Separating these children from their parents is a disaster waiting to happen particular with the younger kids.  The Trump administration has made separating kids of detained parents a policy which means there're going have thousands of them.  When these kids start turning up missing or worse and can't be returned to the parents, the democrats will have a field day.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK so we could ask the question >> if an American couple are arrested for some white collar misdemeanor, and are sentenced to 6 months in a federal prison, and they have a 1 year old child, should that kid should be in their prison cell with them, for that 6 months time ? (so as to prevent their separation ?)
> Is this opposition to separation only for foreigners ?
> 
> And no, the Trump administration has not made separating kids of detained parents, a policy.  It has always been the policy for kids of criminal parents to stay home, while parent serves time. Been that way for 200+ years in America,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Again, your comparison is invalid.  Young children taken from American parents typical have a support structure of relatives, friends, and schools that will care for them while their parents are away.  That is rarely the case with undocumented immigrants newly arrived in America.  If the children are removed while parents are in detention they are typically placed with other immigrant families often undocumented and passed on to others to be lost in the system.  This is a traumatic event in the lives of the children that often does irreparable damage.   And it is so unnecessary.  ICE has family detention centers established by congress in 2006.  Also, there are tens of thousands of vacant FEMA trailers scatter all over the country that can be used for detention.
> 
> I have never suggested that children be placed in prison with parents. The children should stay with their parents while they are being detained in family detention centers.   If a judge decides the parents should spend 6 mos in prison then the children should be remove.  However, since most of the parents will be 1st time offenders they will be deported without prison time.
> 
> The intention of the Trump administration is to punish the parents by taking the children away.   This is an old tactic that works, hold the kids hostage and you'll get whatever you want from their parents. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt these people care two-shits about these kids.  If they did, they never would have brought these children with them.  If I decided I was going to take a very dangerous journey across Mexico and maybe end up having my kids taken away, then I'm going alone and will send for them later unless they are really not my kids and I don't really care about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Well, they can't exactly send them off to a Swiss boarding school or leave them with their rich aunt.  So they do the same thing immigrants to America have done for over two centuries.  They pack of the family and take their chances at new life in America.*
Click to expand...

------------------------------------------------   and thats what REAL Americans are trying to stop Flopper .


----------



## Coyote

Kondor3 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I am pretty sure they can tell otherwise every family with kids, legal or otherwise crossing a border either way should be stopped, and have their kids confiscated.
> 
> 
> 
> No need to stop anyone on their way out... only on their way in... and the kids are not being 'confiscated'... merely taken into protective custody while parents are processed.
> 
> There's a really simple cure for that... don't cross onto US soil without our express prior consent... break our laws, and you're in deep $hit.
> 
> We owe Illegal Aliens *nothing*.
Click to expand...


You think human trafficking doesn’t go in both directions?  Or are you finally admitting it isn’t really about trafficking?


----------



## Kondor3

Coyote said:


> ...Do they take your kids away when you get a parking ticket?


Worst and most lopsided "False Equivalency" I've encountered anywhere all week long.


----------



## Kondor3

Coyote said:


> ...You think human trafficking doesn’t go in both directions?  Or are you finally admitting it isn’t really about trafficking?


Don't care about that. Never said it was about trafficking. It's about stopping wave after wave of Illegal Immigrants flooding our country from the southern border.


----------



## Coyote

Kondor3 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Do they take your kids away when you get a parking ticket?
> 
> 
> 
> Worst and most lopsided "False Equivalency" I've encountered anywhere all week long.
Click to expand...

Really?   You mean like the false equivalence equating illegal immigration with rape and murder?


----------



## pismoe

HappyJoy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
Click to expand...

-----------------------------------   sure they are human but they aren't AMERICAN   HappyJoy .


----------



## pismoe

Kondor3 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...You think human trafficking doesn’t go in both directions?  Or are you finally admitting it isn’t really about trafficking?
> 
> 
> 
> Don't care about that. Never said it was about trafficking. It's about stopping wave after wave of Illegal Immigrants flooding our country from the southern border.
Click to expand...

------------------------------   me , i don't care about the supposed trafficking .   I don't like the invasion by third worlders [legal or illegal] .


----------



## eagle1462010

Catch and Release


----------



## pismoe

like i said earlier , 310 million in the USA in 2010 census and that doesn't count millions of illegal invaders .   There is NO reason for more of DEAD 'ted kennedy's' and the dems imported people .


----------



## eagle1462010

Obama should have just sent all border agents home.  His tough stance was a complete joke.

And the current attack by the left is to try and get that back.

They say they don't want open borders.  They speak with forked tounge.


----------



## Kondor3

Coyote said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Do they take your kids away when you get a parking ticket?
> 
> 
> 
> Worst and most lopsided "False Equivalency" I've encountered anywhere all week long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?   You mean like the false equivalence equating illegal immigration with rape and murder?
Click to expand...

That, too. The Imperial Cheeto does it all the time Totally bogus. You were keeping him company with that one.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Those who separate children from family for legally presenting themselves at the border for entry are human demons.


----------



## eagle1462010

JakeStarkey said:


> Those who separate children from family for legally presenting themselves at the border for entry are human demons.


It's only a felony for the 2nd count of being caught here illegally.  You make it sound as though they got themself caught.

Which is different from coming to the border and seek asylum.

You are confused.


----------



## Vandalshandle

I'm pretty sure that if it were 1960, most of the posters on this thread would form a gang to drive out Puerto Ricans from their neighborhood, and call themselves the "Jets"


----------



## JakeStarkey

eagle1462010 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who separate children from family for legally presenting themselves at the border for entry are human demons.
> 
> 
> 
> It's only a felony for the 2nd count of being caught here illegally.  You make it sound as though they got themself caught.  Which is different from coming to the border and seek asylum.  You are confused.
Click to expand...

Actually you are describing yourself: confused.  And accused for supporting the tearing apart of families.


----------



## eagle1462010

JakeStarkey said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who separate children from family for legally presenting themselves at the border for entry are human demons.
> 
> 
> 
> It's only a felony for the 2nd count of being caught here illegally.  You make it sound as though they got themself caught.  Which is different from coming to the border and seek asylum.  You are confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you are describing yourself: confused.  And accused for supporting the tearing apart of families.
Click to expand...

We are only guilty of supporting the laws of the Republic.  They are not citizens and aren't.
 guaranteed anything

Do it legally or not at all.  Adults are housed in prisons not day care centers.  It is no place for a child.

We do not build apartment complexes for illegsls but temporary processing and detention centers.  And they are booked solid.

If you don't like the laws.  Tell Congress to get off their lazy asses and fix it.


----------



## eagle1462010

These same conditions were present under Obama.  Where was the concern then........ But he just let them go.  I posted info about that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Everyone in the court system of America has the same rights: end of story.


----------



## eagle1462010

JakeStarkey said:


> Everyone in the court system of America has the same rights: end of story.


Yes .Felons get thrown in jail and don't bring their kids.  End of story.


----------



## JakeStarkey

eagle1462010 said:


> These same conditions were present under Obama.  Where was the concern then........ But he just let them go.  I posted info about that.


Really?  Explain.


----------



## JakeStarkey

eagle1462010 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone in the court system of America has the same rights: end of story.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes .Felons get thrown in jail and don't bring their kids.  End of story.
Click to expand...

They are not felons is the point.  Not yet anyway.

When the Mueller indictees are convicted and sent away, their children will be separated from them, and that is a very good thing.


----------



## eagle1462010

JakeStarkey said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These same conditions were present under Obama.  Where was the concern then........ But he just let them go.  I posted info about that.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Explain.
Click to expand...

Same beds.  Same human trafficking.  Same overcrowding.  Same detention process


----------



## JakeStarkey

eagle1462010 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These same conditions were present under Obama.  Where was the concern then........ But he just let them go.  I posted info about that.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same beds.  Same human trafficking.  Same overcrowding.  Same detention process
Click to expand...

Those are your opinions.  But you don't give any proof.  So your comments can be dismissed for good.


----------



## eagle1462010

JakeStarkey said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone in the court system of America has the same rights: end of story.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes .Felons get thrown in jail and don't bring their kids.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are not felons is the point.  Not yet anyway.
> 
> When the Mueller indictees are convicted and sent away, their children will be separated from them, and that is a very good thing.
Click to expand...

On the 2nd time they are caught here illegally itsi a felony.

Not the ones walking to the border asking asylum dumb ass.


----------



## Doc1

eagle1462010 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who separate children from family for legally presenting themselves at the border for entry are human demons.
> 
> 
> 
> It's only a felony for the 2nd count of being caught here illegally.  You make it sound as though they got themself caught.  Which is different from coming to the border and seek asylum.  You are confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you are describing yourself: confused.  And accused for supporting the tearing apart of families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are only guilty of supporting the laws of the Republic.  They are not citizens and aren't.
> guaranteed anything
> 
> Do it legally or not at all.  Adults are housed in prisons not day care centers.  It is no place for a child.
> 
> We do not build apartment complexes for illegsls but temporary processing and detention centers.  And they are booked solid.
> 
> If you don't like the laws.  Tell Congress to get off their lazy asses and fix it.
Click to expand...


It's very interesting that desiring for immigrants to come here legally makes one racist and heartless.


----------



## eagle1462010

JakeStarkey said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These same conditions were present under Obama.  Where was the concern then........ But he just let them go.  I posted info about that.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same beds.  Same human trafficking.  Same overcrowding.  Same detention process
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are your opinions.  But you don't give any proof.  So your comments can be dismissed for good.
Click to expand...

Whatever.


----------



## Doc1

JakeStarkey said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These same conditions were present under Obama.  Where was the concern then........ But he just let them go.  I posted info about that.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same beds.  Same human trafficking.  Same overcrowding.  Same detention process
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are your opinions.  But you don't give any proof.  So your comments can be dismissed for good.
Click to expand...


Say's the infant WHO never posts a source for anything? Pardon us for never taking you seriously.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I see you got the word.  I can't respond beyond opinion until we get more than opinion.


----------



## Doc1

And you remain the hypocrite for demanding it of someone else. You aren't getting any better at this.


----------



## eagle1462010

JakeStarkey said:


> I see you got the word.  I can't respond beyond opinion until we get more than opinion.


Your liberal skirt is showing again fakey.


----------



## JakeStarkey




----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *That's not a fair comparison. No one is goes to jail for 20 years for unlawful entry into the US or unlawful presence.  There is no reason why parents should be separated from their children while they are being detained.  They can be held in family detention centers.  If the adults are convicted of a crime and sent to prison, then the children should should be turned over to an agency for placement.  If they are deported they should be turned back over to parents.
> 
> Separating these children from their parents is a disaster waiting to happen particular with the younger kids.  The Trump administration has made separating kids of detained parents a policy which means there're going have thousands of them.  When these kids start turning up missing or worse and can't be returned to the parents, the democrats will have a field day.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK so we could ask the question >> if an American couple are arrested for some white collar misdemeanor, and are sentenced to 6 months in a federal prison, and they have a 1 year old child, should that kid should be in their prison cell with them, for that 6 months time ? (so as to prevent their separation ?)
> Is this opposition to separation only for foreigners ?
> 
> And no, the Trump administration has not made separating kids of detained parents, a policy.  It has always been the policy for kids of criminal parents to stay home, while parent serves time. Been that way for 200+ years in America,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Again, your comparison is invalid.  Young children taken from American parents typical have a support structure of relatives, friends, and schools that will care for them while their parents are away.  That is rarely the case with undocumented immigrants newly arrived in America.  If the children are removed while parents are in detention they are typically placed with other immigrant families often undocumented and passed on to others to be lost in the system.  This is a traumatic event in the lives of the children that often does irreparable damage.   And it is so unnecessary.  ICE has family detention centers established by congress in 2006.  Also, there are tens of thousands of vacant FEMA trailers scatter all over the country that can be used for detention.
> 
> I have never suggested that children be placed in prison with parents. The children should stay with their parents while they are being detained in family detention centers.   If a judge decides the parents should spend 6 mos in prison then the children should be remove.  However, since most of the parents will be 1st time offenders they will be deported without prison time.
> 
> The intention of the Trump administration is to punish the parents by taking the children away.   This is an old tactic that works, hold the kids hostage and you'll get whatever you want from their parents. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt these people care two-shits about these kids.  If they did, they never would have brought these children with them.  If I decided I was going to take a very dangerous journey across Mexico and maybe end up having my kids taken away, then I'm going alone and will send for them later unless they are really not my kids and I don't really care about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you were leaving a dangerous, violent, lawless environment To save your kids, why on earth would you leave them behind?
Click to expand...


Because it would be a lot safer than taking them with me.  I couldn't stand the thought of some drug lord taking my 11 year old daughter and raping her right in front of me.  I'll leave my kids with another adult member of the family before I'd risk that.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *That's not a fair comparison. No one is goes to jail for 20 years for unlawful entry into the US or unlawful presence.  There is no reason why parents should be separated from their children while they are being detained.  They can be held in family detention centers.  If the adults are convicted of a crime and sent to prison, then the children should should be turned over to an agency for placement.  If they are deported they should be turned back over to parents.
> 
> Separating these children from their parents is a disaster waiting to happen particular with the younger kids.  The Trump administration has made separating kids of detained parents a policy which means there're going have thousands of them.  When these kids start turning up missing or worse and can't be returned to the parents, the democrats will have a field day.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK so we could ask the question >> if an American couple are arrested for some white collar misdemeanor, and are sentenced to 6 months in a federal prison, and they have a 1 year old child, should that kid should be in their prison cell with them, for that 6 months time ? (so as to prevent their separation ?)
> Is this opposition to separation only for foreigners ?
> 
> And no, the Trump administration has not made separating kids of detained parents, a policy.  It has always been the policy for kids of criminal parents to stay home, while parent serves time. Been that way for 200+ years in America,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Again, your comparison is invalid.  Young children taken from American parents typical have a support structure of relatives, friends, and schools that will care for them while their parents are away.  That is rarely the case with undocumented immigrants newly arrived in America.  If the children are removed while parents are in detention they are typically placed with other immigrant families often undocumented and passed on to others to be lost in the system.  This is a traumatic event in the lives of the children that often does irreparable damage.   And it is so unnecessary.  ICE has family detention centers established by congress in 2006.  Also, there are tens of thousands of vacant FEMA trailers scatter all over the country that can be used for detention.
> 
> I have never suggested that children be placed in prison with parents. The children should stay with their parents while they are being detained in family detention centers.   If a judge decides the parents should spend 6 mos in prison then the children should be remove.  However, since most of the parents will be 1st time offenders they will be deported without prison time.
> 
> The intention of the Trump administration is to punish the parents by taking the children away.   This is an old tactic that works, hold the kids hostage and you'll get whatever you want from their parents. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt these people care two-shits about these kids.  If they did, they never would have brought these children with them.  If I decided I was going to take a very dangerous journey across Mexico and maybe end up having my kids taken away, then I'm going alone and will send for them later unless they are really not my kids and I don't really care about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Well, they can't exactly send them off to a Swiss boarding school or leave them with their rich aunt.  So they do the same thing immigrants to America have done for over two centuries.  They pack of the family and take their chances at new life in America.*
Click to expand...


It's one thing to hop on a boat with your family and head for America, it's another thing to crawl through desert lands with barely enough food and water with criminals behind every rock.  

The only advantage of taking children with you is to draw sympathy from the countrymen of America as they obviously have done.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> one of the problems with these imported is that many still view 'mexico' and south america as their homelands and when in the USA they are just a short hop skip and jump away from their homelands .  As far as TV , they all have 'dishes' that recieve tv from their homelands .  As far as language , they have  ghettos full of imports that ALL speak 'spanish' and most are catholic .  Just a few comments Flopper .
> 
> 
> 
> *I think what you are seeing is undocumented immigrants that exist in many families of legal immigrants.  Undocumented immigrant do not assimilate primarily because they are undocumented.  They live in a subculture dominated by secrecy and fear.  They have to avoid associating with strangers, joining organizations that would call attentions to themselves.  Avoid employment in places that are unsafe. Avoid the  police.  Keep their children away from other kids believed to be unsafe.  Stay in areas where their are many Latinos. Also, family members that are legal citizens have to be careful not to expose the family to unwanted attention.  This is why so many undocumented immigrants hope to return someday to their country of origin so they can be free of the fear.  As the Mexican economy has improved over the last few years, many are doing just that.
> 
> Assimilation is one of the major benefits of legalization. Millions of people would be able to join the America culture, improve their education, get better jobs, open new businesses, and take part in their community.    *
Click to expand...


Undocumented immigrants is such a cute phrase.  It's like calling your neighborhood pusher an unlicensed pharmacist.  

You are correct, they eventually do return home, after they've worked here, send most of their money back over the border, and all our US dollars are over there making their lives much easier.


----------



## Pop23

Nothing new here. Been going on for a hundred years. 

And yes, if our citizens enter another country illegally, then I’m ok with them separating child from parent


----------



## JakeStarkey

Good for you, Pop.  I disagree, because they are presenting themselves at the border legally.


----------



## Andylusion

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us have never had to.
> 
> Nor have we lived under the conditions and violence in those countries.  In fact many of us have ancestors that came here fleeing those kinds of things.
> 
> Sure sounds like a  nice story though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a story.  Ever hear of the Civil War?
> 
> Just because most of us never had to doesn't mean nobody did.  We lost a lot of Americans to create and maintain this great place we call America.  But that doesn't mean this great place is open to the world.*  What you want is never ending immigration until the point these people take over our country and turn it into one of theirs which will happen if we don't have massive restrictions on our borders.  *
> 
> We don't have 12 million illegals here because we did enough, we have them because at times we didn't do anything.  It's about time we start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are saying is exactly what was said about every other immigration group - they don't assimilate.  Yet they do.  I'm tired of the constant (and false) argument that if I oppose certain policies I MUST be for open borders and unrestricted immigration.
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, sure they assimilate.  Why didn't I have to press 1 on my phone to speak our language 20 years ago?  Why were signs on the doors in English only 20 years ago and not today?  Why do they ask me what language I want my ballot in when I vote; something they never had to ask 20 years ago?
> 
> I'm a truck driver and run into a lot of foreigners who are taking American jobs and keeping our wages low.  Many of them don't know a word of English, yet they are on the road driving right next to your minivan on our highways with a 75,000 lbs killing machine.
> 
> Many of them are not assimilating.  They are changing our country instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On this I actually agree with Ray.
> 
> If you immigrate to Germany, you are required.... REQUIRED.... to learn German.  It's not an option.   You must do it.
> 
> If you go to Denmark, you are required to learn how to swim with co-eds.  It's not an option.  You must do it.
> 
> Why?   Because in Germany they speak German, and you need to learn German to be a productive useful citizen that is not a burden on the country.   Because in Denmark, there are waterways everywhere, and in order to both be able to save yourself, and your fellow citizens, no matter what gender you are, or they are, you need to know how to swim and save people.
> 
> I mention both of these, because both of these countries have deported immigrants who refused to learn German, or learn how to swim with co-eds.
> 
> There was some Muslim women that went to Denmark with her family, but refused to learn how to swim.  They shipped her butt back to where she came from, and rightly so.   There was a Muslim man who refused to learn German because Arabic is all he needed.  They shipped his butt back to where he came from.
> 
> So where I differ from the right-wingers on here, is that I have no problem at all, with immigrants coming to this country.  I find most of the immigrants, with some exceptions, to be wonderful people that I love coming here, and I am particular to Christian immigrants.
> 
> However, where I agree with the right-wing completely and if it were up to me, I'd have it be required by law, is that they MUST INTEGRATE.   They must learn English, they must learn US customs.   They need to learn to how to take a bath.  They need to learn how to speak and read properly.
> 
> This is one of the very few areas, that I actually support Federal programs for it.  Generally I'm against all Federal programs, but I would be supportive of a program for teaching basic American etiquette, and American language.  (meaning American English).
> 
> You want to come here?  Great!  Fantastic.  Come on in, but you dump your culture that you came from, and you adapt to American Culture.   None of this multi-cultural crap that hasn't worked for the last 50+ years.   You come here, that's wonderful, but you become an American.  You don't want to?  That's fine.  Stay where you are.   You can come when you want to be an American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is they don't come here to be American, they come here to use America.
> 
> We don't have as much of a problem with immigrants up north as they do in the south, but from what I understand, they pack 12 people in a two bedroom house and after all expenses are met, they send the rest of their money back over the border.
> 
> We do have a system for integration, and that is to only allow 1 million people a year to come here.  At one point in the early 1900's they just about closed down the border to allow people to assimilate because they were getting like the immigrants that are here today and changing the country.
Click to expand...


I could not possibly care less about that.

What business is it of mine what they do with their money?   The irrelevance of that question is a core fundamental of right-wing ideology.  We don't give a crap what people do with the money they rightfully earn.

I don't start dictating what you do with your money.  You don't care what I do with my money.  We don't complain about what rich people do with their money.

That whole thing, is a left-wing belief system.   That's why left-wingers demand regulations and controls on every aspect of our lives, like what light bulb you can buy, what car you can buy, whether you have solar panels on your roof, or what investment bank you use.

We don't do that.

So I don't give a flying crap, what a Mexican immigrant does with the money he earns.  I personally send thousands of dollars overseas every year in charity.   What business is that of yours, or anyone else?

Nonya.

Now as far as why they come here.... doesn't matter as long as we have them learn English and American customs.

Who cares?   What difference does that make?

Are they producing goods and services in the US?   IF yes, then that is a benefit to the entire country.

Even if they were burying money in the back yard, their production alone is a benefit.

Now as for the money.... economically speaking, it doesn't matter where the money goes (as long as it isn't government).

It doesn't matter if it goes to Canada, Mexico, Zimbabwe, Russia, China, Japan, or anywhere.

Where ever the money goes, it must come back.   It has to.  I have relatives that lived in Mexico.  Not one said they could use a US dollar, at a Mexican store.   They only take pesos.    That means they can't use US dollars in Mexico.  They have to exchange for Pesos.  What does the bank do with it?   They can't Pesos for Dollars, to companies that want to import stuff from the US.   The money comes back.

By the way, it has to come back, or the economy would be empty of US dollars by now.  The trade deficit has been larger than the total amount of US dollars in the world, for decades.  If the dollars did not come back, there wouldn't be a single US dollar in the entire US, for decades.

So whether they send most of their money back to Mexico, doesn't matter.   It all comes back, it all benefits the US.


----------



## Andylusion

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a story.  Ever hear of the Civil War?
> 
> Just because most of us never had to doesn't mean nobody did.  We lost a lot of Americans to create and maintain this great place we call America.  But that doesn't mean this great place is open to the world.*  What you want is never ending immigration until the point these people take over our country and turn it into one of theirs which will happen if we don't have massive restrictions on our borders.  *
> 
> We don't have 12 million illegals here because we did enough, we have them because at times we didn't do anything.  It's about time we start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are saying is exactly what was said about every other immigration group - they don't assimilate.  Yet they do.  I'm tired of the constant (and false) argument that if I oppose certain policies I MUST be for open borders and unrestricted immigration.
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, sure they assimilate.  Why didn't I have to press 1 on my phone to speak our language 20 years ago?  Why were signs on the doors in English only 20 years ago and not today?  Why do they ask me what language I want my ballot in when I vote; something they never had to ask 20 years ago?
> 
> I'm a truck driver and run into a lot of foreigners who are taking American jobs and keeping our wages low.  Many of them don't know a word of English, yet they are on the road driving right next to your minivan on our highways with a 75,000 lbs killing machine.
> 
> Many of them are not assimilating.  They are changing our country instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On this I actually agree with Ray.
> 
> If you immigrate to Germany, you are required.... REQUIRED.... to learn German.  It's not an option.   You must do it.
> 
> If you go to Denmark, you are required to learn how to swim with co-eds.  It's not an option.  You must do it.
> 
> Why?   Because in Germany they speak German, and you need to learn German to be a productive useful citizen that is not a burden on the country.   Because in Denmark, there are waterways everywhere, and in order to both be able to save yourself, and your fellow citizens, no matter what gender you are, or they are, you need to know how to swim and save people.
> 
> I mention both of these, because both of these countries have deported immigrants who refused to learn German, or learn how to swim with co-eds.
> 
> There was some Muslim women that went to Denmark with her family, but refused to learn how to swim.  They shipped her butt back to where she came from, and rightly so.   There was a Muslim man who refused to learn German because Arabic is all he needed.  They shipped his butt back to where he came from.
> 
> So where I differ from the right-wingers on here, is that I have no problem at all, with immigrants coming to this country.  I find most of the immigrants, with some exceptions, to be wonderful people that I love coming here, and I am particular to Christian immigrants.
> 
> However, where I agree with the right-wing completely and if it were up to me, I'd have it be required by law, is that they MUST INTEGRATE.   They must learn English, they must learn US customs.   They need to learn to how to take a bath.  They need to learn how to speak and read properly.
> 
> This is one of the very few areas, that I actually support Federal programs for it.  Generally I'm against all Federal programs, but I would be supportive of a program for teaching basic American etiquette, and American language.  (meaning American English).
> 
> You want to come here?  Great!  Fantastic.  Come on in, but you dump your culture that you came from, and you adapt to American Culture.   None of this multi-cultural crap that hasn't worked for the last 50+ years.   You come here, that's wonderful, but you become an American.  You don't want to?  That's fine.  Stay where you are.   You can come when you want to be an American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is they don't come here to be American, they come here to use America.
> 
> We don't have as much of a problem with immigrants up north as they do in the south, but from what I understand, they pack 12 people in a two bedroom house and after all expenses are met, they send the rest of their money back over the border.
> 
> We do have a system for integration, and that is to only allow 1 million people a year to come here.  At one point in the early 1900's they just about closed down the border to allow people to assimilate because they were getting like the immigrants that are here today and changing the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct.  I lived in an apartment complex once, in Tucson, where ICE raided another apartment right after I moved in.  You would not have BELIEVED the number of people they took out of that two-bedroom apartment in handcuffs.  It was like a clown car.  And THEN they started clearing out boxes and containers, and going through them for contraband.  Holy shit.  Took hours, and the amount of stuff they found . . . yow.
Click to expand...


And that's a different thing.   There are drug groups that are operating in the US, from Mexico, and those people need shot.  as in.... shot.   They keep coming back, when we send them home alive..... we can fix that.


----------



## Flopper

eagle1462010 said:


> Obama should have just sent all border agents home.  His tough stance was a complete joke.
> 
> And the current attack by the left is to try and get that back.
> 
> They say they don't want open borders.  They speak with forked tounge.


*No president has deported more illegal immigrants than Barrack Obama.

Presidency of Barack Obama, 3.2 million people deported.           400,000/yr. Avg.
Presidency of George W. Bush, 2 million people were deported.   250,000/Yr. Avg.
Presidency of Bill Clinton, 870,000 people deported.                     108,750/Yr. Avg.
Presidency of Donald Trump  240,00 deported in first yr.               240,000/Yr. Avg
Deportation and removal from the United States - Wikipedia*


----------



## eagle1462010

Flopper said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama should have just sent all border agents home.  His tough stance was a complete joke.
> 
> And the current attack by the left is to try and get that back.
> 
> They say they don't want open borders.  They speak with forked tounge.
> 
> 
> 
> *No president has deported more illegal immigrants than Barrack Obama.
> 
> Presidency of Barack Obama, 3.2 million people deported.           400,000/yr. Avg.
> Presidency of George W. Bush, 2 million people were deported.   250,000/Yr. Avg.
> Presidency of Bill Clinton, 870,000 people deported.                     108,750/Yr. Avg.
> Presidency of Donald Trump 240,00 deported in first yr.               240,000/Yr. Avg
> Deportation and removal from the United States - Wikipedia*
Click to expand...

I posted data back in this thread..........showing how he just let a half a million go free.............guess you didn't notice.  .......that was in one year alone.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Obama admin set the all time deportation records, eagle.

No amount of Alt Right fake news can cover that up.


----------



## John Shaw

I still think they should shoot on sight at the border. If others have a problem with it, too damn bad; the Filipino president runs around slaughtering "drug dealers" and no one does anything to him.


----------



## Unkotare

John Shaw said:


> I still think they should shoot on sight at the border. ....



That’s not going to happen, so grow up.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Andylusion said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a story.  Ever hear of the Civil War?
> 
> Just because most of us never had to doesn't mean nobody did.  We lost a lot of Americans to create and maintain this great place we call America.  But that doesn't mean this great place is open to the world.*  What you want is never ending immigration until the point these people take over our country and turn it into one of theirs which will happen if we don't have massive restrictions on our borders.  *
> 
> We don't have 12 million illegals here because we did enough, we have them because at times we didn't do anything.  It's about time we start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are saying is exactly what was said about every other immigration group - they don't assimilate.  Yet they do.  I'm tired of the constant (and false) argument that if I oppose certain policies I MUST be for open borders and unrestricted immigration.
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, sure they assimilate.  Why didn't I have to press 1 on my phone to speak our language 20 years ago?  Why were signs on the doors in English only 20 years ago and not today?  Why do they ask me what language I want my ballot in when I vote; something they never had to ask 20 years ago?
> 
> I'm a truck driver and run into a lot of foreigners who are taking American jobs and keeping our wages low.  Many of them don't know a word of English, yet they are on the road driving right next to your minivan on our highways with a 75,000 lbs killing machine.
> 
> Many of them are not assimilating.  They are changing our country instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On this I actually agree with Ray.
> 
> If you immigrate to Germany, you are required.... REQUIRED.... to learn German.  It's not an option.   You must do it.
> 
> If you go to Denmark, you are required to learn how to swim with co-eds.  It's not an option.  You must do it.
> 
> Why?   Because in Germany they speak German, and you need to learn German to be a productive useful citizen that is not a burden on the country.   Because in Denmark, there are waterways everywhere, and in order to both be able to save yourself, and your fellow citizens, no matter what gender you are, or they are, you need to know how to swim and save people.
> 
> I mention both of these, because both of these countries have deported immigrants who refused to learn German, or learn how to swim with co-eds.
> 
> There was some Muslim women that went to Denmark with her family, but refused to learn how to swim.  They shipped her butt back to where she came from, and rightly so.   There was a Muslim man who refused to learn German because Arabic is all he needed.  They shipped his butt back to where he came from.
> 
> So where I differ from the right-wingers on here, is that I have no problem at all, with immigrants coming to this country.  I find most of the immigrants, with some exceptions, to be wonderful people that I love coming here, and I am particular to Christian immigrants.
> 
> However, where I agree with the right-wing completely and if it were up to me, I'd have it be required by law, is that they MUST INTEGRATE.   They must learn English, they must learn US customs.   They need to learn to how to take a bath.  They need to learn how to speak and read properly.
> 
> This is one of the very few areas, that I actually support Federal programs for it.  Generally I'm against all Federal programs, but I would be supportive of a program for teaching basic American etiquette, and American language.  (meaning American English).
> 
> You want to come here?  Great!  Fantastic.  Come on in, but you dump your culture that you came from, and you adapt to American Culture.   None of this multi-cultural crap that hasn't worked for the last 50+ years.   You come here, that's wonderful, but you become an American.  You don't want to?  That's fine.  Stay where you are.   You can come when you want to be an American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is they don't come here to be American, they come here to use America.
> 
> We don't have as much of a problem with immigrants up north as they do in the south, but from what I understand, they pack 12 people in a two bedroom house and after all expenses are met, they send the rest of their money back over the border.
> 
> We do have a system for integration, and that is to only allow 1 million people a year to come here.  At one point in the early 1900's they just about closed down the border to allow people to assimilate because they were getting like the immigrants that are here today and changing the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could not possibly care less about that.
> 
> What business is it of mine what they do with their money?   The irrelevance of that question is a core fundamental of right-wing ideology.  We don't give a crap what people do with the money they rightfully earn.
> 
> I don't start dictating what you do with your money.  You don't care what I do with my money.  We don't complain about what rich people do with their money.
> 
> That whole thing, is a left-wing belief system.   That's why left-wingers demand regulations and controls on every aspect of our lives, like what light bulb you can buy, what car you can buy, whether you have solar panels on your roof, or what investment bank you use.
> 
> We don't do that.
> 
> So I don't give a flying crap, what a Mexican immigrant does with the money he earns.  I personally send thousands of dollars overseas every year in charity.   What business is that of yours, or anyone else?
> 
> Nonya.
> 
> Now as far as why they come here.... doesn't matter as long as we have them learn English and American customs.
> 
> Who cares?   What difference does that make?
> 
> Are they producing goods and services in the US?   IF yes, then that is a benefit to the entire country.
> 
> Even if they were burying money in the back yard, their production alone is a benefit.
> 
> Now as for the money.... economically speaking, it doesn't matter where the money goes (as long as it isn't government).
> 
> It doesn't matter if it goes to Canada, Mexico, Zimbabwe, Russia, China, Japan, or anywhere.
> 
> Where ever the money goes, it must come back.   It has to.  I have relatives that lived in Mexico.  Not one said they could use a US dollar, at a Mexican store.   They only take pesos.    That means they can't use US dollars in Mexico.  They have to exchange for Pesos.  What does the bank do with it?   They can't Pesos for Dollars, to companies that want to import stuff from the US.   The money comes back.
> 
> By the way, it has to come back, or the economy would be empty of US dollars by now.  The trade deficit has been larger than the total amount of US dollars in the world, for decades.  If the dollars did not come back, there wouldn't be a single US dollar in the entire US, for decades.
> 
> So whether they send most of their money back to Mexico, doesn't matter.   It all comes back, it all benefits the US.
Click to expand...


In one way yes and another way no. 

People always ask what labor is worth.  The answer is simple: you are worth only as much as your employer can find somebody else to do the same job and same quality of work.  That's it. 

If you make 20 dollars an hour, and your boss refused your request for a raise, and you quit, then he needs to find somebody to replace you. 

If he can find somebody for 18 dollars an hour, you were being overpaid.  If he can't find anybody that will work for less than 23 an hour, you were right to leave the job because you were underpaid.  If he can replace you for 20 dollars an hour, you were earning a fair wage.  

Supply and demand is what determines wages.  It's almost a perfect system until you throw a monkey wrench in it like unions or foreign labor.  Bring in foreigners that will work for less money because they are not spending it here, then all wages are stagnant or lower than what Americans should be paid.  

A hundred dollars goes a lot further in Mexico than in the US.  So they make their money here keeping our wages low, send it back there where they can live pretty well, and no benefit to the US worker.  

If it's one thing liberals are correct on, it's that the middle-class is shrinking.  Until we put a lock on our doors, the middle-class will continue to shrink.


----------



## John Shaw

Unkotare said:


> John Shaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still think they should shoot on sight at the border. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That’s not going to happen, so grow up.
Click to expand...


Why not?


----------



## JakeStarkey

We are a nation subject to the Rule of Law, John, and that will not change for the likes of the far right.


----------



## eagle1462010

JakeStarkey said:


> The Obama admin set the all time deportation records, eagle.
> 
> No amount of Alt Right fake news can cover that up.


Another poster boy for the liberal insane.................I posted other wise........and Catch and Release was a complete joke.


----------



## John Shaw

JakeStarkey said:


> We are a nation subject to the Rule of Law, John, and that will not change for the likes of the far right.



Laws can be changed. In a sense, they are aggressors. Invaders, if you will. Why should they not be met with force?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama should have just sent all border agents home.  His tough stance was a complete joke.
> 
> And the current attack by the left is to try and get that back.
> 
> They say they don't want open borders.  They speak with forked tounge.
> 
> 
> 
> *No president has deported more illegal immigrants than Barrack Obama.
> 
> Presidency of Barack Obama, 3.2 million people deported.           400,000/yr. Avg.
> Presidency of George W. Bush, 2 million people were deported.   250,000/Yr. Avg.
> Presidency of Bill Clinton, 870,000 people deported.                     108,750/Yr. Avg.
> Presidency of Donald Trump 240,00 deported in first yr.               240,000/Yr. Avg
> Deportation and removal from the United States - Wikipedia*
Click to expand...


You might have a point if deportation carried the same definition.  But Bush changed the definition of deportation when he was serving his second term.


----------



## abrere

kill the bankers, too. no problem.


----------



## JakeStarkey

To say that Obama's admin did not set the record for all deportations is fake news.  That is a lie.  It is to forward the anti-American agenda of the Russian trolls and their American fifth columnists.  They apparently want to kill the bankers, too, which makes no sense at all.


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are saying is exactly what was said about every other immigration group - they don't assimilate.  Yet they do.  I'm tired of the constant (and false) argument that if I oppose certain policies I MUST be for open borders and unrestricted immigration.
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, sure they assimilate.  Why didn't I have to press 1 on my phone to speak our language 20 years ago?  Why were signs on the doors in English only 20 years ago and not today?  Why do they ask me what language I want my ballot in when I vote; something they never had to ask 20 years ago?
> 
> I'm a truck driver and run into a lot of foreigners who are taking American jobs and keeping our wages low.  Many of them don't know a word of English, yet they are on the road driving right next to your minivan on our highways with a 75,000 lbs killing machine.
> 
> Many of them are not assimilating.  They are changing our country instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On this I actually agree with Ray.
> 
> If you immigrate to Germany, you are required.... REQUIRED.... to learn German.  It's not an option.   You must do it.
> 
> If you go to Denmark, you are required to learn how to swim with co-eds.  It's not an option.  You must do it.
> 
> Why?   Because in Germany they speak German, and you need to learn German to be a productive useful citizen that is not a burden on the country.   Because in Denmark, there are waterways everywhere, and in order to both be able to save yourself, and your fellow citizens, no matter what gender you are, or they are, you need to know how to swim and save people.
> 
> I mention both of these, because both of these countries have deported immigrants who refused to learn German, or learn how to swim with co-eds.
> 
> There was some Muslim women that went to Denmark with her family, but refused to learn how to swim.  They shipped her butt back to where she came from, and rightly so.   There was a Muslim man who refused to learn German because Arabic is all he needed.  They shipped his butt back to where he came from.
> 
> So where I differ from the right-wingers on here, is that I have no problem at all, with immigrants coming to this country.  I find most of the immigrants, with some exceptions, to be wonderful people that I love coming here, and I am particular to Christian immigrants.
> 
> However, where I agree with the right-wing completely and if it were up to me, I'd have it be required by law, is that they MUST INTEGRATE.   They must learn English, they must learn US customs.   They need to learn to how to take a bath.  They need to learn how to speak and read properly.
> 
> This is one of the very few areas, that I actually support Federal programs for it.  Generally I'm against all Federal programs, but I would be supportive of a program for teaching basic American etiquette, and American language.  (meaning American English).
> 
> You want to come here?  Great!  Fantastic.  Come on in, but you dump your culture that you came from, and you adapt to American Culture.   None of this multi-cultural crap that hasn't worked for the last 50+ years.   You come here, that's wonderful, but you become an American.  You don't want to?  That's fine.  Stay where you are.   You can come when you want to be an American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is they don't come here to be American, they come here to use America.
> 
> We don't have as much of a problem with immigrants up north as they do in the south, but from what I understand, they pack 12 people in a two bedroom house and after all expenses are met, they send the rest of their money back over the border.
> 
> We do have a system for integration, and that is to only allow 1 million people a year to come here.  At one point in the early 1900's they just about closed down the border to allow people to assimilate because they were getting like the immigrants that are here today and changing the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could not possibly care less about that.
> 
> What business is it of mine what they do with their money?   The irrelevance of that question is a core fundamental of right-wing ideology.  We don't give a crap what people do with the money they rightfully earn.
> 
> I don't start dictating what you do with your money.  You don't care what I do with my money.  We don't complain about what rich people do with their money.
> 
> That whole thing, is a left-wing belief system.   That's why left-wingers demand regulations and controls on every aspect of our lives, like what light bulb you can buy, what car you can buy, whether you have solar panels on your roof, or what investment bank you use.
> 
> We don't do that.
> 
> So I don't give a flying crap, what a Mexican immigrant does with the money he earns.  I personally send thousands of dollars overseas every year in charity.   What business is that of yours, or anyone else?
> 
> Nonya.
> 
> Now as far as why they come here.... doesn't matter as long as we have them learn English and American customs.
> 
> Who cares?   What difference does that make?
> 
> Are they producing goods and services in the US?   IF yes, then that is a benefit to the entire country.
> 
> Even if they were burying money in the back yard, their production alone is a benefit.
> 
> Now as for the money.... economically speaking, it doesn't matter where the money goes (as long as it isn't government).
> 
> It doesn't matter if it goes to Canada, Mexico, Zimbabwe, Russia, China, Japan, or anywhere.
> 
> Where ever the money goes, it must come back.   It has to.  I have relatives that lived in Mexico.  Not one said they could use a US dollar, at a Mexican store.   They only take pesos.    That means they can't use US dollars in Mexico.  They have to exchange for Pesos.  What does the bank do with it?   They can't Pesos for Dollars, to companies that want to import stuff from the US.   The money comes back.
> 
> By the way, it has to come back, or the economy would be empty of US dollars by now.  The trade deficit has been larger than the total amount of US dollars in the world, for decades.  If the dollars did not come back, there wouldn't be a single US dollar in the entire US, for decades.
> 
> So whether they send most of their money back to Mexico, doesn't matter.   It all comes back, it all benefits the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In one way yes and another way no.
> 
> People always ask what labor is worth.  The answer is simple: you are worth only as much as your employer can find somebody else to do the same job and same quality of work.  That's it.
> 
> If you make 20 dollars an hour, and your boss refused your request for a raise, and you quit, then he needs to find somebody to replace you.
> 
> If he can find somebody for 18 dollars an hour, you were being overpaid.  If he can't find anybody that will work for less than 23 an hour, you were right to leave the job because you were underpaid.  If he can replace you for 20 dollars an hour, you were earning a fair wage.
> 
> Supply and demand is what determines wages.  It's almost a perfect system until you throw a monkey wrench in it like unions or foreign labor.  Bring in foreigners that will work for less money because they are not spending it here, then all wages are stagnant or lower than what Americans should be paid.
> 
> *A hundred dollars goes a lot further in Mexico than in the US.  So they make their money here keeping our wages low, send it back there where they can live pretty well, and no benefit to the US worker.  *
> 
> If it's one thing liberals are correct on, it's that the middle-class is shrinking.  Until we put a lock on our doors, the middle-class will continue to shrink.
Click to expand...



Actually....part of that is not even true.  There was some research made on the claim that they depress our wages.  What they found was that there was only ONE group of Americans, who's wages were affected and that was Americans without a highschool diploma (a very small proportion of Americans) and even then, the wage depression was very small.


----------



## danielpalos

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id. while in the US.  A fee or fine can make that happen.  Capitalism can work, if we let it.  Not all entry into the Union is immigration; they should have to apply for citizenship or they are just tourists who may have permission to work in the US, for an additional fee.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, sure they assimilate.  Why didn't I have to press 1 on my phone to speak our language 20 years ago?  Why were signs on the doors in English only 20 years ago and not today?  Why do they ask me what language I want my ballot in when I vote; something they never had to ask 20 years ago?
> 
> I'm a truck driver and run into a lot of foreigners who are taking American jobs and keeping our wages low.  Many of them don't know a word of English, yet they are on the road driving right next to your minivan on our highways with a 75,000 lbs killing machine.
> 
> Many of them are not assimilating.  They are changing our country instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On this I actually agree with Ray.
> 
> If you immigrate to Germany, you are required.... REQUIRED.... to learn German.  It's not an option.   You must do it.
> 
> If you go to Denmark, you are required to learn how to swim with co-eds.  It's not an option.  You must do it.
> 
> Why?   Because in Germany they speak German, and you need to learn German to be a productive useful citizen that is not a burden on the country.   Because in Denmark, there are waterways everywhere, and in order to both be able to save yourself, and your fellow citizens, no matter what gender you are, or they are, you need to know how to swim and save people.
> 
> I mention both of these, because both of these countries have deported immigrants who refused to learn German, or learn how to swim with co-eds.
> 
> There was some Muslim women that went to Denmark with her family, but refused to learn how to swim.  They shipped her butt back to where she came from, and rightly so.   There was a Muslim man who refused to learn German because Arabic is all he needed.  They shipped his butt back to where he came from.
> 
> So where I differ from the right-wingers on here, is that I have no problem at all, with immigrants coming to this country.  I find most of the immigrants, with some exceptions, to be wonderful people that I love coming here, and I am particular to Christian immigrants.
> 
> However, where I agree with the right-wing completely and if it were up to me, I'd have it be required by law, is that they MUST INTEGRATE.   They must learn English, they must learn US customs.   They need to learn to how to take a bath.  They need to learn how to speak and read properly.
> 
> This is one of the very few areas, that I actually support Federal programs for it.  Generally I'm against all Federal programs, but I would be supportive of a program for teaching basic American etiquette, and American language.  (meaning American English).
> 
> You want to come here?  Great!  Fantastic.  Come on in, but you dump your culture that you came from, and you adapt to American Culture.   None of this multi-cultural crap that hasn't worked for the last 50+ years.   You come here, that's wonderful, but you become an American.  You don't want to?  That's fine.  Stay where you are.   You can come when you want to be an American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is they don't come here to be American, they come here to use America.
> 
> We don't have as much of a problem with immigrants up north as they do in the south, but from what I understand, they pack 12 people in a two bedroom house and after all expenses are met, they send the rest of their money back over the border.
> 
> We do have a system for integration, and that is to only allow 1 million people a year to come here.  At one point in the early 1900's they just about closed down the border to allow people to assimilate because they were getting like the immigrants that are here today and changing the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could not possibly care less about that.
> 
> What business is it of mine what they do with their money?   The irrelevance of that question is a core fundamental of right-wing ideology.  We don't give a crap what people do with the money they rightfully earn.
> 
> I don't start dictating what you do with your money.  You don't care what I do with my money.  We don't complain about what rich people do with their money.
> 
> That whole thing, is a left-wing belief system.   That's why left-wingers demand regulations and controls on every aspect of our lives, like what light bulb you can buy, what car you can buy, whether you have solar panels on your roof, or what investment bank you use.
> 
> We don't do that.
> 
> So I don't give a flying crap, what a Mexican immigrant does with the money he earns.  I personally send thousands of dollars overseas every year in charity.   What business is that of yours, or anyone else?
> 
> Nonya.
> 
> Now as far as why they come here.... doesn't matter as long as we have them learn English and American customs.
> 
> Who cares?   What difference does that make?
> 
> Are they producing goods and services in the US?   IF yes, then that is a benefit to the entire country.
> 
> Even if they were burying money in the back yard, their production alone is a benefit.
> 
> Now as for the money.... economically speaking, it doesn't matter where the money goes (as long as it isn't government).
> 
> It doesn't matter if it goes to Canada, Mexico, Zimbabwe, Russia, China, Japan, or anywhere.
> 
> Where ever the money goes, it must come back.   It has to.  I have relatives that lived in Mexico.  Not one said they could use a US dollar, at a Mexican store.   They only take pesos.    That means they can't use US dollars in Mexico.  They have to exchange for Pesos.  What does the bank do with it?   They can't Pesos for Dollars, to companies that want to import stuff from the US.   The money comes back.
> 
> By the way, it has to come back, or the economy would be empty of US dollars by now.  The trade deficit has been larger than the total amount of US dollars in the world, for decades.  If the dollars did not come back, there wouldn't be a single US dollar in the entire US, for decades.
> 
> So whether they send most of their money back to Mexico, doesn't matter.   It all comes back, it all benefits the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In one way yes and another way no.
> 
> People always ask what labor is worth.  The answer is simple: you are worth only as much as your employer can find somebody else to do the same job and same quality of work.  That's it.
> 
> If you make 20 dollars an hour, and your boss refused your request for a raise, and you quit, then he needs to find somebody to replace you.
> 
> If he can find somebody for 18 dollars an hour, you were being overpaid.  If he can't find anybody that will work for less than 23 an hour, you were right to leave the job because you were underpaid.  If he can replace you for 20 dollars an hour, you were earning a fair wage.
> 
> Supply and demand is what determines wages.  It's almost a perfect system until you throw a monkey wrench in it like unions or foreign labor.  Bring in foreigners that will work for less money because they are not spending it here, then all wages are stagnant or lower than what Americans should be paid.
> 
> *A hundred dollars goes a lot further in Mexico than in the US.  So they make their money here keeping our wages low, send it back there where they can live pretty well, and no benefit to the US worker.  *
> 
> If it's one thing liberals are correct on, it's that the middle-class is shrinking.  Until we put a lock on our doors, the middle-class will continue to shrink.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually....part of that is not even true.  There was some research made on the claim that they depress our wages.  What they found was that there was only ONE group of Americans, who's wages were affected and that was Americans without a highschool diploma (a very small proportion of Americans) and even then, the wage depression was very small.
Click to expand...


Then that research is wrong because I see it every day.  There are jobs that pay real crap money and they get workers to take those jobs.  The labor competition is less so there is no need for employers to increase their offers.


----------



## Vandalshandle

danielpalos said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id. while in the US.  A fee or fine can make that happen.  Capitalism can work, if we let it.  Not all entry into the Union is immigration; they should have to apply for citizenship or they are just tourists who may have permission to work in the US, for an additional fee.
Click to expand...


That would never work for the republican business owners:

BTW, Trump just commuted the sentence of the guy who ran all this operation in Postville (Sholom) to time served.

Postville raid - Wikipedia


----------



## Flopper

JakeStarkey said:


> Everyone in the court system of America has the same rights: end of story.





eagle1462010 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These same conditions were present under Obama.  Where was the concern then........ But he just let them go.  I posted info about that.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same beds.  Same human trafficking.  Same overcrowding.  Same detention process
Click to expand...

*The difference is during the Obama administration there were some scattered cases of family separation, usually local decisions but the Trump administration has formalized it into a rather cruel and inhumane policy.  Considering the majority of people violating immigration law are only guilty of a civil violation, or criminal misdemeanor, such an action is grossly unfair.  No wonder we have so many sanctuary cities.*


----------



## Vandalshandle

Vandalshandle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id. while in the US.  A fee or fine can make that happen.  Capitalism can work, if we let it.  Not all entry into the Union is immigration; they should have to apply for citizenship or they are just tourists who may have permission to work in the US, for an additional fee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would never work for the republican business owners:
> 
> BTW, Trump just commuted the sentence of the guy who ran all this operation in Postville (Sholom) to time served.
> 
> Postville raid - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


I find this especially ironic. Here in Iowa, the very heart of the GOP, the MAJORITY of the residents in town are illegals, and few, if any, speak English, and nobody "noticed" for years.


----------



## Flopper

eagle1462010 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama should have just sent all border agents home.  His tough stance was a complete joke.
> 
> And the current attack by the left is to try and get that back.
> 
> They say they don't want open borders.  They speak with forked tounge.
> 
> 
> 
> *No president has deported more illegal immigrants than Barrack Obama.
> 
> Presidency of Barack Obama, 3.2 million people deported.           400,000/yr. Avg.
> Presidency of George W. Bush, 2 million people were deported.   250,000/Yr. Avg.
> Presidency of Bill Clinton, 870,000 people deported.                     108,750/Yr. Avg.
> Presidency of Donald Trump 240,00 deported in first yr.               240,000/Yr. Avg
> Deportation and removal from the United States - Wikipedia*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted data back in this thread..........showing how he just let a half a million go free.............guess you didn't notice.  .......that was in one year alone.
Click to expand...

*Yet Obama holds the record for deportations.

Releasing detainees on their own recognizance over a period of 20 years resulted in 37% not showing up for their hearing.   However, these detainees were totally un-monitored.  When monitoring tools such as ankle bracelets, telephonic reporting, reminding calls, and home and job-site visits were used, absconding plummeted.  There was 99.7 percent attendance rate at court and an 85 percent compliance rate with final orders of removal, so stop all the bull shit about catch and release.  The tools are there to solve the problem and Trump is going to be using them if he's going to beat Obama's record for deportations because there will not be enough detention centers nor money to operate them.
Courting Disaster *


----------



## HappyJoy

pismoe said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------------   sure they are human but they aren't AMERICAN   HappyJoy .
Click to expand...


Then we should be Americans and treat them like humans. Also, some of the families that were separated did enter legally as refugees, we still treated them like animals.

Let's stop pretending that their legal status is the issue here.


----------



## pismoe

HappyJoy said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------------   sure they are human but they aren't AMERICAN   HappyJoy .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we should be Americans and treat them like humans. Also, some of the families that were separated did enter legally as refugees, we still treated them like animals.
> 
> Let's stop pretending that their legal status is the issue here.
Click to expand...

-------------------------------------  legal status doesn't matter to me no matter what it is .   I have no use for legal or illegal third worlders as i see them all as the same third worlders ,    USA government decides who is legal or illegal and many USA governments starting with 'reagan'  have been 'fos'    Happy Joy .


----------



## HappyJoy

pismoe said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------------   sure they are human but they aren't AMERICAN   HappyJoy .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we should be Americans and treat them like humans. Also, some of the families that were separated did enter legally as refugees, we still treated them like animals.
> 
> Let's stop pretending that their legal status is the issue here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------------------  legal status doesn't matter to me no matter what it is .   I have no use for legal or illegal third worlders as i see them all as the same third worlders ,    USA government decides who is legal or illegal and many USA governments starting with 'reagan'  have been 'fos'    Happy Joy .
Click to expand...


And one wonders why the Republicans are always accused of racism.


----------



## pismoe

HappyJoy said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------------   sure they are human but they aren't AMERICAN   HappyJoy .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we should be Americans and treat them like humans. Also, some of the families that were separated did enter legally as refugees, we still treated them like animals.
> 
> Let's stop pretending that their legal status is the issue here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------------------  legal status doesn't matter to me no matter what it is .   I have no use for legal or illegal third worlders as i see them all as the same third worlders ,    USA government decides who is legal or illegal and many USA governments starting with 'reagan'  have been 'fos'    Happy Joy .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And one wonders why the Republicans are always accused of racism.
Click to expand...

----------------------------------------   no one cares about some silly designation  any more than you care about being designated as being an emotionally driven naive woman  Happy Joy .


----------



## MaryL

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


Yadda yadda. I see huge swathes of my home city being turned into a wreck to support illegal aliens on a vast scale...and pointing that out makes me a horrible person somehow... which leaves me breathless. Why do we not get to vote on allowing sanctuary cities when it's contrary to common sense and benefits  only the wealthy? So how does democracy work, again?


----------



## Flopper

HappyJoy said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------------   sure they are human but they aren't AMERICAN   HappyJoy .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we should be Americans and treat them like humans. Also, some of the families that were separated did enter legally as refugees, we still treated them like animals.
> 
> Let's stop pretending that their legal status is the issue here.
Click to expand...

*Entering the US by applying for refugee status is filled with land mines.  A person can present themselves at the US border with an application for asylum or refugee status and they will be admitted but probably detained until an immigration person interviews them to determine if they they meet the basic qualifications.  If they do, they will be allowed to stay in the country for up to a year while they wait for an immigration hearing.  They could be detained or released on their own recognizance.  If they are denied refugee status by the court, then they are subject to deportation. In the past, the immigration service has allowed the person to remove themselves without deportation. The Trump administration could deny voluntary removal and elect deportation.  This would serve two purposes.  It would increase Trumps deportation numbers and could prevent the person from legally entering the country for a numbers of years.      

The Trump administration has control over the priory of immigration courts and has lowered the priority of these hearing.  The backlog in courts is so high that a person could be deported while waiting for a hearing.   A federal judge has recently stopped Trump from doing this.
*


----------



## Flopper

MaryL said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> Yadda yadda. I see huge swathes of my home city being turned into a wreck to support illegal aliens on a vast scale...and pointing that out makes me a horrible person somehow... which leaves me breathless. Why do we not get to vote on allowing sanctuary cities when it's contrary to common sense and benefits  only the wealthy? So how does democracy work, again?
Click to expand...

*Simply vote against the political figure, usually mayor or governor who is promoting sanctuary. 

BTW it's not government in a sanctuary that hinders ICE the most. It's the people, the farmers that fails to report obvious illegals, the traffic copy who writes a ticket and fails to report the driver to ICE, the clerk at city hall who warns residents of an ICE raid, the roofer who hires a person with an obvious doctored work permit. In places where the people don't support a law, enforcement is very difficult if not impossible.*


----------



## KeiserC

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


Even if it (hypothetically) "saves one life", thwarts one MS13 entry... Build da wall. Where have I heard the one life mantra before???


----------



## dblack

What human cost is acceptable in controlling illegal immigration?

None. I'm not a nationalist. Government is there to protect our rights, not grant us special privileges.


----------



## MaryL

Flopper said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama should have just sent all border agents home.  His tough stance was a complete joke.
> 
> And the current attack by the left is to try and get that back.
> 
> They say they don't want open borders.  They speak with forked tounge.
> 
> 
> 
> *No president has deported more illegal immigrants than Barrack Obama.
> 
> Presidency of Barack Obama, 3.2 million people deported.           400,000/yr. Avg.
> Presidency of George W. Bush, 2 million people were deported.   250,000/Yr. Avg.
> Presidency of Bill Clinton, 870,000 people deported.                     108,750/Yr. Avg.
> Presidency of Donald Trump 240,00 deported in first yr.               240,000/Yr. Avg
> Deportation and removal from the United States - Wikipedia*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted data back in this thread..........showing how he just let a half a million go free.............guess you didn't notice.  .......that was in one year alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yet Obama holds the record for deportations.
> 
> Releasing detainees on their own recognizance over a period of 20 years resulted in 37% not showing up for their hearing.   However, these detainees were totally un-monitored.  When monitoring tools such as ankle bracelets, telephonic reporting, reminding calls, and home and job-site visits were used, absconding plummeted.  There was 99.7 percent attendance rate at court and an 85 percent compliance rate with final orders of removal, so stop all the bull shit about catch and release.  The tools are there to solve the problem and Trump is going to be using them if he's going to beat Obama's record for deportations because there will not be enough detention centers nor money to operate them.
> Courting Disaster *
Click to expand...

Expecting people to immigrate legally is as human as you can get. Giving Mexicans special treatment transcends law and ethics and is as inhumane as you can get.. We have our own poor and needy and even THEY don't get this level of special treatment. Something seems unconstitutional about sanctuary cities and this extra special treatment of illegal aliens seems to surpass anything in  American history.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Flopper said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------------   sure they are human but they aren't AMERICAN   HappyJoy .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we should be Americans and treat them like humans. Also, some of the families that were separated did enter legally as refugees, we still treated them like animals.
> 
> Let's stop pretending that their legal status is the issue here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Entering the US by applying for refugee status is filled with land mines.  A person can present themselves at the US border with an application for asylum or refugee status and they will be admitted but probably detained until an immigration person interviews them to determine if they they meet the basic qualifications.  If they do, they will be allowed to stay in the country for up to a year while they wait for an immigration hearing.  They could be detained or released on their own recognizance.  If they are denied refugee status by the court, then they are subject to deportation. In the past, the immigration service has allowed the person to remove themselves without deportation. The Trump administration could deny voluntary removal and elect deportation.  This would serve two purposes.  It would increase Trumps deportation numbers and could prevent the person from legally entering the country for a numbers of years.
> 
> The Trump administration has control over the priory of immigration courts and has lowered the priority of these hearing.  The backlog in courts is so high that a person could be deported while waiting for a hearing.   A federal judge has recently stopped Trump from doing this.
> *
Click to expand...


Be careful. You are confusing them with facts, and for a Trump supporter, that is like asking  them to drink hemlock.


----------



## Political Junky

BrokeLoser said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God you people are stupid. Her point is about the kids who didn’t choose to be smuggled over the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean just like the children of incarcerated bank robbers...and how the piece of shit parents forfeited them to the system by way of their own actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re equating bank robbers to people who want a better life for their children by crossing a border? God you’re fucking stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think illegals are far worse actually.
> Federal criminality = Federal criminal
> What else can I teach you Loon?
Click to expand...

Contrary to Trump’s Claims, Immigrants Are Less Likely to Commit Crimes

*Contrary to Trump’s Claims, Immigrants Are Less Likely to Commit Crimes*

A central point of an executive order President Trump signed on Wednesday — and a mainstay of his campaign speeches — is the view that undocumented immigrants pose a threat to public safety.

But several studies, over many years, have concluded that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than people born in the United States. And experts say the available evidence does not support the idea that undocumented immigrants commit a disproportionate share of crime.

“There’s no way I can mess with the numbers to get a different conclusion,” said Alex Nowrasteh, immigration policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, which advocates more liberal immigration laws.

Mr. Trump often cites specific cases of undocumented immigrants committing or being charged with crimes, like the 2015 killing in San Francisco of Kathryn Steinle, whose accused killer had repeatedly been convicted of crimes and deported, yet slipped back into the United States.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Political Junky said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> God you people are stupid. Her point is about the kids who didn’t choose to be smuggled over the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean just like the children of incarcerated bank robbers...and how the piece of shit parents forfeited them to the system by way of their own actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re equating bank robbers to people who want a better life for their children by crossing a border? God you’re fucking stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think illegals are far worse actually.
> Federal criminality = Federal criminal
> What else can I teach you Loon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Contrary to Trump’s Claims, Immigrants Are Less Likely to Commit Crimes
> 
> *Contrary to Trump’s Claims, Immigrants Are Less Likely to Commit Crimes*
> 
> A central point of an executive order President Trump signed on Wednesday — and a mainstay of his campaign speeches — is the view that undocumented immigrants pose a threat to public safety.
> 
> But several studies, over many years, have concluded that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than people born in the United States. And experts say the available evidence does not support the idea that undocumented immigrants commit a disproportionate share of crime.
> 
> “There’s no way I can mess with the numbers to get a different conclusion,” said Alex Nowrasteh, immigration policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, which advocates more liberal immigration laws.
> 
> Mr. Trump often cites specific cases of undocumented immigrants committing or being charged with crimes, like the 2015 killing in San Francisco of Kathryn Steinle, whose accused killer had repeatedly been convicted of crimes and deported, yet slipped back into the United States.
Click to expand...


*The truth about crime, illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities*
There has been much rhetoric from the left and the open-borders, pro-illegal immigration lobby suggesting that illegal immigrants pose no threat to the safety and security of this nation and commit less crimes than their American Citizen and legal immigrant counterparts.

If one watches the network newscasts, the ideologues and open-borders surrogates consistently accuse Americans and law enforcement experts who suggest otherwise of being racist and anti-immigration xenophobes. If you pay attention to the rhetoric, you will find one blaring item missing — facts.

I am a former Spanish speaking career detective who investigated violent crimes within the Hispanic and other ethnic immigrant communities.

I am also a forensic criminologist who is a subject matter expert in violent crime who advocates for facts and evidence. Here are some verified crime facts and statistics with you so that you will know the truth about the precarious relationship between violent crime and illegal immigrants.

As Americans, we should only care about three things: (1) are the immigrants in the U.S. illegally; (2) have they committed violent crimes predominantly against U.S. citizens; and (3) had these criminals not been in our country illegally, these crimes, the victimization of our citizens and the costs of their crimes borne by American taxpayers could have been completely avoided.

Previous administrations have deliberately kept Americans in the dark about illegal immigrant crimes

Most states and our federal government have kept information and statistics about illegal immigration, crimes committed by illegals and the costs borne by you the U.S. payer out of public view. It is in fact difficult, but not impossible to locate accurate crime statistics involving illegal immigrants. The statistics are buried both to suit a political agenda and to avoid public outcry. Once you read this article, you will quickly understand why.

The Pew Research Institute estimates that as of 2014, there are at least 11.2 million illegal immigrants residing in the U.S. This population comprises approximately 3.5 percent of our country’s population.

Of these, by far the largest ethnic population, 52 percent are Hispanics comprised of Mexicans, Central Americans and Cubans.

Six states: California, Texas, Illinois, Florida, New York and New Jersey account for 59 percent of all illegal immigrants residing in the U.S. The fact that 66 percent of all illegal immigrants have lived in our nation for over ten years underscores our long-standing inability to address the serious problem of our inability to control our nation’s borders.

The relationship between illegal immigrants and violent crime

Research conducted by the federal government oversight organization Judicial Water n 2014 documents that 50 percent of all federal crimes were committed near our border with Mexico.

Of the 61,529 criminal cases filed by federal prosecutors; 40 percent or 24,746 were in court districts along the southern borders of California, Arizona and Texas.

The Western District of Texas had the nation’s most significant crime rate with over 6,300 cases filed; followed by the Southern District of Texas with slightly over 6,000 cases.

The Southern California District with nearly 4,900 cases; New Mexico with nearly 4,000 cases and Arizona with over 3,500 criminal cases ranked 3rd, 4th and 5th.

The U.S. Department of Justice documents that in 2014, 19 percent or over 12,000 criminal cases filed by prosecutors were for violent crimes; and over 22 percent or 13,300 cases were for drug related felonies.

That same year, the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that 75 percent of all criminal defendants who were convicted and sentenced for federal drug offenses were illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants were also involved in 17 percent of all drug trafficking sentences and one third of all federal prison sentences.

The U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Sentencing Commission reported that as of 2014, illegal immigrants were convicted and sentenced for over 13 percent of all crimes committed in the U.S.

According to the FBI, 67,642 murders were committed in the U.S. from 2005 through 2008, and 115,717 from 2003 through 2009. The General Accounting Office documents that criminal immigrants committed 25,064 of these murders.

Illegal immigrants clearly commit a level of violent and drug related crimes disproportionate to their population.

In California alone, over 2,400 illegal immigrants out of a total prison population of 130,000 are imprisoned in the state’s prison system for the crime of homicide.

The misrepresentation of comparisons in who commits crimes between illegal immigrants, legal U.S. immigrants and American citizens

The pro-illegal immigrant lobby consistently misrepresents the criminal involvement of illegal immigrants as compared to immigrants who legally enter the U.S. and American citizens, saying that illegal immigrants commit less crimes than their counterparts. This assertion is false in most cases. Here are the vetted statistics:

In California, there are just over 92 illegal immigrants imprisoned for every 100,000 illegals as compared to 74 citizens and legal non-citizen immigrants. In Arizona, the rate is nearly 69 illegals imprisoned for every 100,000, as compared to 54 citizens and legal non-citizen immigrants.

In New York, over three times as many illegal immigrants or 169, are imprisoned for crimes per 100,000, as compared to only 48 citizens and legal non-citizen immigrants. Only the states of Texas and Florida do illegal immigrants commit less crimes than their legal immigrant counterparts (Texas with 54.5 illegals imprisoned per 100,000, compared to 65 legal immigrants and Florida with 55 illegals imprisoned, compared to 68 legal immigrants).

Texas is an epicenter for illegal immigrant crimes

Recent crime analysis by both the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Texas law enforcement authorities indicate that between June 2011 and March 2017, over 217,000 criminal immigrants were arrested and booked into Texas jails.

In researching the criminal careers of these defendants, it was revealed that they had jointly committed over nearly 600,000 criminal offenses. Their arrests included nearly 1,200 homicides; almost 69,000 assaults; 16,854 burglaries; 700 kidnappings; nearly 6,200 sexual assaults; 69,000 drug offenses; 8,700 weapons violations; over 3,800 robberies and over 45,000 obstructing police charges. In determining the status of these offenders in the U.S., it was confirmed by DHS that over 173,000 or 66 percent of these immigrant criminal defendants were in our country illegally at the times of their arrests.

“Sanctuary State” California politicians fight against deporting criminal illegal immigrants

Currently, a fight is brewing between California Open Borders politicians and the state’s Democratic controlled Legislature and the Department of Justice regarding the protection of violent criminal illegal immigrants.

Hardly any Californian’s know that in 2014, Gov. Brown signed a bill that amended a state statute amending the maximum sentencing for misdemeanor crimes by one day from 365 to 364 days in jail. This was deliberately done to avoid current federal laws that provide for the deportation of illegal and legal immigrants in this country who have received sentences of 365 days or more.

With the newly enacted jail and prison diversion programs of Propositions 109 and 47, Gov. Brown and company are effectively preventing the federal government from removing violent and recidivist illegal immigrants from our midst through the deportation process.

The extreme costs of keeping illegal immigrant criminals in this country

According to research and statistics by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, U.S. taxpayers are footing an annual bill of nearly $19 million a day to house and care for an estimated 300,000 to 450,000 convicted criminal immigrants who are eligible for deportation and are currently residing in local jails and state and federal prisons across the country.

These figures include not only those immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally, but all immigrants here who commit and have been convicted of crimes. Other accounting estimates indicate that the total cost for all corrections, medical and support services for adults and juvenile immigrant criminals nationally to be over $1.8 billion dollars.

So the next time you hear some Open Borders politician or pro illegal immigrant surrogates advocate on their behalf, ask yourself why we as American citizens need to bear the increasing costs of violence, victimization and burdensome taxes in subsidizing illegal immigrant criminals who shouldn’t be in our country in the first place.

_Ron Martinelli is a nationally renowned forensic criminologist and law enforcement expert. Martinelli is a retired San Jose (CA) police detective who provides forensic investigation and expert services to numerous states, large municipalities and national private law firms specializing in civil rights. He is fluent in Spanish and divides his time between California, Texas and Mexico.
The truth about crime, illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities_


----------



## Flopper

MaryL said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama should have just sent all border agents home.  His tough stance was a complete joke.
> 
> And the current attack by the left is to try and get that back.
> 
> They say they don't want open borders.  They speak with forked tounge.
> 
> 
> 
> *No president has deported more illegal immigrants than Barrack Obama.
> 
> Presidency of Barack Obama, 3.2 million people deported.           400,000/yr. Avg.
> Presidency of George W. Bush, 2 million people were deported.   250,000/Yr. Avg.
> Presidency of Bill Clinton, 870,000 people deported.                     108,750/Yr. Avg.
> Presidency of Donald Trump 240,00 deported in first yr.               240,000/Yr. Avg
> Deportation and removal from the United States - Wikipedia*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted data back in this thread..........showing how he just let a half a million go free.............guess you didn't notice.  .......that was in one year alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yet Obama holds the record for deportations.
> 
> Releasing detainees on their own recognizance over a period of 20 years resulted in 37% not showing up for their hearing.   However, these detainees were totally un-monitored.  When monitoring tools such as ankle bracelets, telephonic reporting, reminding calls, and home and job-site visits were used, absconding plummeted.  There was 99.7 percent attendance rate at court and an 85 percent compliance rate with final orders of removal, so stop all the bull shit about catch and release.  The tools are there to solve the problem and Trump is going to be using them if he's going to beat Obama's record for deportations because there will not be enough detention centers nor money to operate them.
> Courting Disaster *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Expecting people to immigrate legally is as human as you can get. Giving Mexicans special treatment transcends law and ethics and is as inhumane as you can get.. We have our own poor and needy and even THEY don't get this level of special treatment. Something seems unconstitutional about sanctuary cities and this extra special treatment of illegal aliens seems to surpass anything in  American history.
Click to expand...

*The stuff the city council passes to earn them the right to call themselves a sanctuary city is just BS.  These people do this because they have lots of constituents that don't like the immigration laws or how they are enforced or think they are unfair or there're concerned about family members or friends being deported.  It's the constituents that make a city a sanctuary.  When 25% percent of the police force is either Latino or married into a Latino family with members that are in violation of immigration laws, they are certain not going to be much help to immigration.  ICE depends heavily on tips from employers, police, and other citizens in a town.  If they don't get that help they are working blind. 

Well, one can argue that it's pretty inhumane to deport kids born in Mexico and brought to the US as children and forced to leave the only home they have ever known or a mother having to decide between taking her American born children to Honduras with her or leaving them here with relatives and possible never seeing them again.       *


----------



## Dragonlady

MaryL said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama should have just sent all border agents home.  His tough stance was a complete joke.
> 
> And the current attack by the left is to try and get that back.
> 
> They say they don't want open borders.  They speak with forked tounge.
> 
> 
> 
> *No president has deported more illegal immigrants than Barrack Obama.
> 
> Presidency of Barack Obama, 3.2 million people deported.           400,000/yr. Avg.
> Presidency of George W. Bush, 2 million people were deported.   250,000/Yr. Avg.
> Presidency of Bill Clinton, 870,000 people deported.                     108,750/Yr. Avg.
> Presidency of Donald Trump 240,00 deported in first yr.               240,000/Yr. Avg
> Deportation and removal from the United States - Wikipedia*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted data back in this thread..........showing how he just let a half a million go free.............guess you didn't notice.  .......that was in one year alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yet Obama holds the record for deportations.
> 
> Releasing detainees on their own recognizance over a period of 20 years resulted in 37% not showing up for their hearing.   However, these detainees were totally un-monitored.  When monitoring tools such as ankle bracelets, telephonic reporting, reminding calls, and home and job-site visits were used, absconding plummeted.  There was 99.7 percent attendance rate at court and an 85 percent compliance rate with final orders of removal, so stop all the bull shit about catch and release.  The tools are there to solve the problem and Trump is going to be using them if he's going to beat Obama's record for deportations because there will not be enough detention centers nor money to operate them.
> Courting Disaster *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Expecting people to immigrate legally is as human as you can get. Giving Mexicans special treatment transcends law and ethics and is as inhumane as you can get.. We have our own poor and needy and even THEY don't get this level of special treatment. Something seems unconstitutional about sanctuary cities and this extra special treatment of illegal aliens seems to surpass anything in  American history.
Click to expand...


I think you have a total misunderstanding what constitutes a “sanctuary city”. Sanctuary cities don’t check or ask for immigration status when citizens report crimes. Local law enforcement leaves immigration matters strictly to ICE. 

This isn’t to help illegal immigrants evade capture, or even to provide sanctuary. It’s to prevent crime. 

Illegals are easy targets if their status would get them deported and criminals look for easy targets. Those who can’t report they’ve been victimized or testify against them in criminal proceedings  are the easiest prey of all. Because of the high levels of crime, cities tell residents to report sobtgey csn get criminals off the street.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *I think what you are seeing is undocumented immigrants that exist in many families of legal immigrants.  Undocumented immigrant do not assimilate primarily because they are undocumented.  They live in a subculture dominated by secrecy and fear.  They have to avoid associating with strangers, joining organizations that would call attentions to themselves.  Avoid employment in places that are unsafe. Avoid the  police.  Keep their children away from other kids believed to be unsafe.  Stay in areas where their are many Latinos. Also, family members that are legal citizens have to be careful not to expose the family to unwanted attention.  This is why so many undocumented immigrants hope to return someday to their country of origin so they can be free of the fear.  As the Mexican economy has improved over the last few years, many are doing just that.
> 
> Assimilation is one of the major benefits of legalization. Millions of people would be able to join the America culture, improve their education, get better jobs, open new businesses, and take part in their community.    *


No such things as "*undocumented immigrants"  *The correct term to identify these invaders is >>* "ILLEGAL ALIENS"  *They are neither "undocumented", nor are they "immigrants"

I've met thousands of them in 4 different states of the US (New York, Tennessee, California, and Florida).  They have plenty of documents.  I've spoken to them (in Spanish), and they (construction workers and janitors) have company photo ID cards, library cards, etc, etc

And they are not immigrants. Immigrants are people like my ancestors, who went through an official process of immigration with US immigration authorities.

In the words of the late Professor George Grayson, of William & Mary College in Virginia, a scholar in Mexican-American relations, >>

"To call an illegal alien an _"undocumented immigrant",_ is about equivalent to calling a bank robber _"an informal withdrawl agent"
_
But isn't it interesting hw you show so much sympathy for the illegal alien, while showing zero sympathy for the American citizens enduring the longlist of harms that these invaders bring to us.

*Harms* of Immigration

1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).

2. Wage reduction.

3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).

4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($138 Billion/year).

5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.

6. Increased crime.

7. Increased traffic congestion.

8. Increased pollution.

9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.

10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.

11. Overcrowding in government offices.

12. Overcrowding in schools.

13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.

14. Cultural erosion.

15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)

16. Introduction of foreign diseases

17. Influx of terrorists


----------



## protectionist

Vandalshandle said:


> Be careful. You are confusing them with facts, and for a Trump supporter, that is like asking  them to drink hemlock.


Let's hope you're not confused with the FACTS of Post # 1437.


----------



## protectionist

Dragonlady said:


> I think you have a total misunderstanding what constitutes a “sanctuary city”. Sanctuary cities don’t check or ask for immigration status when citizens report crimes. Local law enforcement leaves immigration matters strictly to ICE.
> 
> This isn’t to help illegal immigrants evade capture, or even to provide sanctuary. It’s to prevent crime.
> 
> Illegals are easy targets if their status would get them deported and criminals look for easy targets. Those who can’t report they’ve been victimized or testify against them in criminal proceedings  are the easiest prey of all. Because of the high levels of crime, cities tell residents to report sobtgey csn get criminals off the street.


We've been  hearing this red herring poppycock for years. Democrats protect illegals in sanctuary cities so they can suck up their VOTES.  In return, the illegals GIVE THEM those votes. It's not rocket science.

And the congressional voting shows it all. Republicans vote against sanctuary cities. Democrats vote for them. And if illegals weren't HERE, as they shouldn't be, they wouldn't have to worry about US crime, or being_ "easy targets"_ or being _"victimized" _by it.


----------



## bripat9643

forkup said:


> Old Yeller said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you want done with them?  Ritz-Cartlton?  Homeless Shelter?  Free house in Fort Worth?  Detroit?   You pay.  Start a gofundme?  Adopt them? Give out rooms in your vacation homes?  Set up FEMA trailers,  run plumbing-electric-AC.
> 
> What about American homeless?
> 
> 
> 
> I have an idea. Stop giving tax brakes to those who already have plenty of money and use the funds to help homeless people. The richest country in the world has to much poverty and the reason isn't other poor people taking away government funds. It's the idea that being rich isn't just something to aspire to but something that requires the government's aid.
Click to expand...

ROFL!  So you're an imbecile who believes the government is entitled to take people's money.  Somehow people managed to get rich before the government started "helping" them.


----------



## Pop23

JakeStarkey said:


> Good for you, Pop.  I disagree, because they are presenting themselves at the border legally.



Nope


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Vandalshandle said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they did any thinking at all they wouldn’t be conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is puzzling….the political downside to this is so gigantic and these dumbasses do not realize it.
> 
> 
> Nobody will listen to that of course.  According to EJO, 1 out of 4 American kids is Hispanic.  Not illegal aliens, American kids.
> 
> When Trump and his gang lock up the adults and forcibly separate their kids, do these conservatives really think that this isn’t going to resonate negatively with the larger Hispanic community?  It won’t be pretty for Conservatives going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that as Hispanics become more affluent over time, they are different than whites are and they will continue to support importing low class poor Mexican criminals to overflow our jails, schools, medical centers and welfare rolls?  You're a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's something they don't consider.  The left has a hard time putting themselves in others shoes.
> 
> If I'm going to try and get into a country where I'm clearly a minority, and I understand some may not want me, the best thing I can do is be impressive as all hell that white people are a good thing for their society.  I'm going to want to show them I'm great, and want every other white person who comes there with me to demonstrate the same thing.
> 
> The last thing I would do is welcome or support whites who could care less about their laws, cost them billions of dollars, criminal whites, and gang whites.  I don't want them nowhere near this new country that has graciously accepted me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  Vandal has no idea how high 30 feet is either.  Even the majority of guys would balk at scaling down a 30 foot rope themselves much less sending their 5 year old and pregnant wife down the rope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another uneducated clown who has never been down here. You think that a 30 foot wall is going to stop someone who is willing to walk 100 miles through the most inhospitable desert in the USA in 105 degree temperature with only enough food and water to last one day? We find 300 dead illegals per year in AZ who died from exposure, many who had no shoes, while walking through cactus and snake infested desert for days.
Click to expand...

Obviously 300 isn't enough becsuse some get through.


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  Vandal has no idea how high 30 feet is either.  Even the majority of guys would balk at scaling down a 30 foot rope themselves much less sending their 5 year old and pregnant wife down the rope
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another uneducated clown who has never been down here. You think that a 30 foot wall is going to stop someone who is willing to walk 100 miles through the most inhospitable desert in the USA in 105 degree temperature with only enough food and water to last one day? We find 300 dead illegals per year in AZ who died from exposure, many who had no shoes, while walking through cactus and snake infested desert for days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize you just answered why the children should be taken from SOB’s that would do that to them, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that anyone who would traumatize children for their parent's sins should not be allowed to raise them, and these days, that pretty much defines trumpettes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that anybody who maintains child smugglers should be allowed to spend quality time with their charges after they're busted smuggling them is probably engaged in child sex trafficking themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is advocating child smugglers?  Or is that what you call all parents who take their children with them?
Click to expand...


I call a parent who takes their children on them when they commit a crime a child abuser who's children should be taken away from them


----------



## kaz

pismoe said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously do not live down here, Pop. You could walk 50 miles along the Mexican border in Arizona at night and not see a soul. And you are going to push over a rope ladder? Do all of you Trumpetts live in Disneyland?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said the wall won’t have lighting and guards?
> 
> You living in the Stone Age?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Pop, if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about, you would not even ask that question. Not only are there no paved roads down there, but no other infrastructure as well. There is no water, gas stations, electricity, or restaurants. more importantly, there are no people, and no places for them to live if there were. The BP in Southern AZ is 85% Latino, because they crossed the border years ago, and nobody else is going to drive all the way down there from Tucson to patrol one of the most inhospitable places in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THEY WILL USE ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE NOT RANDOMLY DRIVE ALONG THE WALL YOU STUPID FUCKING DISHONEST PIECE OF SHIT.  WHAT ABOUT THIS DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
> 
> And you've ignored the obviously idiotic response you gave that you're sending five year olds and pregnant women down a 30 foot rope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and BTW, they already use electronic surveillance. That is how they discovered over 100 tunnels under Nogales in the last 10 years. They also send down heat seeking drones down the Santa Cruz River bed every night. I like to watch them fly by in patterns of three every night from my patio. It does not discourage them at all. But Trump's WALL! Wow. That will show them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------  aw , the WALL if done is simply a poke in the eyes to mexican third worlders from my point of view ,   Its simply an insult from ME to mexicans and other 'otm'   VS .
Click to expand...


If allowing poor criminals from a third world country freely cross our border and fill our welfare rolls, schools, medical centers and make our own poor unemployed is insulting them.then yes, let's insult the hell out of Mexico


----------



## pismoe

crime , all this silly talk about crime .   Last thing i worry about is crime , if crime is committed there are many ways to handle that crime .    I object to illegals just being in the USA and could not care less if they commit , don't commit crime or report crime to the police .   Model 'illegal aliens' stay where they come from rather than stealing into the USA .    Generally speaking , these invading aliens that commit crime target those from their own group and thats fine with me .


----------



## pismoe

generally speaking alien crime gangs go after other illegal aliens that shouldn't even be in the USA .


----------



## pismoe

in fact , illegals invite those that commit crime against them as their mere presence attracts criminals that target them .


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I think what you are seeing is undocumented immigrants that exist in many families of legal immigrants.  Undocumented immigrant do not assimilate primarily because they are undocumented.  They live in a subculture dominated by secrecy and fear.  They have to avoid associating with strangers, joining organizations that would call attentions to themselves.  Avoid employment in places that are unsafe. Avoid the  police.  Keep their children away from other kids believed to be unsafe.  Stay in areas where their are many Latinos. Also, family members that are legal citizens have to be careful not to expose the family to unwanted attention.  This is why so many undocumented immigrants hope to return someday to their country of origin so they can be free of the fear.  As the Mexican economy has improved over the last few years, many are doing just that.
> 
> Assimilation is one of the major benefits of legalization. Millions of people would be able to join the America culture, improve their education, get better jobs, open new businesses, and take part in their community.    *
> 
> 
> 
> No such things as "*undocumented immigrants"  *The correct term to identify these invaders is >>* "ILLEGAL ALIENS"  *They are neither "undocumented", nor are they "immigrants"
> 
> I've met thousands of them in 4 different states of the US (New York, Tennessee, California, and Florida).  They have plenty of documents.  I've spoken to them (in Spanish), and they (construction workers and janitors) have company photo ID cards, library cards, etc, etc
> 
> And they are not immigrants. Immigrants are people like my ancestors, who went through an official process of immigration with US immigration authorities.
> 
> In the words of the late Professor George Grayson, of William & Mary College in Virginia, a scholar in Mexican-American relations, >>
> 
> "To call an illegal alien an _"undocumented immigrant",_ is about equivalent to calling a bank robber _"an informal withdrawl agent"
> _
> But isn't it interesting hw you show so much sympathy for the illegal alien, while showing zero sympathy for the American citizens enduring the longlist of harms that these invaders bring to us.
> 
> *Harms* of Immigration
> 
> 1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).
> 
> 2. Wage reduction.
> 
> 3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).
> 
> 4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($138 Billion/year).
> 
> 5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.
> 
> 6. Increased crime.
> 
> 7. Increased traffic congestion.
> 
> 8. Increased pollution.
> 
> 9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.
> 
> 10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.
> 
> 11. Overcrowding in government offices.
> 
> 12. Overcrowding in schools.
> 
> 13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.
> 
> 14. Cultural erosion.
> 
> 15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)
> 
> 16. Introduction of foreign diseases
> 
> 17. Influx of terrorists
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]
*Undocumented Immigrant is the correct term because:*

*Undocumented refers to the lack of genuine documentation of the right to be in a country. The presence of a person in a country is not illegal until a court makes that decision.  *
*The word immigrant means a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country with or without property documentation.*
*Having undocumented immigrants in the country does have some undeniably negative effects which the left would like to ignore.  Likewise there are benefits that the right prefers to ignore.  However, we should question how much of the negative effects are due to the lack of upward mobility and lack of absorption into our culture which is a direct result of being undocumented.  Without upward mobility and absorption, undocumented immigrants are frozen into a subculture that is unhealthy for them and the nation.     *


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I think what you are seeing is undocumented immigrants that exist in many families of legal immigrants.  Undocumented immigrant do not assimilate primarily because they are undocumented.  They live in a subculture dominated by secrecy and fear.  They have to avoid associating with strangers, joining organizations that would call attentions to themselves.  Avoid employment in places that are unsafe. Avoid the  police.  Keep their children away from other kids believed to be unsafe.  Stay in areas where their are many Latinos. Also, family members that are legal citizens have to be careful not to expose the family to unwanted attention.  This is why so many undocumented immigrants hope to return someday to their country of origin so they can be free of the fear.  As the Mexican economy has improved over the last few years, many are doing just that.
> 
> Assimilation is one of the major benefits of legalization. Millions of people would be able to join the America culture, improve their education, get better jobs, open new businesses, and take part in their community.    *
> 
> 
> 
> No such things as "*undocumented immigrants"  *The correct term to identify these invaders is >>* "ILLEGAL ALIENS"  *They are neither "undocumented", nor are they "immigrants"
> 
> I've met thousands of them in 4 different states of the US (New York, Tennessee, California, and Florida).  They have plenty of documents.  I've spoken to them (in Spanish), and they (construction workers and janitors) have company photo ID cards, library cards, etc, etc
> 
> And they are not immigrants. Immigrants are people like my ancestors, who went through an official process of immigration with US immigration authorities.
> 
> In the words of the late Professor George Grayson, of William & Mary College in Virginia, a scholar in Mexican-American relations, >>
> 
> "To call an illegal alien an _"undocumented immigrant",_ is about equivalent to calling a bank robber _"an informal withdrawl agent"
> _
> But isn't it interesting hw you show so much sympathy for the illegal alien, while showing zero sympathy for the American citizens enduring the longlist of harms that these invaders bring to us.
> 
> *Harms* of Immigration
> 
> 1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).
> 
> 2. Wage reduction.
> 
> 3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).
> 
> 4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($138 Billion/year).
> 
> 5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.
> 
> 6. Increased crime.
> 
> 7. Increased traffic congestion.
> 
> 8. Increased pollution.
> 
> 9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.
> 
> 10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.
> 
> 11. Overcrowding in government offices.
> 
> 12. Overcrowding in schools.
> 
> 13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.
> 
> 14. Cultural erosion.
> 
> 15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)
> 
> 16. Introduction of foreign diseases
> 
> 17. Influx of terrorists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Undocumented Immigrant is the correct term because:*
> 
> *Undocumented refers to the lack of genuine documentation of the right to be in a country. The presence of a person in a country is not illegal until a court makes that decision.  *
> *The word immigrant means a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country with or without property documentation.*
> *Having undocumented immigrants in the country does have some undeniably negative effects which the left would like to ignore.  Likewise there are benefits that the right prefers to ignore.  However, we should question how much of the negative effects are due to the lack of upward mobility and lack of absorption into our culture which is a direct result of being undocumented.  Without upward mobility and absorption, undocumented immigrants are frozen into a subculture that is unhealthy for them and the nation.     *
Click to expand...


Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie because documentation has nothing to do with it.  If you document them, they are still an illegal alien.  The problem is they are criminals who violated sovereign US territory.  The problem is not that they didn't leave a paper trail when they did it.

So just to be clear, if I embezzle money, that's fine as long as I "document" it, right?  You're just the flat out dumbest people


----------



## Flopper

pismoe said:


> in fact , illegals invite those that commit crime against them as their mere presence attracts criminals that target them .


*Not sure invite is the proper term but it is certainly true that undocumented immigrants become easy pray for criminal enterprises.  Being undocumented, registering a complaint with law enforcement is likely to get you deported.  Lack of proper documentation forces many to pursue jobs in criminal enterprises or those that operate on the fringe of legality.  *


----------



## JakeStarkey

Flopper has appropriately assessed the situation.  Thanks.


----------



## Flopper

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I think what you are seeing is undocumented immigrants that exist in many families of legal immigrants.  Undocumented immigrant do not assimilate primarily because they are undocumented.  They live in a subculture dominated by secrecy and fear.  They have to avoid associating with strangers, joining organizations that would call attentions to themselves.  Avoid employment in places that are unsafe. Avoid the  police.  Keep their children away from other kids believed to be unsafe.  Stay in areas where their are many Latinos. Also, family members that are legal citizens have to be careful not to expose the family to unwanted attention.  This is why so many undocumented immigrants hope to return someday to their country of origin so they can be free of the fear.  As the Mexican economy has improved over the last few years, many are doing just that.
> 
> Assimilation is one of the major benefits of legalization. Millions of people would be able to join the America culture, improve their education, get better jobs, open new businesses, and take part in their community.    *
> 
> 
> 
> No such things as "*undocumented immigrants"  *The correct term to identify these invaders is >>* "ILLEGAL ALIENS"  *They are neither "undocumented", nor are they "immigrants"
> 
> I've met thousands of them in 4 different states of the US (New York, Tennessee, California, and Florida).  They have plenty of documents.  I've spoken to them (in Spanish), and they (construction workers and janitors) have company photo ID cards, library cards, etc, etc
> 
> And they are not immigrants. Immigrants are people like my ancestors, who went through an official process of immigration with US immigration authorities.
> 
> In the words of the late Professor George Grayson, of William & Mary College in Virginia, a scholar in Mexican-American relations, >>
> 
> "To call an illegal alien an _"undocumented immigrant",_ is about equivalent to calling a bank robber _"an informal withdrawl agent"
> _
> But isn't it interesting hw you show so much sympathy for the illegal alien, while showing zero sympathy for the American citizens enduring the longlist of harms that these invaders bring to us.
> 
> *Harms* of Immigration
> 
> 1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).
> 
> 2. Wage reduction.
> 
> 3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).
> 
> 4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($138 Billion/year).
> 
> 5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.
> 
> 6. Increased crime.
> 
> 7. Increased traffic congestion.
> 
> 8. Increased pollution.
> 
> 9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.
> 
> 10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.
> 
> 11. Overcrowding in government offices.
> 
> 12. Overcrowding in schools.
> 
> 13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.
> 
> 14. Cultural erosion.
> 
> 15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)
> 
> 16. Introduction of foreign diseases
> 
> 17. Influx of terrorists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Undocumented Immigrant is the correct term because:*
> 
> *Undocumented refers to the lack of genuine documentation of the right to be in a country. The presence of a person in a country is not illegal until a court makes that decision.  *
> *The word immigrant means a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country with or without property documentation.*
> *Having undocumented immigrants in the country does have some undeniably negative effects which the left would like to ignore.  Likewise there are benefits that the right prefers to ignore.  However, we should question how much of the negative effects are due to the lack of upward mobility and lack of absorption into our culture which is a direct result of being undocumented.  Without upward mobility and absorption, undocumented immigrants are frozen into a subculture that is unhealthy for them and the nation.     *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie because documentation has nothing to do with it.  If you document them, they are still an illegal alien.  The problem is they are criminals who violated sovereign US territory.  The problem is not that they didn't leave a paper trail when they did it.
> 
> So just to be clear, if I embezzle money, that's fine as long as I "document" it, right?  You're just the flat out dumbest people
Click to expand...

*Documentation has everything to do with it because documentation comes from the government as proof of the right to be in this country.  If Congress changes the laws and to make undocumented immigrants legal residents, they will receive documentation proving their right to be here.  

Using your example it the government declares that embezzlement is not crime, you can not be arrested for embezzlement.  It may be morally wrong but won't be illegal.*


----------



## dblack

kaz said:


> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie ...



So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".


----------



## BrokeLoser

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I think what you are seeing is undocumented immigrants that exist in many families of legal immigrants.  Undocumented immigrant do not assimilate primarily because they are undocumented.  They live in a subculture dominated by secrecy and fear.  They have to avoid associating with strangers, joining organizations that would call attentions to themselves.  Avoid employment in places that are unsafe. Avoid the  police.  Keep their children away from other kids believed to be unsafe.  Stay in areas where their are many Latinos. Also, family members that are legal citizens have to be careful not to expose the family to unwanted attention.  This is why so many undocumented immigrants hope to return someday to their country of origin so they can be free of the fear.  As the Mexican economy has improved over the last few years, many are doing just that.
> 
> Assimilation is one of the major benefits of legalization. Millions of people would be able to join the America culture, improve their education, get better jobs, open new businesses, and take part in their community.    *
> 
> 
> 
> No such things as "*undocumented immigrants"  *The correct term to identify these invaders is >>* "ILLEGAL ALIENS"  *They are neither "undocumented", nor are they "immigrants"
> 
> I've met thousands of them in 4 different states of the US (New York, Tennessee, California, and Florida).  They have plenty of documents.  I've spoken to them (in Spanish), and they (construction workers and janitors) have company photo ID cards, library cards, etc, etc
> 
> And they are not immigrants. Immigrants are people like my ancestors, who went through an official process of immigration with US immigration authorities.
> 
> In the words of the late Professor George Grayson, of William & Mary College in Virginia, a scholar in Mexican-American relations, >>
> 
> "To call an illegal alien an _"undocumented immigrant",_ is about equivalent to calling a bank robber _"an informal withdrawl agent"
> _
> But isn't it interesting hw you show so much sympathy for the illegal alien, while showing zero sympathy for the American citizens enduring the longlist of harms that these invaders bring to us.
> 
> *Harms* of Immigration
> 
> 1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).
> 
> 2. Wage reduction.
> 
> 3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).
> 
> 4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($138 Billion/year).
> 
> 5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.
> 
> 6. Increased crime.
> 
> 7. Increased traffic congestion.
> 
> 8. Increased pollution.
> 
> 9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.
> 
> 10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.
> 
> 11. Overcrowding in government offices.
> 
> 12. Overcrowding in schools.
> 
> 13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.
> 
> 14. Cultural erosion.
> 
> 15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)
> 
> 16. Introduction of foreign diseases
> 
> 17. Influx of terrorists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Undocumented Immigrant is the correct term because:*
> 
> *Undocumented refers to the lack of genuine documentation of the right to be in a country. The presence of a person in a country is not illegal until a court makes that decision.  *
> *The word immigrant means a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country with or without property documentation.*
> *Having undocumented immigrants in the country does have some undeniably negative effects which the left would like to ignore.  Likewise there are benefits that the right prefers to ignore.  However, we should question how much of the negative effects are due to the lack of upward mobility and lack of absorption into our culture which is a direct result of being undocumented.  Without upward mobility and absorption, undocumented immigrants are frozen into a subculture that is unhealthy for them and the nation.     *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie because documentation has nothing to do with it.  If you document them, they are still an illegal alien.  The problem is they are criminals who violated sovereign US territory.  The problem is not that they didn't leave a paper trail when they did it.
> 
> So just to be clear, if I embezzle money, that's fine as long as I "document" it, right?  You're just the flat out dumbest people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Documentation has everything to do with it because documentation comes from the government as proof of the right to be in this country.  If Congress changes the laws and to make undocumented immigrants legal residents, they will receive documentation proving their right to be here.
> 
> Using your example it the government declares that embezzlement is not crime, you can not be arrested for embezzlement.  It may be morally wrong but won't be illegal.*
Click to expand...


NEGATIVE....@Flopper are you ever right about anything?
You’re trying hard....I see all the complex trivia you’re wanting to spin this in to. It’s cute, I wonder what part of that filthy shithole Mexico you’re from?
Illegal entry into the U.S. carries both criminal and civil penalties.
An illegal becomes an ILLEGAL ALIEN the second he / she steps on our soil without being permitted to do so. 
When one is caught red handed committing rape he/she immediately becomes a criminal rapist. Get it now?

*Illegal entry (or "improper entry") to the US carries criminal penalties (fines and jail or prison time), in addition to civil penalties and immigration consequences (deportation and bars from future entry).*
What Is Illegal Entry?
The immigration law actually uses the term "improper entry," which has a broad meaning. It’s more than just slipping across the U.S. border at an unguarded point. Improper entry can include:


entering or attempting to enter the United States at any time or place other than one designated by U.S. immigration officers (in other words, away from a border inspection point or other port of entry)
eluding examination or inspection by U.S. immigration officers (people have tried everything from digging tunnels to hiding in the trunk of a friend’s car)
attempting to enter or obtain entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or willful concealment of a material fact (which might include, for example, lying on a visa application or buying a false green card or other entry document).
(See Title 8, Section 1325 of the U.S. Code (U.S.C.), or Section 275 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (I.N.A.) for the exact statutory language - www.uscis.gov/laws/immigration-and-nationality-act.)

Criminal Penalties
For the first improper entry offense, the person can be fined (as a criminal penalty), or imprisoned for up to six months, or both.  For a subsequent offense, the person can be fined or imprisoned for up to two years, or both. (See 8 U.S.C. Section 1325, I.N.A. Section 275.)

But just in case that isn’t enough to deter illegal entrants, a separate section of the law adds penalties for reentry (or attempted reentry) in cases where the person  had been convicted of certain types of crimes and thus removed (deported) from the U.S.,  as follows:

(1) People removed for a conviction of three or more misdemeanors involving drugs, crimes against the person, or both, or a felony (other than an aggravated felony), shall be fined, imprisoned for up to ten years, or both.

(2) People removed for a conviction of an aggravated felony shall be fined, imprisoned for up to 20 years, or both.

(3) People who were excluded or removed from the United States for security reasons shall be fined, and imprisoned for up to ten years, which sentence shall not run concurrently with any other sentence.

(4) Nonviolent offenders who were removed from the United States before their prison sentence was up  shall be fined, imprisoned for up to ten years, or both.

What’s more, someone deported before a prison sentence was complete may be incarcerated for the remainder of the sentence of imprisonment, without any reduction for parole or supervised release. 

(See 8 U.S.C. Section 1326, I.N.A. Section 276.)

Civil Penalties
Entry (or attempted entry) at a place other than one designated by immigration officers carries additional civil penalties. The amount is at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or  twice that amount if the illegal entrant has been previously fined a civil penalty for the same violation. (See 8 U.S.C.  Section 1325, I.N.A. Section 275.)


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I think what you are seeing is undocumented immigrants that exist in many families of legal immigrants.  Undocumented immigrant do not assimilate primarily because they are undocumented.  They live in a subculture dominated by secrecy and fear.  They have to avoid associating with strangers, joining organizations that would call attentions to themselves.  Avoid employment in places that are unsafe. Avoid the  police.  Keep their children away from other kids believed to be unsafe.  Stay in areas where their are many Latinos. Also, family members that are legal citizens have to be careful not to expose the family to unwanted attention.  This is why so many undocumented immigrants hope to return someday to their country of origin so they can be free of the fear.  As the Mexican economy has improved over the last few years, many are doing just that.
> 
> Assimilation is one of the major benefits of legalization. Millions of people would be able to join the America culture, improve their education, get better jobs, open new businesses, and take part in their community.    *
> 
> 
> 
> No such things as "*undocumented immigrants"  *The correct term to identify these invaders is >>* "ILLEGAL ALIENS"  *They are neither "undocumented", nor are they "immigrants"
> 
> I've met thousands of them in 4 different states of the US (New York, Tennessee, California, and Florida).  They have plenty of documents.  I've spoken to them (in Spanish), and they (construction workers and janitors) have company photo ID cards, library cards, etc, etc
> 
> And they are not immigrants. Immigrants are people like my ancestors, who went through an official process of immigration with US immigration authorities.
> 
> In the words of the late Professor George Grayson, of William & Mary College in Virginia, a scholar in Mexican-American relations, >>
> 
> "To call an illegal alien an _"undocumented immigrant",_ is about equivalent to calling a bank robber _"an informal withdrawl agent"
> _
> But isn't it interesting hw you show so much sympathy for the illegal alien, while showing zero sympathy for the American citizens enduring the longlist of harms that these invaders bring to us.
> 
> *Harms* of Immigration
> 
> 1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).
> 
> 2. Wage reduction.
> 
> 3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).
> 
> 4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($138 Billion/year).
> 
> 5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.
> 
> 6. Increased crime.
> 
> 7. Increased traffic congestion.
> 
> 8. Increased pollution.
> 
> 9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.
> 
> 10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.
> 
> 11. Overcrowding in government offices.
> 
> 12. Overcrowding in schools.
> 
> 13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.
> 
> 14. Cultural erosion.
> 
> 15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)
> 
> 16. Introduction of foreign diseases
> 
> 17. Influx of terrorists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Undocumented Immigrant is the correct term because:*
> 
> *Undocumented refers to the lack of genuine documentation of the right to be in a country. The presence of a person in a country is not illegal until a court makes that decision.  *
> *The word immigrant means a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country with or without property documentation.*
> *Having undocumented immigrants in the country does have some undeniably negative effects which the left would like to ignore.  Likewise there are benefits that the right prefers to ignore.  However, we should question how much of the negative effects are due to the lack of upward mobility and lack of absorption into our culture which is a direct result of being undocumented.  Without upward mobility and absorption, undocumented immigrants are frozen into a subculture that is unhealthy for them and the nation.     *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie because documentation has nothing to do with it.  If you document them, they are still an illegal alien.  The problem is they are criminals who violated sovereign US territory.  The problem is not that they didn't leave a paper trail when they did it.
> 
> So just to be clear, if I embezzle money, that's fine as long as I "document" it, right?  You're just the flat out dumbest people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Documentation has everything to do with it because documentation comes from the government as proof of the right to be in this country.  If Congress changes the laws and to make undocumented immigrants legal residents, they will receive documentation proving their right to be here*
Click to expand...

*
IF YOU DOCUMENT THEM, THEY ARE STILL ILLEGAL ALIENS.

What about that don't you understand?  If you document them, then they are a documented illegal alien.  Being illegally in this country has nothing to do with the crime they committed.  Here, I wrote the name of the illegal alien on this piece of paper, Flopper.  Wow, they're documented now and still a criminal ...

We've documented the shit out of all the criminals in prison, and guess what, they are still criminals despite all the "documentation" ...



Flopper said:



			Using your example it the government declares that embezzlement is not crime, you can not be arrested for embezzlement.  It may be morally wrong but won't be illegal.
		
Click to expand...

*
That has nothing to do with my "example."  It's completely inane just like the guy who wrote it


----------



## kaz

dblack said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
Click to expand...


They are illegal

They are an alien

Being an illegal alien is a crime.

Explain what's misleading about that


----------



## dblack

kaz said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are illegal
> 
> They are an alien
> 
> Being an illegal alien is a crime.
> 
> Explain what's misleading about that
Click to expand...


Ok. It's misleading because the pussies who are so freaked out by immigrants aren't concerned about national security. They're just cowards who want to thwart their competition via government.


----------



## Pop23

BrokeLoser has appropriately assessed the situation. Thanks


----------



## BrokeLoser

dblack said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are illegal
> 
> They are an alien
> 
> Being an illegal alien is a crime.
> 
> Explain what's misleading about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok. It's misleading because the pussies who are so freaked out by immigrants aren't concerned about national security. They're just cowards who want to thwart their competition via government.
Click to expand...


You wouldn’t understand...you see, ALL good, decent people are “freaked out” by higher crime rates, traffic on highways, uninsured drivers, packed emergency rooms, overcrowded schools, overused public services such as fire and police, $12,000 to birth each anchor baby of the massive litter, $11,000 per year to school the anchor, Modello cans and shitty diapers littering our beaches and roadways, wetback flags flying on our soil, stray pit bulls throughout the filthy barrios, standing in line with jibber-jabber speaking illiterates at the grocery store...etc etc
Are you starting to get it yet?
Do you LefTards always prefer to live among the filthiest of people? Do you love to live in disgusting ghettos and barrios among criminals and immoral thirdworlders?


----------



## Flopper

dblack said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
Click to expand...

*Yes, if you're a picker, domestic worker, a semiskilled worker in the construction or stand in front of Home Depot looking for temporary work.   The solution is relatively simple but controversial.  Allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.  Then employers will have to pay the going rate for the job and won't be able to hire people below minimum wage. *


----------



## BrokeLoser

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, if you're a picker, domestic worker, a semiskilled worker in the construction or stand in front of Home Depot looking for temporary work.   The solution is relatively simple but controversial.  Allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.  Then employers will have to pay the going rate for the job and won't be able to hire people below minimum wage. *
Click to expand...



Haha...more backwards ass LefTard logic.
“Don’t enforce the law...just take the law off the books.”
“Don’t arrest the guy dealing heroin to our kids...just make heroin legal instead.”
Haha...holy shit...only in LibTardia!


----------



## Flopper

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I think what you are seeing is undocumented immigrants that exist in many families of legal immigrants.  Undocumented immigrant do not assimilate primarily because they are undocumented.  They live in a subculture dominated by secrecy and fear.  They have to avoid associating with strangers, joining organizations that would call attentions to themselves.  Avoid employment in places that are unsafe. Avoid the  police.  Keep their children away from other kids believed to be unsafe.  Stay in areas where their are many Latinos. Also, family members that are legal citizens have to be careful not to expose the family to unwanted attention.  This is why so many undocumented immigrants hope to return someday to their country of origin so they can be free of the fear.  As the Mexican economy has improved over the last few years, many are doing just that.
> 
> Assimilation is one of the major benefits of legalization. Millions of people would be able to join the America culture, improve their education, get better jobs, open new businesses, and take part in their community.    *
> 
> 
> 
> No such things as "*undocumented immigrants"  *The correct term to identify these invaders is >>* "ILLEGAL ALIENS"  *They are neither "undocumented", nor are they "immigrants"
> 
> I've met thousands of them in 4 different states of the US (New York, Tennessee, California, and Florida).  They have plenty of documents.  I've spoken to them (in Spanish), and they (construction workers and janitors) have company photo ID cards, library cards, etc, etc
> 
> And they are not immigrants. Immigrants are people like my ancestors, who went through an official process of immigration with US immigration authorities.
> 
> In the words of the late Professor George Grayson, of William & Mary College in Virginia, a scholar in Mexican-American relations, >>
> 
> "To call an illegal alien an _"undocumented immigrant",_ is about equivalent to calling a bank robber _"an informal withdrawl agent"
> _
> But isn't it interesting hw you show so much sympathy for the illegal alien, while showing zero sympathy for the American citizens enduring the longlist of harms that these invaders bring to us.
> 
> *Harms* of Immigration
> 
> 1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).
> 
> 2. Wage reduction.
> 
> 3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).
> 
> 4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($138 Billion/year).
> 
> 5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.
> 
> 6. Increased crime.
> 
> 7. Increased traffic congestion.
> 
> 8. Increased pollution.
> 
> 9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.
> 
> 10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.
> 
> 11. Overcrowding in government offices.
> 
> 12. Overcrowding in schools.
> 
> 13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.
> 
> 14. Cultural erosion.
> 
> 15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)
> 
> 16. Introduction of foreign diseases
> 
> 17. Influx of terrorists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Undocumented Immigrant is the correct term because:*
> 
> *Undocumented refers to the lack of genuine documentation of the right to be in a country. The presence of a person in a country is not illegal until a court makes that decision.  *
> *The word immigrant means a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country with or without property documentation.*
> *Having undocumented immigrants in the country does have some undeniably negative effects which the left would like to ignore.  Likewise there are benefits that the right prefers to ignore.  However, we should question how much of the negative effects are due to the lack of upward mobility and lack of absorption into our culture which is a direct result of being undocumented.  Without upward mobility and absorption, undocumented immigrants are frozen into a subculture that is unhealthy for them and the nation.     *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie because documentation has nothing to do with it.  If you document them, they are still an illegal alien.  The problem is they are criminals who violated sovereign US territory.  The problem is not that they didn't leave a paper trail when they did it.
> 
> So just to be clear, if I embezzle money, that's fine as long as I "document" it, right?  You're just the flat out dumbest people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Documentation has everything to do with it because documentation comes from the government as proof of the right to be in this country.  If Congress changes the laws and to make undocumented immigrants legal residents, they will receive documentation proving their right to be here*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> IF YOU DOCUMENT THEM, THEY ARE STILL ILLEGAL ALIENS.
> 
> What about that don't you understand?  If you document them, then they are a documented illegal alien.  Being illegally in this country has nothing to do with the crime they committed.  Here, I wrote the name of the illegal alien on this piece of paper, Flopper.  Wow, they're documented now and still a criminal ...
> 
> We've documented the shit out of all the criminals in prison, and guess what, they are still criminals despite all the "documentation" ...
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using your example it the government declares that embezzlement is not crime, you can not be arrested for embezzlement.  It may be morally wrong but won't be illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> That has nothing to do with my "example."  It's completely inane just like the guy who wrote it
Click to expand...

*Apparently, you do not understand my point.  I'm not saying we just give documentation to undocumented immigrants.  That would never work.  I'm saying we provide them documentation because congress makes undocumented immigrants, legal residents.  

Then they will be able assimilate within our society, serve in military, get more education, get jobs based on their skills, open businesses. There kids will be able to stay in school and finish high school, and even attend college.  In other words, we allow them to become productive members of society. *


----------



## JakeStarkey

The fact is that the Alt Right hates any immigrant, legal as well as illegal, and those of color in particular.


----------



## kaz

dblack said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are illegal
> 
> They are an alien
> 
> Being an illegal alien is a crime.
> 
> Explain what's misleading about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok. It's misleading because the pussies who are so freaked out by immigrants aren't concerned about national security. They're just cowards who want to thwart their competition via government.
Click to expand...


We're talking about illegal aliens, not "immigrants," leftist hack Democrat


----------



## kaz

BrokeLoser said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are illegal
> 
> They are an alien
> 
> Being an illegal alien is a crime.
> 
> Explain what's misleading about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok. It's misleading because the pussies who are so freaked out by immigrants aren't concerned about national security. They're just cowards who want to thwart their competition via government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wouldn’t understand...you see, ALL good, decent people are “freaked out” by higher crime rates, traffic on highways, uninsured drivers, packed emergency rooms, overcrowded schools, overused public services such as fire and police, $12,000 to birth each anchor baby of the massive litter, $11,000 per year to school the anchor, Modello cans and shitty diapers littering our beaches and roadways, wetback flags flying on our soil, stray pit bulls throughout the filthy barrios, standing in line with jibber-jabber speaking illiterates at the grocery store...etc etc
> Are you starting to get it yet?
> Do you LefTards always prefer to live among the filthiest of people? Do you love to live in disgusting ghettos and barrios among criminals and immoral thirdworlders?
Click to expand...


He's just shilling for the Democrat party.  He doesn't even know what he's saying.  He thinks we're talking about "immigrants."  He doesn't grasp the difference between an illegal alien and an immigrant.  He doesn't grasp the difference between a shop lifter and a customer.  He doesn't understand the difference between a burglar in your house and a guest you invited for dinner. 

dblack's an idiot like the rest of the Democrat party.  When you trap him by talking about facts and logic and things like that, knowing he has nothing else he starts talking about racism


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, if you're a picker, domestic worker, a semiskilled worker in the construction or stand in front of Home Depot looking for temporary work.   The solution is relatively simple but controversial.  Allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.  Then employers will have to pay the going rate for the job and won't be able to hire people below minimum wage. *
Click to expand...


Or just throw them and their families asses out of this country.


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, if you're a picker, domestic worker, a semiskilled worker in the construction or stand in front of Home Depot looking for temporary work.   The solution is relatively simple but controversial.  Allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.  Then employers will have to pay the going rate for the job and won't be able to hire people below minimum wage. *
Click to expand...


That's what businesses want, more criminals available for hire.  At least you admit your support of illegal immigration


----------



## Pop23

The fact is that the progressive left hates legal immigrants, but loves lawlessness, particularly by those of color, is duly noted


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> No such things as "*undocumented immigrants"  *The correct term to identify these invaders is >>* "ILLEGAL ALIENS"  *They are neither "undocumented", nor are they "immigrants"
> 
> I've met thousands of them in 4 different states of the US (New York, Tennessee, California, and Florida).  They have plenty of documents.  I've spoken to them (in Spanish), and they (construction workers and janitors) have company photo ID cards, library cards, etc, etc
> 
> And they are not immigrants. Immigrants are people like my ancestors, who went through an official process of immigration with US immigration authorities.
> 
> In the words of the late Professor George Grayson, of William & Mary College in Virginia, a scholar in Mexican-American relations, >>
> 
> "To call an illegal alien an _"undocumented immigrant",_ is about equivalent to calling a bank robber _"an informal withdrawl agent"
> _
> But isn't it interesting hw you show so much sympathy for the illegal alien, while showing zero sympathy for the American citizens enduring the longlist of harms that these invaders bring to us.
> 
> *Harms* of Immigration
> 
> 1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).
> 
> 2. Wage reduction.
> 
> 3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).
> 
> 4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($138 Billion/year).
> 
> 5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.
> 
> 6. Increased crime.
> 
> 7. Increased traffic congestion.
> 
> 8. Increased pollution.
> 
> 9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.
> 
> 10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.
> 
> 11. Overcrowding in government offices.
> 
> 12. Overcrowding in schools.
> 
> 13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.
> 
> 14. Cultural erosion.
> 
> 15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)
> 
> 16. Introduction of foreign diseases
> 
> 17. Influx of terrorists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Undocumented Immigrant is the correct term because:*
> 
> *Undocumented refers to the lack of genuine documentation of the right to be in a country. The presence of a person in a country is not illegal until a court makes that decision.  *
> *The word immigrant means a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country with or without property documentation.*
> *Having undocumented immigrants in the country does have some undeniably negative effects which the left would like to ignore.  Likewise there are benefits that the right prefers to ignore.  However, we should question how much of the negative effects are due to the lack of upward mobility and lack of absorption into our culture which is a direct result of being undocumented.  Without upward mobility and absorption, undocumented immigrants are frozen into a subculture that is unhealthy for them and the nation.     *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie because documentation has nothing to do with it.  If you document them, they are still an illegal alien.  The problem is they are criminals who violated sovereign US territory.  The problem is not that they didn't leave a paper trail when they did it.
> 
> So just to be clear, if I embezzle money, that's fine as long as I "document" it, right?  You're just the flat out dumbest people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Documentation has everything to do with it because documentation comes from the government as proof of the right to be in this country.  If Congress changes the laws and to make undocumented immigrants legal residents, they will receive documentation proving their right to be here*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> IF YOU DOCUMENT THEM, THEY ARE STILL ILLEGAL ALIENS.
> 
> What about that don't you understand?  If you document them, then they are a documented illegal alien.  Being illegally in this country has nothing to do with the crime they committed.  Here, I wrote the name of the illegal alien on this piece of paper, Flopper.  Wow, they're documented now and still a criminal ...
> 
> We've documented the shit out of all the criminals in prison, and guess what, they are still criminals despite all the "documentation" ...
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using your example it the government declares that embezzlement is not crime, you can not be arrested for embezzlement.  It may be morally wrong but won't be illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> That has nothing to do with my "example."  It's completely inane just like the guy who wrote it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Apparently, you do not understand my point.  I'm not saying we just give documentation to undocumented immigrants.  That would never work.  I'm saying we provide them documentation because congress makes undocumented immigrants, legal residents.
> 
> Then they will be able assimilate within our society, serve in military, get more education, get jobs based on their skills, open businesses. There kids will be able to stay in school and finish high school, and even attend college.  In other words, we allow them to become productive members of society. *
Click to expand...


People in prison have had the shit documented out of them.  So why can't they leave?  You just want to document criminals coming in from Mexico, why doesn't documenting other criminals make their crimes OK?


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, if you're a picker, domestic worker, a semiskilled worker in the construction or stand in front of Home Depot looking for temporary work.   The solution is relatively simple but controversial.  Allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.  Then employers will have to pay the going rate for the job and won't be able to hire people below minimum wage. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or just throw them and their families asses out of this country.
Click to expand...


I think I get the problem with tax fraud.  By not declaring something, we haven't documented it.  Flopper's pointing out that the problem wasn't paying the taxes, it's not documenting the fraud.

I'm looking forward to Flopper documenting the writeoffs he isn't entitled to and testing his theory and sending it in to the IRS.

before:

Taxpayer doesn't declare $20K in overseas income, evades $6,000 in taxes.  Gets arrested.

now:

Dear IRS.  This is Flopper.  I wanted to document that I am not paying taxes on $20,000 in overseas income.  I didn't want you coming after me for not documenting it.

Yours truly, Flopper.

PS: A lot of the gas I wrote off as business expenses were actually for beer and cigarettes that I bought at the gas station.

Dear Flopper.  This is the IRS.  Thank you for the documentation of your tax fraud.  That's all we ask, all's good.


----------



## Flopper

BrokeLoser said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, if you're a picker, domestic worker, a semiskilled worker in the construction or stand in front of Home Depot looking for temporary work.   The solution is relatively simple but controversial.  Allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.  Then employers will have to pay the going rate for the job and won't be able to hire people below minimum wage. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...more backwards ass LefTard logic.
> “Don’t enforce the law...just take the law off the books.”
> “Don’t arrest the guy dealing heroin to our kids...just make heroin legal instead.”
> Haha...holy shit...only in LibTardia!
Click to expand...

*When laws don't work, we change them.  We had prohibition for over a decade, tried to use federal law enforcement, then local law enforcement.  We closed up saloons, stopped shipments coming from outside the country, jailed saloon owners and bootleggers.  After a decade, we came to our senses and changed the law and made the entire industry legal.

Illegal Immigration has been a problem now for over 60 years. Deportation and building fences and walls have  never work and never will because most of the people in the country don't support it.  In fact, a large percent of republicans about 35% and 90% of democrats don't agree with Trump. Six states and hundreds of cities and towns refuse to cooperate with the immigration service. To make our immigration laws work, we would need strong continuing support from both sides which we don't have.  When Trump issue orders to change immigration policy around country, democrats will just reverse it when they get in power.  We have to come up with new ideas, if not nothing is going change over the long run.  *


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, if you're a picker, domestic worker, a semiskilled worker in the construction or stand in front of Home Depot looking for temporary work.   The solution is relatively simple but controversial.  Allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.  Then employers will have to pay the going rate for the job and won't be able to hire people below minimum wage. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...more backwards ass LefTard logic.
> “Don’t enforce the law...just take the law off the books.”
> “Don’t arrest the guy dealing heroin to our kids...just make heroin legal instead.”
> Haha...holy shit...only in LibTardia!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When laws don't work, we change them.  We had prohibition for over a decade, tried to use federal law enforcement, then local law enforcement.  We closed up saloons, stopped shipments coming from outside the country, jailed saloon owners and bootleggers.  After a decade, we came to our senses and changed the law and made the entire industry legal.
> 
> Illegal Immigration has been a problem now for over 60 years. Deportation and building fences and walls have  never work and never will because most of the people in the country don't support it.  In fact, a large percent of republicans about 35% and 90% of democrats don't agree with Trump. Six states and hundreds of cities and towns refuse to cooperate with the immigration service. To make our immigration laws work, we would need strong continuing support from both sides which we don't have.  When Trump issue orders to change immigration policy around country, democrats will just reverse it when they get in power.  We have to come up with new ideas, if not nothing is going change over the long run.  *
Click to expand...


You're not asking to "change" the law, you're arguing that since people are coming here illegally, make them legal.  You're for unlimited illegal immigration, only you want to make it legal.  That has nothing to do with "documentation"


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, if you're a picker, domestic worker, a semiskilled worker in the construction or stand in front of Home Depot looking for temporary work.   The solution is relatively simple but controversial.  Allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.  Then employers will have to pay the going rate for the job and won't be able to hire people below minimum wage. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...more backwards ass LefTard logic.
> “Don’t enforce the law...just take the law off the books.”
> “Don’t arrest the guy dealing heroin to our kids...just make heroin legal instead.”
> Haha...holy shit...only in LibTardia!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When laws don't work, we change them.  We had prohibition for over a decade, tried to use federal law enforcement, then local law enforcement.  We closed up saloons, stopped shipments coming from outside the country, jailed saloon owners and bootleggers.  After a decade, we came to our senses and changed the law and made the entire industry legal.
> 
> Illegal Immigration has been a problem now for over 60 years. Deportation and building fences and walls have  never work and never will because most of the people in the country don't support it.  In fact, a large percent of republicans about 35% and 90% of democrats don't agree with Trump. Six states and hundreds of cities and towns refuse to cooperate with the immigration service. To make our immigration laws work, we would need strong continuing support from both sides which we don't have.  When Trump issue orders to change immigration policy around country, democrats will just reverse it when they get in power.  We have to come up with new ideas, if not nothing is going change over the long run.  *
Click to expand...


Do you notice with immigration laws, you want to "change" them by eliminating them.

With gun laws, you want to change them by further restricting them.  So out of curiosity, how do you decide when you want to change laws by eliminating them and when you want to change laws by restricting our Constitutional rights?  Your formula seems to be whatever the Democrat party tells you to think.  Is that it?


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, if you're a picker, domestic worker, a semiskilled worker in the construction or stand in front of Home Depot looking for temporary work.   The solution is relatively simple but controversial.  Allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.  Then employers will have to pay the going rate for the job and won't be able to hire people below minimum wage. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or just throw them and their families asses out of this country.
Click to expand...




Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, if you're a picker, domestic worker, a semiskilled worker in the construction or stand in front of Home Depot looking for temporary work.   The solution is relatively simple but controversial.  Allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.  Then employers will have to pay the going rate for the job and won't be able to hire people below minimum wage. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or just throw them and their families asses out of this country.
Click to expand...

*Yeah, how well has that worked.  It's estimated that we have deported about 10 million people in the last hundred years.  As the number of deportations have risen so have the number of undocumented immigrants residing in the US.  Today it's what? 9 million, 11, million, 15 million?  Nobody really knows. *


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, if you're a picker, domestic worker, a semiskilled worker in the construction or stand in front of Home Depot looking for temporary work.   The solution is relatively simple but controversial.  Allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.  Then employers will have to pay the going rate for the job and won't be able to hire people below minimum wage. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...more backwards ass LefTard logic.
> “Don’t enforce the law...just take the law off the books.”
> “Don’t arrest the guy dealing heroin to our kids...just make heroin legal instead.”
> Haha...holy shit...only in LibTardia!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When laws don't work, we change them.  We had prohibition for over a decade, tried to use federal law enforcement, then local law enforcement.  We closed up saloons, stopped shipments coming from outside the country, jailed saloon owners and bootleggers.  After a decade, we came to our senses and changed the law and made the entire industry legal.
> 
> Illegal Immigration has been a problem now for over 60 years. Deportation and building fences and walls have  never work and never will because most of the people in the country don't support it.  In fact, a large percent of republicans about 35% and 90% of democrats don't agree with Trump. Six states and hundreds of cities and towns refuse to cooperate with the immigration service. To make our immigration laws work, we would need strong continuing support from both sides which we don't have.  When Trump issue orders to change immigration policy around country, democrats will just reverse it when they get in power.  We have to come up with new ideas, if not nothing is going change over the long run.  *
Click to expand...


Maybe, but the one thing Democrats won't be able to reverse is a wall; that's why they are fighting so hard against it.  

We've been fighting illegal narcotics for over 60 years, and the problem is worse now than it's ever been.  Is that a reason to scrap recreational narcotics laws?  

You are right about one thing, and that is if laws don't work--change them.  Make it more difficult to cross our borders, increase penalties on those who hire illegals, make first time crossers a felony carrying a minimum five year prison sentence if caught, greatly reduce Visa's and work permits, hold Mexico responsible for their people sneaking into our country.


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, if you're a picker, domestic worker, a semiskilled worker in the construction or stand in front of Home Depot looking for temporary work.   The solution is relatively simple but controversial.  Allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.  Then employers will have to pay the going rate for the job and won't be able to hire people below minimum wage. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...more backwards ass LefTard logic.
> “Don’t enforce the law...just take the law off the books.”
> “Don’t arrest the guy dealing heroin to our kids...just make heroin legal instead.”
> Haha...holy shit...only in LibTardia!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When laws don't work, we change them.  We had prohibition for over a decade, tried to use federal law enforcement, then local law enforcement.  We closed up saloons, stopped shipments coming from outside the country, jailed saloon owners and bootleggers.  After a decade, we came to our senses and changed the law and made the entire industry legal.
> 
> Illegal Immigration has been a problem now for over 60 years. Deportation and building fences and walls have  never work and never will because most of the people in the country don't support it.  In fact, a large percent of republicans about 35% and 90% of democrats don't agree with Trump. Six states and hundreds of cities and towns refuse to cooperate with the immigration service. To make our immigration laws work, we would need strong continuing support from both sides which we don't have.  When Trump issue orders to change immigration policy around country, democrats will just reverse it when they get in power.  We have to come up with new ideas, if not nothing is going change over the long run.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, but the one thing Democrats won't be able to reverse is a wall; that's why they are fighting so hard against it.
Click to expand...

Heh. What make you think it can't be reversed?


----------



## Manonthestreet

‘DREAMER’ Sodomized Multiple Boys, Between The Ages 7 and 9


----------



## Flopper

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, if you're a picker, domestic worker, a semiskilled worker in the construction or stand in front of Home Depot looking for temporary work.   The solution is relatively simple but controversial.  Allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.  Then employers will have to pay the going rate for the job and won't be able to hire people below minimum wage. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...more backwards ass LefTard logic.
> “Don’t enforce the law...just take the law off the books.”
> “Don’t arrest the guy dealing heroin to our kids...just make heroin legal instead.”
> Haha...holy shit...only in LibTardia!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When laws don't work, we change them.  We had prohibition for over a decade, tried to use federal law enforcement, then local law enforcement.  We closed up saloons, stopped shipments coming from outside the country, jailed saloon owners and bootleggers.  After a decade, we came to our senses and changed the law and made the entire industry legal.
> 
> Illegal Immigration has been a problem now for over 60 years. Deportation and building fences and walls have  never work and never will because most of the people in the country don't support it.  In fact, a large percent of republicans about 35% and 90% of democrats don't agree with Trump. Six states and hundreds of cities and towns refuse to cooperate with the immigration service. To make our immigration laws work, we would need strong continuing support from both sides which we don't have.  When Trump issue orders to change immigration policy around country, democrats will just reverse it when they get in power.  We have to come up with new ideas, if not nothing is going change over the long run.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you notice with immigration laws, you want to "change" them by eliminating them.
> 
> With gun laws, you want to change them by further restricting them.  So out of curiosity, how do you decide when you want to change laws by eliminating them and when you want to change laws by restricting our Constitutional rights?  Your formula seems to be whatever the Democrat party tells you to think.  Is that it?
Click to expand...

*No, I want to change them.  I want to give legal status (not sure exactly what), to undocumented immigrants that can show they have resided in the country as of a certain date.  The legalization period would only last a short period and would not be available to anyone convicted of a felony.  I would provide a path to citizenship, increase work permits and quotas.  Increase border security which would include fencing, walls, electronic surveillance, and additional personnel where needed.  I would tighten laws on employing undocumented immigrants, enhance E-Verify and make it a hiring requirement.  I would have a Visa tracking system that worked, require monitoring all detainees released on their on their on recognizance.  And that's for starters.    *


----------



## JakeStarkey

Manonthestreet said:


> ‘DREAMER’ Sodomized Multiple Boys, Between The Ages 7 and 9


So have Baptist pastors, I am sure.

What is your point?


----------



## Manonthestreet

JakeStarkey said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> ‘DREAMER’ Sodomized Multiple Boys, Between The Ages 7 and 9
> 
> 
> 
> So have Baptist pastors, I am sure.
> 
> What is your point?
Click to expand...

Very compassionate answer......


----------



## JakeStarkey

Manonthestreet said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> ‘DREAMER’ Sodomized Multiple Boys, Between The Ages 7 and 9
> 
> 
> 
> So have Baptist pastors, I am sure.
> 
> What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very compassionate answer......
Click to expand...

I doubt that was your point.  Let's stay in the ball park.


----------



## Doc1

Flopper said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, if you're a picker, domestic worker, a semiskilled worker in the construction or stand in front of Home Depot looking for temporary work.   The solution is relatively simple but controversial.  Allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.  Then employers will have to pay the going rate for the job and won't be able to hire people below minimum wage. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...more backwards ass LefTard logic.
> “Don’t enforce the law...just take the law off the books.”
> “Don’t arrest the guy dealing heroin to our kids...just make heroin legal instead.”
> Haha...holy shit...only in LibTardia!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When laws don't work, we change them.  We had prohibition for over a decade, tried to use federal law enforcement, then local law enforcement.  We closed up saloons, stopped shipments coming from outside the country, jailed saloon owners and bootleggers.  After a decade, we came to our senses and changed the law and made the entire industry legal.
> 
> Illegal Immigration has been a problem now for over 60 years. Deportation and building fences and walls have  never work and never will because most of the people in the country don't support it.  In fact, a large percent of republicans about 35% and 90% of democrats don't agree with Trump. Six states and hundreds of cities and towns refuse to cooperate with the immigration service. To make our immigration laws work, we would need strong continuing support from both sides which we don't have.  When Trump issue orders to change immigration policy around country, democrats will just reverse it when they get in power.  We have to come up with new ideas, if not nothing is going change over the long run.  *
Click to expand...


So just throw open ALL borders and sing "We Are The World".


----------



## Manonthestreet

JakeStarkey said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> ‘DREAMER’ Sodomized Multiple Boys, Between The Ages 7 and 9
> 
> 
> 
> So have Baptist pastors, I am sure.
> 
> What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very compassionate answer......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt that was your point.  Let's stay in the ball park.
Click to expand...

I doubt you know what any point is


----------



## JakeStarkey

The point is this: look up fallacy of hasty generalization.

If you can quantify quite a number of such incidents, you have a point.

Right now: you don't.


----------



## Picaro

The scum who encourage criminal illegal immigration are solely responsible for any 'Evil' that comes out enforcing our immigration laws. Nobody else but them and the illegals themselves, so quit trying to sell us on how 'concerned' the fake left is over 'The Children'; it's a load of hypocritical rubbish. They could care less about 'The Children', and we know this because these liars and fake 'progressives' never, ever step up and offer to personally sponsor a single one of them, ever. They're racists trying to bring in supporters of their own violent racist agendas, period.

Quit pissing on our legs and then trying to claim it's raining. You're liars and frauds. There are far more than enough of you vermin to sponsor every single one of the kids you lie about feeling sorry for, and we all know it. We should be deporting your ilk right along with the illegals. That is the proper thing to do.


----------



## Godboy

HappyJoy said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
Click to expand...

If they have criminal parents, what do you suggest? Let the criminals go because they need to take care of their kids? If i go commit a crime and im sentenced to jail time, can i tell the judge i have a kid to get out of it? Why should illegal immigrants be any different?


----------



## dblack

Doc1 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, if you're a picker, domestic worker, a semiskilled worker in the construction or stand in front of Home Depot looking for temporary work.   The solution is relatively simple but controversial.  Allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.  Then employers will have to pay the going rate for the job and won't be able to hire people below minimum wage. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...more backwards ass LefTard logic.
> “Don’t enforce the law...just take the law off the books.”
> “Don’t arrest the guy dealing heroin to our kids...just make heroin legal instead.”
> Haha...holy shit...only in LibTardia!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When laws don't work, we change them.  We had prohibition for over a decade, tried to use federal law enforcement, then local law enforcement.  We closed up saloons, stopped shipments coming from outside the country, jailed saloon owners and bootleggers.  After a decade, we came to our senses and changed the law and made the entire industry legal.
> 
> Illegal Immigration has been a problem now for over 60 years. Deportation and building fences and walls have  never work and never will because most of the people in the country don't support it.  In fact, a large percent of republicans about 35% and 90% of democrats don't agree with Trump. Six states and hundreds of cities and towns refuse to cooperate with the immigration service. To make our immigration laws work, we would need strong continuing support from both sides which we don't have.  When Trump issue orders to change immigration policy around country, democrats will just reverse it when they get in power.  We have to come up with new ideas, if not nothing is going change over the long run.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So just throw open ALL borders and sing "We Are The World".
Click to expand...


Of course that wouldn't happen. Freedom is messy and, if you believe our leaders, very scary! But it's better than hiding behind a wall.


----------



## Doc1

dblack said:


> Doc1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, if you're a picker, domestic worker, a semiskilled worker in the construction or stand in front of Home Depot looking for temporary work.   The solution is relatively simple but controversial.  Allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.  Then employers will have to pay the going rate for the job and won't be able to hire people below minimum wage. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...more backwards ass LefTard logic.
> “Don’t enforce the law...just take the law off the books.”
> “Don’t arrest the guy dealing heroin to our kids...just make heroin legal instead.”
> Haha...holy shit...only in LibTardia!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When laws don't work, we change them.  We had prohibition for over a decade, tried to use federal law enforcement, then local law enforcement.  We closed up saloons, stopped shipments coming from outside the country, jailed saloon owners and bootleggers.  After a decade, we came to our senses and changed the law and made the entire industry legal.
> 
> Illegal Immigration has been a problem now for over 60 years. Deportation and building fences and walls have  never work and never will because most of the people in the country don't support it.  In fact, a large percent of republicans about 35% and 90% of democrats don't agree with Trump. Six states and hundreds of cities and towns refuse to cooperate with the immigration service. To make our immigration laws work, we would need strong continuing support from both sides which we don't have.  When Trump issue orders to change immigration policy around country, democrats will just reverse it when they get in power.  We have to come up with new ideas, if not nothing is going change over the long run.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So just throw open ALL borders and sing "We Are The World".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course that wouldn't happen. Freedom is messy and, if you believe our leaders, very scary! But it's better than hiding behind a wall.
Click to expand...


Borders are Borders. Nobody is hiding. We can't pay for everybody. It's a hard truth, but they need to stay and improve their own Nations.


----------



## MaryL

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


I agree, this is evil. Parents shouldn't leverage their children as a hedge against being penalized for willingly  violating a law...ANY LAW.  It is beyond cynical into the realm of disgusting to use your parenthood and your children to this degree. They throw their kids under the bus and WE have to catch them...really?


----------



## dblack

Doc1 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doc1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, if you're a picker, domestic worker, a semiskilled worker in the construction or stand in front of Home Depot looking for temporary work.   The solution is relatively simple but controversial.  Allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.  Then employers will have to pay the going rate for the job and won't be able to hire people below minimum wage. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...more backwards ass LefTard logic.
> “Don’t enforce the law...just take the law off the books.”
> “Don’t arrest the guy dealing heroin to our kids...just make heroin legal instead.”
> Haha...holy shit...only in LibTardia!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When laws don't work, we change them.  We had prohibition for over a decade, tried to use federal law enforcement, then local law enforcement.  We closed up saloons, stopped shipments coming from outside the country, jailed saloon owners and bootleggers.  After a decade, we came to our senses and changed the law and made the entire industry legal.
> 
> Illegal Immigration has been a problem now for over 60 years. Deportation and building fences and walls have  never work and never will because most of the people in the country don't support it.  In fact, a large percent of republicans about 35% and 90% of democrats don't agree with Trump. Six states and hundreds of cities and towns refuse to cooperate with the immigration service. To make our immigration laws work, we would need strong continuing support from both sides which we don't have.  When Trump issue orders to change immigration policy around country, democrats will just reverse it when they get in power.  We have to come up with new ideas, if not nothing is going change over the long run.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So just throw open ALL borders and sing "We Are The World".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course that wouldn't happen. Freedom is messy and, if you believe our leaders, very scary! But it's better than hiding behind a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Borders are Borders. Nobody is hiding. We can't pay for everybody. It's a hard truth, but they need to stay and improve their own Nations.
Click to expand...


If you don't want immigrants getting welfare, fine. I'll help you fight that battle. But that's no excuse to go all gulag.


----------



## skews13

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​



Any cost is acceptable if you're a trumpoid. Life is cheap to a trumpoid. Unless of course you are pandering to evangelical trumpoids for votes.


----------



## Doc1

dblack said:


> Doc1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doc1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...more backwards ass LefTard logic.
> “Don’t enforce the law...just take the law off the books.”
> “Don’t arrest the guy dealing heroin to our kids...just make heroin legal instead.”
> Haha...holy shit...only in LibTardia!
> 
> 
> 
> *When laws don't work, we change them.  We had prohibition for over a decade, tried to use federal law enforcement, then local law enforcement.  We closed up saloons, stopped shipments coming from outside the country, jailed saloon owners and bootleggers.  After a decade, we came to our senses and changed the law and made the entire industry legal.
> 
> Illegal Immigration has been a problem now for over 60 years. Deportation and building fences and walls have  never work and never will because most of the people in the country don't support it.  In fact, a large percent of republicans about 35% and 90% of democrats don't agree with Trump. Six states and hundreds of cities and towns refuse to cooperate with the immigration service. To make our immigration laws work, we would need strong continuing support from both sides which we don't have.  When Trump issue orders to change immigration policy around country, democrats will just reverse it when they get in power.  We have to come up with new ideas, if not nothing is going change over the long run.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So just throw open ALL borders and sing "We Are The World".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course that wouldn't happen. Freedom is messy and, if you believe our leaders, very scary! But it's better than hiding behind a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Borders are Borders. Nobody is hiding. We can't pay for everybody. It's a hard truth, but they need to stay and improve their own Nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't want immigrants getting welfare, fine. I'll help you fight that battle. But that's no excuse to go all gulag.
Click to expand...


So you want to admit folks who can't take care of themselves. (forehead slap)


----------



## dblack

Doc1 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doc1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doc1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *When laws don't work, we change them.  We had prohibition for over a decade, tried to use federal law enforcement, then local law enforcement.  We closed up saloons, stopped shipments coming from outside the country, jailed saloon owners and bootleggers.  After a decade, we came to our senses and changed the law and made the entire industry legal.
> 
> Illegal Immigration has been a problem now for over 60 years. Deportation and building fences and walls have  never work and never will because most of the people in the country don't support it.  In fact, a large percent of republicans about 35% and 90% of democrats don't agree with Trump. Six states and hundreds of cities and towns refuse to cooperate with the immigration service. To make our immigration laws work, we would need strong continuing support from both sides which we don't have.  When Trump issue orders to change immigration policy around country, democrats will just reverse it when they get in power.  We have to come up with new ideas, if not nothing is going change over the long run.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So just throw open ALL borders and sing "We Are The World".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course that wouldn't happen. Freedom is messy and, if you believe our leaders, very scary! But it's better than hiding behind a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Borders are Borders. Nobody is hiding. We can't pay for everybody. It's a hard truth, but they need to stay and improve their own Nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't want immigrants getting welfare, fine. I'll help you fight that battle. But that's no excuse to go all gulag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want to admit folks who can't take care of themselves. (forehead slap)
Click to expand...

Nope. Try again.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, if you're a picker, domestic worker, a semiskilled worker in the construction or stand in front of Home Depot looking for temporary work.   The solution is relatively simple but controversial.  Allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.  Then employers will have to pay the going rate for the job and won't be able to hire people below minimum wage. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...more backwards ass LefTard logic.
> “Don’t enforce the law...just take the law off the books.”
> “Don’t arrest the guy dealing heroin to our kids...just make heroin legal instead.”
> Haha...holy shit...only in LibTardia!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When laws don't work, we change them.  We had prohibition for over a decade, tried to use federal law enforcement, then local law enforcement.  We closed up saloons, stopped shipments coming from outside the country, jailed saloon owners and bootleggers.  After a decade, we came to our senses and changed the law and made the entire industry legal.
> 
> Illegal Immigration has been a problem now for over 60 years. Deportation and building fences and walls have  never work and never will because most of the people in the country don't support it.  In fact, a large percent of republicans about 35% and 90% of democrats don't agree with Trump. Six states and hundreds of cities and towns refuse to cooperate with the immigration service. To make our immigration laws work, we would need strong continuing support from both sides which we don't have.  When Trump issue orders to change immigration policy around country, democrats will just reverse it when they get in power.  We have to come up with new ideas, if not nothing is going change over the long run.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, but the one thing Democrats won't be able to reverse is a wall; that's why they are fighting so hard against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heh. What make you think it can't be reversed?
Click to expand...


What do you think they would do, tear down a 30 billion dollar wall?  That would be political suicide.


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, if you're a picker, domestic worker, a semiskilled worker in the construction or stand in front of Home Depot looking for temporary work.   The solution is relatively simple but controversial.  Allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.  Then employers will have to pay the going rate for the job and won't be able to hire people below minimum wage. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...more backwards ass LefTard logic.
> “Don’t enforce the law...just take the law off the books.”
> “Don’t arrest the guy dealing heroin to our kids...just make heroin legal instead.”
> Haha...holy shit...only in LibTardia!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When laws don't work, we change them.  We had prohibition for over a decade, tried to use federal law enforcement, then local law enforcement.  We closed up saloons, stopped shipments coming from outside the country, jailed saloon owners and bootleggers.  After a decade, we came to our senses and changed the law and made the entire industry legal.
> 
> Illegal Immigration has been a problem now for over 60 years. Deportation and building fences and walls have  never work and never will because most of the people in the country don't support it.  In fact, a large percent of republicans about 35% and 90% of democrats don't agree with Trump. Six states and hundreds of cities and towns refuse to cooperate with the immigration service. To make our immigration laws work, we would need strong continuing support from both sides which we don't have.  When Trump issue orders to change immigration policy around country, democrats will just reverse it when they get in power.  We have to come up with new ideas, if not nothing is going change over the long run.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, but the one thing Democrats won't be able to reverse is a wall; that's why they are fighting so hard against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heh. What make you think it can't be reversed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think they would do, tear down a 30 billion dollar wall?  That would be political suicide.
Click to expand...

Uh huh...


----------



## Flopper

Doc1 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, if you're a picker, domestic worker, a semiskilled worker in the construction or stand in front of Home Depot looking for temporary work.   The solution is relatively simple but controversial.  Allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.  Then employers will have to pay the going rate for the job and won't be able to hire people below minimum wage. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...more backwards ass LefTard logic.
> “Don’t enforce the law...just take the law off the books.”
> “Don’t arrest the guy dealing heroin to our kids...just make heroin legal instead.”
> Haha...holy shit...only in LibTardia!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When laws don't work, we change them.  We had prohibition for over a decade, tried to use federal law enforcement, then local law enforcement.  We closed up saloons, stopped shipments coming from outside the country, jailed saloon owners and bootleggers.  After a decade, we came to our senses and changed the law and made the entire industry legal.
> 
> Illegal Immigration has been a problem now for over 60 years. Deportation and building fences and walls have  never work and never will because most of the people in the country don't support it.  In fact, a large percent of republicans about 35% and 90% of democrats don't agree with Trump. Six states and hundreds of cities and towns refuse to cooperate with the immigration service. To make our immigration laws work, we would need strong continuing support from both sides which we don't have.  When Trump issue orders to change immigration policy around country, democrats will just reverse it when they get in power.  We have to come up with new ideas, if not nothing is going change over the long run.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So just throw open ALL borders and sing "We Are The World".
Click to expand...

*That's not what I proposed.  Maybe you have a reading problem but once again, I proposed a limited legalization program available only to non-felons for a limited period of time for those who could prove they have been residents in the country for a specified period.  I also proposed a number of items that would increase boarder security, restrict jobs for those crossing the boarder illegally, lessen the desire to enter illegally by making more work permits available, and tracking down those that overstay visas.   Solving the immigration problem is not that hard.  Getting an agreement between the two sides is almost impossible.*


----------



## JakeStarkey

Flopper, trumphoidia affects the central nervous system and destroys the empathy cells.


----------



## OKTexas

JakeStarkey said:


> The point is this: look up fallacy of hasty generalization.
> 
> If you can quantify quite a number of such incidents, you have a point.
> 
> Right now: you don't.




Quantify this commie.


In Los Angeles, 95% of some 1,500 outstanding warrants for homicides are for illegal aliens. About 67% of the 17,000 outstanding fugitive felony warrants are for illegal aliens.
There are currently over 400,000 unaccounted for illegal alien criminals with outstanding deportation orders. At least one fourth of these are hard core criminals.
80,000 to 100,000 illegal aliens who have been convicted of serious crimes are walking the streets. Based on studies they will commit an average of 13 serious crimes per perpetrator.
Illegal aliens are involved in criminal activities at a rate that is 2-5 times their representative proportion of the population.
In 1980, our Federal and state facilities held fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens but at the end of 2003, approximately 267,000 illegal aliens were incarcerated in U.S. correctional facilities at a cost of about $6.8 billion per year.
At least 4.5 million pounds of cocaine with a street value of at least $72 billion is smuggled across the southern border every year. ..
56% of illegal aliens charged with a reentry offense had previously been convicted on at least 5 prior occasions.
Illegal aliens charged with unlawful reentry had the most extensive criminal histories. 90% had been previously arrested. Of those with a prior arrest, 50% had been arrested for violent or drug-related felonies.
Illegal aliens commit between 700,000 to 1,289,000 or more crimes per year.
Illegal aliens commit at least 2,158 murders each year – a number that represents three times greater participation than their proportion of the population.
Illegal alien sexual predators commit an estimated 130,909 sexual crimes each year.
There may be as many as 240,000 illegal alien sex offenders circulating throughout America. Based on studies, they will commit an average of 8 sex crimes per perpetrator before being caught.
Nearly 63% of illegal alien sex offenders had been *deported* on another offense prior to committing the sex crime.
Only 2% of the illegal alien sex offenders in one study had no history of criminal behavior, beyond crossing the border illegally.
In Operation Predator, ICE arrested and deported 6,085 illegal alien pedophiles. Some studies suggest each pedophile molests average of 148 children. If so, that could be as many as 900,580 victims.
Nobody knows how big the Sex Slave problem is but it is enormous.
The very brutal MS-13 gang has over 15,000 members and associates in at least 115 different cliques in 33 states.
The overall financial impact of illegal alien crimes is estimated at between $14.4 and $81 billion or more per year. Factor in the crime as a result of the cocaine and other drugs being smuggled in and the number may reach $150 billion per year.
Any questions?

Impacts of Illegal Immigration: Crime Summary


.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...more backwards ass LefTard logic.
> “Don’t enforce the law...just take the law off the books.”
> “Don’t arrest the guy dealing heroin to our kids...just make heroin legal instead.”
> Haha...holy shit...only in LibTardia!
> 
> 
> 
> *When laws don't work, we change them.  We had prohibition for over a decade, tried to use federal law enforcement, then local law enforcement.  We closed up saloons, stopped shipments coming from outside the country, jailed saloon owners and bootleggers.  After a decade, we came to our senses and changed the law and made the entire industry legal.
> 
> Illegal Immigration has been a problem now for over 60 years. Deportation and building fences and walls have  never work and never will because most of the people in the country don't support it.  In fact, a large percent of republicans about 35% and 90% of democrats don't agree with Trump. Six states and hundreds of cities and towns refuse to cooperate with the immigration service. To make our immigration laws work, we would need strong continuing support from both sides which we don't have.  When Trump issue orders to change immigration policy around country, democrats will just reverse it when they get in power.  We have to come up with new ideas, if not nothing is going change over the long run.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, but the one thing Democrats won't be able to reverse is a wall; that's why they are fighting so hard against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heh. What make you think it can't be reversed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think they would do, tear down a 30 billion dollar wall?  That would be political suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh...
Click to expand...


Well good luck with that one.


----------



## JakeStarkey

usillegalaliens.com don't cut it.  It is a known immigrant of color hating medium.  However, are we deporting all alien felons at the end of their prison sentences.  You should look into it.

Also you have not quantified compared pedophiliac attacks by illegal aliens with Baptist pastors.

Also how to the have above number compare with those of similar offenses committed by American citizens?


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, if you're a picker, domestic worker, a semiskilled worker in the construction or stand in front of Home Depot looking for temporary work.   The solution is relatively simple but controversial.  Allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.  Then employers will have to pay the going rate for the job and won't be able to hire people below minimum wage. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...more backwards ass LefTard logic.
> “Don’t enforce the law...just take the law off the books.”
> “Don’t arrest the guy dealing heroin to our kids...just make heroin legal instead.”
> Haha...holy shit...only in LibTardia!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When laws don't work, we change them.  We had prohibition for over a decade, tried to use federal law enforcement, then local law enforcement.  We closed up saloons, stopped shipments coming from outside the country, jailed saloon owners and bootleggers.  After a decade, we came to our senses and changed the law and made the entire industry legal.
> 
> Illegal Immigration has been a problem now for over 60 years. Deportation and building fences and walls have  never work and never will because most of the people in the country don't support it.  In fact, a large percent of republicans about 35% and 90% of democrats don't agree with Trump. Six states and hundreds of cities and towns refuse to cooperate with the immigration service. To make our immigration laws work, we would need strong continuing support from both sides which we don't have.  When Trump issue orders to change immigration policy around country, democrats will just reverse it when they get in power.  We have to come up with new ideas, if not nothing is going change over the long run.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, but the one thing Democrats won't be able to reverse is a wall; that's why they are fighting so hard against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heh. What make you think it can't be reversed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think they would do, tear down a 30 billion dollar wall?  That would be political suicide.
Click to expand...

*More to point, what makes you think Trump will be successful in building it before he leaves office?
*

*Trump has back down from the huge beautiful wall on the boarder to "a physical structure might not be needed where you have rivers and mountains and everything else protecting the border."*
*He has made statements indicated that his wall may turnout to be fencing in many places.*
*Congress has still not allocated any money to build the wall which means no property has been purchase, nor have bids gone out for the construction (except a prototype). *
*Recently a Homeland Security report put the cost of the reinforce steel fence on the boarder in California at a small fraction of the cost the wall and is said to be over 95% effective at stopping climbers.*
*Since there is no money specifically marked for the wall this year or the 2018-19 budget, the actually construction may not start till the last year of Trump's term and even that may not happen. *
*
If was always difficult to justify the need for the wall to Congress but it's going to be much more difficult today  because the number of illegal crossing has fallen sharply.  For example, in 2000, there were over 1.6 million illegal crossings.  By 2005, the number had dropped to 265,000 and by 2016 the number was down to 170,000.  Trump is asking for 18 billion for the wall construction.  That puts the cost per per person at over $22,000/yr per person including maintenance and added personnel over a 20 year period.  If immigration laws are changed to increase work permits or quotas which is being proposed, there would likely be and even bigger drop in illegal crossing making the wall a monument to stupidity.*







Trump's border wall: A look at the numbers
Border Crossing by the Numbers | Blog | Independent Lens | PBS


----------



## OKTexas

JakeStarkey said:


> usillegalaliens.com don't cut it.  It is a known immigrant of color hating medium.  However, are we deporting all alien felons at the end of their prison sentences.  You should look into it.
> 
> Also you have not quantified compared pedophiliac attacks by illegal aliens with Baptist pastors.
> 
> Also how to the have above number compare with those of similar offenses committed by American citizens?




Already answered. From the link.


OKTexas said:


> Illegal aliens are involved in criminal activities at a rate that is 2-5 times their representative proportion of the population.




.


----------



## jasonnfree

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, if you're a picker, domestic worker, a semiskilled worker in the construction or stand in front of Home Depot looking for temporary work.   The solution is relatively simple but controversial.  Allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.  Then employers will have to pay the going rate for the job and won't be able to hire people below minimum wage. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...more backwards ass LefTard logic.
> “Don’t enforce the law...just take the law off the books.”
> “Don’t arrest the guy dealing heroin to our kids...just make heroin legal instead.”
> Haha...holy shit...only in LibTardia!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When laws don't work, we change them.  We had prohibition for over a decade, tried to use federal law enforcement, then local law enforcement.  We closed up saloons, stopped shipments coming from outside the country, jailed saloon owners and bootleggers.  After a decade, we came to our senses and changed the law and made the entire industry legal.
> 
> Illegal Immigration has been a problem now for over 60 years. Deportation and building fences and walls have  never work and never will because most of the people in the country don't support it.  In fact, a large percent of republicans about 35% and 90% of democrats don't agree with Trump. Six states and hundreds of cities and towns refuse to cooperate with the immigration service. To make our immigration laws work, we would need strong continuing support from both sides which we don't have.  When Trump issue orders to change immigration policy around country, democrats will just reverse it when they get in power.  We have to come up with new ideas, if not nothing is going change over the long run.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, but the one thing Democrats won't be able to reverse is a wall; that's why they are fighting so hard against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heh. What make you think it can't be reversed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think they would do, tear down a 30 billion dollar wall?  That would be political suicide.
Click to expand...


Not really, considering Mexico's paying for the wall, remember?


----------



## JakeStarkey

OKTexas said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> usillegalaliens.com don't cut it.  It is a known immigrant of color hating medium.  However, are we deporting all alien felons at the end of their prison sentences.  You should look into it.
> 
> Also you have not quantified compared pedophiliac attacks by illegal aliens with Baptist pastors.
> 
> Also how to the have above number compare with those of similar offenses committed by American citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already answered. From the link.
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal aliens are involved in criminal activities at a rate that is 2-5 times their representative proportion of the population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
Click to expand...

That is a general statement without objective facts.


----------



## Flopper

jasonnfree said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...more backwards ass LefTard logic.
> “Don’t enforce the law...just take the law off the books.”
> “Don’t arrest the guy dealing heroin to our kids...just make heroin legal instead.”
> Haha...holy shit...only in LibTardia!
> 
> 
> 
> *When laws don't work, we change them.  We had prohibition for over a decade, tried to use federal law enforcement, then local law enforcement.  We closed up saloons, stopped shipments coming from outside the country, jailed saloon owners and bootleggers.  After a decade, we came to our senses and changed the law and made the entire industry legal.
> 
> Illegal Immigration has been a problem now for over 60 years. Deportation and building fences and walls have  never work and never will because most of the people in the country don't support it.  In fact, a large percent of republicans about 35% and 90% of democrats don't agree with Trump. Six states and hundreds of cities and towns refuse to cooperate with the immigration service. To make our immigration laws work, we would need strong continuing support from both sides which we don't have.  When Trump issue orders to change immigration policy around country, democrats will just reverse it when they get in power.  We have to come up with new ideas, if not nothing is going change over the long run.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, but the one thing Democrats won't be able to reverse is a wall; that's why they are fighting so hard against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heh. What make you think it can't be reversed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think they would do, tear down a 30 billion dollar wall?  That would be political suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really, considering Mexico's paying for the wall, remember?
Click to expand...

*Well when democrats tear it down, they can give it to the Mexicans since it's their wall.  Maybe we should have the Hondurans and Guatemalans pay for it since they're going to be the primary users.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *When laws don't work, we change them.  We had prohibition for over a decade, tried to use federal law enforcement, then local law enforcement.  We closed up saloons, stopped shipments coming from outside the country, jailed saloon owners and bootleggers.  After a decade, we came to our senses and changed the law and made the entire industry legal.
> 
> Illegal Immigration has been a problem now for over 60 years. Deportation and building fences and walls have  never work and never will because most of the people in the country don't support it.  In fact, a large percent of republicans about 35% and 90% of democrats don't agree with Trump. Six states and hundreds of cities and towns refuse to cooperate with the immigration service. To make our immigration laws work, we would need strong continuing support from both sides which we don't have.  When Trump issue orders to change immigration policy around country, democrats will just reverse it when they get in power.  We have to come up with new ideas, if not nothing is going change over the long run.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, but the one thing Democrats won't be able to reverse is a wall; that's why they are fighting so hard against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heh. What make you think it can't be reversed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think they would do, tear down a 30 billion dollar wall?  That would be political suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really, considering Mexico's paying for the wall, remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Well when democrats tear it down, they can give it to the Mexicans since it's their wall.  Maybe we should have the Hondurans and Guatemalans pay for it since they're going to be the primary users.*
Click to expand...


And they couldn't use it without the help from Mexico.


----------



## OKTexas

JakeStarkey said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> usillegalaliens.com don't cut it.  It is a known immigrant of color hating medium.  However, are we deporting all alien felons at the end of their prison sentences.  You should look into it.
> 
> Also you have not quantified compared pedophiliac attacks by illegal aliens with Baptist pastors.
> 
> Also how to the have above number compare with those of similar offenses committed by American citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already answered. From the link.
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal aliens are involved in criminal activities at a rate that is 2-5 times their representative proportion of the population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a general statement without objective facts.
Click to expand...



Feel free to prove it wrong, any of it. I'm the one that has provided substantiation, and you have nothing but your commie whining.

Almost 2,200 murders a year by illegals, that I guess is the human price you're willing to pay for not enforcing immigration laws. Good job comrade.


.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...more backwards ass LefTard logic.
> “Don’t enforce the law...just take the law off the books.”
> “Don’t arrest the guy dealing heroin to our kids...just make heroin legal instead.”
> Haha...holy shit...only in LibTardia!
> 
> 
> 
> *When laws don't work, we change them.  We had prohibition for over a decade, tried to use federal law enforcement, then local law enforcement.  We closed up saloons, stopped shipments coming from outside the country, jailed saloon owners and bootleggers.  After a decade, we came to our senses and changed the law and made the entire industry legal.
> 
> Illegal Immigration has been a problem now for over 60 years. Deportation and building fences and walls have  never work and never will because most of the people in the country don't support it.  In fact, a large percent of republicans about 35% and 90% of democrats don't agree with Trump. Six states and hundreds of cities and towns refuse to cooperate with the immigration service. To make our immigration laws work, we would need strong continuing support from both sides which we don't have.  When Trump issue orders to change immigration policy around country, democrats will just reverse it when they get in power.  We have to come up with new ideas, if not nothing is going change over the long run.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, but the one thing Democrats won't be able to reverse is a wall; that's why they are fighting so hard against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heh. What make you think it can't be reversed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think they would do, tear down a 30 billion dollar wall?  That would be political suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *More to point, what makes you think Trump will be successful in building it before he leaves office?
> *
> 
> *Trump has back down from the huge beautiful wall on the boarder to "a physical structure might not be needed where you have rivers and mountains and everything else protecting the border."*
> *He has made statements indicated that his wall may turnout to be fencing in many places.*
> *Congress has still not allocated any money to build the wall which means no property has been purchase, nor have bids gone out for the construction (except a prototype). *
> *Recently a Homeland Security report put the cost of the reinforce steel fence on the boarder in California at a small fraction of the cost the wall and is said to be over 95% effective at stopping climbers.*
> *Since there is no money specifically marked for the wall this year or the 2018-19 budget, the actually construction may not start till the last year of Trump's term and even that may not happen. *
> *
> If was always difficult to justify the need for the wall to Congress but it's going to be much more difficult today  because the number of illegal crossing has fallen sharply.  For example, in 2000, there were over 1.6 million illegal crossings.  By 2005, the number had dropped to 265,000 and by 2016 the number was down to 170,000.  Trump is asking for 18 billion for the wall construction.  That puts the cost per per person at over $22,000/yr per person including maintenance and added personnel over a 20 year period.  If immigration laws are changed to increase work permits or quotas which is being proposed, there would likely be and even bigger drop in illegal crossing making the wall a monument to stupidity.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's border wall: A look at the numbers
> Border Crossing by the Numbers | Blog | Independent Lens | PBS
Click to expand...


Perhaps, but there has also been an increase in drug flow across the border now killing more Americans than any other time in our history.  

You can't blame Trump for not getting the funding for the wall when it's Democrats threatening to shut down the government if it's part of our budget.  Why are Democrats so frightened by the wall?  For one, it will not be destroyed if Democrats take control. Two, it will actually provide results that the Democrats fear because they've been lying to the American people that it won't do any good.  

When Trump realizes that we support his efforts even if it means shutting down the government, he just may move forward on it.  I hope he does.  It would give credence to my signature.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, but the one thing Democrats won't be able to reverse is a wall; that's why they are fighting so hard against it.
> 
> 
> 
> Heh. What make you think it can't be reversed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think they would do, tear down a 30 billion dollar wall?  That would be political suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really, considering Mexico's paying for the wall, remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Well when democrats tear it down, they can give it to the Mexicans since it's their wall.  Maybe we should have the Hondurans and Guatemalans pay for it since they're going to be the primary users.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they couldn't use it without the help from Mexico.
Click to expand...

*Ah, so maybe there should be a sharing agreement.  However, if we are really going sell the wall to these people, they should have to pay the delivery cost.*


----------



## BrokeLoser

jasonnfree said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...more backwards ass LefTard logic.
> “Don’t enforce the law...just take the law off the books.”
> “Don’t arrest the guy dealing heroin to our kids...just make heroin legal instead.”
> Haha...holy shit...only in LibTardia!
> 
> 
> 
> *When laws don't work, we change them.  We had prohibition for over a decade, tried to use federal law enforcement, then local law enforcement.  We closed up saloons, stopped shipments coming from outside the country, jailed saloon owners and bootleggers.  After a decade, we came to our senses and changed the law and made the entire industry legal.
> 
> Illegal Immigration has been a problem now for over 60 years. Deportation and building fences and walls have  never work and never will because most of the people in the country don't support it.  In fact, a large percent of republicans about 35% and 90% of democrats don't agree with Trump. Six states and hundreds of cities and towns refuse to cooperate with the immigration service. To make our immigration laws work, we would need strong continuing support from both sides which we don't have.  When Trump issue orders to change immigration policy around country, democrats will just reverse it when they get in power.  We have to come up with new ideas, if not nothing is going change over the long run.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, but the one thing Democrats won't be able to reverse is a wall; that's why they are fighting so hard against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heh. What make you think it can't be reversed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think they would do, tear down a 30 billion dollar wall?  That would be political suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really, considering Mexico's paying for the wall, remember?
Click to expand...


No one but whacko LefTards ever gave two shits about who was paying for the wall...that never really mattered...ever...the arithmetic is elementary...the wall pays for itself....third-graders understand this.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heh. What make you think it can't be reversed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think they would do, tear down a 30 billion dollar wall?  That would be political suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really, considering Mexico's paying for the wall, remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Well when democrats tear it down, they can give it to the Mexicans since it's their wall.  Maybe we should have the Hondurans and Guatemalans pay for it since they're going to be the primary users.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they couldn't use it without the help from Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Ah, so maybe there should be a sharing agreement.  However, if we are really going sell the wall to these people, they should have to pay the delivery cost.*
Click to expand...


I don't think cost is a problem to us border supporters.  If the wall costs 30 some billion, that's less than half of what we spend on food stamps in just one year.  The most important thing is to get the wall.  For crying out loud, we gave (in total funding) 1.3 billion to Planned Parenthood alone.  

If you are suggesting that only Republicans pay for the wall, fine with me, but it doesn't come without an exchange.  Democrats can fund Medicaid, welfare, food stamps just to name a few of their treasures.


----------



## Picaro

OKTexas said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is this: look up fallacy of hasty generalization.
> 
> If you can quantify quite a number of such incidents, you have a point.
> 
> Right now: you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantify this commie.
> 
> 
> In Los Angeles, 95% of some 1,500 outstanding warrants for homicides are for illegal aliens. About 67% of the 17,000 outstanding fugitive felony warrants are for illegal aliens.
> There are currently over 400,000 unaccounted for illegal alien criminals with outstanding deportation orders. At least one fourth of these are hard core criminals.
> 80,000 to 100,000 illegal aliens who have been convicted of serious crimes are walking the streets. Based on studies they will commit an average of 13 serious crimes per perpetrator.
> Illegal aliens are involved in criminal activities at a rate that is 2-5 times their representative proportion of the population.
> In 1980, our Federal and state facilities held fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens but at the end of 2003, approximately 267,000 illegal aliens were incarcerated in U.S. correctional facilities at a cost of about $6.8 billion per year.
> At least 4.5 million pounds of cocaine with a street value of at least $72 billion is smuggled across the southern border every year. ..
> 56% of illegal aliens charged with a reentry offense had previously been convicted on at least 5 prior occasions.
> Illegal aliens charged with unlawful reentry had the most extensive criminal histories. 90% had been previously arrested. Of those with a prior arrest, 50% had been arrested for violent or drug-related felonies.
> Illegal aliens commit between 700,000 to 1,289,000 or more crimes per year.
> Illegal aliens commit at least 2,158 murders each year – a number that represents three times greater participation than their proportion of the population.
> Illegal alien sexual predators commit an estimated 130,909 sexual crimes each year.
> There may be as many as 240,000 illegal alien sex offenders circulating throughout America. Based on studies, they will commit an average of 8 sex crimes per perpetrator before being caught.
> Nearly 63% of illegal alien sex offenders had been *deported* on another offense prior to committing the sex crime.
> Only 2% of the illegal alien sex offenders in one study had no history of criminal behavior, beyond crossing the border illegally.
> In Operation Predator, ICE arrested and deported 6,085 illegal alien pedophiles. Some studies suggest each pedophile molests average of 148 children. If so, that could be as many as 900,580 victims.
> Nobody knows how big the Sex Slave problem is but it is enormous.
> The very brutal MS-13 gang has over 15,000 members and associates in at least 115 different cliques in 33 states.
> The overall financial impact of illegal alien crimes is estimated at between $14.4 and $81 billion or more per year. Factor in the crime as a result of the cocaine and other drugs being smuggled in and the number may reach $150 billion per year.
> Any questions?
> 
> Impacts of Illegal Immigration: Crime Summary
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


All true. The problem is these commies and racists aren't really concerned about 'The Children', or fairness, or real solutions, they want to continue flooding the country with illegals, and they don't care about facts, since they play no part at all in their agendas. They just want dead bodies in the streets, this country wiped off the planet, and they don't care about what comes later. It's all about 'revenge' for these animals, and they see themselves setting up shop as rulers of the wastelands.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Picaro said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is this: look up fallacy of hasty generalization.
> 
> If you can quantify quite a number of such incidents, you have a point.
> 
> Right now: you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantify this commie.
> 
> 
> In Los Angeles, 95% of some 1,500 outstanding warrants for homicides are for illegal aliens. About 67% of the 17,000 outstanding fugitive felony warrants are for illegal aliens.
> There are currently over 400,000 unaccounted for illegal alien criminals with outstanding deportation orders. At least one fourth of these are hard core criminals.
> 80,000 to 100,000 illegal aliens who have been convicted of serious crimes are walking the streets. Based on studies they will commit an average of 13 serious crimes per perpetrator.
> Illegal aliens are involved in criminal activities at a rate that is 2-5 times their representative proportion of the population.
> In 1980, our Federal and state facilities held fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens but at the end of 2003, approximately 267,000 illegal aliens were incarcerated in U.S. correctional facilities at a cost of about $6.8 billion per year.
> At least 4.5 million pounds of cocaine with a street value of at least $72 billion is smuggled across the southern border every year. ..
> 56% of illegal aliens charged with a reentry offense had previously been convicted on at least 5 prior occasions.
> Illegal aliens charged with unlawful reentry had the most extensive criminal histories. 90% had been previously arrested. Of those with a prior arrest, 50% had been arrested for violent or drug-related felonies.
> Illegal aliens commit between 700,000 to 1,289,000 or more crimes per year.
> Illegal aliens commit at least 2,158 murders each year – a number that represents three times greater participation than their proportion of the population.
> Illegal alien sexual predators commit an estimated 130,909 sexual crimes each year.
> There may be as many as 240,000 illegal alien sex offenders circulating throughout America. Based on studies, they will commit an average of 8 sex crimes per perpetrator before being caught.
> Nearly 63% of illegal alien sex offenders had been *deported* on another offense prior to committing the sex crime.
> Only 2% of the illegal alien sex offenders in one study had no history of criminal behavior, beyond crossing the border illegally.
> In Operation Predator, ICE arrested and deported 6,085 illegal alien pedophiles. Some studies suggest each pedophile molests average of 148 children. If so, that could be as many as 900,580 victims.
> Nobody knows how big the Sex Slave problem is but it is enormous.
> The very brutal MS-13 gang has over 15,000 members and associates in at least 115 different cliques in 33 states.
> The overall financial impact of illegal alien crimes is estimated at between $14.4 and $81 billion or more per year. Factor in the crime as a result of the cocaine and other drugs being smuggled in and the number may reach $150 billion per year.
> Any questions?
> 
> Impacts of Illegal Immigration: Crime Summary
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All true. The problem is these commies and racists aren't really concerned about 'The Children', or fairness, or real solutions, they want to continue flooding the country with illegals, and they don't care about facts, since they play no part at all in their agendas. They just want dead bodies in the streets, this country wiped off the planet, and they don't care about what comes later. It's all about 'revenge' for these animals, and they see themselves setting up shop as rulers of the wastelands.
Click to expand...


Their ultimate goal is to make whites a minority in this country for the first time in history.  If they can accomplish that, they will be on a path to a one-party government for eternity.  

They don't care about the criminals, the drug pushers and users, the rapists or murderers, just as long as they are not white.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *When laws don't work, we change them.  We had prohibition for over a decade, tried to use federal law enforcement, then local law enforcement.  We closed up saloons, stopped shipments coming from outside the country, jailed saloon owners and bootleggers.  After a decade, we came to our senses and changed the law and made the entire industry legal.
> 
> Illegal Immigration has been a problem now for over 60 years. Deportation and building fences and walls have  never work and never will because most of the people in the country don't support it.  In fact, a large percent of republicans about 35% and 90% of democrats don't agree with Trump. Six states and hundreds of cities and towns refuse to cooperate with the immigration service. To make our immigration laws work, we would need strong continuing support from both sides which we don't have.  When Trump issue orders to change immigration policy around country, democrats will just reverse it when they get in power.  We have to come up with new ideas, if not nothing is going change over the long run.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, but the one thing Democrats won't be able to reverse is a wall; that's why they are fighting so hard against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heh. What make you think it can't be reversed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think they would do, tear down a 30 billion dollar wall?  That would be political suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *More to point, what makes you think Trump will be successful in building it before he leaves office?
> *
> 
> *Trump has back down from the huge beautiful wall on the boarder to "a physical structure might not be needed where you have rivers and mountains and everything else protecting the border."*
> *He has made statements indicated that his wall may turnout to be fencing in many places.*
> *Congress has still not allocated any money to build the wall which means no property has been purchase, nor have bids gone out for the construction (except a prototype). *
> *Recently a Homeland Security report put the cost of the reinforce steel fence on the boarder in California at a small fraction of the cost the wall and is said to be over 95% effective at stopping climbers.*
> *Since there is no money specifically marked for the wall this year or the 2018-19 budget, the actually construction may not start till the last year of Trump's term and even that may not happen. *
> *
> If was always difficult to justify the need for the wall to Congress but it's going to be much more difficult today  because the number of illegal crossing has fallen sharply.  For example, in 2000, there were over 1.6 million illegal crossings.  By 2005, the number had dropped to 265,000 and by 2016 the number was down to 170,000.  Trump is asking for 18 billion for the wall construction.  That puts the cost per per person at over $22,000/yr per person including maintenance and added personnel over a 20 year period.  If immigration laws are changed to increase work permits or quotas which is being proposed, there would likely be and even bigger drop in illegal crossing making the wall a monument to stupidity.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's border wall: A look at the numbers
> Border Crossing by the Numbers | Blog | Independent Lens | PBS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps, but there has also been an increase in drug flow across the border now killing more Americans than any other time in our history.
> 
> You can't blame Trump for not getting the funding for the wall when it's Democrats threatening to shut down the government if it's part of our budget.  Why are Democrats so frightened by the wall?  For one, it will not be destroyed if Democrats take control. Two, it will actually provide results that the Democrats fear because they've been lying to the American people that it won't do any good.
> 
> When Trump realizes that we support his efforts even if it means shutting down the government, he just may move forward on it.  I hope he does.  It would give credence to my signature.
Click to expand...

*A drug cartel is one business that will remain largely unaffected by the wall since most of the drugs that enter the US come by air, sea, and through boarder checkpoints.  Catapults work quite well for sending packages over a wall, however there will probably be no need.

Democrats have identified over 350 places on the border that would need openings in the wall for wildlife, cattle, and drainage and you can bet Democrats will make those openings. 

Democrats don't like having a wall between the nations because, the number of illegal boarder crossing have been going down and will likely continue.  Changes in immigration laws such as increases in work permits and yearly work visas will radically reduce the number of illegal crossing.  

The wall will become a relic of American isolationism, a symbol of hatred and distrust between the nations.  Make no mistake if this wall is built, it will come down just as the Berlin Wall came down.               *


----------



## Picaro

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is this: look up fallacy of hasty generalization.
> 
> If you can quantify quite a number of such incidents, you have a point.
> 
> Right now: you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantify this commie.
> 
> 
> In Los Angeles, 95% of some 1,500 outstanding warrants for homicides are for illegal aliens. About 67% of the 17,000 outstanding fugitive felony warrants are for illegal aliens.
> There are currently over 400,000 unaccounted for illegal alien criminals with outstanding deportation orders. At least one fourth of these are hard core criminals.
> 80,000 to 100,000 illegal aliens who have been convicted of serious crimes are walking the streets. Based on studies they will commit an average of 13 serious crimes per perpetrator.
> Illegal aliens are involved in criminal activities at a rate that is 2-5 times their representative proportion of the population.
> In 1980, our Federal and state facilities held fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens but at the end of 2003, approximately 267,000 illegal aliens were incarcerated in U.S. correctional facilities at a cost of about $6.8 billion per year.
> At least 4.5 million pounds of cocaine with a street value of at least $72 billion is smuggled across the southern border every year. ..
> 56% of illegal aliens charged with a reentry offense had previously been convicted on at least 5 prior occasions.
> Illegal aliens charged with unlawful reentry had the most extensive criminal histories. 90% had been previously arrested. Of those with a prior arrest, 50% had been arrested for violent or drug-related felonies.
> Illegal aliens commit between 700,000 to 1,289,000 or more crimes per year.
> Illegal aliens commit at least 2,158 murders each year – a number that represents three times greater participation than their proportion of the population.
> Illegal alien sexual predators commit an estimated 130,909 sexual crimes each year.
> There may be as many as 240,000 illegal alien sex offenders circulating throughout America. Based on studies, they will commit an average of 8 sex crimes per perpetrator before being caught.
> Nearly 63% of illegal alien sex offenders had been *deported* on another offense prior to committing the sex crime.
> Only 2% of the illegal alien sex offenders in one study had no history of criminal behavior, beyond crossing the border illegally.
> In Operation Predator, ICE arrested and deported 6,085 illegal alien pedophiles. Some studies suggest each pedophile molests average of 148 children. If so, that could be as many as 900,580 victims.
> Nobody knows how big the Sex Slave problem is but it is enormous.
> The very brutal MS-13 gang has over 15,000 members and associates in at least 115 different cliques in 33 states.
> The overall financial impact of illegal alien crimes is estimated at between $14.4 and $81 billion or more per year. Factor in the crime as a result of the cocaine and other drugs being smuggled in and the number may reach $150 billion per year.
> Any questions?
> 
> Impacts of Illegal Immigration: Crime Summary
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All true. The problem is these commies and racists aren't really concerned about 'The Children', or fairness, or real solutions, they want to continue flooding the country with illegals, and they don't care about facts, since they play no part at all in their agendas. They just want dead bodies in the streets, this country wiped off the planet, and they don't care about what comes later. It's all about 'revenge' for these animals, and they see themselves setting up shop as rulers of the wastelands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their ultimate goal is to make whites a minority in this country for the first time in history.  If they can accomplish that, they will be on a path to a one-party government for eternity.
> 
> They don't care about the criminals, the drug pushers and users, the rapists or murderers, just as long as they are not white.
Click to expand...


Yes. They never cared about school shootings in th epast, but now they invented the NRA is to blame scam, so they suddenly have a lot to say about it now in those shootings where it isn't gang bangers doing the shooting.


----------



## HappyJoy

pismoe said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------   sure they are human but they aren't AMERICAN   HappyJoy .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we should be Americans and treat them like humans. Also, some of the families that were separated did enter legally as refugees, we still treated them like animals.
> 
> Let's stop pretending that their legal status is the issue here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------------------  legal status doesn't matter to me no matter what it is .   I have no use for legal or illegal third worlders as i see them all as the same third worlders ,    USA government decides who is legal or illegal and many USA governments starting with 'reagan'  have been 'fos'    Happy Joy .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And one wonders why the Republicans are always accused of racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----------------------------------------   no one cares about some silly designation  any more than you care about being designated as being an emotionally driven naive woman  Happy Joy .
Click to expand...


Boy are you confused.


----------



## Picaro

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, but the one thing Democrats won't be able to reverse is a wall; that's why they are fighting so hard against it.
> 
> 
> 
> Heh. What make you think it can't be reversed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think they would do, tear down a 30 billion dollar wall?  That would be political suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *More to point, what makes you think Trump will be successful in building it before he leaves office?
> *
> 
> *Trump has back down from the huge beautiful wall on the boarder to "a physical structure might not be needed where you have rivers and mountains and everything else protecting the border."*
> *He has made statements indicated that his wall may turnout to be fencing in many places.*
> *Congress has still not allocated any money to build the wall which means no property has been purchase, nor have bids gone out for the construction (except a prototype). *
> *Recently a Homeland Security report put the cost of the reinforce steel fence on the boarder in California at a small fraction of the cost the wall and is said to be over 95% effective at stopping climbers.*
> *Since there is no money specifically marked for the wall this year or the 2018-19 budget, the actually construction may not start till the last year of Trump's term and even that may not happen. *
> *
> If was always difficult to justify the need for the wall to Congress but it's going to be much more difficult today  because the number of illegal crossing has fallen sharply.  For example, in 2000, there were over 1.6 million illegal crossings.  By 2005, the number had dropped to 265,000 and by 2016 the number was down to 170,000.  Trump is asking for 18 billion for the wall construction.  That puts the cost per per person at over $22,000/yr per person including maintenance and added personnel over a 20 year period.  If immigration laws are changed to increase work permits or quotas which is being proposed, there would likely be and even bigger drop in illegal crossing making the wall a monument to stupidity.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's border wall: A look at the numbers
> Border Crossing by the Numbers | Blog | Independent Lens | PBS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps, but there has also been an increase in drug flow across the border now killing more Americans than any other time in our history.
> 
> You can't blame Trump for not getting the funding for the wall when it's Democrats threatening to shut down the government if it's part of our budget.  Why are Democrats so frightened by the wall?  For one, it will not be destroyed if Democrats take control. Two, it will actually provide results that the Democrats fear because they've been lying to the American people that it won't do any good.
> 
> When Trump realizes that we support his efforts even if it means shutting down the government, he just may move forward on it.  I hope he does.  It would give credence to my signature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A drug cartel is one business that will remain largely unaffected by the wall since most of the drugs that enter the US come by air, sea, and through boarder checkpoints.  Catapults work quite well for sending packages over a wall, however there will probably be no need.
> 
> Democrats have identified over 350 places on the border that would need openings in the wall for wildlife, cattle, and drainage and you can bet Democrats will make those openings.
> 
> Democrats don't like having a wall between the nations because, the number of illegal boarder crossing have been going down and will likely continue.  Changes in immigration laws such as increases in work permits and yearly work visas will radically reduce the number of illegal crossing.
> 
> The wall will become a relic of American isolationism, a symbol of hatred and distrust between the nations.  Make no mistake if this wall is built, it will come down just as the Berlin Wall came down.               *
Click to expand...



lol you aren't fooling anybody with this fake crap. Just admit you're a racist and everything you support is for that reason.


----------



## Picaro

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think they would do, tear down a 30 billion dollar wall?  That would be political suicide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, considering Mexico's paying for the wall, remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Well when democrats tear it down, they can give it to the Mexicans since it's their wall.  Maybe we should have the Hondurans and Guatemalans pay for it since they're going to be the primary users.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they couldn't use it without the help from Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Ah, so maybe there should be a sharing agreement.  However, if we are really going sell the wall to these people, they should have to pay the delivery cost.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think cost is a problem to us border supporters.  If the wall costs 30 some billion, that's less than half of what we spend on food stamps in just one year.  The most important thing is to get the wall.  For crying out loud, we gave (in total funding) 1.3 billion to Planned Parenthood alone.
> 
> If you are suggesting that only Republicans pay for the wall, fine with me, but it doesn't come without an exchange.  Democrats can fund Medicaid, welfare, food stamps just to name a few of their treasures.
Click to expand...


Two thirds of it was already there before Trump was even inaugurated.


----------



## dblack

Picaro said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heh. What make you think it can't be reversed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think they would do, tear down a 30 billion dollar wall?  That would be political suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *More to point, what makes you think Trump will be successful in building it before he leaves office?
> *
> 
> *Trump has back down from the huge beautiful wall on the boarder to "a physical structure might not be needed where you have rivers and mountains and everything else protecting the border."*
> *He has made statements indicated that his wall may turnout to be fencing in many places.*
> *Congress has still not allocated any money to build the wall which means no property has been purchase, nor have bids gone out for the construction (except a prototype). *
> *Recently a Homeland Security report put the cost of the reinforce steel fence on the boarder in California at a small fraction of the cost the wall and is said to be over 95% effective at stopping climbers.*
> *Since there is no money specifically marked for the wall this year or the 2018-19 budget, the actually construction may not start till the last year of Trump's term and even that may not happen. *
> *
> If was always difficult to justify the need for the wall to Congress but it's going to be much more difficult today  because the number of illegal crossing has fallen sharply.  For example, in 2000, there were over 1.6 million illegal crossings.  By 2005, the number had dropped to 265,000 and by 2016 the number was down to 170,000.  Trump is asking for 18 billion for the wall construction.  That puts the cost per per person at over $22,000/yr per person including maintenance and added personnel over a 20 year period.  If immigration laws are changed to increase work permits or quotas which is being proposed, there would likely be and even bigger drop in illegal crossing making the wall a monument to stupidity.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's border wall: A look at the numbers
> Border Crossing by the Numbers | Blog | Independent Lens | PBS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps, but there has also been an increase in drug flow across the border now killing more Americans than any other time in our history.
> 
> You can't blame Trump for not getting the funding for the wall when it's Democrats threatening to shut down the government if it's part of our budget.  Why are Democrats so frightened by the wall?  For one, it will not be destroyed if Democrats take control. Two, it will actually provide results that the Democrats fear because they've been lying to the American people that it won't do any good.
> 
> When Trump realizes that we support his efforts even if it means shutting down the government, he just may move forward on it.  I hope he does.  It would give credence to my signature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A drug cartel is one business that will remain largely unaffected by the wall since most of the drugs that enter the US come by air, sea, and through boarder checkpoints.  Catapults work quite well for sending packages over a wall, however there will probably be no need.
> 
> Democrats have identified over 350 places on the border that would need openings in the wall for wildlife, cattle, and drainage and you can bet Democrats will make those openings.
> 
> Democrats don't like having a wall between the nations because, the number of illegal boarder crossing have been going down and will likely continue.  Changes in immigration laws such as increases in work permits and yearly work visas will radically reduce the number of illegal crossing.
> 
> The wall will become a relic of American isolationism, a symbol of hatred and distrust between the nations.  Make no mistake if this wall is built, it will come down just as the Berlin Wall came down.               *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> lol you aren't fooling anybody with this fake crap. Just admit you're a racist and everything you support is for that reason.
Click to expand...


"Fake news!", good call. And a lot less work than a strawman.


----------



## HappyJoy

Godboy said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they have criminal parents, what do you suggest? Let the criminals go because they need to take care of their kids? If i go commit a crime and im sentenced to jail time, can i tell the judge i have a kid to get out of it? Why should illegal immigrants be any different?
Click to expand...


Keep the families together. Did you miss the entire thread?


----------



## pismoe

HappyJoy said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------   sure they are human but they aren't AMERICAN   HappyJoy .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we should be Americans and treat them like humans. Also, some of the families that were separated did enter legally as refugees, we still treated them like animals.
> 
> Let's stop pretending that their legal status is the issue here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------------------  legal status doesn't matter to me no matter what it is .   I have no use for legal or illegal third worlders as i see them all as the same third worlders ,    USA government decides who is legal or illegal and many USA governments starting with 'reagan'  have been 'fos'    Happy Joy .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And one wonders why the Republicans are always accused of racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----------------------------------------   no one cares about some silly designation  any more than you care about being designated as being an emotionally driven naive woman  Happy Joy .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy are you confused.
Click to expand...

-----------------------------------  well we do know that you are 'fos'   HJoy .


----------



## HappyJoy

pismoe said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then we should be Americans and treat them like humans. Also, some of the families that were separated did enter legally as refugees, we still treated them like animals.
> 
> Let's stop pretending that their legal status is the issue here.
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------  legal status doesn't matter to me no matter what it is .   I have no use for legal or illegal third worlders as i see them all as the same third worlders ,    USA government decides who is legal or illegal and many USA governments starting with 'reagan'  have been 'fos'    Happy Joy .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And one wonders why the Republicans are always accused of racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----------------------------------------   no one cares about some silly designation  any more than you care about being designated as being an emotionally driven naive woman  Happy Joy .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy are you confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------------  well we do know that you are 'fos'   HJoy .
Click to expand...


Nope, and the majority of Alabama apparently had enough doubt to Moore's innocence that they choose not to elect a Republican to the senate in one of the reddest states in the country.

I'm sorry you feel the need to defend that 'pos'.


----------



## pismoe

voting is a different issue but i'm not surprised that you don't know the difference  HJoy .


----------



## HappyJoy

pismoe said:


> voting is a different issue but i'm not surprised that you don't know the difference  HJoy .



Yes, voting is different. Moore lost because he sexually assaulted little girls regardless if he was never tried for it.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *Undocumented Immigrant is the correct term because:*
> 
> *Undocumented refers to the lack of genuine documentation of the right to be in a country. The presence of a person in a country is not illegal until a court makes that decision.  *
> *The word immigrant means a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country with or without property documentation.*
> *Having undocumented immigrants in the country does have some undeniably negative effects which the left would like to ignore.  Likewise there are benefits that the right prefers to ignore.  However, we should question how much of the negative effects are due to the lack of upward mobility and lack of absorption into our culture which is a direct result of being undocumented.  Without upward mobility and absorption, undocumented immigrants are frozen into a subculture that is unhealthy for them and the nation.     *


FALSE!  A person illegally crossing the border may or may not have been adjudicated as such, but he's illegal the second he crosses that border without inspection.  The court decision is merely a confirmation of that fact.

I mentioned 17 negative harms of immigration. You mentioned zero _"benefits"_ you claim there are.

Immigrant is a person who has gone an immigration process, by the proper authorities.

As for the harms, except for # 14 (cultural erosion), they exist regardless of _"absorption into our culture "_ (aka assimilation).  And with regard to cultural erosion, there doesn't seem to be much of it (like the thugs in San Jose, CA, who chased and attcked Trump rallygoers, while waving Mexican flags)


----------



## protectionist

pismoe said:


> crime , all this silly talk about crime .   Last thing i worry about is crime , if crime is committed there are many ways to handle that crime .    I object to illegals just being in the USA and could not care less if they commit , don't commit crime or report crime to the police .   Model 'illegal aliens' stay where they come from rather than stealing into the USA .    Generally speaking , these invading aliens that commit crime target those from their own group and thats fine with me .


The stealing that they do, that I object to the most is, stealing Americans' jobs, and stealing Billions$$ from the US economy, by wiring it back to Mexico (or wherever), thereby depriving US business of the sales$$ that should have come from that money.

This is like Vikings raiding England, 1000 years ago, stealing wealth, and taking it back to their country (21st century imperialism - USA # 1 victim)


----------



## protectionist

HappyJoy said:


> Yes, voting is different. Moore lost because he sexually assaulted little girls regardless if he was never tried for it.


You don't have a shred of evidence to base that on.  You're an irresponsible poster.


----------



## protectionist

What _"human cost"_ TO AMERICANS, is acceptable, from NOT controlling illegal immigration ?


----------



## protectionist

Vandalshandle said:


> Another uneducated clown who has never been down here. You think that a 30 foot wall is going to stop someone who is willing to walk 100 miles through the most inhospitable desert in the USA in 105 degree temperature with only enough food and water to last one day?


It's not just a 30 foot wall.

















WATER MOCASSINS



PIRANHA


----------



## JakeStarkey

OKTexas said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> usillegalaliens.com don't cut it.  It is a known immigrant of color hating medium.  However, are we deporting all alien felons at the end of their prison sentences.  You should look into it.
> 
> Also you have not quantified compared pedophiliac attacks by illegal aliens with Baptist pastors.
> 
> Also how to the have above number compare with those of similar offenses committed by American citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already answered. From the link.
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal aliens are involved in criminal activities at a rate that is 2-5 times their representative proportion of the population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a general statement without objective facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to prove it wrong, any of it. I'm the one that has provided substantiation, and you have nothing but your commie whining.  Almost 2,200 murders a year by illegals, that I guess is the human price you're willing to pay for not enforcing immigration laws. Good job comrade..
Click to expand...

  You are entitled to your opinion, for which you have no proof.  I am entitled to laugh at it.


----------



## protectionist

JakeStarkey said:


> You are entitled to your opinion, for which you have no proof.  I am entitled to laugh at it.


It is far higher than 2-5 times. All who cross the border illegally are involved in crime.


----------



## Political Junky

bripat9643 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Yeller said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you want done with them?  Ritz-Cartlton?  Homeless Shelter?  Free house in Fort Worth?  Detroit?   You pay.  Start a gofundme?  Adopt them? Give out rooms in your vacation homes?  Set up FEMA trailers,  run plumbing-electric-AC.
> 
> What about American homeless?
> 
> 
> 
> I have an idea. Stop giving tax brakes to those who already have plenty of money and use the funds to help homeless people. The richest country in the world has to much poverty and the reason isn't other poor people taking away government funds. It's the idea that being rich isn't just something to aspire to but something that requires the government's aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  So you're an imbecile who believes the government is entitled to take people's money.  Somehow people managed to get rich before the government started "helping" them.
Click to expand...

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.


----------



## bripat9643

Political Junky said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Yeller said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you want done with them?  Ritz-Cartlton?  Homeless Shelter?  Free house in Fort Worth?  Detroit?   You pay.  Start a gofundme?  Adopt them? Give out rooms in your vacation homes?  Set up FEMA trailers,  run plumbing-electric-AC.
> 
> What about American homeless?
> 
> 
> 
> I have an idea. Stop giving tax brakes to those who already have plenty of money and use the funds to help homeless people. The richest country in the world has to much poverty and the reason isn't other poor people taking away government funds. It's the idea that being rich isn't just something to aspire to but something that requires the government's aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  So you're an imbecile who believes the government is entitled to take people's money.  Somehow people managed to get rich before the government started "helping" them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.
Click to expand...

Nothing I earn belongs to the government.


----------



## Political Junky

bripat9643 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Yeller said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you want done with them?  Ritz-Cartlton?  Homeless Shelter?  Free house in Fort Worth?  Detroit?   You pay.  Start a gofundme?  Adopt them? Give out rooms in your vacation homes?  Set up FEMA trailers,  run plumbing-electric-AC.
> 
> What about American homeless?
> 
> 
> 
> I have an idea. Stop giving tax brakes to those who already have plenty of money and use the funds to help homeless people. The richest country in the world has to much poverty and the reason isn't other poor people taking away government funds. It's the idea that being rich isn't just something to aspire to but something that requires the government's aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  So you're an imbecile who believes the government is entitled to take people's money.  Somehow people managed to get rich before the government started "helping" them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing I earn belongs to the government.
Click to expand...

You're so full of shit.


----------



## Picaro

dblack said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think they would do, tear down a 30 billion dollar wall?  That would be political suicide.
> 
> 
> 
> *More to point, what makes you think Trump will be successful in building it before he leaves office?
> *
> 
> *Trump has back down from the huge beautiful wall on the boarder to "a physical structure might not be needed where you have rivers and mountains and everything else protecting the border."*
> *He has made statements indicated that his wall may turnout to be fencing in many places.*
> *Congress has still not allocated any money to build the wall which means no property has been purchase, nor have bids gone out for the construction (except a prototype). *
> *Recently a Homeland Security report put the cost of the reinforce steel fence on the boarder in California at a small fraction of the cost the wall and is said to be over 95% effective at stopping climbers.*
> *Since there is no money specifically marked for the wall this year or the 2018-19 budget, the actually construction may not start till the last year of Trump's term and even that may not happen. *
> *
> If was always difficult to justify the need for the wall to Congress but it's going to be much more difficult today  because the number of illegal crossing has fallen sharply.  For example, in 2000, there were over 1.6 million illegal crossings.  By 2005, the number had dropped to 265,000 and by 2016 the number was down to 170,000.  Trump is asking for 18 billion for the wall construction.  That puts the cost per per person at over $22,000/yr per person including maintenance and added personnel over a 20 year period.  If immigration laws are changed to increase work permits or quotas which is being proposed, there would likely be and even bigger drop in illegal crossing making the wall a monument to stupidity.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's border wall: A look at the numbers
> Border Crossing by the Numbers | Blog | Independent Lens | PBS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps, but there has also been an increase in drug flow across the border now killing more Americans than any other time in our history.
> 
> You can't blame Trump for not getting the funding for the wall when it's Democrats threatening to shut down the government if it's part of our budget.  Why are Democrats so frightened by the wall?  For one, it will not be destroyed if Democrats take control. Two, it will actually provide results that the Democrats fear because they've been lying to the American people that it won't do any good.
> 
> When Trump realizes that we support his efforts even if it means shutting down the government, he just may move forward on it.  I hope he does.  It would give credence to my signature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A drug cartel is one business that will remain largely unaffected by the wall since most of the drugs that enter the US come by air, sea, and through boarder checkpoints.  Catapults work quite well for sending packages over a wall, however there will probably be no need.
> 
> Democrats have identified over 350 places on the border that would need openings in the wall for wildlife, cattle, and drainage and you can bet Democrats will make those openings.
> 
> Democrats don't like having a wall between the nations because, the number of illegal boarder crossing have been going down and will likely continue.  Changes in immigration laws such as increases in work permits and yearly work visas will radically reduce the number of illegal crossing.
> 
> The wall will become a relic of American isolationism, a symbol of hatred and distrust between the nations.  Make no mistake if this wall is built, it will come down just as the Berlin Wall came down.               *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> lol you aren't fooling anybody with this fake crap. Just admit you're a racist and everything you support is for that reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Fake news!", good call. And a lot less work than a strawman.
Click to expand...


You aren't smart enough to fool anybody , either. Like Flopper, you never deviate from the script, you just parrot rubbish as well.

Get back to us whenever you you phoney progressives ever go tot he sources of the problem and do something there; we know you won't because you're frauds and wouldn't be caught dead actually facing genuine oppressive regimes. you're just interested in tearing up the U.S., from the safety of white Burbs.


----------



## protectionist

Picaro said:


> You aren't smart enough to fool anybody , either. Like Flopper, you never deviate from the script, you just parrot rubbish as well.
> 
> Get back to us whenever you you phoney progressives ever go tot he sources of the problem and do something there; we know you won't because you're frauds and wouldn't be caught dead actually facing genuine oppressive regimes. you're just interested in tearing up the U.S., from the safety of white Burbs.


While employing below minimum wage illegal aliens to mow their lawns and prune their shrubs.


----------



## Political Junky

protectionist said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't smart enough to fool anybody , either. Like Flopper, you never deviate from the script, you just parrot rubbish as well.
> 
> Get back to us whenever you you phoney progressives ever go tot he sources of the problem and do something there; we know you won't because you're frauds and wouldn't be caught dead actually facing genuine oppressive regimes. you're just interested in tearing up the U.S., from the safety of white Burbs.
> 
> 
> 
> While employing below minimum wage illegal aliens to mow their lawns and prune their shrubs.
Click to expand...

Like Trump does.


----------



## Picaro

HappyJoy said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> voting is a different issue but i'm not surprised that you don't know the difference  HJoy .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, voting is different. Moore lost because he sexually assaulted little girls regardless if he was never tried for it.
Click to expand...


Ah, so now we know 'Happy Joy' here is a blatant liar. No surprise there. All the establishment shills are that post on this board.


----------



## Picaro

Political Junky said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't smart enough to fool anybody , either. Like Flopper, you never deviate from the script, you just parrot rubbish as well.
> 
> Get back to us whenever you you phoney progressives ever go tot he sources of the problem and do something there; we know you won't because you're frauds and wouldn't be caught dead actually facing genuine oppressive regimes. you're just interested in tearing up the U.S., from the safety of white Burbs.
> 
> 
> 
> While employing below minimum wage illegal aliens to mow their lawns and prune their shrubs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like Trump does.
Click to expand...


Evidence?


----------



## Political Junky

Picaro said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't smart enough to fool anybody , either. Like Flopper, you never deviate from the script, you just parrot rubbish as well.
> 
> Get back to us whenever you you phoney progressives ever go tot he sources of the problem and do something there; we know you won't because you're frauds and wouldn't be caught dead actually facing genuine oppressive regimes. you're just interested in tearing up the U.S., from the safety of white Burbs.
> 
> 
> 
> While employing below minimum wage illegal aliens to mow their lawns and prune their shrubs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like Trump does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence?
Click to expand...

President Trump hired undocumented immigrants for $4 an hour for demolition project: court docs

*PRESIDENT TRUMP HIRED UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS FOR $4 AN HOUR FOR DEMOLITION PROJECT: COURT DOCS*

*President Donald Trump hired hundreds of undocumented Polish immigrants to demolish a New York City building in 1980 and paid them as little as $4 an hour without providing proper safety equipment to do the job, court documents show.*

*The workers and their contractor, William Kaszycki of Kaszycki & Sons, sued Trump for unfair labor practices in 1983. After litigation dragged on for 15 years, Trump ultimately paid $1.375 million to settle the case.*

*“We worked in horrid, terrible conditions,” Wojciech Kozak, one of the undocumented Polish workers at the demolition site, told the Times. “We were frightened illegal immigrants and did not know enough about our rights.”*
*More:*

*https://www.google.com/search?q=tru...ome..69i57.19339j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8*


----------



## OKTexas

JakeStarkey said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> usillegalaliens.com don't cut it.  It is a known immigrant of color hating medium.  However, are we deporting all alien felons at the end of their prison sentences.  You should look into it.
> 
> Also you have not quantified compared pedophiliac attacks by illegal aliens with Baptist pastors.
> 
> Also how to the have above number compare with those of similar offenses committed by American citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already answered. From the link.
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal aliens are involved in criminal activities at a rate that is 2-5 times their representative proportion of the population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a general statement without objective facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to prove it wrong, any of it. I'm the one that has provided substantiation, and you have nothing but your commie whining.  Almost 2,200 murders a year by illegals, that I guess is the human price you're willing to pay for not enforcing immigration laws. Good job comrade..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are entitled to your opinion, for which you have no proof.  I am entitled to laugh at it.
Click to expand...



I didn't link to my opinion you stupid SOB, oh right, you're senile so allow me to refresh your memory.

Quantify this commie.


In Los Angeles, 95% of some 1,500 outstanding warrants for homicides are for illegal aliens. About 67% of the 17,000 outstanding fugitive felony warrants are for illegal aliens.
There are currently over 400,000 unaccounted for illegal alien criminals with outstanding deportation orders. At least one fourth of these are hard core criminals.
80,000 to 100,000 illegal aliens who have been convicted of serious crimes are walking the streets. Based on studies they will commit an average of 13 serious crimes per perpetrator.
Illegal aliens are involved in criminal activities at a rate that is 2-5 times their representative proportion of the population.
In 1980, our Federal and state facilities held fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens but at the end of 2003, approximately 267,000 illegal aliens were incarcerated in U.S. correctional facilities at a cost of about $6.8 billion per year.
At least 4.5 million pounds of cocaine with a street value of at least $72 billion is smuggled across the southern border every year. ..
56% of illegal aliens charged with a reentry offense had previously been convicted on at least 5 prior occasions.
Illegal aliens charged with unlawful reentry had the most extensive criminal histories. 90% had been previously arrested. Of those with a prior arrest, 50% had been arrested for violent or drug-related felonies.
Illegal aliens commit between 700,000 to 1,289,000 or more crimes per year.
Illegal aliens commit at least 2,158 murders each year – a number that represents three times greater participation than their proportion of the population.
Illegal alien sexual predators commit an estimated 130,909 sexual crimes each year.
There may be as many as 240,000 illegal alien sex offenders circulating throughout America. Based on studies, they will commit an average of 8 sex crimes per perpetrator before being caught.
Nearly 63% of illegal alien sex offenders had been *deported* on another offense prior to committing the sex crime.
Only 2% of the illegal alien sex offenders in one study had no history of criminal behavior, beyond crossing the border illegally.
In Operation Predator, ICE arrested and deported 6,085 illegal alien pedophiles. Some studies suggest each pedophile molests average of 148 children. If so, that could be as many as 900,580 victims.
Nobody knows how big the Sex Slave problem is but it is enormous.
The very brutal MS-13 gang has over 15,000 members and associates in at least 115 different cliques in 33 states.
The overall financial impact of illegal alien crimes is estimated at between $14.4 and $81 billion or more per year. Factor in the crime as a result of the cocaine and other drugs being smuggled in and the number may reach $150 billion per year.
Any questions?

Impacts of Illegal Immigration: Crime Summary


.


----------



## Snouter

It is grotesque.  And the savages and the fugly creatures they have offspring with are up here in Connecticut also.  IMO it is worse than the Muslim invasion although both invasions are orchestrated by the same Soros types.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

JakeStarkey said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> ‘DREAMER’ Sodomized Multiple Boys, Between The Ages 7 and 9
> 
> 
> 
> So have Baptist pastors, I am sure.
> 
> What is your point?
Click to expand...

one of the big similarities between the Democrats and the Nazis is their fanatical religious bigotry, you wackos are scary


----------



## bripat9643

Political Junky said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Yeller said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you want done with them?  Ritz-Cartlton?  Homeless Shelter?  Free house in Fort Worth?  Detroit?   You pay.  Start a gofundme?  Adopt them? Give out rooms in your vacation homes?  Set up FEMA trailers,  run plumbing-electric-AC.
> 
> What about American homeless?
> 
> 
> 
> I have an idea. Stop giving tax brakes to those who already have plenty of money and use the funds to help homeless people. The richest country in the world has to much poverty and the reason isn't other poor people taking away government funds. It's the idea that being rich isn't just something to aspire to but something that requires the government's aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  So you're an imbecile who believes the government is entitled to take people's money.  Somehow people managed to get rich before the government started "helping" them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing I earn belongs to the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're so full of shit.
Click to expand...

Prove it.


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, if you're a picker, domestic worker, a semiskilled worker in the construction or stand in front of Home Depot looking for temporary work.   The solution is relatively simple but controversial.  Allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.  Then employers will have to pay the going rate for the job and won't be able to hire people below minimum wage. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or just throw them and their families asses out of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, if you're a picker, domestic worker, a semiskilled worker in the construction or stand in front of Home Depot looking for temporary work.   The solution is relatively simple but controversial.  Allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.  Then employers will have to pay the going rate for the job and won't be able to hire people below minimum wage. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or just throw them and their families asses out of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yeah, how well has that worked.  It's estimated that we have deported about 10 million people in the last hundred years.  As the number of deportations have risen so have the number of undocumented immigrants residing in the US.  Today it's what? 9 million, 11, million, 15 million?  Nobody really knows. *
Click to expand...


Flopper:  Illegal aliens are coming here despite our laws, so let's eliminate immigration laws and make them legal.

Flopper:  Guns are being used by criminals despite our laws, we need MORE laws!!!!

You see any inconsistency there, big guy?

We've had laws against bank robbery for centuries, yet banks are still robbed.  Shall we make bank robbery legal?


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, if you're a picker, domestic worker, a semiskilled worker in the construction or stand in front of Home Depot looking for temporary work.   The solution is relatively simple but controversial.  Allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.  Then employers will have to pay the going rate for the job and won't be able to hire people below minimum wage. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...more backwards ass LefTard logic.
> “Don’t enforce the law...just take the law off the books.”
> “Don’t arrest the guy dealing heroin to our kids...just make heroin legal instead.”
> Haha...holy shit...only in LibTardia!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When laws don't work, we change them.  We had prohibition for over a decade, tried to use federal law enforcement, then local law enforcement.  We closed up saloons, stopped shipments coming from outside the country, jailed saloon owners and bootleggers.  After a decade, we came to our senses and changed the law and made the entire industry legal.
> 
> Illegal Immigration has been a problem now for over 60 years. Deportation and building fences and walls have  never work and never will because most of the people in the country don't support it.  In fact, a large percent of republicans about 35% and 90% of democrats don't agree with Trump. Six states and hundreds of cities and towns refuse to cooperate with the immigration service. To make our immigration laws work, we would need strong continuing support from both sides which we don't have.  When Trump issue orders to change immigration policy around country, democrats will just reverse it when they get in power.  We have to come up with new ideas, if not nothing is going change over the long run.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you notice with immigration laws, you want to "change" them by eliminating them.
> 
> With gun laws, you want to change them by further restricting them.  So out of curiosity, how do you decide when you want to change laws by eliminating them and when you want to change laws by restricting our Constitutional rights?  Your formula seems to be whatever the Democrat party tells you to think.  Is that it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, I want to change them.  I want to give legal status (not sure exactly what), to undocumented immigrants that can show they have resided in the country as of a certain date.  The legalization period would only last a short period and would not be available to anyone convicted of a felony.  I would provide a path to citizenship, increase work permits and quotas.  Increase border security which would include fencing, walls, electronic surveillance, and additional personnel where needed.  I would tighten laws on employing undocumented immigrants, enhance E-Verify and make it a hiring requirement.  I would have a Visa tracking system that worked, require monitoring all detainees released on their on their on recognizance.  And that's for starters.    *
Click to expand...


I understand it's for "starters" until you can get the rest of them citizenship.

And in the meantime we're trying to stop the endless flow in and you're fighting us on that.  So clearly this is just an endless path to citizenship for anyone the hell who wants to come here in the world.  You don't view the US as an actual country since you oppose borders


----------



## kaz

Doc1 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, if you're a picker, domestic worker, a semiskilled worker in the construction or stand in front of Home Depot looking for temporary work.   The solution is relatively simple but controversial.  Allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.  Then employers will have to pay the going rate for the job and won't be able to hire people below minimum wage. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...more backwards ass LefTard logic.
> “Don’t enforce the law...just take the law off the books.”
> “Don’t arrest the guy dealing heroin to our kids...just make heroin legal instead.”
> Haha...holy shit...only in LibTardia!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When laws don't work, we change them.  We had prohibition for over a decade, tried to use federal law enforcement, then local law enforcement.  We closed up saloons, stopped shipments coming from outside the country, jailed saloon owners and bootleggers.  After a decade, we came to our senses and changed the law and made the entire industry legal.
> 
> Illegal Immigration has been a problem now for over 60 years. Deportation and building fences and walls have  never work and never will because most of the people in the country don't support it.  In fact, a large percent of republicans about 35% and 90% of democrats don't agree with Trump. Six states and hundreds of cities and towns refuse to cooperate with the immigration service. To make our immigration laws work, we would need strong continuing support from both sides which we don't have.  When Trump issue orders to change immigration policy around country, democrats will just reverse it when they get in power.  We have to come up with new ideas, if not nothing is going change over the long run.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So just throw open ALL borders and sing "We Are The World".
Click to expand...


Yep, that's what he wants and is clearly saying


----------



## kaz

dblack said:


> Doc1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, if you're a picker, domestic worker, a semiskilled worker in the construction or stand in front of Home Depot looking for temporary work.   The solution is relatively simple but controversial.  Allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.  Then employers will have to pay the going rate for the job and won't be able to hire people below minimum wage. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...more backwards ass LefTard logic.
> “Don’t enforce the law...just take the law off the books.”
> “Don’t arrest the guy dealing heroin to our kids...just make heroin legal instead.”
> Haha...holy shit...only in LibTardia!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When laws don't work, we change them.  We had prohibition for over a decade, tried to use federal law enforcement, then local law enforcement.  We closed up saloons, stopped shipments coming from outside the country, jailed saloon owners and bootleggers.  After a decade, we came to our senses and changed the law and made the entire industry legal.
> 
> Illegal Immigration has been a problem now for over 60 years. Deportation and building fences and walls have  never work and never will because most of the people in the country don't support it.  In fact, a large percent of republicans about 35% and 90% of democrats don't agree with Trump. Six states and hundreds of cities and towns refuse to cooperate with the immigration service. To make our immigration laws work, we would need strong continuing support from both sides which we don't have.  When Trump issue orders to change immigration policy around country, democrats will just reverse it when they get in power.  We have to come up with new ideas, if not nothing is going change over the long run.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So just throw open ALL borders and sing "We Are The World".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course that wouldn't happen. Freedom is messy and, if you believe our leaders, very scary! But it's better than hiding behind a wall.
Click to expand...


So our choices are to be overrun by poor criminals from a shit hole third world country or we're hiding behind a wall.  Democrats are just the flat out most stupid people on the planet.

This is just another voter campaign for you.  And it's your most effective, which is why you fight the most hysterically to keep it going


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Doc1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is 'illegal alien' - it's a euphemism for "someone who might do my job for less money".
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, if you're a picker, domestic worker, a semiskilled worker in the construction or stand in front of Home Depot looking for temporary work.   The solution is relatively simple but controversial.  Allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.  Then employers will have to pay the going rate for the job and won't be able to hire people below minimum wage. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...more backwards ass LefTard logic.
> “Don’t enforce the law...just take the law off the books.”
> “Don’t arrest the guy dealing heroin to our kids...just make heroin legal instead.”
> Haha...holy shit...only in LibTardia!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When laws don't work, we change them.  We had prohibition for over a decade, tried to use federal law enforcement, then local law enforcement.  We closed up saloons, stopped shipments coming from outside the country, jailed saloon owners and bootleggers.  After a decade, we came to our senses and changed the law and made the entire industry legal.
> 
> Illegal Immigration has been a problem now for over 60 years. Deportation and building fences and walls have  never work and never will because most of the people in the country don't support it.  In fact, a large percent of republicans about 35% and 90% of democrats don't agree with Trump. Six states and hundreds of cities and towns refuse to cooperate with the immigration service. To make our immigration laws work, we would need strong continuing support from both sides which we don't have.  When Trump issue orders to change immigration policy around country, democrats will just reverse it when they get in power.  We have to come up with new ideas, if not nothing is going change over the long run.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So just throw open ALL borders and sing "We Are The World".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That's not what I proposed.  Maybe you have a reading problem but once again, I proposed a limited legalization program available only to non-felons for a limited period of time for those who could prove they have been residents in the country for a specified period.  I also proposed a number of items that would increase boarder security, restrict jobs for those crossing the boarder illegally, lessen the desire to enter illegally by making more work permits available, and tracking down those that overstay visas.   Solving the immigration problem is not that hard.  Getting an agreement between the two sides is almost impossible.*
Click to expand...


Flopper:  "Solving the immigration problem is not that hard."

No, not if you want to keep criminals freely entering the country, it's completely fucking easy.  You're doing nothing to stop the flow except make it a little harder to get a legal job until they just wait long enough to apply under your system.

You're doing nothing to even slow the actual flow of poor Mexicans, you're doing nothing to stop hard core criminals who come back here repeatedly and you're doing zero to stop drug flow by drug cartels.

Easy?  Yeah.  Effective, not at all


----------



## kaz

protectionist said:


> What _"human cost"_ TO AMERICANS, is acceptable, from NOT controlling illegal immigration ?



Yep, the idiots need to ask Katie Steinle's family about that ...


----------



## JakeStarkey

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> ‘DREAMER’ Sodomized Multiple Boys, Between The Ages 7 and 9
> 
> 
> 
> So have Baptist pastors, I am sure.
> 
> What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> one of the big similarities between the Democrats and the Nazis is their fanatical religious bigotry, you wackos are scary
Click to expand...

Telling the truth is American not bigotry.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama should have just sent all border agents home.  His tough stance was a complete joke.
> 
> And the current attack by the left is to try and get that back.
> 
> They say they don't want open borders.  They speak with forked tounge.
> 
> 
> 
> *No president has deported more illegal immigrants than Barrack Obama.
> 
> Presidency of Barack Obama, 3.2 million people deported.           400,000/yr. Avg.
> Presidency of George W. Bush, 2 million people were deported.   250,000/Yr. Avg.
> Presidency of Bill Clinton, 870,000 people deported.                     108,750/Yr. Avg.
> Presidency of Donald Trump 240,00 deported in first yr.               240,000/Yr. Avg
> Deportation and removal from the United States - Wikipedia*
Click to expand...


WHEN are you fucking morons going to stop swallowing the pablum that's spooned up for you?

"Somehow, the Obama administration is simultaneously responsible for the highest rate of deportation in 20 years and a 26 percent drop in deportation. What is going on here? As it turns out, changes in immigration law, terminology and classification are causing this confusion.

One problem is the continued use of “deportation” in virtually all media reporting. In actuality, that category has been obsolete in immigration law since 1996. Prior to 1996, immigration law distinguished between immigrants who were “excluded,” or stopped and prevented from entering U.S. territory, and those who were “deported,” or expelled from the United States after they had made their way into U.S. territory. After 1996, both exclusion and deportation were rolled into one procedure called “removal.” At that point, the term “deportation” no longer had any meaning within the official immigration statistics. Its continued use in media reports is part of the confusion.

The large number of immigrants who are apprehended, usually but not exclusively along the southwestern border, and prevented from entering the country were part of a category called “voluntary departure” before 2006. Now that is called “return,” which also includes the subcategory of  “reinstatement.”  There is also a large category of “expedited removals” of persons that do not appear before an immigration judge but the procedure carries all the sanctions as a judge ordered removal.

These would-be immigrants accept this sanction that forgoes a court appearance before an immigration judge because formal removal — in which the U.S. government runs them through legal proceedings and pays for their return to their home country — would result in a multi-year bar (five to 20 years) on their eligibility to legally reenter the United States. Critics deride this policy “as catch and release.” The consequences of a return are much less harsh than a formal removal because the returned immigrant could come back legally, and presumably illegally, at any time."

Lies, damned lies, and Obama’s deportation statistics

In other words, they're cooking the books and lying to you.  And you're eating it up.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama should have just sent all border agents home.  His tough stance was a complete joke.
> 
> And the current attack by the left is to try and get that back.
> 
> They say they don't want open borders.  They speak with forked tounge.
> 
> 
> 
> *No president has deported more illegal immigrants than Barrack Obama.
> 
> Presidency of Barack Obama, 3.2 million people deported.           400,000/yr. Avg.
> Presidency of George W. Bush, 2 million people were deported.   250,000/Yr. Avg.
> Presidency of Bill Clinton, 870,000 people deported.                     108,750/Yr. Avg.
> Presidency of Donald Trump 240,00 deported in first yr.               240,000/Yr. Avg
> Deportation and removal from the United States - Wikipedia*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might have a point if deportation carried the same definition.  But Bush changed the definition of deportation when he was serving his second term.
Click to expand...


Not quite true.  The change was made in 1996, while Bill Clinton was President.


----------



## Moonglow

The truth is the illegals fulfill a role in capitalism it's called cheap labor, but yet idiots seem to think only one party allows the illegals to stay when over forty years since the invaders were allowed to stay it has been both parties that have facilitated the problem and the rich which save money.


----------



## Pop23

Moonglow said:


> The truth is the illegals fulfill a role in capitalism it's called cheap labor, but yet idiots seem to think only one party allows the illegals to stay when over forty years since the invaders were allowed to stay it has been both parties that have facilitated the problem and the rich which save money.



Seems only one party wants to address the problem now though. 

We are living today by the way. 

Stupid is trying the same thing over and over and hoping this time it works.


----------



## Moonglow

Pop23 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is the illegals fulfill a role in capitalism it's called cheap labor, but yet idiots seem to think only one party allows the illegals to stay when over forty years since the invaders were allowed to stay it has been both parties that have facilitated the problem and the rich which save money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems only one party wants to address the problem now though.
> 
> We are living today by the way.
> 
> Stupid is trying the same thing over and over and hoping this time it works.
Click to expand...

The issue is being addressed differently than the last forty years yet that doesn't change the current status quo of the capitalist


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

JakeStarkey said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> ‘DREAMER’ Sodomized Multiple Boys, Between The Ages 7 and 9
> 
> 
> 
> So have Baptist pastors, I am sure.
> 
> What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> one of the big similarities between the Democrats and the Nazis is their fanatical religious bigotry, you wackos are scary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Telling the truth is American not bigotry.
Click to expand...

key word truth


----------



## dblack

kaz said:


> And in the meantime we're trying to stop the endless flow in and you're fighting us on that.



Your fight is with reality. People go where the work is. Governments can impede human migration, temporarily and at great cost, but ultimately the "endless flow" will ignore your laws and your walls. The fact is, we're inviting them here. We want them here. We're paying them to be here.


----------



## Cecilie1200

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I think what you are seeing is undocumented immigrants that exist in many families of legal immigrants.  Undocumented immigrant do not assimilate primarily because they are undocumented.  They live in a subculture dominated by secrecy and fear.  They have to avoid associating with strangers, joining organizations that would call attentions to themselves.  Avoid employment in places that are unsafe. Avoid the  police.  Keep their children away from other kids believed to be unsafe.  Stay in areas where their are many Latinos. Also, family members that are legal citizens have to be careful not to expose the family to unwanted attention.  This is why so many undocumented immigrants hope to return someday to their country of origin so they can be free of the fear.  As the Mexican economy has improved over the last few years, many are doing just that.
> 
> Assimilation is one of the major benefits of legalization. Millions of people would be able to join the America culture, improve their education, get better jobs, open new businesses, and take part in their community.    *
> 
> 
> 
> No such things as "*undocumented immigrants"  *The correct term to identify these invaders is >>* "ILLEGAL ALIENS"  *They are neither "undocumented", nor are they "immigrants"
> 
> I've met thousands of them in 4 different states of the US (New York, Tennessee, California, and Florida).  They have plenty of documents.  I've spoken to them (in Spanish), and they (construction workers and janitors) have company photo ID cards, library cards, etc, etc
> 
> And they are not immigrants. Immigrants are people like my ancestors, who went through an official process of immigration with US immigration authorities.
> 
> In the words of the late Professor George Grayson, of William & Mary College in Virginia, a scholar in Mexican-American relations, >>
> 
> "To call an illegal alien an _"undocumented immigrant",_ is about equivalent to calling a bank robber _"an informal withdrawl agent"
> _
> But isn't it interesting hw you show so much sympathy for the illegal alien, while showing zero sympathy for the American citizens enduring the longlist of harms that these invaders bring to us.
> 
> *Harms* of Immigration
> 
> 1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).
> 
> 2. Wage reduction.
> 
> 3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).
> 
> 4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($138 Billion/year).
> 
> 5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.
> 
> 6. Increased crime.
> 
> 7. Increased traffic congestion.
> 
> 8. Increased pollution.
> 
> 9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.
> 
> 10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.
> 
> 11. Overcrowding in government offices.
> 
> 12. Overcrowding in schools.
> 
> 13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.
> 
> 14. Cultural erosion.
> 
> 15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)
> 
> 16. Introduction of foreign diseases
> 
> 17. Influx of terrorists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Undocumented Immigrant is the correct term because:*
> 
> *Undocumented refers to the lack of genuine documentation of the right to be in a country. The presence of a person in a country is not illegal until a court makes that decision.  *
> *The word immigrant means a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country with or without property documentation.*
> *Having undocumented immigrants in the country does have some undeniably negative effects which the left would like to ignore.  Likewise there are benefits that the right prefers to ignore.  However, we should question how much of the negative effects are due to the lack of upward mobility and lack of absorption into our culture which is a direct result of being undocumented.  Without upward mobility and absorption, undocumented immigrants are frozen into a subculture that is unhealthy for them and the nation.     *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrant is a euphemism and a lie because documentation has nothing to do with it.  If you document them, they are still an illegal alien.  The problem is they are criminals who violated sovereign US territory.  The problem is not that they didn't leave a paper trail when they did it.
> 
> So just to be clear, if I embezzle money, that's fine as long as I "document" it, right?  You're just the flat out dumbest people
Click to expand...


According to Flopper, it's not illegal to embezzle money until a court rules that it's illegal.

Methinks he doesn't understand the term "illegal".


----------



## BrokeLoser

Flopper said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama should have just sent all border agents home.  His tough stance was a complete joke.
> 
> And the current attack by the left is to try and get that back.
> 
> They say they don't want open borders.  They speak with forked tounge.
> 
> 
> 
> *No president has deported more illegal immigrants than Barrack Obama.
> 
> Presidency of Barack Obama, 3.2 million people deported.           400,000/yr. Avg.
> Presidency of George W. Bush, 2 million people were deported.   250,000/Yr. Avg.
> Presidency of Bill Clinton, 870,000 people deported.                     108,750/Yr. Avg.
> Presidency of Donald Trump 240,00 deported in first yr.               240,000/Yr. Avg
> Deportation and removal from the United States - Wikipedia*
Click to expand...


That’s weird...the illegal alien population increased by 2.5 million under the unAmerican, big eared black dudes administration...that’s nearly a 25% bump...How many presidents accomplished that amazing feat?
2.5 Million Join Illegal Population under Obama


----------



## Godboy

HappyJoy said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they have criminal parents, what do you suggest? Let the criminals go because they need to take care of their kids? If i go commit a crime and im sentenced to jail time, can i tell the judge i have a kid to get out of it? Why should illegal immigrants be any different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep the families together. Did you miss the entire thread?
Click to expand...

Do i get to keep my family with me if i go to jail? Why should an illegal immigrant get special treatment above me as a US citizen?


----------



## HappyJoy

Godboy said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they have criminal parents, what do you suggest? Let the criminals go because they need to take care of their kids? If i go commit a crime and im sentenced to jail time, can i tell the judge i have a kid to get out of it? Why should illegal immigrants be any different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep the families together. Did you miss the entire thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do i get to keep my family with me if i go to jail? Why should an illegal immigrant get special treatment above me as a US citizen?
Click to expand...


Not the same circumstance, but kind of weird you would want to incarcerate your own kid and think that is some sort of right that you don't have.


----------



## Cecilie1200

HappyJoy said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they have criminal parents, what do you suggest? Let the criminals go because they need to take care of their kids? If i go commit a crime and im sentenced to jail time, can i tell the judge i have a kid to get out of it? Why should illegal immigrants be any different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep the families together. Did you miss the entire thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do i get to keep my family with me if i go to jail? Why should an illegal immigrant get special treatment above me as a US citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the same circumstance, but kind of weird you would want to incarcerate your own kid and think that is some sort of right that you don't have.
Click to expand...


Kinda weird YOU think it's horrible child abuse NOT to incarcerate children with their illegal immigrant parents.


----------



## HappyJoy

Cecilie1200 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> 
> 
> If they have criminal parents, what do you suggest? Let the criminals go because they need to take care of their kids? If i go commit a crime and im sentenced to jail time, can i tell the judge i have a kid to get out of it? Why should illegal immigrants be any different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep the families together. Did you miss the entire thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do i get to keep my family with me if i go to jail? Why should an illegal immigrant get special treatment above me as a US citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the same circumstance, but kind of weird you would want to incarcerate your own kid and think that is some sort of right that you don't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda weird YOU think it's horrible child abuse NOT to incarcerate children with their illegal immigrant parents.
Click to expand...


They are often incarcerated separately from their parents.


----------



## kaz

HappyJoy said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they have criminal parents, what do you suggest? Let the criminals go because they need to take care of their kids? If i go commit a crime and im sentenced to jail time, can i tell the judge i have a kid to get out of it? Why should illegal immigrants be any different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep the families together. Did you miss the entire thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do i get to keep my family with me if i go to jail? Why should an illegal immigrant get special treatment above me as a US citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the same circumstance, but kind of weird you would want to incarcerate your own kid and think that is some sort of right that you don't have.
Click to expand...

Criminals should have their children taken away


----------



## kaz

dblack said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in the meantime we're trying to stop the endless flow in and you're fighting us on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your fight is with reality. People go where the work is. Governments can impede human migration, temporarily and at great cost, but ultimately the "endless flow" will ignore your laws and your walls. The fact is, we're inviting them here. We want them here. We're paying them to be here.
Click to expand...

And you get more Democrat voters to boot!


----------



## HappyJoy

kaz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> 
> 
> If they have criminal parents, what do you suggest? Let the criminals go because they need to take care of their kids? If i go commit a crime and im sentenced to jail time, can i tell the judge i have a kid to get out of it? Why should illegal immigrants be any different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep the families together. Did you miss the entire thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do i get to keep my family with me if i go to jail? Why should an illegal immigrant get special treatment above me as a US citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the same circumstance, but kind of weird you would want to incarcerate your own kid and think that is some sort of right that you don't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals should have their children taken away
Click to expand...


That's stupid.


----------



## HappyJoy

kaz said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in the meantime we're trying to stop the endless flow in and you're fighting us on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your fight is with reality. People go where the work is. Governments can impede human migration, temporarily and at great cost, but ultimately the "endless flow" will ignore your laws and your walls. The fact is, we're inviting them here. We want them here. We're paying them to be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you get more Democrat voters to boot!
Click to expand...


That's happening regardless. Millennials are turning out to be quite liberal and the eldest most conservative among us are dying off.


----------



## Godboy

HappyJoy said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they have criminal parents, what do you suggest? Let the criminals go because they need to take care of their kids? If i go commit a crime and im sentenced to jail time, can i tell the judge i have a kid to get out of it? Why should illegal immigrants be any different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep the families together. Did you miss the entire thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do i get to keep my family with me if i go to jail? Why should an illegal immigrant get special treatment above me as a US citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the same circumstance, but kind of weird you would want to incarcerate your own kid and think that is some sort of right that you don't have.
Click to expand...

What's the difference in circumstance? Parent commits a crime and goes to jail. Do you think that maybe the authorities thought it wouldn't be wise to put kids in jail with random criminals? Who knows if there are pedophiles among them. One must assume that there are some pedos in there.


----------



## Godboy

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in the meantime we're trying to stop the endless flow in and you're fighting us on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your fight is with reality. People go where the work is. Governments can impede human migration, temporarily and at great cost, but ultimately the "endless flow" will ignore your laws and your walls. The fact is, we're inviting them here. We want them here. We're paying them to be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you get more Democrat voters to boot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's happening regardless. Millennials are turning out to be quite liberal and the eldest most conservative among us are dying off.
Click to expand...

Children have always been liberals, then they grow up and see the real world.


----------



## dblack

kaz said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in the meantime we're trying to stop the endless flow in and you're fighting us on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your fight is with reality. People go where the work is. Governments can impede human migration, temporarily and at great cost, but ultimately the "endless flow" will ignore your laws and your walls. The fact is, we're inviting them here. We want them here. We're paying them to be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you get more Democrat voters to boot!
Click to expand...


Believe it or not, there's more to life than Democrats and Republicans.


----------



## koshergrl

This is the cost that the left is willing to pay..

They maintain that any risk to children is acceptable, as long as they can smuggle people back and forth over the border for profit. 

Illegal kids feed the sex trades...and they also create a huge perceived need for billion dollar programs that the left likes to create and attach themselves to, like the disgusting child trafficking parasites they are. 

VIDEOS: Advocacy group believes ‘homeless camp’ is actually child trafficking den


----------



## koshergrl

And the reason we have increased child trafficking?

"_children are abused with low risk to buyers or traffickers"

Because morons like coyote and others maintain it's wrong to prosecute people who smuggle children across the border. 

Because morons like coyote and others think we should continue to allow MS13 and other trafficking groups to cross our borders with impunity. 

And because other morons want access to trafficked children. 

Who buys a trafficked child for sex? Otherwise ordinary men._


----------



## Cecilie1200

HappyJoy said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they have criminal parents, what do you suggest? Let the criminals go because they need to take care of their kids? If i go commit a crime and im sentenced to jail time, can i tell the judge i have a kid to get out of it? Why should illegal immigrants be any different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep the families together. Did you miss the entire thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do i get to keep my family with me if i go to jail? Why should an illegal immigrant get special treatment above me as a US citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the same circumstance, but kind of weird you would want to incarcerate your own kid and think that is some sort of right that you don't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda weird YOU think it's horrible child abuse NOT to incarcerate children with their illegal immigrant parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are often incarcerated separately from their parents.
Click to expand...


No, they are put in the custody of Health and Human Services (I believe that's the correct department) and from there into the custody of child welfare officials, if their parents' incarceration is prolonged.

The more you indulge yourself in inflammatory, fundamentally-flawed rhetoric, the more ludicrous your "outrage" looks.


----------



## Cecilie1200

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in the meantime we're trying to stop the endless flow in and you're fighting us on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your fight is with reality. People go where the work is. Governments can impede human migration, temporarily and at great cost, but ultimately the "endless flow" will ignore your laws and your walls. The fact is, we're inviting them here. We want them here. We're paying them to be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you get more Democrat voters to boot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's happening regardless. Millennials are turning out to be quite liberal and the eldest most conservative among us are dying off.
Click to expand...


Children are usually leftist.  That's because they're ignorant and naive, two of the major qualifications for being leftist.  Most of them outgrow it.  Some, like you, remain gormless idiots forever.


----------



## HappyJoy

Godboy said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> 
> 
> If they have criminal parents, what do you suggest? Let the criminals go because they need to take care of their kids? If i go commit a crime and im sentenced to jail time, can i tell the judge i have a kid to get out of it? Why should illegal immigrants be any different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep the families together. Did you miss the entire thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do i get to keep my family with me if i go to jail? Why should an illegal immigrant get special treatment above me as a US citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the same circumstance, but kind of weird you would want to incarcerate your own kid and think that is some sort of right that you don't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's the difference in circumstance? Parent commits a crime and goes to jail. Do you think that maybe the authorities thought it wouldn't be wise to put kids in jail with random criminals? Who knows if there are pedophiles among them. One must assume that there are some pedos in there.
Click to expand...


What's the difference? Clearly you haven't thought this through.


----------



## kaz

dblack said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in the meantime we're trying to stop the endless flow in and you're fighting us on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your fight is with reality. People go where the work is. Governments can impede human migration, temporarily and at great cost, but ultimately the "endless flow" will ignore your laws and your walls. The fact is, we're inviting them here. We want them here. We're paying them to be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you get more Democrat voters to boot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, there's more to life than Democrats and Republicans.
Click to expand...

Mirror


----------



## HappyJoy

Cecilie1200 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep the families together. Did you miss the entire thread?
> 
> 
> 
> Do i get to keep my family with me if i go to jail? Why should an illegal immigrant get special treatment above me as a US citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the same circumstance, but kind of weird you would want to incarcerate your own kid and think that is some sort of right that you don't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda weird YOU think it's horrible child abuse NOT to incarcerate children with their illegal immigrant parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are often incarcerated separately from their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are put in the custody of Health and Human Services (I believe that's the correct department) and from there into the custody of child welfare officials, if their parents' incarceration is prolonged.
> 
> The more you indulge yourself in inflammatory, fundamentally-flawed rhetoric, the more ludicrous your "outrage" looks.
Click to expand...


Yes, they are put into the care of Health and Human Services. Whether they are legal asylum seekers or have illegally entered the country. It's a new policy that needs to stop.


----------



## kaz

HappyJoy said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do i get to keep my family with me if i go to jail? Why should an illegal immigrant get special treatment above me as a US citizen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the same circumstance, but kind of weird you would want to incarcerate your own kid and think that is some sort of right that you don't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda weird YOU think it's horrible child abuse NOT to incarcerate children with their illegal immigrant parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are often incarcerated separately from their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are put in the custody of Health and Human Services (I believe that's the correct department) and from there into the custody of child welfare officials, if their parents' incarceration is prolonged.
> 
> The more you indulge yourself in inflammatory, fundamentally-flawed rhetoric, the more ludicrous your "outrage" looks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are put into the care of Health and Human Services. Whether they are legal asylum seekers or have illegally entered the country. It's a new policy that needs to stop.
Click to expand...




HappyJoy said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do i get to keep my family with me if i go to jail? Why should an illegal immigrant get special treatment above me as a US citizen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the same circumstance, but kind of weird you would want to incarcerate your own kid and think that is some sort of right that you don't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda weird YOU think it's horrible child abuse NOT to incarcerate children with their illegal immigrant parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are often incarcerated separately from their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are put in the custody of Health and Human Services (I believe that's the correct department) and from there into the custody of child welfare officials, if their parents' incarceration is prolonged.
> 
> The more you indulge yourself in inflammatory, fundamentally-flawed rhetoric, the more ludicrous your "outrage" looks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are put into the care of Health and Human Services. Whether they are legal asylum seekers or have illegally entered the country. It's a new policy that needs to stop.
Click to expand...

Letting criminals keep children is child abuse


----------



## kaz

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they have criminal parents, what do you suggest? Let the criminals go because they need to take care of their kids? If i go commit a crime and im sentenced to jail time, can i tell the judge i have a kid to get out of it? Why should illegal immigrants be any different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep the families together. Did you miss the entire thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do i get to keep my family with me if i go to jail? Why should an illegal immigrant get special treatment above me as a US citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the same circumstance, but kind of weird you would want to incarcerate your own kid and think that is some sort of right that you don't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals should have their children taken away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's stupid.
Click to expand...

Taking children from criminals is stupid.  Now that's stupid


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Undocumented Immigrant is the correct term because:*
> 
> *Undocumented refers to the lack of genuine documentation of the right to be in a country. The presence of a person in a country is not illegal until a court makes that decision.  *
> *The word immigrant means a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country with or without property documentation.*
> *Having undocumented immigrants in the country does have some undeniably negative effects which the left would like to ignore.  Likewise there are benefits that the right prefers to ignore.  However, we should question how much of the negative effects are due to the lack of upward mobility and lack of absorption into our culture which is a direct result of being undocumented.  Without upward mobility and absorption, undocumented immigrants are frozen into a subculture that is unhealthy for them and the nation.     *
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  A person illegally crossing the border may or may not have been adjudicated as such, but he's illegal the second he crosses that border without inspection.  The court decision is merely a confirmation of that fact.
> 
> I mentioned 17 negative harms of immigration. You mentioned zero _"benefits"_ you claim there are.
> 
> Immigrant is a person who has gone an immigration process, by the proper authorities.
> 
> As for the harms, except for # 14 (cultural erosion), they exist regardless of _"absorption into our culture "_ (aka assimilation).  And with regard to cultural erosion, there doesn't seem to be much of it (like the thugs in San Jose, CA, who chased and attcked Trump rallygoers, while waving Mexican flags)
Click to expand...

*Nope, a person is not guilty of any illegal act without a court ruling.  That ruling can take the form of agreeing to deportation and waving a hearing or trial.  

The days when Latinos were thrown in the back of a truck and dumped across the boarder with no due process aren't here yet, but it's on the way.
*


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Undocumented Immigrant is the correct term because:*
> 
> *Undocumented refers to the lack of genuine documentation of the right to be in a country. The presence of a person in a country is not illegal until a court makes that decision.  *
> *The word immigrant means a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country with or without property documentation.*
> *Having undocumented immigrants in the country does have some undeniably negative effects which the left would like to ignore.  Likewise there are benefits that the right prefers to ignore.  However, we should question how much of the negative effects are due to the lack of upward mobility and lack of absorption into our culture which is a direct result of being undocumented.  Without upward mobility and absorption, undocumented immigrants are frozen into a subculture that is unhealthy for them and the nation.     *
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  A person illegally crossing the border may or may not have been adjudicated as such, but he's illegal the second he crosses that border without inspection.  The court decision is merely a confirmation of that fact.
> 
> I mentioned 17 negative harms of immigration. You mentioned zero _"benefits"_ you claim there are.
> 
> Immigrant is a person who has gone an immigration process, by the proper authorities.
> 
> As for the harms, except for # 14 (cultural erosion), they exist regardless of _"absorption into our culture "_ (aka assimilation).  And with regard to cultural erosion, there doesn't seem to be much of it (like the thugs in San Jose, CA, who chased and attcked Trump rallygoers, while waving Mexican flags)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nope, a person is not guilty of any illegal act without a court ruling.  That ruling can take the form of agreeing to deportation and waving a hearing or trial.
> 
> The days when Latinos were thrown in the back of a truck and dumped across the boarder with no due process aren't here yet, but it's on the way.*
Click to expand...

Only citizens are entitled to due process


----------



## Godboy

HappyJoy said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they have criminal parents, what do you suggest? Let the criminals go because they need to take care of their kids? If i go commit a crime and im sentenced to jail time, can i tell the judge i have a kid to get out of it? Why should illegal immigrants be any different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep the families together. Did you miss the entire thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do i get to keep my family with me if i go to jail? Why should an illegal immigrant get special treatment above me as a US citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the same circumstance, but kind of weird you would want to incarcerate your own kid and think that is some sort of right that you don't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's the difference in circumstance? Parent commits a crime and goes to jail. Do you think that maybe the authorities thought it wouldn't be wise to put kids in jail with random criminals? Who knows if there are pedophiles among them. One must assume that there are some pedos in there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the difference? Clearly you haven't thought this through.
Click to expand...

I couldn't help but notice that you completely avoided my point. I assume that's because you didn't have a sound argument to counter it with.


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Undocumented Immigrant is the correct term because:*
> 
> *Undocumented refers to the lack of genuine documentation of the right to be in a country. The presence of a person in a country is not illegal until a court makes that decision.  *
> *The word immigrant means a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country with or without property documentation.*
> *Having undocumented immigrants in the country does have some undeniably negative effects which the left would like to ignore.  Likewise there are benefits that the right prefers to ignore.  However, we should question how much of the negative effects are due to the lack of upward mobility and lack of absorption into our culture which is a direct result of being undocumented.  Without upward mobility and absorption, undocumented immigrants are frozen into a subculture that is unhealthy for them and the nation.     *
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  A person illegally crossing the border may or may not have been adjudicated as such, but he's illegal the second he crosses that border without inspection.  The court decision is merely a confirmation of that fact.
> 
> I mentioned 17 negative harms of immigration. You mentioned zero _"benefits"_ you claim there are.
> 
> Immigrant is a person who has gone an immigration process, by the proper authorities.
> 
> As for the harms, except for # 14 (cultural erosion), they exist regardless of _"absorption into our culture "_ (aka assimilation).  And with regard to cultural erosion, there doesn't seem to be much of it (like the thugs in San Jose, CA, who chased and attcked Trump rallygoers, while waving Mexican flags)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nope, a person is not guilty of any illegal act without a court ruling.  That ruling can take the form of agreeing to deportation and waving a hearing or trial.
> 
> The days when Latinos were thrown in the back of a truck and dumped across the boarder with no due process aren't here yet, but it's on the way.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only citizens are entitled to due process
Click to expand...




Not so.


----------



## Flopper

Cecilie1200 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep the families together. Did you miss the entire thread?
> 
> 
> 
> Do i get to keep my family with me if i go to jail? Why should an illegal immigrant get special treatment above me as a US citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the same circumstance, but kind of weird you would want to incarcerate your own kid and think that is some sort of right that you don't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda weird YOU think it's horrible child abuse NOT to incarcerate children with their illegal immigrant parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are often incarcerated separately from their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are put in the custody of Health and Human Services (I believe that's the correct department) and from there into the custody of child welfare officials, if their parents' incarceration is prolonged.
> 
> The more you indulge yourself in inflammatory, fundamentally-flawed rhetoric, the more ludicrous your "outrage" looks.
Click to expand...

*Taking young children away from their parents should be a last resort.  Since the system provides family detention centers, there is no reason why they should not be used.  However, the best option is releasing the parents on their own recognizance with monitoring which has proved very effective. It lowers cost and keeps the family together.  Of course that's not going to happen because Trump wants to use the system to punish the parents which was never the intent of our immigration laws.*


----------



## Godboy

Flopper said:


> *Taking young children away from their parents should be a last resort.*


You mean like when their parents go to jail for commiting a crime? Surely you wouldn't expect us to be heartless enough to put young children in adult prisons.


----------



## Flopper

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Undocumented Immigrant is the correct term because:*
> 
> *Undocumented refers to the lack of genuine documentation of the right to be in a country. The presence of a person in a country is not illegal until a court makes that decision.  *
> *The word immigrant means a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country with or without property documentation.*
> *Having undocumented immigrants in the country does have some undeniably negative effects which the left would like to ignore.  Likewise there are benefits that the right prefers to ignore.  However, we should question how much of the negative effects are due to the lack of upward mobility and lack of absorption into our culture which is a direct result of being undocumented.  Without upward mobility and absorption, undocumented immigrants are frozen into a subculture that is unhealthy for them and the nation.     *
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  A person illegally crossing the border may or may not have been adjudicated as such, but he's illegal the second he crosses that border without inspection.  The court decision is merely a confirmation of that fact.
> 
> I mentioned 17 negative harms of immigration. You mentioned zero _"benefits"_ you claim there are.
> 
> Immigrant is a person who has gone an immigration process, by the proper authorities.
> 
> As for the harms, except for # 14 (cultural erosion), they exist regardless of _"absorption into our culture "_ (aka assimilation).  And with regard to cultural erosion, there doesn't seem to be much of it (like the thugs in San Jose, CA, who chased and attcked Trump rallygoers, while waving Mexican flags)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nope, a person is not guilty of any illegal act without a court ruling.  That ruling can take the form of agreeing to deportation and waving a hearing or trial.
> 
> The days when Latinos were thrown in the back of a truck and dumped across the boarder with no due process aren't here yet, but it's on the way.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Only citizens are entitled to due process*
Click to expand...

*Anyone living in the U.S. — legally or not — has constitutional rights, including the right to equal protection of the law and that of due process (fair treatment in the judicial system).  Immigration officers are not required nor do they advise detainees of their rights so they often assume they have none. That's why most detainees do not have lawyers and wave their right to a hearing and accept deportation.*
*What Constitutional Rights Do Undocumented Immigrants Have When on American Soil? - Illegal Immigration - ProCon.org*


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Undocumented Immigrant is the correct term because:*
> 
> *Undocumented refers to the lack of genuine documentation of the right to be in a country. The presence of a person in a country is not illegal until a court makes that decision.  *
> *The word immigrant means a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country with or without property documentation.*
> *Having undocumented immigrants in the country does have some undeniably negative effects which the left would like to ignore.  Likewise there are benefits that the right prefers to ignore.  However, we should question how much of the negative effects are due to the lack of upward mobility and lack of absorption into our culture which is a direct result of being undocumented.  Without upward mobility and absorption, undocumented immigrants are frozen into a subculture that is unhealthy for them and the nation.     *
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  A person illegally crossing the border may or may not have been adjudicated as such, but he's illegal the second he crosses that border without inspection.  The court decision is merely a confirmation of that fact.
> 
> I mentioned 17 negative harms of immigration. You mentioned zero _"benefits"_ you claim there are.
> 
> Immigrant is a person who has gone an immigration process, by the proper authorities.
> 
> As for the harms, except for # 14 (cultural erosion), they exist regardless of _"absorption into our culture "_ (aka assimilation).  And with regard to cultural erosion, there doesn't seem to be much of it (like the thugs in San Jose, CA, who chased and attcked Trump rallygoers, while waving Mexican flags)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nope, a person is not guilty of any illegal act without a court ruling.  That ruling can take the form of agreeing to deportation and waving a hearing or trial.
> 
> The days when Latinos were thrown in the back of a truck and dumped across the boarder with no due process aren't here yet, but it's on the way.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only citizens are entitled to due process
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so.
Click to expand...

Ok, I mean constitutionally.  They can be granted it legislatively


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Undocumented Immigrant is the correct term because:*
> 
> *Undocumented refers to the lack of genuine documentation of the right to be in a country. The presence of a person in a country is not illegal until a court makes that decision.  *
> *The word immigrant means a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country with or without property documentation.*
> *Having undocumented immigrants in the country does have some undeniably negative effects which the left would like to ignore.  Likewise there are benefits that the right prefers to ignore.  However, we should question how much of the negative effects are due to the lack of upward mobility and lack of absorption into our culture which is a direct result of being undocumented.  Without upward mobility and absorption, undocumented immigrants are frozen into a subculture that is unhealthy for them and the nation.     *
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  A person illegally crossing the border may or may not have been adjudicated as such, but he's illegal the second he crosses that border without inspection.  The court decision is merely a confirmation of that fact.
> 
> I mentioned 17 negative harms of immigration. You mentioned zero _"benefits"_ you claim there are.
> 
> Immigrant is a person who has gone an immigration process, by the proper authorities.
> 
> As for the harms, except for # 14 (cultural erosion), they exist regardless of _"absorption into our culture "_ (aka assimilation).  And with regard to cultural erosion, there doesn't seem to be much of it (like the thugs in San Jose, CA, who chased and attcked Trump rallygoers, while waving Mexican flags)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nope, a person is not guilty of any illegal act without a court ruling.  That ruling can take the form of agreeing to deportation and waving a hearing or trial.
> 
> The days when Latinos were thrown in the back of a truck and dumped across the boarder with no due process aren't here yet, but it's on the way.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Only citizens are entitled to due process*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Anyone living in the U.S. — legally or not — has constitutional rights, including the right to equal protection of the law and that of due process (fair treatment in the judicial system).  Immigration officers are not required nor do they advise detainees of their rights so they often assume they have none. That's why most detainees do not have lawyers and wave their rights and accept deportation which of course is really dumb.*
> *What Constitutional Rights Do Undocumented Immigrants Have When on American Soil? - Illegal Immigration - ProCon.org*
Click to expand...

See last post


----------



## Flopper

Godboy said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Taking young children away from their parents should be a last resort.*
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like when their parents go to jail for commiting a crime? Surely you wouldn't expect us to be heartless enough to put young children in adult prisons.
Click to expand...

*No, I mean exactly what I said.  Taking young children away from their parent should be a last resort.*


----------



## Flopper

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Undocumented Immigrant is the correct term because:*
> 
> *Undocumented refers to the lack of genuine documentation of the right to be in a country. The presence of a person in a country is not illegal until a court makes that decision.  *
> *The word immigrant means a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country with or without property documentation.*
> *Having undocumented immigrants in the country does have some undeniably negative effects which the left would like to ignore.  Likewise there are benefits that the right prefers to ignore.  However, we should question how much of the negative effects are due to the lack of upward mobility and lack of absorption into our culture which is a direct result of being undocumented.  Without upward mobility and absorption, undocumented immigrants are frozen into a subculture that is unhealthy for them and the nation.     *
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  A person illegally crossing the border may or may not have been adjudicated as such, but he's illegal the second he crosses that border without inspection.  The court decision is merely a confirmation of that fact.
> 
> I mentioned 17 negative harms of immigration. You mentioned zero _"benefits"_ you claim there are.
> 
> Immigrant is a person who has gone an immigration process, by the proper authorities.
> 
> As for the harms, except for # 14 (cultural erosion), they exist regardless of _"absorption into our culture "_ (aka assimilation).  And with regard to cultural erosion, there doesn't seem to be much of it (like the thugs in San Jose, CA, who chased and attcked Trump rallygoers, while waving Mexican flags)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nope, a person is not guilty of any illegal act without a court ruling.  That ruling can take the form of agreeing to deportation and waving a hearing or trial.
> 
> The days when Latinos were thrown in the back of a truck and dumped across the boarder with no due process aren't here yet, but it's on the way.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Only citizens are entitled to due process*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Anyone living in the U.S. — legally or not — has constitutional rights, including the right to equal protection of the law and that of due process (fair treatment in the judicial system).  Immigration officers are not required nor do they advise detainees of their rights so they often assume they have none. That's why most detainees do not have lawyers and wave their rights and accept deportation which of course is really dumb.*
> *What Constitutional Rights Do Undocumented Immigrants Have When on American Soil? - Illegal Immigration - ProCon.org*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See last post
Click to expand...

*Link?*


----------



## Cecilie1200

HappyJoy said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do i get to keep my family with me if i go to jail? Why should an illegal immigrant get special treatment above me as a US citizen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the same circumstance, but kind of weird you would want to incarcerate your own kid and think that is some sort of right that you don't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda weird YOU think it's horrible child abuse NOT to incarcerate children with their illegal immigrant parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are often incarcerated separately from their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are put in the custody of Health and Human Services (I believe that's the correct department) and from there into the custody of child welfare officials, if their parents' incarceration is prolonged.
> 
> The more you indulge yourself in inflammatory, fundamentally-flawed rhetoric, the more ludicrous your "outrage" looks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are put into the care of Health and Human Services. Whether they are legal asylum seekers or have illegally entered the country. It's a new policy that needs to stop.
Click to expand...


No, it's not a new policy.  Children without a parent or guardian available to take charge of them have pretty much always been put in the custody of whatever the prevailing child welfare authority of the time is.  And no, that does NOT need to stop, unless you think letting them roam the streets alone is a better, "more humane" plan.

Let's be extremely clear on what's happening here, and the context in which it's happening.

Separation of child from adult has ALWAYS been the policy if the adult is not the parent or legal guardian (or cannot prove he/she is), if the adult is a threat to the child, _or if the adult is put into criminal proceedings_.  ALWAYS.

What is different, and what you leftists are ACTUALLY trying to advocate for without appearing to, is that previous administrations would simply give the adults a free pass if they had kids in tow, a policy which had the result of putting MORE children at risk because it encouraged more adults to drag children into their lawbreaking in order to callously use them as human shields.  The real policy change has been that we are now prosecuting the adults, instead of just letting them wander off into the sunset.  So when you screech and holler and tear your hair about "ripping children from their parents", you're either stupid or lying to claim that this is something new and unusual and shocking.  

And no, we are NOT going to feel guilty about prosecuting people who chose to break the law.

Furthermore, it has been LEFTIST organizations that have been fighting to end family detention centers, precisely because of stated concerns about the well-being of the children, so it's not exactly resonating with anyone that NOW we're hearing that they're more "compassionate" than foster care.  It's pretty obvious that what you're REALLY angling for is to box the Trump administration in so that the only choice left is to just let illegals la-di-da off into the general populations to vanish.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Undocumented Immigrant is the correct term because:*
> 
> *Undocumented refers to the lack of genuine documentation of the right to be in a country. The presence of a person in a country is not illegal until a court makes that decision.  *
> *The word immigrant means a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country with or without property documentation.*
> *Having undocumented immigrants in the country does have some undeniably negative effects which the left would like to ignore.  Likewise there are benefits that the right prefers to ignore.  However, we should question how much of the negative effects are due to the lack of upward mobility and lack of absorption into our culture which is a direct result of being undocumented.  Without upward mobility and absorption, undocumented immigrants are frozen into a subculture that is unhealthy for them and the nation.     *
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  A person illegally crossing the border may or may not have been adjudicated as such, but he's illegal the second he crosses that border without inspection.  The court decision is merely a confirmation of that fact.
> 
> I mentioned 17 negative harms of immigration. You mentioned zero _"benefits"_ you claim there are.
> 
> Immigrant is a person who has gone an immigration process, by the proper authorities.
> 
> As for the harms, except for # 14 (cultural erosion), they exist regardless of _"absorption into our culture "_ (aka assimilation).  And with regard to cultural erosion, there doesn't seem to be much of it (like the thugs in San Jose, CA, who chased and attcked Trump rallygoers, while waving Mexican flags)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nope, a person is not guilty of any illegal act without a court ruling.  That ruling can take the form of agreeing to deportation and waving a hearing or trial.
> 
> The days when Latinos were thrown in the back of a truck and dumped across the boarder with no due process aren't here yet, but it's on the way.*
Click to expand...


There's a difference between "a person is not guilty" and "the act is not illegal".  Murder is always illegal, and requires no court ruling to be illegal; I personally am not guilty of murder until a court finds me so.  But even if the court can't find sufficient evidence, if I actually DID kill someone, I'm still a murderer.

Likewise, entering this country without permission is always illegal.  Thus, the person who enters this country without proper permission is always an illegal immigrant.  The fact that they haven't been convicted of it yet doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that it wasn't against the law.

You're running up against one of the classic leftist stupidities:  you have no morality, so you think legality can replace it.

And yes, people who are accused of crimes have always had the option to waive (not "wave", dimwit) a trial and simply plead guilty.  No one can make them do it; it is THEIR choice, THEIR right.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do i get to keep my family with me if i go to jail? Why should an illegal immigrant get special treatment above me as a US citizen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the same circumstance, but kind of weird you would want to incarcerate your own kid and think that is some sort of right that you don't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda weird YOU think it's horrible child abuse NOT to incarcerate children with their illegal immigrant parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are often incarcerated separately from their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are put in the custody of Health and Human Services (I believe that's the correct department) and from there into the custody of child welfare officials, if their parents' incarceration is prolonged.
> 
> The more you indulge yourself in inflammatory, fundamentally-flawed rhetoric, the more ludicrous your "outrage" looks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Taking young children away from their parents should be a last resort.  Since the system provides family detention centers, there is no reason why they should not be used.  However, the best option is releasing the parents on their own recognizance with monitoring which has proved very effective. It lowers cost and keeps the family together.  Of course that's not going to happen because Trump wants to use the system to punish the parents which was never the intent of our immigration laws.*
Click to expand...


It IS a last resort.  You'll notice that we ONLY do it when the parent commits a crime and gets arrested, or when clear evidence exists that the adult is a threat to the child (or if the adult doesn't have a provable right TO the child, but that's something else).

As I keep saying, it was the LEFT that decried family detention centers, and the left which brought all the cases which have led to the laws - all of which predate Trump's presidency - requiring us NOT to detain the kids.  Do you even know what the laws ARE in this regard, let alone why they exist?  It's hilarious that NOW you want us to believe that family detention centers are the compassionate choice, when just a couple of years ago, leftists were screaming their heads off that we HAD to stop keeping kids there.

So no, that's not going to happen, and it's NOT because of Trump.  It's NOT to "punish the parents".  It's because it's the law.


----------



## dblack

kaz said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in the meantime we're trying to stop the endless flow in and you're fighting us on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your fight is with reality. People go where the work is. Governments can impede human migration, temporarily and at great cost, but ultimately the "endless flow" will ignore your laws and your walls. The fact is, we're inviting them here. We want them here. We're paying them to be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you get more Democrat voters to boot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, there's more to life than Democrats and Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mirror
Click to expand...


Seriously, does it make sense to you formulate immigration policy based on temporary, partisan politics?


----------



## kaz

dblack said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in the meantime we're trying to stop the endless flow in and you're fighting us on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your fight is with reality. People go where the work is. Governments can impede human migration, temporarily and at great cost, but ultimately the "endless flow" will ignore your laws and your walls. The fact is, we're inviting them here. We want them here. We're paying them to be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you get more Democrat voters to boot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, there's more to life than Democrats and Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mirror
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, does it make sense to you formulate immigration policy based on temporary, partisan politics?
Click to expand...


Begging the question


----------



## Pop23

Flopper said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Taking young children away from their parents should be a last resort.*
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like when their parents go to jail for commiting a crime? Surely you wouldn't expect us to be heartless enough to put young children in adult prisons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, I mean exactly what I said.  Taking young children away from their parent should be a last resort.*
Click to expand...


We don’t make the decision, the criminal does. 

We don’t stop crime, we set deterrents to try to keep criminals from committing crimes. It is the person committing the crime, knowing what might happen, that is culpable.


----------



## dblack

kaz said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your fight is with reality. People go where the work is. Governments can impede human migration, temporarily and at great cost, but ultimately the "endless flow" will ignore your laws and your walls. The fact is, we're inviting them here. We want them here. We're paying them to be here.
> 
> 
> 
> And you get more Democrat voters to boot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, there's more to life than Democrats and Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mirror
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, does it make sense to you formulate immigration policy based on temporary, partisan politics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Begging the question
Click to expand...

Mirror


----------



## kaz

dblack said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you get more Democrat voters to boot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, there's more to life than Democrats and Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mirror
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, does it make sense to you formulate immigration policy based on temporary, partisan politics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Begging the question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mirror
Click to expand...

Dblack.  I have nothing.  I'm going to just repeat what you said to me back to you.  It didnt even make sense there either


----------



## dblack

kaz said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, there's more to life than Democrats and Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> Mirror
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, does it make sense to you formulate immigration policy based on temporary, partisan politics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Begging the question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mirror
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dblack.  I have nothing.
Click to expand...

 I've noticed.


----------



## kaz

dblack said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mirror
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, does it make sense to you formulate immigration policy based on temporary, partisan politics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Begging the question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mirror
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dblack.  I have nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've noticed.
Click to expand...

Now you're playground.  You continue to spiral down


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  A person illegally crossing the border may or may not have been adjudicated as such, but he's illegal the second he crosses that border without inspection.  The court decision is merely a confirmation of that fact.
> 
> I mentioned 17 negative harms of immigration. You mentioned zero _"benefits"_ you claim there are.
> 
> Immigrant is a person who has gone an immigration process, by the proper authorities.
> 
> As for the harms, except for # 14 (cultural erosion), they exist regardless of _"absorption into our culture "_ (aka assimilation).  And with regard to cultural erosion, there doesn't seem to be much of it (like the thugs in San Jose, CA, who chased and attcked Trump rallygoers, while waving Mexican flags)
> 
> 
> 
> *Nope, a person is not guilty of any illegal act without a court ruling.  That ruling can take the form of agreeing to deportation and waving a hearing or trial.
> 
> The days when Latinos were thrown in the back of a truck and dumped across the boarder with no due process aren't here yet, but it's on the way.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Only citizens are entitled to due process*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Anyone living in the U.S. — legally or not — has constitutional rights, including the right to equal protection of the law and that of due process (fair treatment in the judicial system).  Immigration officers are not required nor do they advise detainees of their rights so they often assume they have none. That's why most detainees do not have lawyers and wave their rights and accept deportation which of course is really dumb.*
> *What Constitutional Rights Do Undocumented Immigrants Have When on American Soil? - Illegal Immigration - ProCon.org*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See last post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Link?*
Click to expand...


It's not in the Constitution.  The Constitution is "We the  People," not "We the People and anyone who legally or illegally resides on our territory."  Game, set and match.  

As for the idiocy of what you're arguing, name another country that grants the rights of citizens to foreigners, much less ones there illegally ...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> However, the best option is releasing the parents on their own recognizance with monitoring which has proved very effective. It lowers cost and keeps the family together. Of course that's not going to happen because Trump wants to use the system to punish the parents which was never the intent of our immigration laws.



Maybe, but letting them roam around the country with an ankle bracelet after they broke our laws is rewarding them.  You want to stop illegal immigration by not offering a deterrent.  Trust me, that doesn't and will never work.


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, the best option is releasing the parents on their own recognizance with monitoring which has proved very effective. It lowers cost and keeps the family together. Of course that's not going to happen because Trump wants to use the system to punish the parents which was never the intent of our immigration laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, but letting them roam around the country with an ankle bracelet after they broke our laws is rewarding them.  You want to stop illegal immigration by not offering a deterrent.  Trust me, that doesn't and will never work.
Click to expand...


Technically he agrees with you that it won't work, which is why he wants to do that


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Undocumented Immigrant is the correct term because:*
> 
> *Undocumented refers to the lack of genuine documentation of the right to be in a country. The presence of a person in a country is not illegal until a court makes that decision.  *
> *The word immigrant means a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country with or without property documentation.*
> *Having undocumented immigrants in the country does have some undeniably negative effects which the left would like to ignore.  Likewise there are benefits that the right prefers to ignore.  However, we should question how much of the negative effects are due to the lack of upward mobility and lack of absorption into our culture which is a direct result of being undocumented.  Without upward mobility and absorption, undocumented immigrants are frozen into a subculture that is unhealthy for them and the nation.     *
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  A person illegally crossing the border may or may not have been adjudicated as such, but he's illegal the second he crosses that border without inspection.  The court decision is merely a confirmation of that fact.
> 
> I mentioned 17 negative harms of immigration. You mentioned zero _"benefits"_ you claim there are.
> 
> Immigrant is a person who has gone an immigration process, by the proper authorities.
> 
> As for the harms, except for # 14 (cultural erosion), they exist regardless of _"absorption into our culture "_ (aka assimilation).  And with regard to cultural erosion, there doesn't seem to be much of it (like the thugs in San Jose, CA, who chased and attcked Trump rallygoers, while waving Mexican flags)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nope, a person is not guilty of any illegal act without a court ruling.  That ruling can take the form of agreeing to deportation and waving a hearing or trial.
> 
> The days when Latinos were thrown in the back of a truck and dumped across the boarder with no due process aren't here yet, but it's on the way.*
Click to expand...


We can only hope.


----------



## Godboy

Flopper said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Taking young children away from their parents should be a last resort.*
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like when their parents go to jail for commiting a crime? Surely you wouldn't expect us to be heartless enough to put young children in adult prisons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, I mean exactly what I said.  Taking young children away from their parent should be a last resort.*
Click to expand...

So you think kids should go to jail with their parents? Explain your weird position.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in the meantime we're trying to stop the endless flow in and you're fighting us on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your fight is with reality. People go where the work is. Governments can impede human migration, temporarily and at great cost, but ultimately the "endless flow" will ignore your laws and your walls. The fact is, we're inviting them here. We want them here. We're paying them to be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you get more Democrat voters to boot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's happening regardless. Millennials are turning out to be quite liberal and the eldest most conservative among us are dying off.
Click to expand...


That must be true because I've been hearing that for over 30 years now.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in the meantime we're trying to stop the endless flow in and you're fighting us on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your fight is with reality. People go where the work is. Governments can impede human migration, temporarily and at great cost, but ultimately the "endless flow" will ignore your laws and your walls. The fact is, we're inviting them here. We want them here. We're paying them to be here.
Click to expand...


Only some of them; those who have something to offer this country.  But unskilled labor generally undercuts the wages of our labor and that's not good for our people.  This is especially true in the black community because very often blacks take on lower paying jobs.


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in the meantime we're trying to stop the endless flow in and you're fighting us on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your fight is with reality. People go where the work is. Governments can impede human migration, temporarily and at great cost, but ultimately the "endless flow" will ignore your laws and your walls. The fact is, we're inviting them here. We want them here. We're paying them to be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only some of them; those who have something to offer this country.  But unskilled labor generally undercuts the wages of our labor and that's not good for our people.  This is especially true in the black community because very often blacks take on lower paying jobs.
Click to expand...


Yep, the Democrat Party importing millions of poor criminals from third world shit hole countries is as stupid an idea as it sounds.

dblack is all over it ...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Moonglow said:


> The truth is the illegals fulfill a role in capitalism it's called cheap labor, but yet idiots seem to think only one party allows the illegals to stay when over forty years since the invaders were allowed to stay it has been both parties that have facilitated the problem and the rich which save money.



This may be true, but now Republicans are taking notice of what their constituents want, and it's not invaders taking our jobs.  Every other candidate in the primary besides Trump had very weak answers for our immigration problem.  Only one stood out against illegal immigrants, and that was Donald Trump.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in the meantime we're trying to stop the endless flow in and you're fighting us on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your fight is with reality. People go where the work is. Governments can impede human migration, temporarily and at great cost, but ultimately the "endless flow" will ignore your laws and your walls. The fact is, we're inviting them here. We want them here. We're paying them to be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only some of them; those who have something to offer this country.  But unskilled labor generally undercuts the wages of our labor and that's not good for our people.  This is especially true in the black community because very often blacks take on lower paying jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, the Democrat Party importing millions of poor criminals from third world shit hole countries is as stupid an idea as it sounds.
> 
> dblack is all over it ...
Click to expand...


Assuming that Dblack is black, perhaps that's something he should think about.  You don't help your own people by allowing them to be pushed to the side for strangers in this country.  Trump is in charge, illegal immigration is down, and black unemployment is the lowest it's been since records of black employment were kept.  

Coincidence? Maybe, but I would think that it wasn't just a fluke.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Godboy said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Taking young children away from their parents should be a last resort.*
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like when their parents go to jail for commiting a crime? Surely you wouldn't expect us to be heartless enough to put young children in adult prisons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, I mean exactly what I said.  Taking young children away from their parent should be a last resort.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think kids should go to jail with their parents? Explain your weird position.
Click to expand...


They think family detention centers are just a spiffy and wonderful and humane solution . . . now.  Of course, two-three years ago, they were wailing in outrage about how awful they were, and insisting that accompanied minors should fall under the jurisdiction of the Flores Settlement, which is why they are now placed in the custody of HHS.


----------



## Kondor3

What human cost is acceptable in controlling Illegal Immigration?

In other words, what human cost is acceptable in protecting our national borders and enforcing our sovereignty over our own soil?

The quantitative answer is: as many intruder lives and ruinous deportations as may be required to achieve those paramount national strategic outcomes.

Next slide, please.


----------



## Moonglow

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is the illegals fulfill a role in capitalism it's called cheap labor, but yet idiots seem to think only one party allows the illegals to stay when over forty years since the invaders were allowed to stay it has been both parties that have facilitated the problem and the rich which save money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This may be true, but now Republicans are taking notice of what their constituents want, and it's not invaders taking our jobs.  Every other candidate in the primary besides Trump had very weak answers for our immigration problem.  Only one stood out against illegal immigrants, and that was Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

Donald Trump is not the GOP, and there are Republicans who don't like his immigration policy. And the illegals, are still here, so Trump isn't doing enough.


----------



## Moonglow

Kondor3 said:


> What human cost is acceptable in controlling Illegal Immigration?
> 
> In other words, what human cost is acceptable in protecting our national borders and enforcing our sovereignty over our own soil?
> 
> The quantitative answer is: as many intruder lives and ruinous deportations as may be required to achieve those paramount national strategic outcomes.
> 
> Next slide, please.


Or at least kill three million Native Americans to claim the country is sovereign over all peoples.


----------



## eagle1462010

Moonglow said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is the illegals fulfill a role in capitalism it's called cheap labor, but yet idiots seem to think only one party allows the illegals to stay when over forty years since the invaders were allowed to stay it has been both parties that have facilitated the problem and the rich which save money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This may be true, but now Republicans are taking notice of what their constituents want, and it's not invaders taking our jobs.  Every other candidate in the primary besides Trump had very weak answers for our immigration problem.  Only one stood out against illegal immigrants, and that was Donald Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Donald Trump is not the GOP, and there are Republicans who don't like his immigration policy. And the illegals, are still here, so Trump isn't doing enough.
Click to expand...

And what legislation have they placed on his desk to sign.....................Has he rejected their bills placed on his desk...................................

They have no reason to complain.


----------



## Moonglow

eagle1462010 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is the illegals fulfill a role in capitalism it's called cheap labor, but yet idiots seem to think only one party allows the illegals to stay when over forty years since the invaders were allowed to stay it has been both parties that have facilitated the problem and the rich which save money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This may be true, but now Republicans are taking notice of what their constituents want, and it's not invaders taking our jobs.  Every other candidate in the primary besides Trump had very weak answers for our immigration problem.  Only one stood out against illegal immigrants, and that was Donald Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Donald Trump is not the GOP, and there are Republicans who don't like his immigration policy. And the illegals, are still here, so Trump isn't doing enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what legislation have they placed on his desk to sign.....................Has he rejected their bills placed on his desk...................................
> 
> They have no reason to complain.
Click to expand...

No legislation of existing law has been put on his desk, how intriguing.


----------



## Flopper

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Undocumented Immigrant is the correct term because:*
> 
> *Undocumented refers to the lack of genuine documentation of the right to be in a country. The presence of a person in a country is not illegal until a court makes that decision.  *
> *The word immigrant means a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country with or without property documentation.*
> *Having undocumented immigrants in the country does have some undeniably negative effects which the left would like to ignore.  Likewise there are benefits that the right prefers to ignore.  However, we should question how much of the negative effects are due to the lack of upward mobility and lack of absorption into our culture which is a direct result of being undocumented.  Without upward mobility and absorption, undocumented immigrants are frozen into a subculture that is unhealthy for them and the nation.     *
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  A person illegally crossing the border may or may not have been adjudicated as such, but he's illegal the second he crosses that border without inspection.  The court decision is merely a confirmation of that fact.
> 
> I mentioned 17 negative harms of immigration. You mentioned zero _"benefits"_ you claim there are.
> 
> Immigrant is a person who has gone an immigration process, by the proper authorities.
> 
> As for the harms, except for # 14 (cultural erosion), they exist regardless of _"absorption into our culture "_ (aka assimilation).  And with regard to cultural erosion, there doesn't seem to be much of it (like the thugs in San Jose, CA, who chased and attcked Trump rallygoers, while waving Mexican flags)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nope, a person is not guilty of any illegal act without a court ruling.  That ruling can take the form of agreeing to deportation and waving a hearing or trial.
> 
> The days when Latinos were thrown in the back of a truck and dumped across the boarder with no due process aren't here yet, but it's on the way.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a difference between "a person is not guilty" and "the act is not illegal".  Murder is always illegal, and requires no court ruling to be illegal; I personally am not guilty of murder until a court finds me so.  But even if the court can't find sufficient evidence, if I actually DID kill someone, I'm still a murderer.
> 
> Likewise, entering this country without permission is always illegal.  Thus, the person who enters this country without proper permission is always an illegal immigrant.  The fact that they haven't been convicted of it yet doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that it wasn't against the law.
> 
> You're running up against one of the classic leftist stupidities:  you have no morality, so you think legality can replace it.
> 
> And yes, people who are accused of crimes have always had the option to waive (not "wave", dimwit) a trial and simply plead guilty.  No one can make them do it; it is THEIR choice, THEIR right.
Click to expand...

*If you see a person running down the street holding a gun, a bag of money, and a store owner is screaming, "I've been robbed", it's likely that you would call that person a robber.  A Latino boy caught running away from the border that doesn't have any identification would probably lead you to believe that he's an illegal alien.  In both cases you woulld probably be right but in the legal sense, neither is guilty of anything until the court says so.  That's why we refer to the robber as the accused and the boy as an undocumented immigrant.  No matter how guilty a person may look, there is always the presumption of innocent in America. You are are not guilty in the eyes of the law until the judge says so.  What you call the person is immaterial.*


----------



## eagle1462010

Moonglow said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is the illegals fulfill a role in capitalism it's called cheap labor, but yet idiots seem to think only one party allows the illegals to stay when over forty years since the invaders were allowed to stay it has been both parties that have facilitated the problem and the rich which save money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This may be true, but now Republicans are taking notice of what their constituents want, and it's not invaders taking our jobs.  Every other candidate in the primary besides Trump had very weak answers for our immigration problem.  Only one stood out against illegal immigrants, and that was Donald Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Donald Trump is not the GOP, and there are Republicans who don't like his immigration policy. And the illegals, are still here, so Trump isn't doing enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what legislation have they placed on his desk to sign.....................Has he rejected their bills placed on his desk...................................
> 
> They have no reason to complain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No legislation of existing law has been put on his desk, how intriguing.
Click to expand...

Well show me...............the bill...........show me where he vetoed any of their legislation...............

You said they have issues with him.........show where he ditched them..........vetoed their legislation on this issue.


----------



## Moonglow

eagle1462010 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is the illegals fulfill a role in capitalism it's called cheap labor, but yet idiots seem to think only one party allows the illegals to stay when over forty years since the invaders were allowed to stay it has been both parties that have facilitated the problem and the rich which save money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This may be true, but now Republicans are taking notice of what their constituents want, and it's not invaders taking our jobs.  Every other candidate in the primary besides Trump had very weak answers for our immigration problem.  Only one stood out against illegal immigrants, and that was Donald Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Donald Trump is not the GOP, and there are Republicans who don't like his immigration policy. And the illegals, are still here, so Trump isn't doing enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what legislation have they placed on his desk to sign.....................Has he rejected their bills placed on his desk...................................
> 
> They have no reason to complain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No legislation of existing law has been put on his desk, how intriguing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well show me...............the bill...........show me where he vetoed any of their legislation...............
> 
> You said they have issues with him.........show where he ditched them..........vetoed their legislation on this issue.
Click to expand...

There is and was no legislation put before him, do you folks need to borrow my reading glasses? The laws already exist.


----------



## Flopper

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Nope, a person is not guilty of any illegal act without a court ruling.  That ruling can take the form of agreeing to deportation and waving a hearing or trial.
> 
> The days when Latinos were thrown in the back of a truck and dumped across the boarder with no due process aren't here yet, but it's on the way.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Only citizens are entitled to due process*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Anyone living in the U.S. — legally or not — has constitutional rights, including the right to equal protection of the law and that of due process (fair treatment in the judicial system).  Immigration officers are not required nor do they advise detainees of their rights so they often assume they have none. That's why most detainees do not have lawyers and wave their rights and accept deportation which of course is really dumb.*
> *What Constitutional Rights Do Undocumented Immigrants Have When on American Soil? - Illegal Immigration - ProCon.org*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See last post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Link?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not in the Constitution.  The Constitution is "We the  People," not "We the People and anyone who legally or illegally resides on our territory."  Game, set and match.
> 
> As for the idiocy of what you're arguing, name another country that grants the rights of citizens to foreigners, much less ones there illegally ...
Click to expand...


*That's your opinion and a lot of people share it.  However the US Supreme Court does not.  The Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."

Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Only citizens are entitled to due process*
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyone living in the U.S. — legally or not — has constitutional rights, including the right to equal protection of the law and that of due process (fair treatment in the judicial system).  Immigration officers are not required nor do they advise detainees of their rights so they often assume they have none. That's why most detainees do not have lawyers and wave their rights and accept deportation which of course is really dumb.*
> *What Constitutional Rights Do Undocumented Immigrants Have When on American Soil? - Illegal Immigration - ProCon.org*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See last post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Link?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not in the Constitution.  The Constitution is "We the  People," not "We the People and anyone who legally or illegally resides on our territory."  Game, set and match.
> 
> As for the idiocy of what you're arguing, name another country that grants the rights of citizens to foreigners, much less ones there illegally ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That's your opinion and a lot of people share it.  However the US Supreme Court does not.  The Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."
> 
> Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights*
Click to expand...


And if Madison was alive today to see what's going on, do you really believe he would continue to hold that opinion?


----------



## eagle1462010

Moonglow said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is the illegals fulfill a role in capitalism it's called cheap labor, but yet idiots seem to think only one party allows the illegals to stay when over forty years since the invaders were allowed to stay it has been both parties that have facilitated the problem and the rich which save money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This may be true, but now Republicans are taking notice of what their constituents want, and it's not invaders taking our jobs.  Every other candidate in the primary besides Trump had very weak answers for our immigration problem.  Only one stood out against illegal immigrants, and that was Donald Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Donald Trump is not the GOP, and there are Republicans who don't like his immigration policy. And the illegals, are still here, so Trump isn't doing enough.
Click to expand...

you said.........

Donald Trump is not the GOP, and there are *Republicans who don't like his immigration policy*. And the illegals, are still here, so Trump isn't doing enough.


He's enforcing the laws of this country........killed Catch and Release............so what's the problem........why are they mad...................what don't they like.............they haven't funded it..............they haven't changed anything........and have no reason to bitch.........

His immigration policy is THEIR POLICIES.......their laws..............change it.


----------



## Moonglow

eagle1462010 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is the illegals fulfill a role in capitalism it's called cheap labor, but yet idiots seem to think only one party allows the illegals to stay when over forty years since the invaders were allowed to stay it has been both parties that have facilitated the problem and the rich which save money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This may be true, but now Republicans are taking notice of what their constituents want, and it's not invaders taking our jobs.  Every other candidate in the primary besides Trump had very weak answers for our immigration problem.  Only one stood out against illegal immigrants, and that was Donald Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Donald Trump is not the GOP, and there are Republicans who don't like his immigration policy. And the illegals, are still here, so Trump isn't doing enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you said.........
> 
> Donald Trump is not the GOP, and there are *Republicans who don't like his immigration policy*. And the illegals, are still here, so Trump isn't doing enough.
> 
> 
> He's enforcing the laws of this country........killed Catch and Release............so what's the problem........why are they mad...................what don't they like.............they haven't funded it..............they haven't changed anything........and have no reason to bitch.........
> 
> His immigration policy is THEIR POLICIES.......their laws..............change it.
Click to expand...

Tell that to them.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Undocumented Immigrant is the correct term because:*
> 
> *Undocumented refers to the lack of genuine documentation of the right to be in a country. The presence of a person in a country is not illegal until a court makes that decision.  *
> *The word immigrant means a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country with or without property documentation.*
> *Having undocumented immigrants in the country does have some undeniably negative effects which the left would like to ignore.  Likewise there are benefits that the right prefers to ignore.  However, we should question how much of the negative effects are due to the lack of upward mobility and lack of absorption into our culture which is a direct result of being undocumented.  Without upward mobility and absorption, undocumented immigrants are frozen into a subculture that is unhealthy for them and the nation.     *
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  A person illegally crossing the border may or may not have been adjudicated as such, but he's illegal the second he crosses that border without inspection.  The court decision is merely a confirmation of that fact.
> 
> I mentioned 17 negative harms of immigration. You mentioned zero _"benefits"_ you claim there are.
> 
> Immigrant is a person who has gone an immigration process, by the proper authorities.
> 
> As for the harms, except for # 14 (cultural erosion), they exist regardless of _"absorption into our culture "_ (aka assimilation).  And with regard to cultural erosion, there doesn't seem to be much of it (like the thugs in San Jose, CA, who chased and attcked Trump rallygoers, while waving Mexican flags)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nope, a person is not guilty of any illegal act without a court ruling.  That ruling can take the form of agreeing to deportation and waving a hearing or trial.
> 
> The days when Latinos were thrown in the back of a truck and dumped across the boarder with no due process aren't here yet, but it's on the way.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a difference between "a person is not guilty" and "the act is not illegal".  Murder is always illegal, and requires no court ruling to be illegal; I personally am not guilty of murder until a court finds me so.  But even if the court can't find sufficient evidence, if I actually DID kill someone, I'm still a murderer.
> 
> Likewise, entering this country without permission is always illegal.  Thus, the person who enters this country without proper permission is always an illegal immigrant.  The fact that they haven't been convicted of it yet doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that it wasn't against the law.
> 
> You're running up against one of the classic leftist stupidities:  you have no morality, so you think legality can replace it.
> 
> And yes, people who are accused of crimes have always had the option to waive (not "wave", dimwit) a trial and simply plead guilty.  No one can make them do it; it is THEIR choice, THEIR right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you see a person running down the street holding a gun, a bag of money, and a store owner is screaming, "I've been robbed", it's likely that you would call that person a robber.  A Latino boy caught running away from the border that doesn't have any identification would probably lead you to believe that he's an illegal alien.  In both cases you're probably be right but in the legal sense, neither is guilty of anything until the court says so.  That's why we refer to the robber as the accused and the boy as an undocumented immigrant.  No matter how guilty a person may look, there is always the presumption of innocent in America. You are are not guilty in the eyes of the law until the judge says so.  What you call the person is immaterial.*
Click to expand...


Actually, if I see ANYONE running away from the border where I live, I'm going to assume they're committing some sort of crime, because no one would be out in the Arizona desert otherwise.

And yes, they ARE guilty.  Being caught doesn't magically make you guilty; it just makes you prosecutable.  Why am I not surprised that a leftist has no concept of guilt?

YOU may refer to them as "accused" and "undocumented".  I don't hide behind legalisms because I'm incapable of producing a moral compass without government guidance. 

OF COURSE what they're called is "immaterial".  That's why you leftist shits work so damned hard to relabel and redefine things; because it's "immaterial".


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Undocumented Immigrant is the correct term because:*
> 
> *Undocumented refers to the lack of genuine documentation of the right to be in a country. The presence of a person in a country is not illegal until a court makes that decision.  *
> *The word immigrant means a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country with or without property documentation.*
> *Having undocumented immigrants in the country does have some undeniably negative effects which the left would like to ignore.  Likewise there are benefits that the right prefers to ignore.  However, we should question how much of the negative effects are due to the lack of upward mobility and lack of absorption into our culture which is a direct result of being undocumented.  Without upward mobility and absorption, undocumented immigrants are frozen into a subculture that is unhealthy for them and the nation.     *
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  A person illegally crossing the border may or may not have been adjudicated as such, but he's illegal the second he crosses that border without inspection.  The court decision is merely a confirmation of that fact.
> 
> I mentioned 17 negative harms of immigration. You mentioned zero _"benefits"_ you claim there are.
> 
> Immigrant is a person who has gone an immigration process, by the proper authorities.
> 
> As for the harms, except for # 14 (cultural erosion), they exist regardless of _"absorption into our culture "_ (aka assimilation).  And with regard to cultural erosion, there doesn't seem to be much of it (like the thugs in San Jose, CA, who chased and attcked Trump rallygoers, while waving Mexican flags)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nope, a person is not guilty of any illegal act without a court ruling.  That ruling can take the form of agreeing to deportation and waving a hearing or trial.
> 
> The days when Latinos were thrown in the back of a truck and dumped across the boarder with no due process aren't here yet, but it's on the way.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a difference between "a person is not guilty" and "the act is not illegal".  Murder is always illegal, and requires no court ruling to be illegal; I personally am not guilty of murder until a court finds me so.  But even if the court can't find sufficient evidence, if I actually DID kill someone, I'm still a murderer.
> 
> Likewise, entering this country without permission is always illegal.  Thus, the person who enters this country without proper permission is always an illegal immigrant.  The fact that they haven't been convicted of it yet doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that it wasn't against the law.
> 
> You're running up against one of the classic leftist stupidities:  you have no morality, so you think legality can replace it.
> 
> And yes, people who are accused of crimes have always had the option to waive (not "wave", dimwit) a trial and simply plead guilty.  No one can make them do it; it is THEIR choice, THEIR right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you see a person running down the street holding a gun, a bag of money, and a store owner is screaming, "I've been robbed", it's likely that you would call that person a robber.  A Latino boy caught running away from the border that doesn't have any identification would probably lead you to believe that he's an illegal alien.  In both cases you woulld probably be right but in the legal sense, neither is guilty of anything until the court says so.  That's why we refer to the robber as the accused and the boy as an undocumented immigrant.  No matter how guilty a person may look, there is always the presumption of innocent in America. You are are not guilty in the eyes of the law until the judge says so.  What you call the person is immaterial.*
Click to expand...


However if that robber is caught with the evidence, he is then arrested and put in jail.  In serious crimes, the bond is set so high for it to be affordable, so the accused sits in jail until he is judged guilty.


----------



## Moonglow

Ever since Reagan flaked and gave amnesty the GOP has been more of an illegal alien advocate than any democrat till Oblama...


----------



## eagle1462010

Moonglow said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is the illegals fulfill a role in capitalism it's called cheap labor, but yet idiots seem to think only one party allows the illegals to stay when over forty years since the invaders were allowed to stay it has been both parties that have facilitated the problem and the rich which save money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This may be true, but now Republicans are taking notice of what their constituents want, and it's not invaders taking our jobs.  Every other candidate in the primary besides Trump had very weak answers for our immigration problem.  Only one stood out against illegal immigrants, and that was Donald Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Donald Trump is not the GOP, and there are Republicans who don't like his immigration policy. And the illegals, are still here, so Trump isn't doing enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you said.........
> 
> Donald Trump is not the GOP, and there are *Republicans who don't like his immigration policy*. And the illegals, are still here, so Trump isn't doing enough.
> 
> 
> He's enforcing the laws of this country........killed Catch and Release............so what's the problem........why are they mad...................what don't they like.............they haven't funded it..............they haven't changed anything........and have no reason to bitch.........
> 
> His immigration policy is THEIR POLICIES.......their laws..............change it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to them.
Click to expand...

You seemed so willing to bring up this issue perhaps you should.  You were playing the I hate Trump game...........Now weren't you.................tsk tsk.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Moonglow said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is the illegals fulfill a role in capitalism it's called cheap labor, but yet idiots seem to think only one party allows the illegals to stay when over forty years since the invaders were allowed to stay it has been both parties that have facilitated the problem and the rich which save money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This may be true, but now Republicans are taking notice of what their constituents want, and it's not invaders taking our jobs.  Every other candidate in the primary besides Trump had very weak answers for our immigration problem.  Only one stood out against illegal immigrants, and that was Donald Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Donald Trump is not the GOP, and there are Republicans who don't like his immigration policy. And the illegals, are still here, so Trump isn't doing enough.
Click to expand...


He's trying, but the activist judges and Democrats with power to shut down the government are stopping him.  However there has been a great reduction in border crossers and many fear pulling the stunts others have in the past. 

No, Donald Trump is not the GOP, and many in the GOP are against him.  That's how we know we have a real winner on our hands.  It also worries the GOP as they now understand their constituents will turn against them if the right person comes along, and that is a good thing.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyone living in the U.S. — legally or not — has constitutional rights, including the right to equal protection of the law and that of due process (fair treatment in the judicial system).  Immigration officers are not required nor do they advise detainees of their rights so they often assume they have none. That's why most detainees do not have lawyers and wave their rights and accept deportation which of course is really dumb.*
> *What Constitutional Rights Do Undocumented Immigrants Have When on American Soil? - Illegal Immigration - ProCon.org*
> 
> 
> 
> See last post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Link?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not in the Constitution.  The Constitution is "We the  People," not "We the People and anyone who legally or illegally resides on our territory."  Game, set and match.
> 
> As for the idiocy of what you're arguing, name another country that grants the rights of citizens to foreigners, much less ones there illegally ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That's your opinion and a lot of people share it.  However the US Supreme Court does not.  The Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."
> 
> Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if Madison was alive today to see what's going on, do you really believe he would continue to hold that opinion?
Click to expand...

*Wow.  That's exactly the same argument, liberal make so often in defending the "the living constitution" when conservatives drag out the federalist papers and quotes of Jefferson or Madison.

I think if Madison was alive today, I certainly think he would agree that anyone charged with a crime regardless who they are should have constitutional rights.  Without constitution rights there would be no guaranteed of a fair trial or hearing.  The defendant could be denied legal council or a jury trial.  Without the protection of the 5th amendment the person could be tried in absentia, never given the charges or the right to defend himself.    *


----------



## Flopper

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Undocumented Immigrant is the correct term because:*
> 
> *Undocumented refers to the lack of genuine documentation of the right to be in a country. The presence of a person in a country is not illegal until a court makes that decision.  *
> *The word immigrant means a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country with or without property documentation.*
> *Having undocumented immigrants in the country does have some undeniably negative effects which the left would like to ignore.  Likewise there are benefits that the right prefers to ignore.  However, we should question how much of the negative effects are due to the lack of upward mobility and lack of absorption into our culture which is a direct result of being undocumented.  Without upward mobility and absorption, undocumented immigrants are frozen into a subculture that is unhealthy for them and the nation.     *
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  A person illegally crossing the border may or may not have been adjudicated as such, but he's illegal the second he crosses that border without inspection.  The court decision is merely a confirmation of that fact.
> 
> I mentioned 17 negative harms of immigration. You mentioned zero _"benefits"_ you claim there are.
> 
> Immigrant is a person who has gone an immigration process, by the proper authorities.
> 
> As for the harms, except for # 14 (cultural erosion), they exist regardless of _"absorption into our culture "_ (aka assimilation).  And with regard to cultural erosion, there doesn't seem to be much of it (like the thugs in San Jose, CA, who chased and attcked Trump rallygoers, while waving Mexican flags)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nope, a person is not guilty of any illegal act without a court ruling.  That ruling can take the form of agreeing to deportation and waving a hearing or trial.
> 
> The days when Latinos were thrown in the back of a truck and dumped across the boarder with no due process aren't here yet, but it's on the way.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a difference between "a person is not guilty" and "the act is not illegal".  Murder is always illegal, and requires no court ruling to be illegal; I personally am not guilty of murder until a court finds me so.  But even if the court can't find sufficient evidence, if I actually DID kill someone, I'm still a murderer.
> 
> Likewise, entering this country without permission is always illegal.  Thus, the person who enters this country without proper permission is always an illegal immigrant.  The fact that they haven't been convicted of it yet doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that it wasn't against the law.
> 
> You're running up against one of the classic leftist stupidities:  you have no morality, so you think legality can replace it.
> 
> And yes, people who are accused of crimes have always had the option to waive (not "wave", dimwit) a trial and simply plead guilty.  No one can make them do it; it is THEIR choice, THEIR right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you see a person running down the street holding a gun, a bag of money, and a store owner is screaming, "I've been robbed", it's likely that you would call that person a robber.  A Latino boy caught running away from the border that doesn't have any identification would probably lead you to believe that he's an illegal alien.  In both cases you're probably be right but in the legal sense, neither is guilty of anything until the court says so.  That's why we refer to the robber as the accused and the boy as an undocumented immigrant.  No matter how guilty a person may look, there is always the presumption of innocent in America. You are are not guilty in the eyes of the law until the judge says so.  What you call the person is immaterial.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if I see ANYONE running away from the border where I live, I'm going to assume they're committing some sort of crime, because no one would be out in the Arizona desert otherwise.
> 
> And yes, they ARE guilty.  Being caught doesn't magically make you guilty; it just makes you prosecutable.  Why am I not surprised that a leftist has no concept of guilt?
> 
> YOU may refer to them as "accused" and "undocumented".  I don't hide behind legalisms because I'm incapable of producing a moral compass without government guidance.
> 
> OF COURSE what they're called is "immaterial".  That's why you leftist shits work so damned hard to relabel and redefine things; because it's "immaterial".
Click to expand...

*I said what you call the person is immaterial.  What judges, laws, and the government calls the person is certainly material because of the need for presumption of innocent.  *


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  A person illegally crossing the border may or may not have been adjudicated as such, but he's illegal the second he crosses that border without inspection.  The court decision is merely a confirmation of that fact.
> 
> I mentioned 17 negative harms of immigration. You mentioned zero _"benefits"_ you claim there are.
> 
> Immigrant is a person who has gone an immigration process, by the proper authorities.
> 
> As for the harms, except for # 14 (cultural erosion), they exist regardless of _"absorption into our culture "_ (aka assimilation).  And with regard to cultural erosion, there doesn't seem to be much of it (like the thugs in San Jose, CA, who chased and attcked Trump rallygoers, while waving Mexican flags)
> 
> 
> 
> *Nope, a person is not guilty of any illegal act without a court ruling.  That ruling can take the form of agreeing to deportation and waving a hearing or trial.
> 
> The days when Latinos were thrown in the back of a truck and dumped across the boarder with no due process aren't here yet, but it's on the way.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a difference between "a person is not guilty" and "the act is not illegal".  Murder is always illegal, and requires no court ruling to be illegal; I personally am not guilty of murder until a court finds me so.  But even if the court can't find sufficient evidence, if I actually DID kill someone, I'm still a murderer.
> 
> Likewise, entering this country without permission is always illegal.  Thus, the person who enters this country without proper permission is always an illegal immigrant.  The fact that they haven't been convicted of it yet doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that it wasn't against the law.
> 
> You're running up against one of the classic leftist stupidities:  you have no morality, so you think legality can replace it.
> 
> And yes, people who are accused of crimes have always had the option to waive (not "wave", dimwit) a trial and simply plead guilty.  No one can make them do it; it is THEIR choice, THEIR right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you see a person running down the street holding a gun, a bag of money, and a store owner is screaming, "I've been robbed", it's likely that you would call that person a robber.  A Latino boy caught running away from the border that doesn't have any identification would probably lead you to believe that he's an illegal alien.  In both cases you're probably be right but in the legal sense, neither is guilty of anything until the court says so.  That's why we refer to the robber as the accused and the boy as an undocumented immigrant.  No matter how guilty a person may look, there is always the presumption of innocent in America. You are are not guilty in the eyes of the law until the judge says so.  What you call the person is immaterial.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if I see ANYONE running away from the border where I live, I'm going to assume they're committing some sort of crime, because no one would be out in the Arizona desert otherwise.
> 
> And yes, they ARE guilty.  Being caught doesn't magically make you guilty; it just makes you prosecutable.  Why am I not surprised that a leftist has no concept of guilt?
> 
> YOU may refer to them as "accused" and "undocumented".  I don't hide behind legalisms because I'm incapable of producing a moral compass without government guidance.
> 
> OF COURSE what they're called is "immaterial".  That's why you leftist shits work so damned hard to relabel and redefine things; because it's "immaterial".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I said what you call the person is immaterial.  What judges, laws, and the government calls the person is certainly material because of the need for presumption of innocent.  *
Click to expand...


And I said that if you lying hypocrites REALLY thought that, you wouldn't put so damned much effort into trying to push political correctness on people.  And you wouldn't be putting all this effort into trying to "correct" what people say here.

One more time.  People who break the law are criminals, even if they don't get caught.  Judges, laws, and the government take their lead from us, not the other way around . . . except for mindless leftist drones, who are incapable of thinking anything without government telling them what it is.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> See last post
> 
> 
> 
> *Link?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not in the Constitution.  The Constitution is "We the  People," not "We the People and anyone who legally or illegally resides on our territory."  Game, set and match.
> 
> As for the idiocy of what you're arguing, name another country that grants the rights of citizens to foreigners, much less ones there illegally ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That's your opinion and a lot of people share it.  However the US Supreme Court does not.  The Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."
> 
> Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if Madison was alive today to see what's going on, do you really believe he would continue to hold that opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Wow.  That's exactly the same argument, liberal make so often in defending the "the living constitution" when conservatives drag out the federalist papers and quotes of Jefferson or Madison.
> 
> I think if Madison was alive today, I certainly think he would agree that anyone charged with a crime regardless who they are should have constitutional rights.  Without constitution rights there would be no guaranteed of a fair trial or hearing.  The defendant could be denied legal council or a jury trial.  Without the protection of the 5th amendment the person could be tried in absentia, never given the charges or the right to defend himself.    *
Click to expand...


But Madison made that statement when this country was in need of new people; people from other countries to help build what we have today.  Do you really think if Madison were alive today, he would support constitutional rights of captured terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they could?


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Do you really think if Madison were alive today, he would support constitutional rights of captured terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they could?



No one defends the rights of terrorists. We defend the rights of people _accused_ of being terrorists. Because any of us can be accused.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Link?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not in the Constitution.  The Constitution is "We the  People," not "We the People and anyone who legally or illegally resides on our territory."  Game, set and match.
> 
> As for the idiocy of what you're arguing, name another country that grants the rights of citizens to foreigners, much less ones there illegally ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That's your opinion and a lot of people share it.  However the US Supreme Court does not.  The Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."
> 
> Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if Madison was alive today to see what's going on, do you really believe he would continue to hold that opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Wow.  That's exactly the same argument, liberal make so often in defending the "the living constitution" when conservatives drag out the federalist papers and quotes of Jefferson or Madison.
> 
> I think if Madison was alive today, I certainly think he would agree that anyone charged with a crime regardless who they are should have constitutional rights.  Without constitution rights there would be no guaranteed of a fair trial or hearing.  The defendant could be denied legal council or a jury trial.  Without the protection of the 5th amendment the person could be tried in absentia, never given the charges or the right to defend himself.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Madison made that statement when this country was in need of new people; people from other countries to help build what we have today.  Do you really think if Madison were alive today, he would support constitutional rights of captured terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they could?
Click to expand...

*Good guess but no cigar. The quote comes from the Madison Report on Virginia Resolutions in 1800 when the country was embroiled in the Revolutionary War.  There was certainly no demand for immigrants in the colonies because of their fear of spies and sedition.  In fact, the report contains Madison view of how aliens, spies, and those accused of sedition should be treated in a court of law.  This was over 10 years before the BIll of Rights. So yes, I believe he would be very supporter of constitution rights for accused terrorist.

The founder fathers were very sensitive to protecting the accused because they had seen first hand how unfairly the British treated colonist accused of crimes.
*
*The debates in the several state conventions on the adoption of the Federal Constitution*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think if Madison were alive today, he would support constitutional rights of captured terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they could?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one defends the rights of terrorists. We defend the rights of people _accused_ of being terrorists. Because any of us can be accused.
Click to expand...


If you are an American, yes you have rights.  But I don't believe our founders (if alive today) would approve of us giving overseas terrorists constitutional rights in our country which they want to end.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​



I imagine thousands of lives, both children and adults, have been lost through the years as people attempt to cross the border illegally. It's a chance they themselves take. Murder, kidnappings, death by way of the elements while traveling. And that's not even counting the fact that the border area is the highest human trafficking area on the globe.

The question could be begged both ways, really.


----------



## Natural Citizen

A case could be made for open borders.


----------



## Pop23

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  A person illegally crossing the border may or may not have been adjudicated as such, but he's illegal the second he crosses that border without inspection.  The court decision is merely a confirmation of that fact.
> 
> I mentioned 17 negative harms of immigration. You mentioned zero _"benefits"_ you claim there are.
> 
> Immigrant is a person who has gone an immigration process, by the proper authorities.
> 
> As for the harms, except for # 14 (cultural erosion), they exist regardless of _"absorption into our culture "_ (aka assimilation).  And with regard to cultural erosion, there doesn't seem to be much of it (like the thugs in San Jose, CA, who chased and attcked Trump rallygoers, while waving Mexican flags)
> 
> 
> 
> *Nope, a person is not guilty of any illegal act without a court ruling.  That ruling can take the form of agreeing to deportation and waving a hearing or trial.
> 
> The days when Latinos were thrown in the back of a truck and dumped across the boarder with no due process aren't here yet, but it's on the way.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a difference between "a person is not guilty" and "the act is not illegal".  Murder is always illegal, and requires no court ruling to be illegal; I personally am not guilty of murder until a court finds me so.  But even if the court can't find sufficient evidence, if I actually DID kill someone, I'm still a murderer.
> 
> Likewise, entering this country without permission is always illegal.  Thus, the person who enters this country without proper permission is always an illegal immigrant.  The fact that they haven't been convicted of it yet doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that it wasn't against the law.
> 
> You're running up against one of the classic leftist stupidities:  you have no morality, so you think legality can replace it.
> 
> And yes, people who are accused of crimes have always had the option to waive (not "wave", dimwit) a trial and simply plead guilty.  No one can make them do it; it is THEIR choice, THEIR right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you see a person running down the street holding a gun, a bag of money, and a store owner is screaming, "I've been robbed", it's likely that you would call that person a robber.  A Latino boy caught running away from the border that doesn't have any identification would probably lead you to believe that he's an illegal alien.  In both cases you're probably be right but in the legal sense, neither is guilty of anything until the court says so.  That's why we refer to the robber as the accused and the boy as an undocumented immigrant.  No matter how guilty a person may look, there is always the presumption of innocent in America. You are are not guilty in the eyes of the law until the judge says so.  What you call the person is immaterial.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if I see ANYONE running away from the border where I live, I'm going to assume they're committing some sort of crime, because no one would be out in the Arizona desert otherwise.
> 
> And yes, they ARE guilty.  Being caught doesn't magically make you guilty; it just makes you prosecutable.  Why am I not surprised that a leftist has no concept of guilt?
> 
> YOU may refer to them as "accused" and "undocumented".  I don't hide behind legalisms because I'm incapable of producing a moral compass without government guidance.
> 
> OF COURSE what they're called is "immaterial".  That's why you leftist shits work so damned hard to relabel and redefine things; because it's "immaterial".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I said what you call the person is immaterial.  What judges, laws, and the government calls the person is certainly material because of the need for presumption of innocent.  *
Click to expand...


And yet it is not unconstitutional to hold a suspect, and remove him/her/them from their children until such a time they are released. 

And if they can’t prove to be the child’s parent(s) or guardians 

Oh well


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Only citizens are entitled to due process*
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyone living in the U.S. — legally or not — has constitutional rights, including the right to equal protection of the law and that of due process (fair treatment in the judicial system).  Immigration officers are not required nor do they advise detainees of their rights so they often assume they have none. That's why most detainees do not have lawyers and wave their rights and accept deportation which of course is really dumb.*
> *What Constitutional Rights Do Undocumented Immigrants Have When on American Soil? - Illegal Immigration - ProCon.org*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See last post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Link?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not in the Constitution.  The Constitution is "We the  People," not "We the People and anyone who legally or illegally resides on our territory."  Game, set and match.
> 
> As for the idiocy of what you're arguing, name another country that grants the rights of citizens to foreigners, much less ones there illegally ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That's your opinion and a lot of people share it.  However the US Supreme Court does not.  The Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."
> 
> Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights*
Click to expand...


Illegal aliens do not have a temporary obedience.  He was referring to people here legally.   Obviously Madison did not think that British Soldiers for example has Constitutional rights.  That's just moronic.

It's another way you're fighting for our having no borders


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> See last post
> 
> 
> 
> *Link?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not in the Constitution.  The Constitution is "We the  People," not "We the People and anyone who legally or illegally resides on our territory."  Game, set and match.
> 
> As for the idiocy of what you're arguing, name another country that grants the rights of citizens to foreigners, much less ones there illegally ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That's your opinion and a lot of people share it.  However the US Supreme Court does not.  The Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."
> 
> Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if Madison was alive today to see what's going on, do you really believe he would continue to hold that opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Wow.  That's exactly the same argument, liberal make so often in defending the "the living constitution" when conservatives drag out the federalist papers and quotes of Jefferson or Madison.
> 
> I think if Madison was alive today, I certainly think he would agree that anyone charged with a crime regardless who they are should have constitutional rights.  Without constitution rights there would be no guaranteed of a fair trial or hearing.  The defendant could be denied legal council or a jury trial.  Without the protection of the 5th amendment the person could be tried in absentia, never given the charges or the right to defend himself.    *
Click to expand...


If you're here illegally, there is nothing to defend.  You haven't passed Go


----------



## Kondor3

Moonglow said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What human cost is acceptable in controlling Illegal Immigration?
> 
> In other words, what human cost is acceptable in protecting our national borders and enforcing our sovereignty over our own soil?
> 
> The quantitative answer is: as many intruder lives and ruinous deportations as may be required to achieve those paramount national strategic outcomes.
> 
> Next slide, please.
> 
> 
> 
> Or at least kill three million Native Americans to claim the country is sovereign over all peoples.
Click to expand...

It's what happens when the Stone Age meets the Iron Age.

Liberal Snowflake Crybaby Safe-Zone for the Ghost of the Indians is down the hall, thirteenth door on the Left.

It's ours now... and it's going to stay that way.


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Link?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not in the Constitution.  The Constitution is "We the  People," not "We the People and anyone who legally or illegally resides on our territory."  Game, set and match.
> 
> As for the idiocy of what you're arguing, name another country that grants the rights of citizens to foreigners, much less ones there illegally ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That's your opinion and a lot of people share it.  However the US Supreme Court does not.  The Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."
> 
> Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if Madison was alive today to see what's going on, do you really believe he would continue to hold that opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Wow.  That's exactly the same argument, liberal make so often in defending the "the living constitution" when conservatives drag out the federalist papers and quotes of Jefferson or Madison.
> 
> I think if Madison was alive today, I certainly think he would agree that anyone charged with a crime regardless who they are should have constitutional rights.  Without constitution rights there would be no guaranteed of a fair trial or hearing.  The defendant could be denied legal council or a jury trial.  Without the protection of the 5th amendment the person could be tried in absentia, never given the charges or the right to defend himself.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Madison made that statement when this country was in need of new people; people from other countries to help build what we have today.  Do you really think if Madison were alive today, he would support constitutional rights of captured terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they could?
Click to expand...


Yes, but even then the United States were facing various British, French, Spanish, Indian and other foes all through the colonies and especially the western territories and they never considered them having Constitutional rights.

Flopper is just full of it and the SCOTUS has never hesitated to write legislation


----------



## kaz

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think if Madison were alive today, he would support constitutional rights of captured terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they could?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one defends the rights of terrorists. We defend the rights of people _accused_ of being terrorists. Because any of us can be accused.
Click to expand...


You are defending the right of any number of al Qaeda members to fly to Mexico City and walk across the border carrying whatever they want and taking it anywhere in the United States to where they want to use it


----------



## Kondor3

Moonglow said:


> ...Donald Trump is not the GOP...


True, but it's gettin' hard to tell the difference, isn't it?



> ...and there are Republicans who don't like his immigration policy...


True, but those are mostly (a) mush-headed GOP-Libs and (b) greedy slave-labor exploiters; not the rank-and-file.



> ...And the illegals, are still here, so Trump isn't doing enough.


True, but I suspect that The Beast is just getting warmed-up; separate another half-million families, and we'll see how many are still here, or want to come here.


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not in the Constitution.  The Constitution is "We the  People," not "We the People and anyone who legally or illegally resides on our territory."  Game, set and match.
> 
> As for the idiocy of what you're arguing, name another country that grants the rights of citizens to foreigners, much less ones there illegally ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That's your opinion and a lot of people share it.  However the US Supreme Court does not.  The Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."
> 
> Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if Madison was alive today to see what's going on, do you really believe he would continue to hold that opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Wow.  That's exactly the same argument, liberal make so often in defending the "the living constitution" when conservatives drag out the federalist papers and quotes of Jefferson or Madison.
> 
> I think if Madison was alive today, I certainly think he would agree that anyone charged with a crime regardless who they are should have constitutional rights.  Without constitution rights there would be no guaranteed of a fair trial or hearing.  The defendant could be denied legal council or a jury trial.  Without the protection of the 5th amendment the person could be tried in absentia, never given the charges or the right to defend himself.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Madison made that statement when this country was in need of new people; people from other countries to help build what we have today.  Do you really think if Madison were alive today, he would support constitutional rights of captured terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they could?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Good guess but no cigar. The quote comes from the Madison Report on Virginia Resolutions in 1800 when the country was embroiled in the Revolutionary War.  There was certainly no demand for immigrants in the colonies because of their fear of spies and sedition.  In fact, the report contains Madison view of how aliens, spies, and those accused of sedition should be treated in a court of law.  This was over 10 years before the BIll of Rights. So yes, I believe he would be very supporter of constitution rights for accused terrorist.
> 
> The founder fathers were very sensitive to protecting the accused because they had seen first hand how unfairly the British treated colonist accused of crimes.
> *
> *The debates in the several state conventions on the adoption of the Federal Constitution*
Click to expand...


And again, they did not do anything to "protect constitutional rights" of British, French, Spanish, Indian or other invaders of States and territories of the United States.  Zero.

They were obviously not referring to invaders of sovereign US territory.

You endlessly argue for anything you can to prevent us from stopping the flow of poor, third world criminals.   Man up and at least admit you believe we do not have the right to a border.  Obviously I will still oppose you, but at least man up to what you are doing


----------



## kaz

Kondor3 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...And the illegals, are still here, so Trump isn't doing enough.
> 
> 
> 
> True, but I suspect that The Beast is just getting warmed-up; separate another half-million families, and we'll see how many are still here, or want to come here.
Click to expand...


That would be a start.  Separating abusive parents from their children who take their children while they commit crimes and risk their lives running across deserts is the only humanitarian thing to do for the children, and it is as you point out a deterrent to more criminals from doing the same to their kids


----------



## Cecilie1200

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyone living in the U.S. — legally or not — has constitutional rights, including the right to equal protection of the law and that of due process (fair treatment in the judicial system).  Immigration officers are not required nor do they advise detainees of their rights so they often assume they have none. That's why most detainees do not have lawyers and wave their rights and accept deportation which of course is really dumb.*
> *What Constitutional Rights Do Undocumented Immigrants Have When on American Soil? - Illegal Immigration - ProCon.org*
> 
> 
> 
> See last post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Link?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not in the Constitution.  The Constitution is "We the  People," not "We the People and anyone who legally or illegally resides on our territory."  Game, set and match.
> 
> As for the idiocy of what you're arguing, name another country that grants the rights of citizens to foreigners, much less ones there illegally ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That's your opinion and a lot of people share it.  However the US Supreme Court does not.  The Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."
> 
> Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal aliens do not have a temporary obedience.  He was referring to people here legally.   Obviously Madison did not think that British Soldiers for example has Constitutional rights.  That's just moronic.
> 
> It's another way you're fighting for our having no borders
Click to expand...


He also pretty obviously didn't think Constitutional rights extended to North American aborigines who did not choose to assimilate into society.

Bottom line is that illegals have rights only because we choose to interpret the Constitution that way and extend those rights.  We could legitimately choose not to do so.


----------



## dblack

kaz said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think if Madison were alive today, he would support constitutional rights of captured terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they could?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one defends the rights of terrorists. We defend the rights of people _accused_ of being terrorists. Because any of us can be accused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are defending the right of any number of al Qaeda members to fly to Mexico City and walk across the border carrying whatever they want and taking it anywhere in the United States to where they want to use it
Click to expand...


Nope. Try again.


----------



## kaz

dblack said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think if Madison were alive today, he would support constitutional rights of captured terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they could?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one defends the rights of terrorists. We defend the rights of people _accused_ of being terrorists. Because any of us can be accused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are defending the right of any number of al Qaeda members to fly to Mexico City and walk across the border carrying whatever they want and taking it anywhere in the United States to where they want to use it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Try again.
Click to expand...

Because you would stop them how ...


----------



## dblack

kaz said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think if Madison were alive today, he would support constitutional rights of captured terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they could?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one defends the rights of terrorists. We defend the rights of people _accused_ of being terrorists. Because any of us can be accused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are defending the right of any number of al Qaeda members to fly to Mexico City and walk across the border carrying whatever they want and taking it anywhere in the United States to where they want to use it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you would stop them how ...
Click to expand...


By opening up legitimate immigration to accommodate the actual desires of our nation. Here's the thing. Right now, we make no distinction between "illegal" aliens who are looking for work, and those who mean us harm. They all enter via the same route - no screening, no vetting. The terrorists can get into the country easily by hopping on the coyote train.

If, instead, we recognized that people looking for work are our friends, and not our enemies, we could let them in the front door. Then we shoot to kill anyone trying to sneak in. As it is now, you'll never get support for taking a hard line on "illegals" because most people know that the vast majority of them are decent people trying to make a living for their families.


----------



## kaz

dblack said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think if Madison were alive today, he would support constitutional rights of captured terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they could?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one defends the rights of terrorists. We defend the rights of people _accused_ of being terrorists. Because any of us can be accused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are defending the right of any number of al Qaeda members to fly to Mexico City and walk across the border carrying whatever they want and taking it anywhere in the United States to where they want to use it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you would stop them how ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By opening up legitimate immigration to accommodate the actual desires of our nation. Here's the thing. Right now, we make no distinction between "illegal" aliens who are looking for work, and those who mean us harm. They all enter via the same route - no screening, no vetting. The terrorists can get into the country easily by hopping on the coyote train.
> 
> If, instead, we recognized that people looking for work are our friends, and not our enemies, we could let them in the front door. Then we shoot to kill anyone trying to sneak in. As it is now, you'll never get support for taking a hard line on "illegals" because most people know that the vast majority of them are decent people trying to make a living for their families.
Click to expand...

So your position is with trump, not the Democrats


----------



## dblack

kaz said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one defends the rights of terrorists. We defend the rights of people _accused_ of being terrorists. Because any of us can be accused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are defending the right of any number of al Qaeda members to fly to Mexico City and walk across the border carrying whatever they want and taking it anywhere in the United States to where they want to use it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you would stop them how ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By opening up legitimate immigration to accommodate the actual desires of our nation. Here's the thing. Right now, we make no distinction between "illegal" aliens who are looking for work, and those who mean us harm. They all enter via the same route - no screening, no vetting. The terrorists can get into the country easily by hopping on the coyote train.
> 
> If, instead, we recognized that people looking for work are our friends, and not our enemies, we could let them in the front door. Then we shoot to kill anyone trying to sneak in. As it is now, you'll never get support for taking a hard line on "illegals" because most people know that the vast majority of them are decent people trying to make a living for their families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your position is with trump, not the Democrats
Click to expand...


Not that I know of. Is he working to open up legitimate immigration?


----------



## kaz

dblack said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are defending the right of any number of al Qaeda members to fly to Mexico City and walk across the border carrying whatever they want and taking it anywhere in the United States to where they want to use it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you would stop them how ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By opening up legitimate immigration to accommodate the actual desires of our nation. Here's the thing. Right now, we make no distinction between "illegal" aliens who are looking for work, and those who mean us harm. They all enter via the same route - no screening, no vetting. The terrorists can get into the country easily by hopping on the coyote train.
> 
> If, instead, we recognized that people looking for work are our friends, and not our enemies, we could let them in the front door. Then we shoot to kill anyone trying to sneak in. As it is now, you'll never get support for taking a hard line on "illegals" because most people know that the vast majority of them are decent people trying to make a living for their families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your position is with trump, not the Democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not that I know of. Is he working to open up legitimate immigration?
Click to expand...


We have to control illegal immigration then expand legal.  We've eaten an elephant.

So by al Qaeda can't fly to Mexico city and walk here with whatever they want under your plan, you meant they can until we implement massive legal immigration so we can shoot anyone crossing the border


----------



## Cecilie1200

dblack said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think if Madison were alive today, he would support constitutional rights of captured terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they could?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one defends the rights of terrorists. We defend the rights of people _accused_ of being terrorists. Because any of us can be accused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are defending the right of any number of al Qaeda members to fly to Mexico City and walk across the border carrying whatever they want and taking it anywhere in the United States to where they want to use it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you would stop them how ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By opening up legitimate immigration to accommodate the actual desires of our nation. Here's the thing. Right now, we make no distinction between "illegal" aliens who are looking for work, and those who mean us harm. They all enter via the same route - no screening, no vetting. The terrorists can get into the country easily by hopping on the coyote train.
> 
> If, instead, we recognized that people looking for work are our friends, and not our enemies, we could let them in the front door. Then we shoot to kill anyone trying to sneak in. As it is now, you'll never get support for taking a hard line on "illegals" because most people know that the vast majority of them are decent people trying to make a living for their families.
Click to expand...


No, I'm sorry, but I DON'T automatically recognize "people looking for work" as our friends.  One, I don't necessarily assume that it's a binary, either/or between "terrorist" and "looking for work".  Two, even if they ARE actually looking to work, that merely makes them mildly sympathetic; doesn't make them our friends.  Cockroaches are just looking to feed themselves, and not actually looking to harm anyone, as well, but that doesn't mean I want them living in my kitchen.  (And before you get your panties in a ruffle about "comparing humans to cockroaches!  OMG!" don't bother.  I know what I said, and I meant it exactly the way I said it, and I don't recognize your moral authority, so I won't be feeling ashamed simply because you disapprove.)

The fact is, the designation of "our friends" is dependent not on the benefit they want to produce to themselves; it's dependent on the benefit they're going to bring to US.  And uneducated, unskilled people who don't even speak English are really of very little benefit to the United States, particularly in job lots.  I also think you're going to be hard-pressed to make the case that "the actual desires of our nation" involve "opening up legitimate immigration" to that point.  Which means we're still going to have the problem of people deciding that they can circumvent the rules.


----------



## protectionist

Natural Citizen said:


> A case could be made for open borders.


It's made every day - by Democrats who bribe foreigners, with American residency, in exchange for their illegal VOTES.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *Good guess but no cigar. The quote comes from the Madison Report on Virginia Resolutions in 1800 when the country was embroiled in the Revolutionary War.  There was certainly no demand for immigrants in the colonies because of their fear of spies and sedition.  In fact, the report contains Madison view of how aliens, spies, and those accused of sedition should be treated in a court of law.  This was over 10 years before the BIll of Rights. So yes, I believe he would be very supporter of constitution rights for accused terrorist.
> 
> The founder fathers were very sensitive to protecting the accused because they had seen first hand how unfairly the British treated colonist accused of crimes.
> *
> *The debates in the several state conventions on the adoption of the Federal Constitution*


Illegal aliens invading the US, stealing jobs and pillaging the US economy by remittances$$$ ($138 Billion) are little more than international burglars, akin to Vikings of medieval days who marauded Europe.  Main difference is the quantities.

Mexico, alone is grabbing $28 Billion/year from us (just the remittances).  The Vikings would be envious.

This is just one item on a long list of HARMS imposed on the American people by these international parasites.

All this is a far bigger issue than "rights" (which were conceived without the knowledge of America being the # 1 victim of imperialism in the world, in the 21st century)


----------



## kaz

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Good guess but no cigar. The quote comes from the Madison Report on Virginia Resolutions in 1800 when the country was embroiled in the Revolutionary War.  There was certainly no demand for immigrants in the colonies because of their fear of spies and sedition.  In fact, the report contains Madison view of how aliens, spies, and those accused of sedition should be treated in a court of law.  This was over 10 years before the BIll of Rights. So yes, I believe he would be very supporter of constitution rights for accused terrorist.
> 
> The founder fathers were very sensitive to protecting the accused because they had seen first hand how unfairly the British treated colonist accused of crimes.
> *
> *The debates in the several state conventions on the adoption of the Federal Constitution*
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal aliens invading the US, stealing jobs and pillaging the US economy by remittances$$$ ($138 Billion) are little more than international burglars, akin to Vikings of medieval days who marauded Europe.  Main difference is the quantities.
> 
> Mexico, alone is grabbing $28 Billion/year from us (just the remittances).  The Vikings would be envious.
> 
> This is just one item on a long list of HARMS imposed on the American people by these international parasites.
> 
> All this is a far bigger issue than "rights" (which were conceived without the knowledge of America being the # 1 victim of imperialism in the world, in the 21st century)
Click to expand...

Flopper wants in on plundering, he doesn't want to stop it


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think if Madison were alive today, he would support constitutional rights of captured terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they could?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one defends the rights of terrorists. We defend the rights of people _accused_ of being terrorists. Because any of us can be accused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are an American, yes you have rights.  But I don't believe our founders (if alive today) would approve of us giving overseas terrorists constitutional rights in our country which they want to end.
Click to expand...

*They has have written rather extensively on rights of the accused.  I suggest you read what they have to save.  

You're arguing that only certain people should have rights in a court of law.  Think about what that really means.  If the accused does not have rights, then there can be no fair trial.  Without fair trials, neither victims nor the accused will have confidence that justice will be done. Without fair trials, trust in government and the rule of law collapses.*


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Good guess but no cigar. The quote comes from the Madison Report on Virginia Resolutions in 1800 when the country was embroiled in the Revolutionary War.  There was certainly no demand for immigrants in the colonies because of their fear of spies and sedition.  In fact, the report contains Madison view of how aliens, spies, and those accused of sedition should be treated in a court of law.  This was over 10 years before the BIll of Rights. So yes, I believe he would be very supporter of constitution rights for accused terrorist.
> 
> The founder fathers were very sensitive to protecting the accused because they had seen first hand how unfairly the British treated colonist accused of crimes.
> *
> *The debates in the several state conventions on the adoption of the Federal Constitution*
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal aliens invading the US, stealing jobs and pillaging the US economy by remittances$$$ ($138 Billion) are little more than international burglars, akin to Vikings of medieval days who marauded Europe.  Main difference is the quantities.
> 
> Mexico, alone is grabbing $28 Billion/year from us (just the remittances).  The Vikings would be envious.
> 
> This is just one item on a long list of HARMS imposed on the American people by these international parasites.
> 
> All this is a far bigger issue than "rights" (which were conceived without the knowledge of America being the # 1 victim of imperialism in the world, in the 21st century)
Click to expand...

*So you consider illegal aliens working in America are a far bigger issue than constitutional rights?  Thankfully, such nonsense is shared by few Americans.*


----------



## Flopper

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Link?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not in the Constitution.  The Constitution is "We the  People," not "We the People and anyone who legally or illegally resides on our territory."  Game, set and match.
> 
> As for the idiocy of what you're arguing, name another country that grants the rights of citizens to foreigners, much less ones there illegally ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That's your opinion and a lot of people share it.  However the US Supreme Court does not.  The Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."
> 
> Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if Madison was alive today to see what's going on, do you really believe he would continue to hold that opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Wow.  That's exactly the same argument, liberal make so often in defending the "the living constitution" when conservatives drag out the federalist papers and quotes of Jefferson or Madison.
> 
> I think if Madison was alive today, I certainly think he would agree that anyone charged with a crime regardless who they are should have constitutional rights.  Without constitution rights there would be no guaranteed of a fair trial or hearing.  The defendant could be denied legal council or a jury trial.  Without the protection of the 5th amendment the person could be tried in absentia, never given the charges or the right to defend himself.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're here illegally, there is nothing to defend.  You haven't passed Go
Click to expand...

*Finally, you wrote something that's worth discussing.  If you are simply here illegally then you have overstayed your visa.   The number of people that overstay visas is greater than the number entering the country illegally. Yet it gets very little attention from the media.

Overstaying a visa is a civil violation that carries no jail time or fines, only deportation which is referred to as an adjustment in immigration status, not a penalty.  The offense is adjudicated in immigration court, a civil court.  In reality, the only defense is mitigating circumstances which there are many that may result in delays in deportation and often voluntary removal with no barring of re-enter.  

If you really support tougher laws against illegal immigration, then tracking visa holders needs to change.  There is no real tracking system for visa holders and work permits.  They are told to keep immigration informed of changes of address.  However, half do not, probably because there is no penalty for not doing so.   What needs to happen is there should be a penalty for not keeping immigration informed of current addresses and there needs to be a tracking system developed. 

Overstaying visas is as much of a problem as illegal entry because those that enter the country illegally are very likely to leave within a year or so.  However, people that overstay visas often become permanent undocumented residents.
*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think if Madison were alive today, he would support constitutional rights of captured terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they could?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one defends the rights of terrorists. We defend the rights of people _accused_ of being terrorists. Because any of us can be accused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are an American, yes you have rights.  But I don't believe our founders (if alive today) would approve of us giving overseas terrorists constitutional rights in our country which they want to end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *They has have written rather extensively on rights of the accused.  I suggest you read what they have to save.
> 
> You're arguing that only certain people should have rights in a court of law.  Think about what that really means.  If the accused does not have rights, then there can be no fair trial.  Without fair trials, neither victims nor the accused will have confidence that justice will be done. Without fair trials, trust in government and the rule of law collapses.*
Click to expand...


The only people that should have any constitutional rights are foreigners who are welcome here and of course any American.  If you come here illegally, you should not have constitutional rights and don't tell me what the founders thought because there were no restrictions on immigrants at the time.  That came later.

These people are using our laws to game the system.  Of course they have no fear of coming here.  Look how big of a deal we are making by just taking their children away while they are being processed.  There people are laughing at our stupidity. Try going into their countries illegally and see what rights you get there.


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> *Finally, you wrote something that's worth discussing.  If you are simply here illegally then you have overstayed your visa.   The number of people that overstay visas is greater than the number entering the country illegally. Yet it gets very little attention from the media.*


*
The problem with making up your stats is how often you're wrong, and you're wrong.  There are a lot of VISA overstays, but no, it's not more than illegal border crossings, it's less



Flopper said:



			Overstaying a visa is a civil violation that carries no jail time or fines, only deportation which is referred to as an adjustment in immigration status, not a penalty.  The offense is adjudicated in immigration court, a civil court.  In reality, the only defense is mitigating circumstances which there are many that may result in delays in deportation and often voluntary removal with no barring of re-enter.

If you really support tougher laws against illegal immigration, then tracking visa holders needs to change.  There is no real tracking system for visa holders and work permits.  They are told to keep immigration informed of changes of address.  However, half do not, probably because there is no penalty for not doing so.   What needs to happen is there should be a penalty for not keeping immigration informed of current addresses and there needs to be a tracking system developed. 

Overstaying visas is as much of a problem as illegal entry because those that enter the country illegally are very likely to leave within a year or so.  However, people that overstay visas often become permanent undocumented residents.
		
Click to expand...

*
Everyone who supports a wall supports also tougening laws on Visa overstays.  The wall is #1 priority for two reasons.  The second reason is the part where you're wrong and the majority of illegal aliens cross the border illegally.  The biggest one is that they have at least been checked out and we knew when they came in who they were and were able to check out their history, including their criminal history


----------



## Kondor3

In 2016, there were 740,000 visa overstays.

740,000 visa overstays / 11,000,000 illegal aliens = visa overstays = 6.7% of the total illegal alien problem.

Hardly "_as much of a problem as illegal entry_" .

But hammering visa overstays is on the front-burner, too... not to worry.

Besides... it's time to turn "visa overstays" into a *criminal* offense, as well.

Win-Win.

----------------------

Bottom line...

If you're coming to America with our express prior consent, then, "_Welcome neighbor, glad to have you here._"

If you've come to America without our express prior consent, then, "_Get the phukk out of our country._"


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Everyone who supports a wall supports also tougening laws on Visa overstays. The wall is #1 priority for two reasons. The second reason is the part where you're wrong and the majority of illegal aliens cross the border illegally. The biggest one is that they have at least been checked out and we knew when they came in who they were and were able to check out their history, including their criminal history



Plus when one overstays their VISA, they don't bring in drugs at the same time.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Nearly Half of Illegal Immigrants Overstay Visas


kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Finally, you wrote something that's worth discussing.  If you are simply here illegally then you have overstayed your visa.   The number of people that overstay visas is greater than the number entering the country illegally. Yet it gets very little attention from the media.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> The problem with making up your stats is how often you're wrong, and you're wrong.  There are a lot of VISA overstays, but no, it's not more than illegal border crossings, it's less
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Overstaying a visa is a civil violation that carries no jail time or fines, only deportation which is referred to as an adjustment in immigration status, not a penalty.  The offense is adjudicated in immigration court, a civil court.  In reality, the only defense is mitigating circumstances which there are many that may result in delays in deportation and often voluntary removal with no barring of re-enter.
> 
> If you really support tougher laws against illegal immigration, then tracking visa holders needs to change.  There is no real tracking system for visa holders and work permits.  They are told to keep immigration informed of changes of address.  However, half do not, probably because there is no penalty for not doing so.   What needs to happen is there should be a penalty for not keeping immigration informed of current addresses and there needs to be a tracking system developed.
> 
> Overstaying visas is as much of a problem as illegal entry because those that enter the country illegally are very likely to leave within a year or so.  However, people that overstay visas often become permanent undocumented residents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Everyone who supports a wall supports also tougening laws on Visa overstays.  The wall is #1 priority for two reasons.  The second reason is the part where you're wrong and the majority of illegal aliens cross the border illegally.  The biggest one is that they have at least been checked out and we knew when they came in who they were and were able to check out their history, including their criminal history
Click to expand...


I assume that Kaz and Condor have a credible source they can link about the % of illegals that overstayed their visas, because I have two links saying that 40% to 45% are illegal because of overstaying their visas.

Nearly Half of Illegal Immigrants Overstay Visas

FACT CHECK: Did 40 Percent Of All Illegal Immigrants Overstay Legal Visas?


----------



## kaz

Vandalshandle said:


> Nearly Half of Illegal Immigrants Overstay Visas
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Finally, you wrote something that's worth discussing.  If you are simply here illegally then you have overstayed your visa.   The number of people that overstay visas is greater than the number entering the country illegally. Yet it gets very little attention from the media.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> The problem with making up your stats is how often you're wrong, and you're wrong.  There are a lot of VISA overstays, but no, it's not more than illegal border crossings, it's less
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Overstaying a visa is a civil violation that carries no jail time or fines, only deportation which is referred to as an adjustment in immigration status, not a penalty.  The offense is adjudicated in immigration court, a civil court.  In reality, the only defense is mitigating circumstances which there are many that may result in delays in deportation and often voluntary removal with no barring of re-enter.
> 
> If you really support tougher laws against illegal immigration, then tracking visa holders needs to change.  There is no real tracking system for visa holders and work permits.  They are told to keep immigration informed of changes of address.  However, half do not, probably because there is no penalty for not doing so.   What needs to happen is there should be a penalty for not keeping immigration informed of current addresses and there needs to be a tracking system developed.
> 
> Overstaying visas is as much of a problem as illegal entry because those that enter the country illegally are very likely to leave within a year or so.  However, people that overstay visas often become permanent undocumented residents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Everyone who supports a wall supports also tougening laws on Visa overstays.  The wall is #1 priority for two reasons.  The second reason is the part where you're wrong and the majority of illegal aliens cross the border illegally.  The biggest one is that they have at least been checked out and we knew when they came in who they were and were able to check out their history, including their criminal history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume that Kaz and Condor have a credible source they can link about the % of illegals that overstayed their visas, because I have two links saying that 40% to 45% are illegal because of overstaying their visas.
> 
> Nearly Half of Illegal Immigrants Overstay Visas
> 
> FACT CHECK: Did 40 Percent Of All Illegal Immigrants Overstay Legal Visas?
Click to expand...


First of all, it was Flopper's claim that most illegal aliens overstay their visas.  I said he's wrong.  I like how you skim over his making the original claim and tell me to prove him wrong.

Second, my proof that Flopper is wrong is ... your links.  40-45% is LESS than half, Holmes.  Not the sharpest enchilada in the garage, are you?  Seriously?  You thought 40-45% is the majority?  Wow.

And note that you two are establishing that we're getting almost 2 million illegal aliens a year.  Wow, that's scary


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Vandalshandle said:


> Nearly Half of Illegal Immigrants Overstay Visas
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Finally, you wrote something that's worth discussing.  If you are simply here illegally then you have overstayed your visa.   The number of people that overstay visas is greater than the number entering the country illegally. Yet it gets very little attention from the media.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> The problem with making up your stats is how often you're wrong, and you're wrong.  There are a lot of VISA overstays, but no, it's not more than illegal border crossings, it's less
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Overstaying a visa is a civil violation that carries no jail time or fines, only deportation which is referred to as an adjustment in immigration status, not a penalty.  The offense is adjudicated in immigration court, a civil court.  In reality, the only defense is mitigating circumstances which there are many that may result in delays in deportation and often voluntary removal with no barring of re-enter.
> 
> If you really support tougher laws against illegal immigration, then tracking visa holders needs to change.  There is no real tracking system for visa holders and work permits.  They are told to keep immigration informed of changes of address.  However, half do not, probably because there is no penalty for not doing so.   What needs to happen is there should be a penalty for not keeping immigration informed of current addresses and there needs to be a tracking system developed.
> 
> Overstaying visas is as much of a problem as illegal entry because those that enter the country illegally are very likely to leave within a year or so.  However, people that overstay visas often become permanent undocumented residents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Everyone who supports a wall supports also tougening laws on Visa overstays.  The wall is #1 priority for two reasons.  The second reason is the part where you're wrong and the majority of illegal aliens cross the border illegally.  The biggest one is that they have at least been checked out and we knew when they came in who they were and were able to check out their history, including their criminal history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume that Kaz and Condor have a credible source they can link about the % of illegals that overstayed their visas, because I have two links saying that 40% to 45% are illegal because of overstaying their visas.
> 
> Nearly Half of Illegal Immigrants Overstay Visas
> 
> FACT CHECK: Did 40 Percent Of All Illegal Immigrants Overstay Legal Visas?
Click to expand...



In 2016, the Department of Homeland Security estimated that out of 45 million U.S. arrivals by air and sea whose tourist or business visas expired in fiscal year 2015, about 416,500 people remained in the country in 2016.

However, that data only covers a small slice of the undocumented population, capturing one year of data and omitting people who arrived via land. Also, the report did not provide a breakdown by state.

In 2006, the Pew Research Center estimated that as much as "45 percent of the total unauthorized migrant population entered the country with visas that allowed them to visit or reside in the U.S. for a limited amount of time."

That report relied on a 1997 study from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which concluded that in 1996, 41 percent of illegal immigrants had entered the United States legally.

Did most of Florida undocumented immigrants overstay visas?


----------



## Kondor3

*Nearly 740,000 foreigners overstayed visas last year, U.S. officials say*
CBS/AP - May 23, 2017

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/overstayed-visas-increase-department-homeland-security/


----------



## Vandalshandle

kaz said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly Half of Illegal Immigrants Overstay Visas
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Finally, you wrote something that's worth discussing.  If you are simply here illegally then you have overstayed your visa.   The number of people that overstay visas is greater than the number entering the country illegally. Yet it gets very little attention from the media.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> The problem with making up your stats is how often you're wrong, and you're wrong.  There are a lot of VISA overstays, but no, it's not more than illegal border crossings, it's less
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Overstaying a visa is a civil violation that carries no jail time or fines, only deportation which is referred to as an adjustment in immigration status, not a penalty.  The offense is adjudicated in immigration court, a civil court.  In reality, the only defense is mitigating circumstances which there are many that may result in delays in deportation and often voluntary removal with no barring of re-enter.
> 
> If you really support tougher laws against illegal immigration, then tracking visa holders needs to change.  There is no real tracking system for visa holders and work permits.  They are told to keep immigration informed of changes of address.  However, half do not, probably because there is no penalty for not doing so.   What needs to happen is there should be a penalty for not keeping immigration informed of current addresses and there needs to be a tracking system developed.
> 
> Overstaying visas is as much of a problem as illegal entry because those that enter the country illegally are very likely to leave within a year or so.  However, people that overstay visas often become permanent undocumented residents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Everyone who supports a wall supports also tougening laws on Visa overstays.  The wall is #1 priority for two reasons.  The second reason is the part where you're wrong and the majority of illegal aliens cross the border illegally.  The biggest one is that they have at least been checked out and we knew when they came in who they were and were able to check out their history, including their criminal history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume that Kaz and Condor have a credible source they can link about the % of illegals that overstayed their visas, because I have two links saying that 40% to 45% are illegal because of overstaying their visas.
> 
> Nearly Half of Illegal Immigrants Overstay Visas
> 
> FACT CHECK: Did 40 Percent Of All Illegal Immigrants Overstay Legal Visas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, it was Flopper's claim that most illegal aliens overstay their visas.  I said he's wrong.  I like how you skim over his making the original claim and tell me to prove him wrong.
> 
> Second, my proof that Flopper is wrong is ... your links.  40-45% is LESS than half, Holmes.  Not the sharpest enchilada in the garage, are you?  Seriously?  You thought 40-45% is the majority?  Wow.
> 
> And note that you two are establishing that we're getting almost 2 million illegal aliens a year.  Wow, that's scary
Click to expand...


 I would suggest that 40% to 45% is significant, even though you implied that it was not. As to Condor's claim that only 6.7% of illegals overstayed their visa's, well, that is so absurd that I won't even go there. Condor needs a remedial math course. 740,000 overstayed visa per year divided by total illegals here is a math fallacy. The 740,000 should be divided by the total number of illegals from all sources IN ONE YEAR. I think that Condor is a Trump University graduate.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *So you consider illegal aliens working in America are a far bigger issue than constitutional rights?  Thankfully, such nonsense is shared by few Americans.*


The issue of _"illegal aliens working in America"_ (and living here) is the issue of the USA being *invaded* by foreign countries,* occupied* with millions of their people, and having those countries impose* imperialist plunder* upon us, as the world has never seen before.

In World War II, 400,000 Americans sacrificed their lives to prevent this from happening, and now loose screw Democrats do everything they can to promote it.

As for _"constitutional rights",_ I see it as a major issue for Americans, not foreign invader-pillagers, = to ones that our ancestors fought and died to keep out.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *They has have written rather extensively on rights of the accused.  I suggest you read what they have to save.
> 
> You're arguing that only certain people should have rights in a court of law.  Think about what that really means.  If the accused does not have rights, then there can be no fair trial.  Without fair trials, neither victims nor the accused will have confidence that justice will be done. Without fair trials, trust in government and the rule of law collapses.*


When a country is invaded by foreign masses, it is at war against its invaders. They should be declared enemy combatants.  Currently, we have foreign invaders/occupiers being treated about like convenience store thieves, and given trials in civilian courts.

This is not how countries should deal with their enemies  (ex. Mexico)  A news reporter asked my ex Army National Guard battalion commander, how does he deal with his enemies.  The Lt. Colonel said >> _*"In the Army, the way we deal with our enemies is simple.  It can be described in just 3 words.  We Kill Them."*_


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think if Madison were alive today, he would support constitutional rights of captured terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they could?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one defends the rights of terrorists. We defend the rights of people _accused_ of being terrorists. Because any of us can be accused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are an American, yes you have rights.  But I don't believe our founders (if alive today) would approve of us giving overseas terrorists constitutional rights in our country which they want to end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *They has have written rather extensively on rights of the accused.  I suggest you read what they have to save.
> 
> You're arguing that only certain people should have rights in a court of law.  Think about what that really means.  If the accused does not have rights, then there can be no fair trial.  Without fair trials, neither victims nor the accused will have confidence that justice will be done. Without fair trials, trust in government and the rule of law collapses.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only people that should have any constitutional rights are foreigners who are welcome here and of course any American.  If you come here illegally, you should not have constitutional rights and don't tell me what the founders thought because there were no restrictions on immigrants at the time.  That came later.
> 
> These people are using our laws to game the system.  Of course they have no fear of coming here.  Look how big of a deal we are making by just taking their children away while they are being processed.  There people are laughing at our stupidity. Try going into their countries illegally and see what rights you get there.
Click to expand...

*From legal standpoint what you're saying doesn't make any sense at all.  You say, "If you come here illegally, you should not have constitutional rights..".  If a person is accused of entering the country illegally but that person disputes the claim, does that person have a right to fair trial?*


----------



## Flopper

Kondor3 said:


> In 2016, there were 740,000 visa overstays.
> 
> 740,000 visa overstays / 11,000,000 illegal aliens = visa overstays = 6.7% of the total illegal alien problem.
> 
> Hardly "_as much of a problem as illegal entry_" .
> 
> But hammering visa overstays is on the front-burner, too... not to worry.
> 
> Besides... it's time to turn "visa overstays" into a *criminal* offense, as well.
> 
> Win-Win.
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> Bottom line...
> 
> If you're coming to America with our express prior consent, then, "_Welcome neighbor, glad to have you here._"
> 
> If you've come to America without our express prior consent, then, "_Get the phukk out of our country._"


*739,450 people overstayed their visas in 2016.
170,000 people eluded capture and entered illegally at our southern boarder.
Almost half of all undocumented immigrants entered the country legally and most of those come by air.  

Going after the number that overstayed their visa would reduce the number of undocumented immigrants a lot faster and a lot easier than tracking down those that enter the country illegally.  You know who the overstays are, they constitute a very large part of the undocumented population, and you're able to track them.  You know little or nothing about those that successfully crossed the boarder and if they stay below the radar, they are almost impossible to track.

Almost 740,000 visa overstays in 2016
Barely half of illegal border crossers caught, according to Homeland Security report*


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly Half of Illegal Immigrants Overstay Visas
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Finally, you wrote something that's worth discussing.  If you are simply here illegally then you have overstayed your visa.   The number of people that overstay visas is greater than the number entering the country illegally. Yet it gets very little attention from the media.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> The problem with making up your stats is how often you're wrong, and you're wrong.  There are a lot of VISA overstays, but no, it's not more than illegal border crossings, it's less
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Overstaying a visa is a civil violation that carries no jail time or fines, only deportation which is referred to as an adjustment in immigration status, not a penalty.  The offense is adjudicated in immigration court, a civil court.  In reality, the only defense is mitigating circumstances which there are many that may result in delays in deportation and often voluntary removal with no barring of re-enter.
> 
> If you really support tougher laws against illegal immigration, then tracking visa holders needs to change.  There is no real tracking system for visa holders and work permits.  They are told to keep immigration informed of changes of address.  However, half do not, probably because there is no penalty for not doing so.   What needs to happen is there should be a penalty for not keeping immigration informed of current addresses and there needs to be a tracking system developed.
> 
> Overstaying visas is as much of a problem as illegal entry because those that enter the country illegally are very likely to leave within a year or so.  However, people that overstay visas often become permanent undocumented residents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Everyone who supports a wall supports also tougening laws on Visa overstays.  The wall is #1 priority for two reasons.  The second reason is the part where you're wrong and the majority of illegal aliens cross the border illegally.  The biggest one is that they have at least been checked out and we knew when they came in who they were and were able to check out their history, including their criminal history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume that Kaz and Condor have a credible source they can link about the % of illegals that overstayed their visas, because I have two links saying that 40% to 45% are illegal because of overstaying their visas.
> 
> Nearly Half of Illegal Immigrants Overstay Visas
> 
> FACT CHECK: Did 40 Percent Of All Illegal Immigrants Overstay Legal Visas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In 2016, the Department of Homeland Security estimated that out of 45 million U.S. arrivals by air and sea whose tourist or business visas expired in fiscal year 2015, about 416,500 people remained in the country in 2016.
> 
> However, that data only covers a small slice of the undocumented population, capturing one year of data and omitting people who arrived via land. Also, the report did not provide a breakdown by state.
> 
> In 2006, the Pew Research Center estimated that as much as "45 percent of the total unauthorized migrant population entered the country with visas that allowed them to visit or reside in the U.S. for a limited amount of time."
> 
> That report relied on a 1997 study from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which concluded that in 1996, 41 percent of illegal immigrants had entered the United States legally.
> 
> Did most of Florida undocumented immigrants overstay visas?
Click to expand...

*Homeland security overstay stats in a given year are equal to the number of visas that expire in that year less the number that exited the country.   So when they report the number of overstays of 400,000 or 700,000, that is not a cumulative figure.  It is just the number that should have left that year and didn't.  So when people claim 40% to 50% of undocumented immigrants came into the country legally, (another way of saying 40% to 50% are visa overstays) it is a reasonable estimate.  So if the number of undocumented immigrates is 11 million, then the number due to Visa overstays would be about 4.4 to 5.5 million.  Visa overstays are almost always more than the number estimated to have entered the country illegally in a year.  There are several exceptions during the last recession. 

Note that these Stats don't always agree in the media because Homeland Security reports fiscal years (ending in Oct).  The media will often adjust this figure for calendar years if it supports their story. *
*Immigration Data & Statistics*


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They has have written rather extensively on rights of the accused.  I suggest you read what they have to save.
> 
> You're arguing that only certain people should have rights in a court of law.  Think about what that really means.  If the accused does not have rights, then there can be no fair trial.  Without fair trials, neither victims nor the accused will have confidence that justice will be done. Without fair trials, trust in government and the rule of law collapses.*
> 
> 
> 
> When a country is invaded by foreign masses, it is at war against its invaders. They should be declared enemy combatants.  Currently, we have foreign invaders/occupiers being treated about like convenience store thieves, and given trials in civilian courts.
> 
> This is not how countries should deal with their enemies  (ex. Mexico)  A news reporter asked my ex Army National Guard battalion commander, how does he deal with his enemies.  The Lt. Colonel said >> _*"In the Army, the way we deal with our enemies is simple.  It can be described in just 3 words.  We Kill Them."*_
Click to expand...

*Declaring Mexico as an enemy of US is really crazy.*

*Less than 4% of the Mexican people have lived in the US illegally.  *
*Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans and now less that half the illegal immigrant population is Mexican.*
*Mexico is our 3rd most important trading partner responsible for millions of US jobs.*
*Finally the Mexican government is not responsible for guarding the US boarder. *


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They has have written rather extensively on rights of the accused.  I suggest you read what they have to save.
> 
> You're arguing that only certain people should have rights in a court of law.  Think about what that really means.  If the accused does not have rights, then there can be no fair trial.  Without fair trials, neither victims nor the accused will have confidence that justice will be done. Without fair trials, trust in government and the rule of law collapses.*
> 
> 
> 
> When a country is invaded by foreign masses, it is at war against its invaders. They should be declared enemy combatants.  Currently, we have foreign invaders/occupiers being treated about like convenience store thieves, and given trials in civilian courts.
> 
> This is not how countries should deal with their enemies  (ex. Mexico)  A news reporter asked my ex Army National Guard battalion commander, how does he deal with his enemies.  The Lt. Colonel said >> _*"In the Army, the way we deal with our enemies is simple.  It can be described in just 3 words.  We Kill Them."*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Declaring Mexico as an enemy of US is really crazy.*
> 
> *Less than 4% of the Mexican people have lived in the US illegally.  *
> *Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans and now less that half the illegal immigrant population is Mexican.*
> *Mexico is our 3rd most important trading partner responsible for millions of US jobs.*
> *Finally the Mexican government is not responsible for guarding the US boarder. *
Click to expand...


You have such screwy assumptions:

1) Flopper - if we build a wall, we can't go after VISA overstays too, we have to pick one

- Bull, we need to go after both and any other way illegals are coming into the country

2)  Flopper - only Mexicans are crossing our southern border

- Bull, lots of South Americans too.  And so can anyone, including al Qaeda, who fly into Mexico city

3)  40% means a majority - no, 40% is not a majority.  Not a math major, were you?


----------



## Flopper

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They has have written rather extensively on rights of the accused.  I suggest you read what they have to save.
> 
> You're arguing that only certain people should have rights in a court of law.  Think about what that really means.  If the accused does not have rights, then there can be no fair trial.  Without fair trials, neither victims nor the accused will have confidence that justice will be done. Without fair trials, trust in government and the rule of law collapses.*
> 
> 
> 
> When a country is invaded by foreign masses, it is at war against its invaders. They should be declared enemy combatants.  Currently, we have foreign invaders/occupiers being treated about like convenience store thieves, and given trials in civilian courts.
> 
> This is not how countries should deal with their enemies  (ex. Mexico)  A news reporter asked my ex Army National Guard battalion commander, how does he deal with his enemies.  The Lt. Colonel said >> _*"In the Army, the way we deal with our enemies is simple.  It can be described in just 3 words.  We Kill Them."*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Declaring Mexico as an enemy of US is really crazy.*
> 
> *Less than 4% of the Mexican people have lived in the US illegally.  *
> *Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans and now less that half the illegal immigrant population is Mexican.*
> *Mexico is our 3rd most important trading partner responsible for millions of US jobs.*
> *Finally the Mexican government is not responsible for guarding the US boarder. *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have such screwy assumptions:
> 
> 1) Flopper - if we build a wall, we can't go after VISA overstays too, we have to pick one
> 
> - Bull, we need to go after both and any other way illegals are coming into the country
> 
> 2)  Flopper - only Mexicans are crossing our southern border
> 
> - Bull, lots of South Americans too.  And so can anyone, including al Qaeda, who fly into Mexico city
> 
> 3)  40% means a majority - no, 40% is not a majority.  Not a math major, were you?
Click to expand...


*Of course we can we protect our borders and deal with visa overstays as we should but only in a fair and just manner.  Trump's rush to deport as many people as fast as he can is going to backfire badly.  The majority of the American public want a path to citizenship not deportation.  Bypassing immigration court and his zero tolerance policy is going to hurt a lot of innocent people.  For example: What does a businessman father from Ohio, an Arizona mother, the Indiana husband of a Trump supporter all have in common? They were unassuming members of their community, parents of US citizens, and undocumented immigrants order to be deported. They had been in this country for decades, they're employed, had never been arrested, paid their taxes, and were productive members of the community.  And what crime did they commit.  None.  They are guilty of overstaying their visa, a civil infraction that carries no penalty other than deportation.  However because of the time they have been in the country, the law says they will be band from reentry for 10 years.  How in the world can anyone condom such unjust treatment?  And people question why 6 states and hundreds of cities and towns have declared themselves a sanctuary.*
*Read my post, "Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans ...".*
*It doesn't matter whether it's 40% or 50%, or 60%.  The percentage is based on and estimate of the number of undocumented immigrants in the country. It could 9 million, 11 million, 12 million, or more or less.  You seem to totally miss the point; the number of people that overstay their visas exceed the number coming over the boarder by a factor 2 to 4 times depending on year. *


----------



## Kondor3

Flopper said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They has have written rather extensively on rights of the accused.  I suggest you read what they have to save.
> 
> You're arguing that only certain people should have rights in a court of law.  Think about what that really means.  If the accused does not have rights, then there can be no fair trial.  Without fair trials, neither victims nor the accused will have confidence that justice will be done. Without fair trials, trust in government and the rule of law collapses.*
> 
> 
> 
> When a country is invaded by foreign masses, it is at war against its invaders. They should be declared enemy combatants.  Currently, we have foreign invaders/occupiers being treated about like convenience store thieves, and given trials in civilian courts.
> 
> This is not how countries should deal with their enemies  (ex. Mexico)  A news reporter asked my ex Army National Guard battalion commander, how does he deal with his enemies.  The Lt. Colonel said >> _*"In the Army, the way we deal with our enemies is simple.  It can be described in just 3 words.  We Kill Them."*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Declaring Mexico as an enemy of US is really crazy.*
> 
> *Less than 4% of the Mexican people have lived in the US illegally.  *
> *Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans and now less that half the illegal immigrant population is Mexican.*
> *Mexico is our 3rd most important trading partner responsible for millions of US jobs.*
> *Finally the Mexican government is not responsible for guarding the US boarder. *
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter.

Illegal Aliens are no longer welcome in the United States.

When we find you we are going to prosecute you.

If that means separating you from the children you foolishly risked when you brought them here illegally... tough $hit.

Just like we separate suspects from innocents in any *other* form of crime.

Don't like that?

Again... tough $hit.

You should have thought of that before you brought them here.

Not our circus... not our monkeys... not our problem.

You'll get them back when we're done processing your criminal charges.

Or until you voluntarily elect to plea-bargain in return for release on the Mexican side of the border.

Your call... the only "call" you get to make in all of this, once you've crossed over onto (or overstayed on) United States soil without our express prior consent.

Our country... our rules... our laws... our game.

Nobody likes to see a sucker (like the United States) "wise up".

Payback's a bitch, ain't it?


----------



## Kondor3

Flopper said:


> ......The majority of the American public want a path to citizenship not deportation...


November 8, 2016, tells a different story.


----------



## dblack

Kondor3 said:


> f
> Doesn't matter.
> 
> Illegal Aliens are no longer welcome in the United States.
> 
> When we find you we are going to prosecute you.
> 
> If that means separating you from the children you foolishly risked when you brought them here illegally... tough $hit.
> 
> Just like we separate suspects from innocents in any *other* form of crime.
> 
> Don't like that?
> 
> Again... tough $hit.
> 
> You should have thought of that before you brought them here.
> 
> Not our circus... not our monkeys... not our problem.
> 
> You'll get them back when we're done processing your criminal charges.
> 
> Or until you voluntarily elect to plea-bargain in return for release on the Mexican side of the border.
> 
> Your call... the only "call" you get to make in all of this, once you've crossed over onto (or overstayed on) United States soil without our express prior consent.
> 
> Our country... our rules... our laws... our game.
> 
> Nobody likes to see a sucker (like the United States) "wise up".
> 
> Payback's a bitch, ain't it?



One of the 'tells' of fascism is the tendency of its advocates to personally identify with the movement. Making grand claims in the name of 'we', as though they personally will be kicking ass and taking names. 

Or maybe you've just read too many comic books.


----------



## Kondor3

dblack said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> f
> Doesn't matter.
> 
> Illegal Aliens are no longer welcome in the United States.
> 
> When we find you we are going to prosecute you.
> 
> If that means separating you from the children you foolishly risked when you brought them here illegally... tough $hit.
> 
> Just like we separate suspects from innocents in any *other* form of crime.
> 
> Don't like that?
> 
> Again... tough $hit.
> 
> You should have thought of that before you brought them here.
> 
> Not our circus... not our monkeys... not our problem.
> 
> You'll get them back when we're done processing your criminal charges.
> 
> Or until you voluntarily elect to plea-bargain in return for release on the Mexican side of the border.
> 
> Your call... the only "call" you get to make in all of this, once you've crossed over onto (or overstayed on) United States soil without our express prior consent.
> 
> Our country... our rules... our laws... our game.
> 
> Nobody likes to see a sucker (like the United States) "wise up".
> 
> Payback's a bitch, ain't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the 'tells' of fascism is the tendency of its advocates to personally identify with the movement. Making grand claims in the name of 'we', as though they personally will be kicking ass and taking names.
> 
> Or maybe you've just read too many comic books.
Click to expand...

November 8, 2016, defined "We" in the context of opposing Illegal Immigration and its domestic enablers.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They has have written rather extensively on rights of the accused.  I suggest you read what they have to save.
> 
> You're arguing that only certain people should have rights in a court of law.  Think about what that really means.  If the accused does not have rights, then there can be no fair trial.  Without fair trials, neither victims nor the accused will have confidence that justice will be done. Without fair trials, trust in government and the rule of law collapses.*
> 
> 
> 
> When a country is invaded by foreign masses, it is at war against its invaders. They should be declared enemy combatants.  Currently, we have foreign invaders/occupiers being treated about like convenience store thieves, and given trials in civilian courts.
> 
> This is not how countries should deal with their enemies  (ex. Mexico)  A news reporter asked my ex Army National Guard battalion commander, how does he deal with his enemies.  The Lt. Colonel said >> _*"In the Army, the way we deal with our enemies is simple.  It can be described in just 3 words.  We Kill Them."*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Declaring Mexico as an enemy of US is really crazy.*
> 
> *Less than 4% of the Mexican people have lived in the US illegally.  *
> *Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans and now less that half the illegal immigrant population is Mexican.*
> *Mexico is our 3rd most important trading partner responsible for millions of US jobs.*
> *Finally the Mexican government is not responsible for guarding the US boarder. *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have such screwy assumptions:
> 
> 1) Flopper - if we build a wall, we can't go after VISA overstays too, we have to pick one
> 
> - Bull, we need to go after both and any other way illegals are coming into the country
> 
> 2)  Flopper - only Mexicans are crossing our southern border
> 
> - Bull, lots of South Americans too.  And so can anyone, including al Qaeda, who fly into Mexico city
> 
> 3)  40% means a majority - no, 40% is not a majority.  Not a math major, were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Of course we can we protect our borders and deal with visa overstays as we should but only in a fair and just manner.  Trump's rush to deport as many people as fast as he can is going to backfire badly.  The majority of the American public want a path to citizenship not deportation.  Bypassing immigration court and his zero tolerance policy is going to hurt a lot of innocent people.  For example: What does a businessman father from Ohio, an Arizona mother, the Indiana husband of a Trump supporter all have in common? They were unassuming members of their community, parents of US citizens, and undocumented immigrants order to be deported. They had been in this country for decades, they're employed, had never been arrested, paid their taxes, and were productive members of the community.  And what crime did they commit.  None.  They are guilty of overstaying their visa, a civil infraction that carries no penalty other than deportation.  However because of the time they have been in the country, the law says they will be band from reentry for 10 years.  How in the world can anyone condom such unjust treatment?  And people question why 6 states and hundreds of cities and towns have declared themselves a sanctuary.*
> *Read my post, "Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans ...".*
> *It doesn't matter whether it's 40% or 50%, or 60%.  The percentage is based on and estimate of the number of undocumented immigrants in the country. It could 9 million, 11 million, 12 million, or more or less.  You seem to totally miss the point; the number of people that overstay their visas exceed the number coming over the boarder by a factor 2 to 4 times depending on year. *
Click to expand...


So what you're saying is it's okay if they break our laws, just as long as they show they are upstanding citizens. 

Well that's a message we want to send to the other 8.5 billion people on this planet, isn't it? 

You people on the left are constantly comparing us to other countries........except when it comes to borders, immigration laws and handling of intruders.  There are not many other countries that would put up with as much as we have put up with when it comes to immigration. 

Especially in our sanctuary cities, we give them drivers licenses so they can get to work they are not supposed to have.  Those cities give them protection from ICE and other agencies.  We allow them to rent apartments and houses.  They get to send their illegal children to our schools, and in some cases, hold up the class because they can't speak English.  They can even get credit cards.  

Is it any wonder why they come here, and now we're going to complain because we take their children from them when they enter this country?  Add free babysitting on top of the list above.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They has have written rather extensively on rights of the accused.  I suggest you read what they have to save.
> 
> You're arguing that only certain people should have rights in a court of law.  Think about what that really means.  If the accused does not have rights, then there can be no fair trial.  Without fair trials, neither victims nor the accused will have confidence that justice will be done. Without fair trials, trust in government and the rule of law collapses.*
> 
> 
> 
> When a country is invaded by foreign masses, it is at war against its invaders. They should be declared enemy combatants.  Currently, we have foreign invaders/occupiers being treated about like convenience store thieves, and given trials in civilian courts.
> 
> This is not how countries should deal with their enemies  (ex. Mexico)  A news reporter asked my ex Army National Guard battalion commander, how does he deal with his enemies.  The Lt. Colonel said >> _*"In the Army, the way we deal with our enemies is simple.  It can be described in just 3 words.  We Kill Them."*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Declaring Mexico as an enemy of US is really crazy.*
> 
> *Less than 4% of the Mexican people have lived in the US illegally.  *
> *Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans and now less that half the illegal immigrant population is Mexican.*
> *Mexico is our 3rd most important trading partner responsible for millions of US jobs.*
> *Finally the Mexican government is not responsible for guarding the US boarder. *
Click to expand...


Oh please, Mexico allows everybody to cross their land in effort to get to the US. These people didn't fly over or come here in a makeshift raft.


----------



## tycho1572

We couldn’t have asked for a better president.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly Half of Illegal Immigrants Overstay Visas
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Finally, you wrote something that's worth discussing.  If you are simply here illegally then you have overstayed your visa.   The number of people that overstay visas is greater than the number entering the country illegally. Yet it gets very little attention from the media.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> The problem with making up your stats is how often you're wrong, and you're wrong.  There are a lot of VISA overstays, but no, it's not more than illegal border crossings, it's less
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Overstaying a visa is a civil violation that carries no jail time or fines, only deportation which is referred to as an adjustment in immigration status, not a penalty.  The offense is adjudicated in immigration court, a civil court.  In reality, the only defense is mitigating circumstances which there are many that may result in delays in deportation and often voluntary removal with no barring of re-enter.
> 
> If you really support tougher laws against illegal immigration, then tracking visa holders needs to change.  There is no real tracking system for visa holders and work permits.  They are told to keep immigration informed of changes of address.  However, half do not, probably because there is no penalty for not doing so.   What needs to happen is there should be a penalty for not keeping immigration informed of current addresses and there needs to be a tracking system developed.
> 
> Overstaying visas is as much of a problem as illegal entry because those that enter the country illegally are very likely to leave within a year or so.  However, people that overstay visas often become permanent undocumented residents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Everyone who supports a wall supports also tougening laws on Visa overstays.  The wall is #1 priority for two reasons.  The second reason is the part where you're wrong and the majority of illegal aliens cross the border illegally.  The biggest one is that they have at least been checked out and we knew when they came in who they were and were able to check out their history, including their criminal history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume that Kaz and Condor have a credible source they can link about the % of illegals that overstayed their visas, because I have two links saying that 40% to 45% are illegal because of overstaying their visas.
> 
> Nearly Half of Illegal Immigrants Overstay Visas
> 
> FACT CHECK: Did 40 Percent Of All Illegal Immigrants Overstay Legal Visas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In 2016, the Department of Homeland Security estimated that out of 45 million U.S. arrivals by air and sea whose tourist or business visas expired in fiscal year 2015, about 416,500 people remained in the country in 2016.
> 
> However, that data only covers a small slice of the undocumented population, capturing one year of data and omitting people who arrived via land. Also, the report did not provide a breakdown by state.
> 
> In 2006, the Pew Research Center estimated that as much as "45 percent of the total unauthorized migrant population entered the country with visas that allowed them to visit or reside in the U.S. for a limited amount of time."
> 
> That report relied on a 1997 study from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which concluded that in 1996, 41 percent of illegal immigrants had entered the United States legally.
> 
> Did most of Florida undocumented immigrants overstay visas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Homeland security overstay stats in a given year are equal to the number of visas that expire in that year less the number that exited the country.   So when they report the number of overstays of 400,000 or 700,000, that is not a cumulative figure.  It is just the number that should have left that year and didn't.  So when people claim 40% to 50% of undocumented immigrants came into the country legally, (another way of saying 40% to 50% are visa overstays) it is a reasonable estimate.  So if the number of undocumented immigrates is 11 million, then the number due to Visa overstays would be about 4.4 to 5.5 million.  Visa overstays are almost always more than the number estimated to have entered the country illegally in a year.  There are several exceptions during the last recession.
> 
> Note that these Stats don't always agree in the media because Homeland Security reports fiscal years (ending in Oct).  The media will often adjust this figure for calendar years if it supports their story. *
> *Immigration Data & Statistics*
Click to expand...


Bottom line is that there is no way to accurately estimate the amount of overstays because of our record keeping.  Maybe Trump will work on that as well, I don't know.  But if it is a major problem, then the solution is to stop passing out so many Visa's and work permits.  Maybe have an escrow or something.  It costs you a couple thousand bucks to get one, and if you don't turn it in and leave the country, you lose your deposit.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think if Madison were alive today, he would support constitutional rights of captured terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they could?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one defends the rights of terrorists. We defend the rights of people _accused_ of being terrorists. Because any of us can be accused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are an American, yes you have rights.  But I don't believe our founders (if alive today) would approve of us giving overseas terrorists constitutional rights in our country which they want to end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *They has have written rather extensively on rights of the accused.  I suggest you read what they have to save.
> 
> You're arguing that only certain people should have rights in a court of law.  Think about what that really means.  If the accused does not have rights, then there can be no fair trial.  Without fair trials, neither victims nor the accused will have confidence that justice will be done. Without fair trials, trust in government and the rule of law collapses.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only people that should have any constitutional rights are foreigners who are welcome here and of course any American.  If you come here illegally, you should not have constitutional rights and don't tell me what the founders thought because there were no restrictions on immigrants at the time.  That came later.
> 
> These people are using our laws to game the system.  Of course they have no fear of coming here.  Look how big of a deal we are making by just taking their children away while they are being processed.  There people are laughing at our stupidity. Try going into their countries illegally and see what rights you get there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *From legal standpoint what you're saying doesn't make any sense at all.  You say, "If you come here illegally, you should not have constitutional rights..".  If a person is accused of entering the country illegally but that person disputes the claim, does that person have a right to fair trial?*
Click to expand...


No, they shouldn't.  If you can't prove you are here legally, out you go, no trial, no waiting period.  Out the minute we catch you and you can't come back either.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *Declaring Mexico as an enemy of US is really crazy.*
> 
> *Less than 4% of the Mexican people have lived in the US illegally.  *
> *Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans and now less that half the illegal immigrant population is Mexican.*
> *Mexico is our 3rd most important trading partner responsible for millions of US jobs.*
> *Finally the Mexican government is not responsible for guarding the US boarder. *


Mexican sends us their poor people, to illegally invade our land, occupy it, steal our jobs, raid our tax treasuries for as much benefits$$ as they can manage to grab from us, and raid our econmy for $28 Billion/year in remittances.

Most wars throughout history have been fought over far less than these grievances. And even Mexico's top leaders, for years,  have not held back from openly stating and gloating about Mexico robbing the US of its wealth, and turning the remittances taken into Mexico's #1 source of revenue/income.  Click the link to confirm>>

Vicente Fox Says Remittances Largest Source Of Revenue Since 2003, Gloats At Getting Illegals And Matricula Consular Into US : Diggers Realm

Of course, Mexico is our enemy.  They are (and have been for decades) our # 1 enemy in the world.  Even Iran, North Korea, and Syria have not sent millions of their people to invade and occupy our territory, and engage in Billions$$/year in imperialism upon us, as Mexico does.


----------



## Flopper

Kondor3 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They has have written rather extensively on rights of the accused.  I suggest you read what they have to save.
> 
> You're arguing that only certain people should have rights in a court of law.  Think about what that really means.  If the accused does not have rights, then there can be no fair trial.  Without fair trials, neither victims nor the accused will have confidence that justice will be done. Without fair trials, trust in government and the rule of law collapses.*
> 
> 
> 
> When a country is invaded by foreign masses, it is at war against its invaders. They should be declared enemy combatants.  Currently, we have foreign invaders/occupiers being treated about like convenience store thieves, and given trials in civilian courts.
> 
> This is not how countries should deal with their enemies  (ex. Mexico)  A news reporter asked my ex Army National Guard battalion commander, how does he deal with his enemies.  The Lt. Colonel said >> _*"In the Army, the way we deal with our enemies is simple.  It can be described in just 3 words.  We Kill Them."*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Declaring Mexico as an enemy of US is really crazy.*
> 
> *Less than 4% of the Mexican people have lived in the US illegally.  *
> *Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans and now less that half the illegal immigrant population is Mexican.*
> *Mexico is our 3rd most important trading partner responsible for millions of US jobs.*
> *Finally the Mexican government is not responsible for guarding the US boarder. *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't matter.
> 
> Illegal Aliens are no longer welcome in the United States.
> 
> When we find you we are going to prosecute you.
> 
> If that means separating you from the children you foolishly risked when you brought them here illegally... tough $hit.
> 
> Just like we separate suspects from innocents in any *other* form of crime.
> 
> Don't like that?
> 
> Again... tough $hit.
> 
> You should have thought of that before you brought them here.
> 
> Not our circus... not our monkeys... not our problem.
> 
> You'll get them back when we're done processing your criminal charges.
> 
> Or until you voluntarily elect to plea-bargain in return for release on the Mexican side of the border.
> 
> Your call... the only "call" you get to make in all of this, once you've crossed over onto (or overstayed on) United States soil without our express prior consent.
> 
> Our country... our rules... our laws... our game.
> 
> Nobody likes to see a sucker (like the United States) "wise up".
> 
> Payback's a bitch, ain't it?
Click to expand...

*Wow, such hate against millions of people that remained in the US after their Visa expired which is not even a criminal offense. About 40% to 50% of our undocumented immigrants fall into this category. 

 I don't think there are many Americans that welcome illegal immigrants but there are a lot of people that don't want to see them punished or deported.  They want a more humane solution to the problem.  These people didn't come her to rape and pillage.  They came here to work and earn enough money to support their family, often at considerable danger to themselves which is a lot more than many Americans are willing to do.    *


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​



What a crappy  thing the parents do to their kids by bringing them across the border.


----------



## francoHFW

Kondor3 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> f
> Doesn't matter.
> 
> Illegal Aliens are no longer welcome in the United States.
> 
> When we find you we are going to prosecute you.
> 
> If that means separating you from the children you foolishly risked when you brought them here illegally... tough $hit.
> 
> Just like we separate suspects from innocents in any *other* form of crime.
> 
> Don't like that?
> 
> Again... tough $hit.
> 
> You should have thought of that before you brought them here.
> 
> Not our circus... not our monkeys... not our problem.
> 
> You'll get them back when we're done processing your criminal charges.
> 
> Or until you voluntarily elect to plea-bargain in return for release on the Mexican side of the border.
> 
> Your call... the only "call" you get to make in all of this, once you've crossed over onto (or overstayed on) United States soil without our express prior consent.
> 
> Our country... our rules... our laws... our game.
> 
> Nobody likes to see a sucker (like the United States) "wise up".
> 
> Payback's a bitch, ain't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the 'tells' of fascism is the tendency of its advocates to personally identify with the movement. Making grand claims in the name of 'we', as though they personally will be kicking ass and taking names.
> 
> Or maybe you've just read too many comic books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> November 8, 2016, defined "We" in the context of opposing Illegal Immigration and its domestic enablers.
Click to expand...

 By building  a stupid wall that will not work? Duped again...


----------



## francoHFW

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a crappy  thing the parents do to their kids by bringing them across the border.
Click to expand...

These are people asking for Asylum, there is no reason to be cruel to them, super hater dupe.


----------



## francoHFW

Flopper said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They has have written rather extensively on rights of the accused.  I suggest you read what they have to save.
> 
> You're arguing that only certain people should have rights in a court of law.  Think about what that really means.  If the accused does not have rights, then there can be no fair trial.  Without fair trials, neither victims nor the accused will have confidence that justice will be done. Without fair trials, trust in government and the rule of law collapses.*
> 
> 
> 
> When a country is invaded by foreign masses, it is at war against its invaders. They should be declared enemy combatants.  Currently, we have foreign invaders/occupiers being treated about like convenience store thieves, and given trials in civilian courts.
> 
> This is not how countries should deal with their enemies  (ex. Mexico)  A news reporter asked my ex Army National Guard battalion commander, how does he deal with his enemies.  The Lt. Colonel said >> _*"In the Army, the way we deal with our enemies is simple.  It can be described in just 3 words.  We Kill Them."*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Declaring Mexico as an enemy of US is really crazy.*
> 
> *Less than 4% of the Mexican people have lived in the US illegally.  *
> *Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans and now less that half the illegal immigrant population is Mexican.*
> *Mexico is our 3rd most important trading partner responsible for millions of US jobs.*
> *Finally the Mexican government is not responsible for guarding the US boarder. *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't matter.
> 
> Illegal Aliens are no longer welcome in the United States.
> 
> When we find you we are going to prosecute you.
> 
> If that means separating you from the children you foolishly risked when you brought them here illegally... tough $hit.
> 
> Just like we separate suspects from innocents in any *other* form of crime.
> 
> Don't like that?
> 
> Again... tough $hit.
> 
> You should have thought of that before you brought them here.
> 
> Not our circus... not our monkeys... not our problem.
> 
> You'll get them back when we're done processing your criminal charges.
> 
> Or until you voluntarily elect to plea-bargain in return for release on the Mexican side of the border.
> 
> Your call... the only "call" you get to make in all of this, once you've crossed over onto (or overstayed on) United States soil without our express prior consent.
> 
> Our country... our rules... our laws... our game.
> 
> Nobody likes to see a sucker (like the United States) "wise up".
> 
> Payback's a bitch, ain't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Wow, such hate against millions of people that remained in the US after their Visa expired which is not even a criminal offense. About 40% to 50% of our undocumented immigrants fall into this category.
> 
> I don't think there are many Americans that welcome illegal immigrants but there are a lot of people that don't want to see them punished or deported.  They want a more humane solution to the problem.  These people didn't come her to rape and pillage.  They came here to work and earn enough money to support their family, often at considerable danger to themselves which is a lot more than many Americans are willing to do.    *
Click to expand...

so many are fleeing gang violence that we have caused... So Legalize It And pass the 2010 Democratic comprehensive immigration bill with SSID card that can't be faked. The only solution.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They has have written rather extensively on rights of the accused.  I suggest you read what they have to save.
> 
> You're arguing that only certain people should have rights in a court of law.  Think about what that really means.  If the accused does not have rights, then there can be no fair trial.  Without fair trials, neither victims nor the accused will have confidence that justice will be done. Without fair trials, trust in government and the rule of law collapses.*
> 
> 
> 
> When a country is invaded by foreign masses, it is at war against its invaders. They should be declared enemy combatants.  Currently, we have foreign invaders/occupiers being treated about like convenience store thieves, and given trials in civilian courts.
> 
> This is not how countries should deal with their enemies  (ex. Mexico)  A news reporter asked my ex Army National Guard battalion commander, how does he deal with his enemies.  The Lt. Colonel said >> _*"In the Army, the way we deal with our enemies is simple.  It can be described in just 3 words.  We Kill Them."*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Declaring Mexico as an enemy of US is really crazy.*
> 
> *Less than 4% of the Mexican people have lived in the US illegally.  *
> *Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans and now less that half the illegal immigrant population is Mexican.*
> *Mexico is our 3rd most important trading partner responsible for millions of US jobs.*
> *Finally the Mexican government is not responsible for guarding the US boarder. *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have such screwy assumptions:
> 
> 1) Flopper - if we build a wall, we can't go after VISA overstays too, we have to pick one
> 
> - Bull, we need to go after both and any other way illegals are coming into the country
> 
> 2)  Flopper - only Mexicans are crossing our southern border
> 
> - Bull, lots of South Americans too.  And so can anyone, including al Qaeda, who fly into Mexico city
> 
> 3)  40% means a majority - no, 40% is not a majority.  Not a math major, were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Of course we can we protect our borders and deal with visa overstays as we should but only in a fair and just manner.  Trump's rush to deport as many people as fast as he can is going to backfire badly.  The majority of the American public want a path to citizenship not deportation.  Bypassing immigration court and his zero tolerance policy is going to hurt a lot of innocent people.  For example: What does a businessman father from Ohio, an Arizona mother, the Indiana husband of a Trump supporter all have in common? They were unassuming members of their community, parents of US citizens, and undocumented immigrants order to be deported. They had been in this country for decades, they're employed, had never been arrested, paid their taxes, and were productive members of the community.  And what crime did they commit.  None.  They are guilty of overstaying their visa, a civil infraction that carries no penalty other than deportation.  However because of the time they have been in the country, the law says they will be band from reentry for 10 years.  How in the world can anyone condom such unjust treatment?  And people question why 6 states and hundreds of cities and towns have declared themselves a sanctuary.*
> *Read my post, "Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans ...".*
> *It doesn't matter whether it's 40% or 50%, or 60%.  The percentage is based on and estimate of the number of undocumented immigrants in the country. It could 9 million, 11 million, 12 million, or more or less.  You seem to totally miss the point; the number of people that overstay their visas exceed the number coming over the boarder by a factor 2 to 4 times depending on year. *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is it's okay if they break our laws, just as long as they show they are upstanding citizens.
> 
> Well that's a message we want to send to the other 8.5 billion people on this planet, isn't it?
> 
> You people on the left are constantly comparing us to other countries........except when it comes to borders, immigration laws and handling of intruders.  There are not many other countries that would put up with as much as we have put up with when it comes to immigration.
> 
> Especially in our sanctuary cities, we give them drivers licenses so they can get to work they are not supposed to have.  Those cities give them protection from ICE and other agencies.  We allow them to rent apartments and houses.  They get to send their illegal children to our schools, and in some cases, hold up the class because they can't speak English.  They can even get credit cards.
> 
> Is it any wonder why they come here, and now we're going to complain because we take their children from them when they enter this country?  Add free babysitting on top of the list above.
Click to expand...

*No, I'm not saying it's ok to break our laws.  I'm saying, let the punishment fit the crime. And in the case of those that overstayed their Visas, about 40% to 50% of the undocumented immigrant, they are not guilty of any crime.  At most, they are guilty of a civil violation. 

Just because I think undocumented immigrants should be treated fairly and humane does not mean I want open boarders.  I actually want the same thing you want, a solution to the problem of illegal immigration.  I just disagree with how you want it done.*


----------



## Slyhunter

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> When a country is invaded by foreign masses, it is at war against its invaders. They should be declared enemy combatants.  Currently, we have foreign invaders/occupiers being treated about like convenience store thieves, and given trials in civilian courts.
> 
> This is not how countries should deal with their enemies  (ex. Mexico)  A news reporter asked my ex Army National Guard battalion commander, how does he deal with his enemies.  The Lt. Colonel said >> _*"In the Army, the way we deal with our enemies is simple.  It can be described in just 3 words.  We Kill Them."*_
> 
> 
> 
> *Declaring Mexico as an enemy of US is really crazy.*
> 
> *Less than 4% of the Mexican people have lived in the US illegally.  *
> *Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans and now less that half the illegal immigrant population is Mexican.*
> *Mexico is our 3rd most important trading partner responsible for millions of US jobs.*
> *Finally the Mexican government is not responsible for guarding the US boarder. *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have such screwy assumptions:
> 
> 1) Flopper - if we build a wall, we can't go after VISA overstays too, we have to pick one
> 
> - Bull, we need to go after both and any other way illegals are coming into the country
> 
> 2)  Flopper - only Mexicans are crossing our southern border
> 
> - Bull, lots of South Americans too.  And so can anyone, including al Qaeda, who fly into Mexico city
> 
> 3)  40% means a majority - no, 40% is not a majority.  Not a math major, were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Of course we can we protect our borders and deal with visa overstays as we should but only in a fair and just manner.  Trump's rush to deport as many people as fast as he can is going to backfire badly.  The majority of the American public want a path to citizenship not deportation.  Bypassing immigration court and his zero tolerance policy is going to hurt a lot of innocent people.  For example: What does a businessman father from Ohio, an Arizona mother, the Indiana husband of a Trump supporter all have in common? They were unassuming members of their community, parents of US citizens, and undocumented immigrants order to be deported. They had been in this country for decades, they're employed, had never been arrested, paid their taxes, and were productive members of the community.  And what crime did they commit.  None.  They are guilty of overstaying their visa, a civil infraction that carries no penalty other than deportation.  However because of the time they have been in the country, the law says they will be band from reentry for 10 years.  How in the world can anyone condom such unjust treatment?  And people question why 6 states and hundreds of cities and towns have declared themselves a sanctuary.*
> *Read my post, "Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans ...".*
> *It doesn't matter whether it's 40% or 50%, or 60%.  The percentage is based on and estimate of the number of undocumented immigrants in the country. It could 9 million, 11 million, 12 million, or more or less.  You seem to totally miss the point; the number of people that overstay their visas exceed the number coming over the boarder by a factor 2 to 4 times depending on year. *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is it's okay if they break our laws, just as long as they show they are upstanding citizens.
> 
> Well that's a message we want to send to the other 8.5 billion people on this planet, isn't it?
> 
> You people on the left are constantly comparing us to other countries........except when it comes to borders, immigration laws and handling of intruders.  There are not many other countries that would put up with as much as we have put up with when it comes to immigration.
> 
> Especially in our sanctuary cities, we give them drivers licenses so they can get to work they are not supposed to have.  Those cities give them protection from ICE and other agencies.  We allow them to rent apartments and houses.  They get to send their illegal children to our schools, and in some cases, hold up the class because they can't speak English.  They can even get credit cards.
> 
> Is it any wonder why they come here, and now we're going to complain because we take their children from them when they enter this country?  Add free babysitting on top of the list above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, I'm not saying it's ok to break our laws.  I'm saying, let the punishment fit the crime. And in the case of those that overstayed their Visas, about 40% to 50% of the undocumented immigrant, they are not guilty of any crime.  At most, they are guilty of a civil violation.
> 
> Just because I think undocumented immigrants should be treated fairly and humane does not mean I want open boarders.  I actually want the same thing you want, a solution to the problem of illegal immigration.  I just disagree with how you want it done.*
Click to expand...

Fine, how would you do it?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> When a country is invaded by foreign masses, it is at war against its invaders. They should be declared enemy combatants.  Currently, we have foreign invaders/occupiers being treated about like convenience store thieves, and given trials in civilian courts.
> 
> This is not how countries should deal with their enemies  (ex. Mexico)  A news reporter asked my ex Army National Guard battalion commander, how does he deal with his enemies.  The Lt. Colonel said >> _*"In the Army, the way we deal with our enemies is simple.  It can be described in just 3 words.  We Kill Them."*_
> 
> 
> 
> *Declaring Mexico as an enemy of US is really crazy.*
> 
> *Less than 4% of the Mexican people have lived in the US illegally.  *
> *Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans and now less that half the illegal immigrant population is Mexican.*
> *Mexico is our 3rd most important trading partner responsible for millions of US jobs.*
> *Finally the Mexican government is not responsible for guarding the US boarder. *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have such screwy assumptions:
> 
> 1) Flopper - if we build a wall, we can't go after VISA overstays too, we have to pick one
> 
> - Bull, we need to go after both and any other way illegals are coming into the country
> 
> 2)  Flopper - only Mexicans are crossing our southern border
> 
> - Bull, lots of South Americans too.  And so can anyone, including al Qaeda, who fly into Mexico city
> 
> 3)  40% means a majority - no, 40% is not a majority.  Not a math major, were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Of course we can we protect our borders and deal with visa overstays as we should but only in a fair and just manner.  Trump's rush to deport as many people as fast as he can is going to backfire badly.  The majority of the American public want a path to citizenship not deportation.  Bypassing immigration court and his zero tolerance policy is going to hurt a lot of innocent people.  For example: What does a businessman father from Ohio, an Arizona mother, the Indiana husband of a Trump supporter all have in common? They were unassuming members of their community, parents of US citizens, and undocumented immigrants order to be deported. They had been in this country for decades, they're employed, had never been arrested, paid their taxes, and were productive members of the community.  And what crime did they commit.  None.  They are guilty of overstaying their visa, a civil infraction that carries no penalty other than deportation.  However because of the time they have been in the country, the law says they will be band from reentry for 10 years.  How in the world can anyone condom such unjust treatment?  And people question why 6 states and hundreds of cities and towns have declared themselves a sanctuary.*
> *Read my post, "Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans ...".*
> *It doesn't matter whether it's 40% or 50%, or 60%.  The percentage is based on and estimate of the number of undocumented immigrants in the country. It could 9 million, 11 million, 12 million, or more or less.  You seem to totally miss the point; the number of people that overstay their visas exceed the number coming over the boarder by a factor 2 to 4 times depending on year. *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is it's okay if they break our laws, just as long as they show they are upstanding citizens.
> 
> Well that's a message we want to send to the other 8.5 billion people on this planet, isn't it?
> 
> You people on the left are constantly comparing us to other countries........except when it comes to borders, immigration laws and handling of intruders.  There are not many other countries that would put up with as much as we have put up with when it comes to immigration.
> 
> Especially in our sanctuary cities, we give them drivers licenses so they can get to work they are not supposed to have.  Those cities give them protection from ICE and other agencies.  We allow them to rent apartments and houses.  They get to send their illegal children to our schools, and in some cases, hold up the class because they can't speak English.  They can even get credit cards.
> 
> Is it any wonder why they come here, and now we're going to complain because we take their children from them when they enter this country?  Add free babysitting on top of the list above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, I'm not saying it's ok to break our laws.  I'm saying, let the punishment fit the crime. And in the case of those that overstayed their Visas, about 40% to 50% of the undocumented immigrant, they are not guilty of any crime.  At most, they are guilty of a civil violation.
> 
> Just because I think undocumented immigrants should be treated fairly and humane does not mean I want open boarders.  I actually want the same thing you want, a solution to the problem of illegal immigration.  I just disagree with how you want it done.*
Click to expand...


Well I'm getting ready to go to work now.  I drive a truck so it's mandated I have a CDL license.  If I got caught driving without one or it expires, I can get a 10K fine and jail time just for an expired license. 

Until we find a full proof way of getting rid of all illegals, the best thing we can do now is make it as uninviting as possible for them to come here.  Make it a law that states cannot issue drivers licenses.  Make it a law that banks cannot give loans or extend credit to these people.  Make it a law that we landlords have to run a check on any foreigner that wants to rent from us and give us a way to do that.  Increase penalties for those who hire them.  All pupils of public school are checked out that they or their parents are of legal status.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *
> I don't think there are many Americans that welcome illegal immigrants but there are a lot of people that don't want to see them punished or deported.  They want a more humane solution to the problem.  These people didn't come her to rape and pillage.  They came here to work and earn enough money to support their family, often at considerable danger to themselves which is a lot more than many Americans are willing to do.    *


But SOME of them them DO rape, and most (if not almost all) of them DO pillage by wiring their wages > $138 Billion/year (Pew Research Center) back to their home country.  $$$ extracted out of the US economy. Re-inserted into the home country's economy.

21st century imperialism.  International burglary. And they brag and gloat about it.

Vicente Fox Says Remittances Largest Source Of Revenue Since 2003, Gloats At Getting Illegals And Matricula Consular Into US : Diggers Realm

As most liberals do, you talk about what illegal aliens came here to do to support their families.  That's because you're a liberal, which, in 2018 is synonomous with being a globalist, communist, internationalist, like Obama, who claimed_ "I am a citizen of the world."
_
I sense that you and other liberals don't realize how reprehensible that appears to conservatives, who are absolutely NOT citizens of the world...we are AMERICAN citizens. As such we are not thinking about what illegal aliens came here to do. We are thinking about the AMERICAN citizens who are absorbing a long list of harms, from those illegal aliens being here.

And it's a lot more than just the 8-9 million jobs being swiped away by these international pillagers.

*Harms* of Immigration

1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).

2. Wage reduction.

3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).

4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($138 Billion/year).

5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.

6. Increased crime.

7. Increased traffic congestion.

8. Increased pollution.

9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.

10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.

11. Overcrowding in government offices.

12. Overcrowding in schools.

13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.

14. Cultural erosion.

15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)

16. Introduction of foreign diseases

17. Influx of terrorists.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Coyote said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn’t it time that bleeding heart suckers add some credibility to this whining by starting with the condemnation of the piece of shit criminal wetback parents first?
> Whatta ya say...seem like rudimentary logic to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And another one who thinks punishing children is a suitable response.  Way to go dude.
Click to expand...

/——/ When we say stop punishing children with abortion, libtards screech “Choice.”


----------



## protectionist

francoHFW said:


> so many are fleeing gang violence that we have caused... So Legalize It And pass the 2010 Democratic comprehensive immigration bill with SSID card that can't be faked. The only solution.


That card doesn't show an employer that they're here legally. To do that they would need a birth certificate or naturalization papers.

Also that so-called "comprehensive " immigration is amnesty for illegal aliens.That is legitimizing the invasion and international burglary of the USA.  That is akin to treason.  An offense that carries the death penalty.

In earlier centuries (ex- 16th century England), Democrats would have been executed by the thousands, for proposing amnesty for illegal alien invaders.




Henry VII (1485-1509)




Henry VIII (1509-1547)







Mary I  ("Bloody Mary") (1553-1558)​




 Elizabeth I (1558-1603)


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> When a country is invaded by foreign masses, it is at war against its invaders. They should be declared enemy combatants.  Currently, we have foreign invaders/occupiers being treated about like convenience store thieves, and given trials in civilian courts.
> 
> This is not how countries should deal with their enemies  (ex. Mexico)  A news reporter asked my ex Army National Guard battalion commander, how does he deal with his enemies.  The Lt. Colonel said >> _*"In the Army, the way we deal with our enemies is simple.  It can be described in just 3 words.  We Kill Them."*_
> 
> 
> 
> *Declaring Mexico as an enemy of US is really crazy.*
> 
> *Less than 4% of the Mexican people have lived in the US illegally.  *
> *Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans and now less that half the illegal immigrant population is Mexican.*
> *Mexico is our 3rd most important trading partner responsible for millions of US jobs.*
> *Finally the Mexican government is not responsible for guarding the US boarder. *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have such screwy assumptions:
> 
> 1) Flopper - if we build a wall, we can't go after VISA overstays too, we have to pick one
> 
> - Bull, we need to go after both and any other way illegals are coming into the country
> 
> 2)  Flopper - only Mexicans are crossing our southern border
> 
> - Bull, lots of South Americans too.  And so can anyone, including al Qaeda, who fly into Mexico city
> 
> 3)  40% means a majority - no, 40% is not a majority.  Not a math major, were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Of course we can we protect our borders and deal with visa overstays as we should but only in a fair and just manner.  Trump's rush to deport as many people as fast as he can is going to backfire badly.  The majority of the American public want a path to citizenship not deportation.  Bypassing immigration court and his zero tolerance policy is going to hurt a lot of innocent people.  For example: What does a businessman father from Ohio, an Arizona mother, the Indiana husband of a Trump supporter all have in common? They were unassuming members of their community, parents of US citizens, and undocumented immigrants order to be deported. They had been in this country for decades, they're employed, had never been arrested, paid their taxes, and were productive members of the community.  And what crime did they commit.  None.  They are guilty of overstaying their visa, a civil infraction that carries no penalty other than deportation.  However because of the time they have been in the country, the law says they will be band from reentry for 10 years.  How in the world can anyone condom such unjust treatment?  And people question why 6 states and hundreds of cities and towns have declared themselves a sanctuary.*
> *Read my post, "Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans ...".*
> *It doesn't matter whether it's 40% or 50%, or 60%.  The percentage is based on and estimate of the number of undocumented immigrants in the country. It could 9 million, 11 million, 12 million, or more or less.  You seem to totally miss the point; the number of people that overstay their visas exceed the number coming over the boarder by a factor 2 to 4 times depending on year. *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is it's okay if they break our laws, just as long as they show they are upstanding citizens.
> 
> Well that's a message we want to send to the other 8.5 billion people on this planet, isn't it?
> 
> You people on the left are constantly comparing us to other countries........except when it comes to borders, immigration laws and handling of intruders.  There are not many other countries that would put up with as much as we have put up with when it comes to immigration.
> 
> Especially in our sanctuary cities, we give them drivers licenses so they can get to work they are not supposed to have.  Those cities give them protection from ICE and other agencies.  We allow them to rent apartments and houses.  They get to send their illegal children to our schools, and in some cases, hold up the class because they can't speak English.  They can even get credit cards.
> 
> Is it any wonder why they come here, and now we're going to complain because we take their children from them when they enter this country?  Add free babysitting on top of the list above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, I'm not saying it's ok to break our laws.  I'm saying, let the punishment fit the crime. And in the case of those that overstayed their Visas, about 40% to 50% of the undocumented immigrant, they are not guilty of any crime.  At most, they are guilty of a civil violation.
> 
> Just because I think undocumented immigrants should be treated fairly and humane does not mean I want open boarders.  I actually want the same thing you want, a solution to the problem of illegal immigration.  I just disagree with how you want it done.*
Click to expand...


Flopper:  "*No, I'm not saying it's ok to break our laws.  I'm saying, let the punishment fit the crime.*"  Letting them stay is like saying shop lifters should be able to keep what they stole, just let the punishment fit the crime.

Punishment for illegally being in the US illegally starts with deporting them


----------



## kaz

Slyhunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Declaring Mexico as an enemy of US is really crazy.*
> 
> *Less than 4% of the Mexican people have lived in the US illegally.  *
> *Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans and now less that half the illegal immigrant population is Mexican.*
> *Mexico is our 3rd most important trading partner responsible for millions of US jobs.*
> *Finally the Mexican government is not responsible for guarding the US boarder. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have such screwy assumptions:
> 
> 1) Flopper - if we build a wall, we can't go after VISA overstays too, we have to pick one
> 
> - Bull, we need to go after both and any other way illegals are coming into the country
> 
> 2)  Flopper - only Mexicans are crossing our southern border
> 
> - Bull, lots of South Americans too.  And so can anyone, including al Qaeda, who fly into Mexico city
> 
> 3)  40% means a majority - no, 40% is not a majority.  Not a math major, were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Of course we can we protect our borders and deal with visa overstays as we should but only in a fair and just manner.  Trump's rush to deport as many people as fast as he can is going to backfire badly.  The majority of the American public want a path to citizenship not deportation.  Bypassing immigration court and his zero tolerance policy is going to hurt a lot of innocent people.  For example: What does a businessman father from Ohio, an Arizona mother, the Indiana husband of a Trump supporter all have in common? They were unassuming members of their community, parents of US citizens, and undocumented immigrants order to be deported. They had been in this country for decades, they're employed, had never been arrested, paid their taxes, and were productive members of the community.  And what crime did they commit.  None.  They are guilty of overstaying their visa, a civil infraction that carries no penalty other than deportation.  However because of the time they have been in the country, the law says they will be band from reentry for 10 years.  How in the world can anyone condom such unjust treatment?  And people question why 6 states and hundreds of cities and towns have declared themselves a sanctuary.*
> *Read my post, "Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans ...".*
> *It doesn't matter whether it's 40% or 50%, or 60%.  The percentage is based on and estimate of the number of undocumented immigrants in the country. It could 9 million, 11 million, 12 million, or more or less.  You seem to totally miss the point; the number of people that overstay their visas exceed the number coming over the boarder by a factor 2 to 4 times depending on year. *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is it's okay if they break our laws, just as long as they show they are upstanding citizens.
> 
> Well that's a message we want to send to the other 8.5 billion people on this planet, isn't it?
> 
> You people on the left are constantly comparing us to other countries........except when it comes to borders, immigration laws and handling of intruders.  There are not many other countries that would put up with as much as we have put up with when it comes to immigration.
> 
> Especially in our sanctuary cities, we give them drivers licenses so they can get to work they are not supposed to have.  Those cities give them protection from ICE and other agencies.  We allow them to rent apartments and houses.  They get to send their illegal children to our schools, and in some cases, hold up the class because they can't speak English.  They can even get credit cards.
> 
> Is it any wonder why they come here, and now we're going to complain because we take their children from them when they enter this country?  Add free babysitting on top of the list above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, I'm not saying it's ok to break our laws.  I'm saying, let the punishment fit the crime. And in the case of those that overstayed their Visas, about 40% to 50% of the undocumented immigrant, they are not guilty of any crime.  At most, they are guilty of a civil violation.
> 
> Just because I think undocumented immigrants should be treated fairly and humane does not mean I want open boarders.  I actually want the same thing you want, a solution to the problem of illegal immigration.  I just disagree with how you want it done.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine, how would you do it?
Click to expand...


Flopper wants to punish illegal aliens by giving them drivers licenses, letting them vote, giving them welfare, giving them a free education, giving them free medical care ...


----------



## kaz

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Nope, a person is not guilty of any illegal act without a court ruling.  That ruling can take the form of agreeing to deportation and waving a hearing or trial.
> 
> The days when Latinos were thrown in the back of a truck and dumped across the boarder with no due process aren't here yet, but it's on the way.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Only citizens are entitled to due process*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Anyone living in the U.S. — legally or not — has constitutional rights, including the right to equal protection of the law and that of due process (fair treatment in the judicial system).  Immigration officers are not required nor do they advise detainees of their rights so they often assume they have none. That's why most detainees do not have lawyers and wave their rights and accept deportation which of course is really dumb.*
> *What Constitutional Rights Do Undocumented Immigrants Have When on American Soil? - Illegal Immigration - ProCon.org*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See last post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Link?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not in the Constitution.  The Constitution is "We the  People," not "We the People and anyone who legally or illegally resides on our territory."  Game, set and match.
> 
> As for the idiocy of what you're arguing, name another country that grants the rights of citizens to foreigners, much less ones there illegally ...
Click to expand...


Flopper:  {crickets}


----------



## protectionist

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Well I'm getting ready to go to work now.  I drive a truck so it's mandated I have a CDL license.  If I got caught driving without one or it expires, I can get a 10K fine and jail time just for an expired license.
> 
> Until we find a full proof way of getting rid of all illegals, the best thing we can do now is make it as uninviting as possible for them to come here.  Make it a law that states cannot issue drivers licenses.  Make it a law that banks cannot give loans or extend credit to these people.  Make it a law that we landlords have to run a check on any foreigner that wants to rent from us and give us a way to do that.  Increase penalties for those who hire them.  All pupils of public school are checked out that they or their parents are of legal status.


I moved out of California in 1989.  Sad to say this, but it is a lost cause. Democrats have imported so many of the invaders to stack the ballot boxes with their votes, that they are now indebted to them, and must pander to their wishes.

It might be easier to get a cow to jump over the moon than get legislation in California in opposition to illegal aliens.  California has become an extension of Mexico.  The best thing that could be done regarding California, and its millions of illegal aliens, is to pass a law making California no longer part of the USA.

If Mexico wants it, they can have it.  Summer fires, winter floods/mudslides, eathquakes and all.


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Declaring Mexico as an enemy of US is really crazy.*
> 
> *Less than 4% of the Mexican people have lived in the US illegally.  *
> *Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans and now less that half the illegal immigrant population is Mexican.*
> *Mexico is our 3rd most important trading partner responsible for millions of US jobs.*
> *Finally the Mexican government is not responsible for guarding the US boarder. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have such screwy assumptions:
> 
> 1) Flopper - if we build a wall, we can't go after VISA overstays too, we have to pick one
> 
> - Bull, we need to go after both and any other way illegals are coming into the country
> 
> 2)  Flopper - only Mexicans are crossing our southern border
> 
> - Bull, lots of South Americans too.  And so can anyone, including al Qaeda, who fly into Mexico city
> 
> 3)  40% means a majority - no, 40% is not a majority.  Not a math major, were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Of course we can we protect our borders and deal with visa overstays as we should but only in a fair and just manner.  Trump's rush to deport as many people as fast as he can is going to backfire badly.  The majority of the American public want a path to citizenship not deportation.  Bypassing immigration court and his zero tolerance policy is going to hurt a lot of innocent people.  For example: What does a businessman father from Ohio, an Arizona mother, the Indiana husband of a Trump supporter all have in common? They were unassuming members of their community, parents of US citizens, and undocumented immigrants order to be deported. They had been in this country for decades, they're employed, had never been arrested, paid their taxes, and were productive members of the community.  And what crime did they commit.  None.  They are guilty of overstaying their visa, a civil infraction that carries no penalty other than deportation.  However because of the time they have been in the country, the law says they will be band from reentry for 10 years.  How in the world can anyone condom such unjust treatment?  And people question why 6 states and hundreds of cities and towns have declared themselves a sanctuary.*
> *Read my post, "Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans ...".*
> *It doesn't matter whether it's 40% or 50%, or 60%.  The percentage is based on and estimate of the number of undocumented immigrants in the country. It could 9 million, 11 million, 12 million, or more or less.  You seem to totally miss the point; the number of people that overstay their visas exceed the number coming over the boarder by a factor 2 to 4 times depending on year. *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is it's okay if they break our laws, just as long as they show they are upstanding citizens.
> 
> Well that's a message we want to send to the other 8.5 billion people on this planet, isn't it?
> 
> You people on the left are constantly comparing us to other countries........except when it comes to borders, immigration laws and handling of intruders.  There are not many other countries that would put up with as much as we have put up with when it comes to immigration.
> 
> Especially in our sanctuary cities, we give them drivers licenses so they can get to work they are not supposed to have.  Those cities give them protection from ICE and other agencies.  We allow them to rent apartments and houses.  They get to send their illegal children to our schools, and in some cases, hold up the class because they can't speak English.  They can even get credit cards.
> 
> Is it any wonder why they come here, and now we're going to complain because we take their children from them when they enter this country?  Add free babysitting on top of the list above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, I'm not saying it's ok to break our laws.  I'm saying, let the punishment fit the crime. And in the case of those that overstayed their Visas, about 40% to 50% of the undocumented immigrant, they are not guilty of any crime.  At most, they are guilty of a civil violation.
> 
> Just because I think undocumented immigrants should be treated fairly and humane does not mean I want open boarders.  I actually want the same thing you want, a solution to the problem of illegal immigration.  I just disagree with how you want it done.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I'm getting ready to go to work now.  I drive a truck so it's mandated I have a CDL license.  If I got caught driving without one or it expires, I can get a 10K fine and jail time just for an expired license.
> 
> Until we find a full proof way of getting rid of all illegals, the best thing we can do now is make it as uninviting as possible for them to come here.  Make it a law that states cannot issue drivers licenses.  Make it a law that banks cannot give loans or extend credit to these people.  Make it a law that we landlords have to run a check on any foreigner that wants to rent from us and give us a way to do that.  Increase penalties for those who hire them.  All pupils of public school are checked out that they or their parents are of legal status.
Click to expand...


We should implement civil forfeiture for illegal aliens.  What a great tool that would be for places like Texas and Orange County that want to keep illegal aliens out.  And the money can be spent to build a wall for starters


----------



## protectionist

francoHFW said:


> These are people asking for Asylum, there is no reason to be cruel to them, super hater dupe.


What do unscrupulous countries do to get rid of their poor people (who they don't want to pay for), and their criminals (who they don't want to impri$on) ?  They send them to the USA, and tell them to ask for Asylum.  The new immigration scam.


----------



## protectionist

francoHFW said:


> By building  a stupid wall that will not work? Duped again...



How 65 countries have erected security walls on their borders | Daily Mail Online


----------



## kaz

protectionist said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> By building  a stupid wall that will not work? Duped again...
Click to expand...


Leftists don't oppose building a wall because they think it won't work, they oppose a wall because they know it will.   They support nothing but programs that won't work


----------



## protectionist

Vandalshandle said:


> I assume that Kaz and Condor have a credible source they can link about the % of illegals that overstayed their visas, because I have two links saying that 40% to 45% are illegal because of overstaying their visas.
> 
> Nearly Half of Illegal Immigrants Overstay Visas
> 
> FACT CHECK: Did 40 Percent Of All Illegal Immigrants Overstay Legal Visas?


Who cares how they manage to be here ? The problem is, they're HERE.  Get rid of them.  So said the AMERICAN people in November 2016.


----------



## dblack

protectionist said:


> So said the AMERICAN people in November 2016.



Only half (give or take a couple million) said that. And when the pendulum swings back the other way, the wall is torn down. Senseless thrashing. Why not find something we can get real consensus on? Why do we keep pushing for partisan extremes that aren't sustainable?


----------



## francoHFW

kaz said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> By building  a stupid wall that will not work? Duped again...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leftists don't oppose building a wall because they think it won't work, they oppose a wall because they know it will.   They support nothing but programs that won't work
Click to expand...

Half of the illegals overstay visas. There is only one solution, an SS ID card that can't be faked. Nobody is for open borders you brainwashed functional moron. Hillary was talking about trade someday... God damn idiots.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Declaring Mexico as an enemy of US is really crazy.*
> 
> *Less than 4% of the Mexican people have lived in the US illegally.  *
> *Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans and now less that half the illegal immigrant population is Mexican.*
> *Mexico is our 3rd most important trading partner responsible for millions of US jobs.*
> *Finally the Mexican government is not responsible for guarding the US boarder. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have such screwy assumptions:
> 
> 1) Flopper - if we build a wall, we can't go after VISA overstays too, we have to pick one
> 
> - Bull, we need to go after both and any other way illegals are coming into the country
> 
> 2)  Flopper - only Mexicans are crossing our southern border
> 
> - Bull, lots of South Americans too.  And so can anyone, including al Qaeda, who fly into Mexico city
> 
> 3)  40% means a majority - no, 40% is not a majority.  Not a math major, were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Of course we can we protect our borders and deal with visa overstays as we should but only in a fair and just manner.  Trump's rush to deport as many people as fast as he can is going to backfire badly.  The majority of the American public want a path to citizenship not deportation.  Bypassing immigration court and his zero tolerance policy is going to hurt a lot of innocent people.  For example: What does a businessman father from Ohio, an Arizona mother, the Indiana husband of a Trump supporter all have in common? They were unassuming members of their community, parents of US citizens, and undocumented immigrants order to be deported. They had been in this country for decades, they're employed, had never been arrested, paid their taxes, and were productive members of the community.  And what crime did they commit.  None.  They are guilty of overstaying their visa, a civil infraction that carries no penalty other than deportation.  However because of the time they have been in the country, the law says they will be band from reentry for 10 years.  How in the world can anyone condom such unjust treatment?  And people question why 6 states and hundreds of cities and towns have declared themselves a sanctuary.*
> *Read my post, "Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans ...".*
> *It doesn't matter whether it's 40% or 50%, or 60%.  The percentage is based on and estimate of the number of undocumented immigrants in the country. It could 9 million, 11 million, 12 million, or more or less.  You seem to totally miss the point; the number of people that overstay their visas exceed the number coming over the boarder by a factor 2 to 4 times depending on year. *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is it's okay if they break our laws, just as long as they show they are upstanding citizens.
> 
> Well that's a message we want to send to the other 8.5 billion people on this planet, isn't it?
> 
> You people on the left are constantly comparing us to other countries........except when it comes to borders, immigration laws and handling of intruders.  There are not many other countries that would put up with as much as we have put up with when it comes to immigration.
> 
> Especially in our sanctuary cities, we give them drivers licenses so they can get to work they are not supposed to have.  Those cities give them protection from ICE and other agencies.  We allow them to rent apartments and houses.  They get to send their illegal children to our schools, and in some cases, hold up the class because they can't speak English.  They can even get credit cards.
> 
> Is it any wonder why they come here, and now we're going to complain because we take their children from them when they enter this country?  Add free babysitting on top of the list above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, I'm not saying it's ok to break our laws.  I'm saying, let the punishment fit the crime. And in the case of those that overstayed their Visas, about 40% to 50% of the undocumented immigrant, they are not guilty of any crime.  At most, they are guilty of a civil violation.
> 
> Just because I think undocumented immigrants should be treated fairly and humane does not mean I want open boarders.  I actually want the same thing you want, a solution to the problem of illegal immigration.  I just disagree with how you want it done.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I'm getting ready to go to work now.  I drive a truck so it's mandated I have a CDL license.  If I got caught driving without one or it expires, I can get a 10K fine and jail time just for an expired license.
> 
> Until we find a full proof way of getting rid of all illegals, the best thing we can do now is make it as uninviting as possible for them to come here.  Make it a law that states cannot issue drivers licenses.  Make it a law that banks cannot give loans or extend credit to these people.  Make it a law that we landlords have to run a check on any foreigner that wants to rent from us and give us a way to do that.  Increase penalties for those who hire them.  All pupils of public school are checked out that they or their parents are of legal status.
Click to expand...

*The undocumented immigrant problem is easily solved if we stem the flow of illegal immigrants and enforce visa expiration.  If we do that we will see the numbers of undocumented fall year by year with little need for deportation.*


----------



## Flopper

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Declaring Mexico as an enemy of US is really crazy.*
> 
> *Less than 4% of the Mexican people have lived in the US illegally.  *
> *Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans and now less that half the illegal immigrant population is Mexican.*
> *Mexico is our 3rd most important trading partner responsible for millions of US jobs.*
> *Finally the Mexican government is not responsible for guarding the US boarder. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have such screwy assumptions:
> 
> 1) Flopper - if we build a wall, we can't go after VISA overstays too, we have to pick one
> 
> - Bull, we need to go after both and any other way illegals are coming into the country
> 
> 2)  Flopper - only Mexicans are crossing our southern border
> 
> - Bull, lots of South Americans too.  And so can anyone, including al Qaeda, who fly into Mexico city
> 
> 3)  40% means a majority - no, 40% is not a majority.  Not a math major, were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Of course we can we protect our borders and deal with visa overstays as we should but only in a fair and just manner.  Trump's rush to deport as many people as fast as he can is going to backfire badly.  The majority of the American public want a path to citizenship not deportation.  Bypassing immigration court and his zero tolerance policy is going to hurt a lot of innocent people.  For example: What does a businessman father from Ohio, an Arizona mother, the Indiana husband of a Trump supporter all have in common? They were unassuming members of their community, parents of US citizens, and undocumented immigrants order to be deported. They had been in this country for decades, they're employed, had never been arrested, paid their taxes, and were productive members of the community.  And what crime did they commit.  None.  They are guilty of overstaying their visa, a civil infraction that carries no penalty other than deportation.  However because of the time they have been in the country, the law says they will be band from reentry for 10 years.  How in the world can anyone condom such unjust treatment?  And people question why 6 states and hundreds of cities and towns have declared themselves a sanctuary.*
> *Read my post, "Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans ...".*
> *It doesn't matter whether it's 40% or 50%, or 60%.  The percentage is based on and estimate of the number of undocumented immigrants in the country. It could 9 million, 11 million, 12 million, or more or less.  You seem to totally miss the point; the number of people that overstay their visas exceed the number coming over the boarder by a factor 2 to 4 times depending on year. *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is it's okay if they break our laws, just as long as they show they are upstanding citizens.
> 
> Well that's a message we want to send to the other 8.5 billion people on this planet, isn't it?
> 
> You people on the left are constantly comparing us to other countries........except when it comes to borders, immigration laws and handling of intruders.  There are not many other countries that would put up with as much as we have put up with when it comes to immigration.
> 
> Especially in our sanctuary cities, we give them drivers licenses so they can get to work they are not supposed to have.  Those cities give them protection from ICE and other agencies.  We allow them to rent apartments and houses.  They get to send their illegal children to our schools, and in some cases, hold up the class because they can't speak English.  They can even get credit cards.
> 
> Is it any wonder why they come here, and now we're going to complain because we take their children from them when they enter this country?  Add free babysitting on top of the list above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, I'm not saying it's ok to break our laws.  I'm saying, let the punishment fit the crime. And in the case of those that overstayed their Visas, about 40% to 50% of the undocumented immigrant, they are not guilty of any crime.  At most, they are guilty of a civil violation.
> 
> Just because I think undocumented immigrants should be treated fairly and humane does not mean I want open boarders.  I actually want the same thing you want, a solution to the problem of illegal immigration.  I just disagree with how you want it done.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Flopper:  "*No, I'm not saying it's ok to break our laws.  I'm saying, let the punishment fit the crime.*"  Letting them stay is like saying shop lifters should be able to keep what they stole, just let the punishment fit the crime.
> 
> Punishment for illegally being in the US illegally starts with deporting them
Click to expand...

*People that are just in the US unlawfully overstayed their visas.  They didn't enter the country illegally.  In fact, they didn't do anything  They are not guilty of any crime yet the penalty they face is serve, deportation with barred reenter.  Since many of these  people have been in the country for many years and raised families, the greatest punishment falls on the family.*


----------



## Flopper

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have such screwy assumptions:
> 
> 1) Flopper - if we build a wall, we can't go after VISA overstays too, we have to pick one
> 
> - Bull, we need to go after both and any other way illegals are coming into the country
> 
> 2)  Flopper - only Mexicans are crossing our southern border
> 
> - Bull, lots of South Americans too.  And so can anyone, including al Qaeda, who fly into Mexico city
> 
> 3)  40% means a majority - no, 40% is not a majority.  Not a math major, were you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Of course we can we protect our borders and deal with visa overstays as we should but only in a fair and just manner.  Trump's rush to deport as many people as fast as he can is going to backfire badly.  The majority of the American public want a path to citizenship not deportation.  Bypassing immigration court and his zero tolerance policy is going to hurt a lot of innocent people.  For example: What does a businessman father from Ohio, an Arizona mother, the Indiana husband of a Trump supporter all have in common? They were unassuming members of their community, parents of US citizens, and undocumented immigrants order to be deported. They had been in this country for decades, they're employed, had never been arrested, paid their taxes, and were productive members of the community.  And what crime did they commit.  None.  They are guilty of overstaying their visa, a civil infraction that carries no penalty other than deportation.  However because of the time they have been in the country, the law says they will be band from reentry for 10 years.  How in the world can anyone condom such unjust treatment?  And people question why 6 states and hundreds of cities and towns have declared themselves a sanctuary.*
> *Read my post, "Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans ...".*
> *It doesn't matter whether it's 40% or 50%, or 60%.  The percentage is based on and estimate of the number of undocumented immigrants in the country. It could 9 million, 11 million, 12 million, or more or less.  You seem to totally miss the point; the number of people that overstay their visas exceed the number coming over the boarder by a factor 2 to 4 times depending on year. *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is it's okay if they break our laws, just as long as they show they are upstanding citizens.
> 
> Well that's a message we want to send to the other 8.5 billion people on this planet, isn't it?
> 
> You people on the left are constantly comparing us to other countries........except when it comes to borders, immigration laws and handling of intruders.  There are not many other countries that would put up with as much as we have put up with when it comes to immigration.
> 
> Especially in our sanctuary cities, we give them drivers licenses so they can get to work they are not supposed to have.  Those cities give them protection from ICE and other agencies.  We allow them to rent apartments and houses.  They get to send their illegal children to our schools, and in some cases, hold up the class because they can't speak English.  They can even get credit cards.
> 
> Is it any wonder why they come here, and now we're going to complain because we take their children from them when they enter this country?  Add free babysitting on top of the list above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, I'm not saying it's ok to break our laws.  I'm saying, let the punishment fit the crime. And in the case of those that overstayed their Visas, about 40% to 50% of the undocumented immigrant, they are not guilty of any crime.  At most, they are guilty of a civil violation.
> 
> Just because I think undocumented immigrants should be treated fairly and humane does not mean I want open boarders.  I actually want the same thing you want, a solution to the problem of illegal immigration.  I just disagree with how you want it done.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I'm getting ready to go to work now.  I drive a truck so it's mandated I have a CDL license.  If I got caught driving without one or it expires, I can get a 10K fine and jail time just for an expired license.
> 
> Until we find a full proof way of getting rid of all illegals, the best thing we can do now is make it as uninviting as possible for them to come here.  Make it a law that states cannot issue drivers licenses.  Make it a law that banks cannot give loans or extend credit to these people.  Make it a law that we landlords have to run a check on any foreigner that wants to rent from us and give us a way to do that.  Increase penalties for those who hire them.  All pupils of public school are checked out that they or their parents are of legal status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should implement civil forfeiture for illegal aliens.  What a great tool that would be for places like Texas and Orange County that want to keep illegal aliens out.  And the money can be spent to build a wall for starters
Click to expand...

*Take away assets from migrant workers, day labors, and domestics? *


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have such screwy assumptions:
> 
> 1) Flopper - if we build a wall, we can't go after VISA overstays too, we have to pick one
> 
> - Bull, we need to go after both and any other way illegals are coming into the country
> 
> 2)  Flopper - only Mexicans are crossing our southern border
> 
> - Bull, lots of South Americans too.  And so can anyone, including al Qaeda, who fly into Mexico city
> 
> 3)  40% means a majority - no, 40% is not a majority.  Not a math major, were you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Of course we can we protect our borders and deal with visa overstays as we should but only in a fair and just manner.  Trump's rush to deport as many people as fast as he can is going to backfire badly.  The majority of the American public want a path to citizenship not deportation.  Bypassing immigration court and his zero tolerance policy is going to hurt a lot of innocent people.  For example: What does a businessman father from Ohio, an Arizona mother, the Indiana husband of a Trump supporter all have in common? They were unassuming members of their community, parents of US citizens, and undocumented immigrants order to be deported. They had been in this country for decades, they're employed, had never been arrested, paid their taxes, and were productive members of the community.  And what crime did they commit.  None.  They are guilty of overstaying their visa, a civil infraction that carries no penalty other than deportation.  However because of the time they have been in the country, the law says they will be band from reentry for 10 years.  How in the world can anyone condom such unjust treatment?  And people question why 6 states and hundreds of cities and towns have declared themselves a sanctuary.*
> *Read my post, "Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans ...".*
> *It doesn't matter whether it's 40% or 50%, or 60%.  The percentage is based on and estimate of the number of undocumented immigrants in the country. It could 9 million, 11 million, 12 million, or more or less.  You seem to totally miss the point; the number of people that overstay their visas exceed the number coming over the boarder by a factor 2 to 4 times depending on year. *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is it's okay if they break our laws, just as long as they show they are upstanding citizens.
> 
> Well that's a message we want to send to the other 8.5 billion people on this planet, isn't it?
> 
> You people on the left are constantly comparing us to other countries........except when it comes to borders, immigration laws and handling of intruders.  There are not many other countries that would put up with as much as we have put up with when it comes to immigration.
> 
> Especially in our sanctuary cities, we give them drivers licenses so they can get to work they are not supposed to have.  Those cities give them protection from ICE and other agencies.  We allow them to rent apartments and houses.  They get to send their illegal children to our schools, and in some cases, hold up the class because they can't speak English.  They can even get credit cards.
> 
> Is it any wonder why they come here, and now we're going to complain because we take their children from them when they enter this country?  Add free babysitting on top of the list above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, I'm not saying it's ok to break our laws.  I'm saying, let the punishment fit the crime. And in the case of those that overstayed their Visas, about 40% to 50% of the undocumented immigrant, they are not guilty of any crime.  At most, they are guilty of a civil violation.
> 
> Just because I think undocumented immigrants should be treated fairly and humane does not mean I want open boarders.  I actually want the same thing you want, a solution to the problem of illegal immigration.  I just disagree with how you want it done.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I'm getting ready to go to work now.  I drive a truck so it's mandated I have a CDL license.  If I got caught driving without one or it expires, I can get a 10K fine and jail time just for an expired license.
> 
> Until we find a full proof way of getting rid of all illegals, the best thing we can do now is make it as uninviting as possible for them to come here.  Make it a law that states cannot issue drivers licenses.  Make it a law that banks cannot give loans or extend credit to these people.  Make it a law that we landlords have to run a check on any foreigner that wants to rent from us and give us a way to do that.  Increase penalties for those who hire them.  All pupils of public school are checked out that they or their parents are of legal status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The undocumented immigrant problem is easily solved if we stem the flow of illegal immigrants and enforce visa expiration.  If we do that we will see the numbers of undocumented fall year by year with little need for deportation.*
Click to expand...


Undocumented is a euphemism.  If you document them, they are still illegal aliens.

And all you did is state the contentless obvious.  The question is how you do that.  Actually in your case, you don't, you want the more democrat voters, er, undocumented immigrants, you can get the better


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Of course we can we protect our borders and deal with visa overstays as we should but only in a fair and just manner.  Trump's rush to deport as many people as fast as he can is going to backfire badly.  The majority of the American public want a path to citizenship not deportation.  Bypassing immigration court and his zero tolerance policy is going to hurt a lot of innocent people.  For example: What does a businessman father from Ohio, an Arizona mother, the Indiana husband of a Trump supporter all have in common? They were unassuming members of their community, parents of US citizens, and undocumented immigrants order to be deported. They had been in this country for decades, they're employed, had never been arrested, paid their taxes, and were productive members of the community.  And what crime did they commit.  None.  They are guilty of overstaying their visa, a civil infraction that carries no penalty other than deportation.  However because of the time they have been in the country, the law says they will be band from reentry for 10 years.  How in the world can anyone condom such unjust treatment?  And people question why 6 states and hundreds of cities and towns have declared themselves a sanctuary.*
> *Read my post, "Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans ...".*
> *It doesn't matter whether it's 40% or 50%, or 60%.  The percentage is based on and estimate of the number of undocumented immigrants in the country. It could 9 million, 11 million, 12 million, or more or less.  You seem to totally miss the point; the number of people that overstay their visas exceed the number coming over the boarder by a factor 2 to 4 times depending on year. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is it's okay if they break our laws, just as long as they show they are upstanding citizens.
> 
> Well that's a message we want to send to the other 8.5 billion people on this planet, isn't it?
> 
> You people on the left are constantly comparing us to other countries........except when it comes to borders, immigration laws and handling of intruders.  There are not many other countries that would put up with as much as we have put up with when it comes to immigration.
> 
> Especially in our sanctuary cities, we give them drivers licenses so they can get to work they are not supposed to have.  Those cities give them protection from ICE and other agencies.  We allow them to rent apartments and houses.  They get to send their illegal children to our schools, and in some cases, hold up the class because they can't speak English.  They can even get credit cards.
> 
> Is it any wonder why they come here, and now we're going to complain because we take their children from them when they enter this country?  Add free babysitting on top of the list above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, I'm not saying it's ok to break our laws.  I'm saying, let the punishment fit the crime. And in the case of those that overstayed their Visas, about 40% to 50% of the undocumented immigrant, they are not guilty of any crime.  At most, they are guilty of a civil violation.
> 
> Just because I think undocumented immigrants should be treated fairly and humane does not mean I want open boarders.  I actually want the same thing you want, a solution to the problem of illegal immigration.  I just disagree with how you want it done.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I'm getting ready to go to work now.  I drive a truck so it's mandated I have a CDL license.  If I got caught driving without one or it expires, I can get a 10K fine and jail time just for an expired license.
> 
> Until we find a full proof way of getting rid of all illegals, the best thing we can do now is make it as uninviting as possible for them to come here.  Make it a law that states cannot issue drivers licenses.  Make it a law that banks cannot give loans or extend credit to these people.  Make it a law that we landlords have to run a check on any foreigner that wants to rent from us and give us a way to do that.  Increase penalties for those who hire them.  All pupils of public school are checked out that they or their parents are of legal status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should implement civil forfeiture for illegal aliens.  What a great tool that would be for places like Texas and Orange County that want to keep illegal aliens out.  And the money can be spent to build a wall for starters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Take away assets from migrant workers, day labors, and domestics? *
Click to expand...


They don't have any money but they wire $69 billion a year to Mexico.  Gotcha.

Start by taking their cars.

You clearly recognize ideas what would work because you oppose them every time.

Flopper:  We can't take their jobs or build a wall.  Wouldn't work.  Let's stand in the desert and think hard and transmit anti illegal immigration juju, that should work


----------



## Flopper

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is it's okay if they break our laws, just as long as they show they are upstanding citizens.
> 
> Well that's a message we want to send to the other 8.5 billion people on this planet, isn't it?
> 
> You people on the left are constantly comparing us to other countries........except when it comes to borders, immigration laws and handling of intruders.  There are not many other countries that would put up with as much as we have put up with when it comes to immigration.
> 
> Especially in our sanctuary cities, we give them drivers licenses so they can get to work they are not supposed to have.  Those cities give them protection from ICE and other agencies.  We allow them to rent apartments and houses.  They get to send their illegal children to our schools, and in some cases, hold up the class because they can't speak English.  They can even get credit cards.
> 
> Is it any wonder why they come here, and now we're going to complain because we take their children from them when they enter this country?  Add free babysitting on top of the list above.
> 
> 
> 
> *No, I'm not saying it's ok to break our laws.  I'm saying, let the punishment fit the crime. And in the case of those that overstayed their Visas, about 40% to 50% of the undocumented immigrant, they are not guilty of any crime.  At most, they are guilty of a civil violation.
> 
> Just because I think undocumented immigrants should be treated fairly and humane does not mean I want open boarders.  I actually want the same thing you want, a solution to the problem of illegal immigration.  I just disagree with how you want it done.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I'm getting ready to go to work now.  I drive a truck so it's mandated I have a CDL license.  If I got caught driving without one or it expires, I can get a 10K fine and jail time just for an expired license.
> 
> Until we find a full proof way of getting rid of all illegals, the best thing we can do now is make it as uninviting as possible for them to come here.  Make it a law that states cannot issue drivers licenses.  Make it a law that banks cannot give loans or extend credit to these people.  Make it a law that we landlords have to run a check on any foreigner that wants to rent from us and give us a way to do that.  Increase penalties for those who hire them.  All pupils of public school are checked out that they or their parents are of legal status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should implement civil forfeiture for illegal aliens.  What a great tool that would be for places like Texas and Orange County that want to keep illegal aliens out.  And the money can be spent to build a wall for starters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Take away assets from migrant workers, day labors, and domestics? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't have any money but they wire $69 billion a year to Mexico.  Gotcha.
> 
> Start by taking their cars.
> 
> You clearly recognize ideas what would work because you oppose them every time.
> 
> Flopper:  We can't take their jobs or build a wall.  Wouldn't work.  Let's stand in the desert and think hard and transmit anti illegal immigration juju, that should work
Click to expand...

*Before deciding how to keep people from entering the country illegally, you need to consider why they want to enter the US.  Basically, it's because it would be nearly impossible for them to enter legally and the border is not secure enough to keep them out.  

So you make it more difficult to enter the country illegally which could be done with a wall that stretches the length of the boarder but a far more practical solution is to provide the security that is needed based on the local need.  In some places that might be a wall, in others a fence, and other places electronic monitoring and increased boarder patrol.

Second, reduce the visa wait time for people from Mexico, Honduras, other Central American and Caribbean countries to less than two years.  Currently it is between 10 years and never if you lack a college degree or a critical skill.

Lastly, develop a Visa tracking system so we keep overstays to less than a couple of months and make it a legal requirement that visa holders report change of address.

If we do the above, I believe we would eliminate the undocumented immigrant problem a lot faster than what we're doing now because currently enforcement of immigration laws depends on who is in White House and which party controls congress.*


----------



## francoHFW

As long as they can fake identities with fake SSID cards, there is no solution, just harassment and unjust deportations. Deporting 11 million who have basically been invited to come in and work is a dream for racist simpletons.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone who supports a wall supports also tougening laws on Visa overstays. The wall is #1 priority for two reasons. The second reason is the part where you're wrong and the majority of illegal aliens cross the border illegally. The biggest one is that they have at least been checked out and we knew when they came in who they were and were able to check out their history, including their criminal history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plus when one overstays their VISA, they don't bring in drugs at the same time.
Click to expand...


And they at least made the effort to COME here properly.


----------



## AZGAL

What about the option to throw the children in jail with the parents? Family unification. No more tears.


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No, I'm not saying it's ok to break our laws.  I'm saying, let the punishment fit the crime. And in the case of those that overstayed their Visas, about 40% to 50% of the undocumented immigrant, they are not guilty of any crime.  At most, they are guilty of a civil violation.
> 
> Just because I think undocumented immigrants should be treated fairly and humane does not mean I want open boarders.  I actually want the same thing you want, a solution to the problem of illegal immigration.  I just disagree with how you want it done.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm getting ready to go to work now.  I drive a truck so it's mandated I have a CDL license.  If I got caught driving without one or it expires, I can get a 10K fine and jail time just for an expired license.
> 
> Until we find a full proof way of getting rid of all illegals, the best thing we can do now is make it as uninviting as possible for them to come here.  Make it a law that states cannot issue drivers licenses.  Make it a law that banks cannot give loans or extend credit to these people.  Make it a law that we landlords have to run a check on any foreigner that wants to rent from us and give us a way to do that.  Increase penalties for those who hire them.  All pupils of public school are checked out that they or their parents are of legal status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should implement civil forfeiture for illegal aliens.  What a great tool that would be for places like Texas and Orange County that want to keep illegal aliens out.  And the money can be spent to build a wall for starters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Take away assets from migrant workers, day labors, and domestics? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't have any money but they wire $69 billion a year to Mexico.  Gotcha.
> 
> Start by taking their cars.
> 
> You clearly recognize ideas what would work because you oppose them every time.
> 
> Flopper:  We can't take their jobs or build a wall.  Wouldn't work.  Let's stand in the desert and think hard and transmit anti illegal immigration juju, that should work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Before deciding how to keep people from entering the country illegally, you need to consider why they want to enter the US.  Basically, it's because it would be nearly impossible for them to enter legally and the border is not secure enough to keep them out.
> 
> So you make it more difficult to enter the country illegally which could be done with a wall that stretches the length of the boarder but a far more practical solution is to provide the security that is needed based on the local need.  In some places that might be a wall, in others a fence, and other places electronic monitoring and increased boarder patrol.
> 
> Second, reduce the visa wait time for people from Mexico, Honduras, other Central American and Caribbean countries to less than two years.  Currently it is between 10 years and never if you lack a college degree or a critical skill.
> 
> Lastly, develop a Visa tracking system so we keep overstays to less than a couple of months and make it a legal requirement that visa holders report change of address.
> 
> If we do the above, I believe we would eliminate the undocumented immigrant problem a lot faster than what we're doing now because currently enforcement of immigration laws depends on who is in White House and which party controls congress.*
Click to expand...


They come here because they're the poorest people in a third world shit hole country and morons like you offer them a free pass as well as welfare, drivers licenses, voting and free healthcare and education.  They aren't stupid, you are.

Of course we can stop the vast majority of them from coming here.  You want to not stop them and fight every step tooth and nail because every illegal we keep out you see as losing a voter


----------



## francoHFW

AZGAL said:


> What about the option to throw the children in jail with the parents? Family unification. No more tears.





kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm getting ready to go to work now.  I drive a truck so it's mandated I have a CDL license.  If I got caught driving without one or it expires, I can get a 10K fine and jail time just for an expired license.
> 
> Until we find a full proof way of getting rid of all illegals, the best thing we can do now is make it as uninviting as possible for them to come here.  Make it a law that states cannot issue drivers licenses.  Make it a law that banks cannot give loans or extend credit to these people.  Make it a law that we landlords have to run a check on any foreigner that wants to rent from us and give us a way to do that.  Increase penalties for those who hire them.  All pupils of public school are checked out that they or their parents are of legal status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We should implement civil forfeiture for illegal aliens.  What a great tool that would be for places like Texas and Orange County that want to keep illegal aliens out.  And the money can be spent to build a wall for starters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Take away assets from migrant workers, day labors, and domestics? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't have any money but they wire $69 billion a year to Mexico.  Gotcha.
> 
> Start by taking their cars.
> 
> You clearly recognize ideas what would work because you oppose them every time.
> 
> Flopper:  We can't take their jobs or build a wall.  Wouldn't work.  Let's stand in the desert and think hard and transmit anti illegal immigration juju, that should work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Before deciding how to keep people from entering the country illegally, you need to consider why they want to enter the US.  Basically, it's because it would be nearly impossible for them to enter legally and the border is not secure enough to keep them out.
> 
> So you make it more difficult to enter the country illegally which could be done with a wall that stretches the length of the boarder but a far more practical solution is to provide the security that is needed based on the local need.  In some places that might be a wall, in others a fence, and other places electronic monitoring and increased boarder patrol.
> 
> Second, reduce the visa wait time for people from Mexico, Honduras, other Central American and Caribbean countries to less than two years.  Currently it is between 10 years and never if you lack a college degree or a critical skill.
> 
> Lastly, develop a Visa tracking system so we keep overstays to less than a couple of months and make it a legal requirement that visa holders report change of address.
> 
> If we do the above, I believe we would eliminate the undocumented immigrant problem a lot faster than what we're doing now because currently enforcement of immigration laws depends on who is in White House and which party controls congress.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They come here because they're the poorest people in a third world shit hole country and morons like you offer them a free pass as well as welfare, drivers licenses, voting and free healthcare and education.  They aren't stupid, you are.
> 
> Of course we can stop the vast majority of them from coming here.  You want to not stop them and fight every step tooth and nail because every illegal we keep out you see as losing a voter
Click to expand...

Actually, lately they are fleeing violent drug gangs who are in business because of the United States appetite for illegal drugs. Mexico and Central America have ridiculous murder rates. We are actually breaking up families who are asking for Asylum and jailing them. Great job!


----------



## AZGAL

*Strange how the far liberals are not crying out about US women in jail who are pregnant and get separated from a newborn. Silence on that one. It does not serve their purpose. Hypocrites. *

Yet a *2017 study* in _ Maternal and Child Health Journal_ indicates that, despite the many federal and medical guidelines indicating the practice’s barbarism and inefficacy, the practice of shackling continues in many regional jails, particularly in the immediate postpartum recovery period. And though the practice of shackling pregnant and laboring women was banned in all federal facilities by the Federal Bureau of Prisons in 2008, regional and state prisons can still decide whether or not to implement these guidelines.


----------



## AZGAL

True asylum seeking reform is something I do support.


----------



## francoHFW

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm getting ready to go to work now.  I drive a truck so it's mandated I have a CDL license.  If I got caught driving without one or it expires, I can get a 10K fine and jail time just for an expired license.
> 
> Until we find a full proof way of getting rid of all illegals, the best thing we can do now is make it as uninviting as possible for them to come here.  Make it a law that states cannot issue drivers licenses.  Make it a law that banks cannot give loans or extend credit to these people.  Make it a law that we landlords have to run a check on any foreigner that wants to rent from us and give us a way to do that.  Increase penalties for those who hire them.  All pupils of public school are checked out that they or their parents are of legal status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We should implement civil forfeiture for illegal aliens.  What a great tool that would be for places like Texas and Orange County that want to keep illegal aliens out.  And the money can be spent to build a wall for starters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Take away assets from migrant workers, day labors, and domestics? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't have any money but they wire $69 billion a year to Mexico.  Gotcha.
> 
> Start by taking their cars.
> 
> You clearly recognize ideas what would work because you oppose them every time.
> 
> Flopper:  We can't take their jobs or build a wall.  Wouldn't work.  Let's stand in the desert and think hard and transmit anti illegal immigration juju, that should work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Before deciding how to keep people from entering the country illegally, you need to consider why they want to enter the US.  Basically, it's because it would be nearly impossible for them to enter legally and the border is not secure enough to keep them out.
> 
> So you make it more difficult to enter the country illegally which could be done with a wall that stretches the length of the boarder but a far more practical solution is to provide the security that is needed based on the local need.  In some places that might be a wall, in others a fence, and other places electronic monitoring and increased boarder patrol.
> 
> Second, reduce the visa wait time for people from Mexico, Honduras, other Central American and Caribbean countries to less than two years.  Currently it is between 10 years and never if you lack a college degree or a critical skill.
> 
> Lastly, develop a Visa tracking system so we keep overstays to less than a couple of months and make it a legal requirement that visa holders report change of address.
> 
> If we do the above, I believe we would eliminate the undocumented immigrant problem a lot faster than what we're doing now because currently enforcement of immigration laws depends on who is in White House and which party controls congress.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They come here because they're the poorest people in a third world shit hole country and morons like you offer them a free pass as well as welfare, drivers licenses, voting and free healthcare and education.  They aren't stupid, you are.
> 
> Of course we can stop the vast majority of them from coming here.  You want to not stop them and fight every step tooth and nail because every illegal we keep out you see as losing a voter
Click to expand...

40% come in legally so you're wrong already. Pass the goddamn 2010 democratic comprehensive immigration bill with a good SS ID card and cut the b******* propaganda, super dupe. The wall is stupid and useless. They will just get bigger ladders and deeper tunnels.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AZGAL said:


> What about the option to throw the children in jail with the parents? Family unification. No more tears.



Not without a change in the law, because whether the no-short-term-memory left recalls it or not, THEY pitched a hissy and insisted that children should not be detained.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AZGAL said:


> *Strange how the far liberals are not crying out about US women in jail who are pregnant and get separated from a newborn. Silence on that one. It does not serve their purpose. Hypocrites. *
> 
> Yet a *2017 study* in _ Maternal and Child Health Journal_ indicates that, despite the many federal and medical guidelines indicating the practice’s barbarism and inefficacy, the practice of shackling continues in many regional jails, particularly in the immediate postpartum recovery period. And though the practice of shackling pregnant and laboring women was banned in all federal facilities by the Federal Bureau of Prisons in 2008, regional and state prisons can still decide whether or not to implement these guidelines.



Oh, they'd like us to release those women, as well.  Leftists have an atavistic horror of anyone being incarcerated for committing crimes.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

AZGAL said:


> What about the option to throw the children in jail with the parents? Family unification. No more tears.



Actually if we just throw them all out, the families could stay together that way.


----------



## AZGAL

I was being a rude smartass to make an obvious point. Children out of incarceration is better than in incarceration. Something to be thankful for. In the games played that doesn't make tearjerker fake news.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AZGAL said:


> I was being a rude smartass to make an obvious point. Children out of incarceration is better than in incarceration. Something to be thankful for. Yet that doesn't make tearjerker fake news.



Oh, I know.  And as I said, a couple years ago, the "desperate need" to NOT keep kids detained with their illegal immigrant parents was the tearjerker fake news.  Somehow, they think no one's going to remember that, and figure out that what they're REALLY angling for is a stop to any and all policies that don't involve simply letting people la-di-da across the border and vanish into the population.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have such screwy assumptions:
> 
> 1) Flopper - if we build a wall, we can't go after VISA overstays too, we have to pick one
> 
> - Bull, we need to go after both and any other way illegals are coming into the country
> 
> 2)  Flopper - only Mexicans are crossing our southern border
> 
> - Bull, lots of South Americans too.  And so can anyone, including al Qaeda, who fly into Mexico city
> 
> 3)  40% means a majority - no, 40% is not a majority.  Not a math major, were you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Of course we can we protect our borders and deal with visa overstays as we should but only in a fair and just manner.  Trump's rush to deport as many people as fast as he can is going to backfire badly.  The majority of the American public want a path to citizenship not deportation.  Bypassing immigration court and his zero tolerance policy is going to hurt a lot of innocent people.  For example: What does a businessman father from Ohio, an Arizona mother, the Indiana husband of a Trump supporter all have in common? They were unassuming members of their community, parents of US citizens, and undocumented immigrants order to be deported. They had been in this country for decades, they're employed, had never been arrested, paid their taxes, and were productive members of the community.  And what crime did they commit.  None.  They are guilty of overstaying their visa, a civil infraction that carries no penalty other than deportation.  However because of the time they have been in the country, the law says they will be band from reentry for 10 years.  How in the world can anyone condom such unjust treatment?  And people question why 6 states and hundreds of cities and towns have declared themselves a sanctuary.*
> *Read my post, "Most of the the illegal immigrants entering the US today are not Mexicans ...".*
> *It doesn't matter whether it's 40% or 50%, or 60%.  The percentage is based on and estimate of the number of undocumented immigrants in the country. It could 9 million, 11 million, 12 million, or more or less.  You seem to totally miss the point; the number of people that overstay their visas exceed the number coming over the boarder by a factor 2 to 4 times depending on year. *
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is it's okay if they break our laws, just as long as they show they are upstanding citizens.
> 
> Well that's a message we want to send to the other 8.5 billion people on this planet, isn't it?
> 
> You people on the left are constantly comparing us to other countries........except when it comes to borders, immigration laws and handling of intruders.  There are not many other countries that would put up with as much as we have put up with when it comes to immigration.
> 
> Especially in our sanctuary cities, we give them drivers licenses so they can get to work they are not supposed to have.  Those cities give them protection from ICE and other agencies.  We allow them to rent apartments and houses.  They get to send their illegal children to our schools, and in some cases, hold up the class because they can't speak English.  They can even get credit cards.
> 
> Is it any wonder why they come here, and now we're going to complain because we take their children from them when they enter this country?  Add free babysitting on top of the list above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, I'm not saying it's ok to break our laws.  I'm saying, let the punishment fit the crime. And in the case of those that overstayed their Visas, about 40% to 50% of the undocumented immigrant, they are not guilty of any crime.  At most, they are guilty of a civil violation.
> 
> Just because I think undocumented immigrants should be treated fairly and humane does not mean I want open boarders.  I actually want the same thing you want, a solution to the problem of illegal immigration.  I just disagree with how you want it done.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I'm getting ready to go to work now.  I drive a truck so it's mandated I have a CDL license.  If I got caught driving without one or it expires, I can get a 10K fine and jail time just for an expired license.
> 
> Until we find a full proof way of getting rid of all illegals, the best thing we can do now is make it as uninviting as possible for them to come here.  Make it a law that states cannot issue drivers licenses.  Make it a law that banks cannot give loans or extend credit to these people.  Make it a law that we landlords have to run a check on any foreigner that wants to rent from us and give us a way to do that.  Increase penalties for those who hire them.  All pupils of public school are checked out that they or their parents are of legal status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The undocumented immigrant problem is easily solved if we stem the flow of illegal immigrants and enforce visa expiration.  If we do that we will see the numbers of undocumented fall year by year with little need for deportation.*
Click to expand...


I like my idea better.  Bet you anything it would get much better and quicker results.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> So said the AMERICAN people in November 2016.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only half (give or take a couple million) said that. And when the pendulum swings back the other way, the wall is torn down. Senseless thrashing. Why not find something we can get real consensus on? Why do we keep pushing for partisan extremes that aren't sustainable?
Click to expand...


Because one side is for letting everybody in and the other side is for letting nobody in.  Trump did try to compromise.  He even gave Democrats more than they wanted.  What did they tell Trump?  Go to hell.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> By building  a stupid wall that will not work? Duped again...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leftists don't oppose building a wall because they think it won't work, they oppose a wall because they know it will.   They support nothing but programs that won't work
Click to expand...


Not only will it work, but a wall is something they won't be able to reverse like policies.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

protectionist said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm getting ready to go to work now.  I drive a truck so it's mandated I have a CDL license.  If I got caught driving without one or it expires, I can get a 10K fine and jail time just for an expired license.
> 
> Until we find a full proof way of getting rid of all illegals, the best thing we can do now is make it as uninviting as possible for them to come here.  Make it a law that states cannot issue drivers licenses.  Make it a law that banks cannot give loans or extend credit to these people.  Make it a law that we landlords have to run a check on any foreigner that wants to rent from us and give us a way to do that.  Increase penalties for those who hire them.  All pupils of public school are checked out that they or their parents are of legal status.
> 
> 
> 
> I moved out of California in 1989.  Sad to say this, but it is a lost cause. Democrats have imported so many of the invaders to stack the ballot boxes with their votes, that they are now indebted to them, and must pander to their wishes.
> 
> It might be easier to get a cow to jump over the moon than get legislation in California in opposition to illegal aliens.  California has become an extension of Mexico.  The best thing that could be done regarding California, and its millions of illegal aliens, is to pass a law making California no longer part of the USA.
> 
> If Mexico wants it, they can have it.  Summer fires, winter floods/mudslides, eathquakes and all.
Click to expand...


California acts as a model of what can happen to the rest of the country left to liberals and their open border mentality.  It's gotten so bad in some places that they are passing out poop maps so decent people don't accidentally step in human feces.  It's now the welfare state of the country and while they brag how great their economy is, they are so far in debt it can never be paid back.


----------



## AZGAL

The people and families that went from running over the border to respectable US citizen were in the "olden days" and they really wanted a better life. There are many who earned US citizenship although stated out as an illegal back in the day. Many US citizens came here from somewhere seeking a better life. *The world is different now. Global economies, global issues. Preserving a nation is an important goal now. This is not Nazi nationalism. Seeking Asylum Reforms could be a valuable solution all around the world today.* I am for HUMANE LEGAL PROCESSES. As for Mexico, they really are at war with the USA because the main product besides food we import from Mexico is nasty drugs that are undermining the safety and sanity of our country. THE USA could even declare war on Mexico with real justification as they are a threat. Take the beaches of Baja by force or buy them outright and BUILD THE WALL NOW. Sincerely, from Arizona (no surprise there).


----------



## francoHFW

Cecilie1200 said:


> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the option to throw the children in jail with the parents? Family unification. No more tears.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not without a change in the law, because whether the no-short-term-memory left recalls it or not, THEY pitched a hissy and insisted that children should not be detained.
Click to expand...

Link to that GOP BS propaganda?


----------



## francoHFW

AZGAL said:


> The people and families that went from running over the border to respectable US citizen were in the "olden days" and they really wanted a better life. There are many who earned US citizenship although stated out as an illegal back in the day. Many US citizens came here from somewhere seeking a better life. *The world is different now. Global economies, global issues. Preserving a nation is an important goal now. This is not Nazi nationalism. Seeking Asylum Reforms could be a valuable solution all around the world today.* I am for HUMANE LEGAL PROCESSES. As for Mexico, they really are at war with the USA because the main product besides food we import from Mexico is nasty drugs that are undermining the safety and sanity of our country. THE USA could even declare war on Mexico with real justification as they are a threat. Take the beaches of Baja by force or buy them outright and BUILD THE WALL NOW. Sincerely, from Arizona (no surprise there).


The wall is stupid and useless, super dupe.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm getting ready to go to work now.  I drive a truck so it's mandated I have a CDL license.  If I got caught driving without one or it expires, I can get a 10K fine and jail time just for an expired license.
> 
> Until we find a full proof way of getting rid of all illegals, the best thing we can do now is make it as uninviting as possible for them to come here.  Make it a law that states cannot issue drivers licenses.  Make it a law that banks cannot give loans or extend credit to these people.  Make it a law that we landlords have to run a check on any foreigner that wants to rent from us and give us a way to do that.  Increase penalties for those who hire them.  All pupils of public school are checked out that they or their parents are of legal status.
> 
> 
> 
> I moved out of California in 1989.  Sad to say this, but it is a lost cause. Democrats have imported so many of the invaders to stack the ballot boxes with their votes, that they are now indebted to them, and must pander to their wishes.
> 
> It might be easier to get a cow to jump over the moon than get legislation in California in opposition to illegal aliens.  California has become an extension of Mexico.  The best thing that could be done regarding California, and its millions of illegal aliens, is to pass a law making California no longer part of the USA.
> 
> If Mexico wants it, they can have it.  Summer fires, winter floods/mudslides, eathquakes and all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> California acts as a model of what can happen to the rest of the country left to liberals and their open border mentality.  It's gotten so bad in some places that they are passing out poop maps so decent people don't accidentally step in human feces.  It's now the welfare state of the country and while they brag how great their economy is, they are so far in debt it can never be paid back.
Click to expand...

Pass the 2010 democratic comprehensive immigration bill with a good SS ID card and end this GOP klusterfuk, brainwashed functional moron.


----------



## AZGAL

The very old *2010 *Democrat "comprehensive" immigration bill is a _thing of the past._


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm getting ready to go to work now.  I drive a truck so it's mandated I have a CDL license.  If I got caught driving without one or it expires, I can get a 10K fine and jail time just for an expired license.
> 
> Until we find a full proof way of getting rid of all illegals, the best thing we can do now is make it as uninviting as possible for them to come here.  Make it a law that states cannot issue drivers licenses.  Make it a law that banks cannot give loans or extend credit to these people.  Make it a law that we landlords have to run a check on any foreigner that wants to rent from us and give us a way to do that.  Increase penalties for those who hire them.  All pupils of public school are checked out that they or their parents are of legal status.
> 
> 
> 
> I moved out of California in 1989.  Sad to say this, but it is a lost cause. Democrats have imported so many of the invaders to stack the ballot boxes with their votes, that they are now indebted to them, and must pander to their wishes.
> 
> It might be easier to get a cow to jump over the moon than get legislation in California in opposition to illegal aliens.  California has become an extension of Mexico.  The best thing that could be done regarding California, and its millions of illegal aliens, is to pass a law making California no longer part of the USA.
> 
> If Mexico wants it, they can have it.  Summer fires, winter floods/mudslides, eathquakes and all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> California acts as a model of what can happen to the rest of the country left to liberals and their open border mentality.  It's gotten so bad in some places that they are passing out poop maps so decent people don't accidentally step in human feces.  It's now the welfare state of the country and while they brag how great their economy is, they are so far in debt it can never be paid back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pass the 2010 democratic comprehensive immigration bill with a good SS ID card and end this GOP klusterfuk, brainwashed functional moron.
Click to expand...


WTF do you come here and repeat the same shit over and over again?  We got you the last nine times you posted that stupidity.


----------



## Kondor3

Flopper said:


> ...Wow, such hate against millions of people that remained in the US after their Visa expired which is not even a criminal offense. About 40% to 50% of our undocumented immigrants fall into this category...


It's not hatred, old sod, although it's in your (side's) best interests to continually attempt (and fail) to portray it as thus; declaring it thus does not render it thus.



> ......there are a lot of people that don't want to see them punished or deported...


True.

Fortunately, they do not control the Nation's law enforcement mechanisms at the moment.



> ...They want a more humane solution to the problem...


That's nice.



> ...These people didn't come her to rape and pillage...


Don't care WHY they came here... the trouble is, they're HERE... and they need to go home.



> ...They came here to work and earn enough money to support their family...


Don't care WHY they came here... the trouble is, they're HERE, and they need to go home.



> ...often at considerable danger to themselves which is a lot more than many Americans are willing to do.


Doesn't matter... much of the "other side" has stopped listening to all the excuse-making and juicy rationalizations... time for Illegals to go.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm getting ready to go to work now.  I drive a truck so it's mandated I have a CDL license.  If I got caught driving without one or it expires, I can get a 10K fine and jail time just for an expired license.
> 
> Until we find a full proof way of getting rid of all illegals, the best thing we can do now is make it as uninviting as possible for them to come here.  Make it a law that states cannot issue drivers licenses.  Make it a law that banks cannot give loans or extend credit to these people.  Make it a law that we landlords have to run a check on any foreigner that wants to rent from us and give us a way to do that.  Increase penalties for those who hire them.  All pupils of public school are checked out that they or their parents are of legal status.
> 
> 
> 
> I moved out of California in 1989.  Sad to say this, but it is a lost cause. Democrats have imported so many of the invaders to stack the ballot boxes with their votes, that they are now indebted to them, and must pander to their wishes.
> 
> It might be easier to get a cow to jump over the moon than get legislation in California in opposition to illegal aliens.  California has become an extension of Mexico.  The best thing that could be done regarding California, and its millions of illegal aliens, is to pass a law making California no longer part of the USA.
> 
> If Mexico wants it, they can have it.  Summer fires, winter floods/mudslides, eathquakes and all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> California acts as a model of what can happen to the rest of the country left to liberals and their open border mentality.  It's gotten so bad in some places that they are passing out poop maps so decent people don't accidentally step in human feces.  It's now the welfare state of the country and while they brag how great their economy is, they are so far in debt it can never be paid back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pass the 2010 democratic comprehensive immigration bill with a good SS ID card and end this GOP klusterfuk, brainwashed functional moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF do you come here and repeat the same shit over and over again?  We got you the last nine times you posted that stupidity.
Click to expand...

Truth continues to be repetitive. As opposed to your endlessly entertaining and changing GOP propaganda, super duper dupe. And of course you doops don't know Anything about anything, just pure garbage and Hate.


----------



## francoHFW

Kondor3 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Wow, such hate against millions of people that remained in the US after their Visa expired which is not even a criminal offense. About 40% to 50% of our undocumented immigrants fall into this category...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not hatred, old sod, although it's in your (side's) best interests to continually attempt (and fail) to portray it as thus; declaring it thus does not render it thus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ......there are a lot of people that don't want to see them punished or deported...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True.
> 
> Fortunately, they do not control the Nation's law enforcement mechanisms at the moment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...They want a more humane solution to the problem...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...These people didn't come her to rape and pillage...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't care WHY they came here... the trouble is, they're HERE... and they need to go home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...They came here to work and earn enough money to support their family...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't care WHY they came here... the trouble is, they're HERE, and they need to go home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...often at considerable danger to themselves which is a lot more than many Americans are willing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't matter... much of the "other side" has stopped listening to all the excuse-making and juicy rationalizations... time for Illegals to go.
Click to expand...

The GOP doesn't give a damn except around elections and during one of their corrupt economic meltdowns. The Democrats want a solution. 2010 immigration bill with good SSID card ends this crap. Nothing else does. You brainwashed morons think the Democrats want open borders. Incredible idiocy. Hillary was talking about trade only someday. Typical of how you know absolutely nothing.


----------



## Kondor3

francoHFW said:


> ...These are people asking for Asylum, there is no reason to be cruel to them, super hater dupe.


Yeah... sure... twenty years ago, 1 Illegal in 100 asked for asylum... twenty months from now, 99 illegals in 100 will ask for it, if we let you get your way.

Not gonna happen now.


----------



## Kondor3

francoHFW said:


> ...The GOP doesn't give a damn except around elections and during one of their corrupt economic meltdowns...


Quite true.



> ...The Democrats want a solution...


Yes. We already know what their "ideal" solution looks like.

Anything you put on the table that (a) rewards past Illegal Entry / Overstay or (b) does not profoundly deter future Illegal Entry / Overstay is now a non-starter.



> ...You brainwashed morons think the Democrats want open borders. Incredible idiocy. Hillary was talking about trade only someday. Typical of how you know absolutely nothing.


No Sale, Sparky... ya'll have gone to that well once too often.

And now you're sittin' around throwin' peanuts from the sidelines and chanting your Coulda-Shoulda-Woulda's... oh well, what-the-Hell, you did it to yourselves.

Next time, try standing alongside your fellow Americans, rather than a wave of foreign invaders.

Failing to learn that Key Lesson of November 8, 2016, would _truly_ be *moronic*.

Much of the rest of the country is quite convinced that you just don't have it in you.


----------



## AZGAL

What about the real root problem that Mexico cannot dig it's way out of corruption. Is that really our problem to take on in the USA? it seems to me that Mexico is so damned corrupt today that this is now an international problem that should get the attention of international organizations such as the UN if it gave a damn. Mexico is a murderous mess as equally deserving of hostility as Germany and Japan in WW2. yes BUILD THE WALL.


----------



## francoHFW

Kondor3 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...These are people asking for Asylum, there is no reason to be cruel to them, super hater dupe.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... sure... twenty years ago, 1 Illegal in 100 asked for asylum... twenty months from now, 99 illegals in 100 will ask for it, if we let you get your way.
> 
> Not gonna happen now.
Click to expand...

Asylum Seekers are already being put in detention... There is no reason 2 break up their families 2. But thanks for Wrecking their countries with your never ending War on drugs, super dupe.


----------



## francoHFW

Kondor3 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The GOP doesn't give a damn except around elections and during one of their corrupt economic meltdowns...
> 
> 
> 
> Quite true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...The Democrats want a solution...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. We already know what their "ideal" solution looks like.
> 
> Anything you put on the table that (a) rewards past Illegal Entry / Overstay or (b) does not profoundly deter future Illegal Entry / Overstay is now a non-starter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...You brainwashed morons think the Democrats want open borders. Incredible idiocy. Hillary was talking about trade only someday. Typical of how you know absolutely nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Sale, Sparky... ya'll have gone to that well once too often.
> 
> And now you're sittin' around throwin' peanuts from the sidelines and chanting your Coulda-Shoulda-Woulda's... oh well, what-the-Hell, you did it to yourselves.
> 
> Next time, try standing alongside your fellow Americans, rather than a wave of foreign invaders.
> 
> Failing to learn that Key Lesson of November 8, 2016, would _truly_ be *moronic*.
> 
> Much of the rest of the country is quite convinced that you just don't have it in you.
Click to expand...

Quite an army of silly dupes you have there LOL. I am totally for stopping illegal immigration, as are Democrats. The GOP stupidity and futility will just keep it going forever.


----------



## Cecilie1200

francoHFW said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the option to throw the children in jail with the parents? Family unification. No more tears.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not without a change in the law, because whether the no-short-term-memory left recalls it or not, THEY pitched a hissy and insisted that children should not be detained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link to that GOP BS propaganda?
Click to expand...


Judge Orders Release of Immigrant Kids from ICE Detention Centers

Amazing what you can learn when you're not wasting time trying to find validation for your butthurt.


----------



## francoHFW

Kondor3 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The GOP doesn't give a damn except around elections and during one of their corrupt economic meltdowns...
> 
> 
> 
> Quite true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...The Democrats want a solution...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. We already know what their "ideal" solution looks like.
> 
> Anything you put on the table that (a) rewards past Illegal Entry / Overstay or (b) does not profoundly deter future Illegal Entry / Overstay is now a non-starter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...You brainwashed morons think the Democrats want open borders. Incredible idiocy. Hillary was talking about trade only someday. Typical of how you know absolutely nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Sale, Sparky... ya'll have gone to that well once too often.
> 
> And now you're sittin' around throwin' peanuts from the sidelines and chanting your Coulda-Shoulda-Woulda's... oh well, what-the-Hell, you did it to yourselves.
> 
> Next time, try standing alongside your fellow Americans, rather than a wave of foreign invaders.
> 
> Failing to learn that Key Lesson of November 8, 2016, would _truly_ be *moronic*.
> 
> Much of the rest of the country is quite convinced that you just don't have it in you.
Click to expand...

Throwing out 11 million Worthy illegals is never going to happen. So you start with amnesty for them. Then a good SS ID card to stop more from coming. End of story. You morons think Democrats are 4 open borders. Brainwashed insanity.


----------



## francoHFW

Cecilie1200 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the option to throw the children in jail with the parents? Family unification. No more tears.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not without a change in the law, because whether the no-short-term-memory left recalls it or not, THEY pitched a hissy and insisted that children should not be detained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link to that GOP BS propaganda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judge Orders Release of Immigrant Kids from ICE Detention Centers
> 
> Amazing what you can learn when you're not wasting time trying to find validation for your butthurt.
Click to expand...

So it is not Democrats but the courts, super duper. And no it is not a conspiracy LOL.


----------



## francoHFW

AZGAL said:


> What about the real root problem that Mexico cannot dig it's way out of corruption. Is that really our problem to take on in the USA? it seems to me that Mexico is so damned corrupt today that this is now an international problem that should get the attention of international organizations such as the UN if it gave a damn. Mexico is a murderous mess as equally deserving of hostility as Germany and Japan in WW2. yes BUILD THE WALL.


Thanks to drug gangs that exist because of us. Actually because of you.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

AZGAL said:


> What about the real root problem that Mexico cannot dig it's way out of corruption. Is that really our problem to take on in the USA? it seems to me that Mexico is so damned corrupt today that this is now an international problem that should get the attention of international organizations such as the UN if it gave a damn. Mexico is a murderous mess as equally deserving of hostility as Germany and Japan in WW2. yes BUILD THE WALL.



Why fight it if you can run away instead?  If we close off that place to run, they will be forced to fight for their country the way we have so many times in the past.


----------



## Loving91390

You don't live in Caifornia .... What do you know !




francoHFW said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Wow, such hate against millions of people that remained in the US after their Visa expired which is not even a criminal offense. About 40% to 50% of our undocumented immigrants fall into this category...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not hatred, old sod, although it's in your (side's) best interests to continually attempt (and fail) to portray it as thus; declaring it thus does not render it thus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ......there are a lot of people that don't want to see them punished or deported...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True.
> 
> Fortunately, they do not control the Nation's law enforcement mechanisms at the moment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...They want a more humane solution to the problem...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...These people didn't come her to rape and pillage...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't care WHY they came here... the trouble is, they're HERE... and they need to go home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...They came here to work and earn enough money to support their family...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't care WHY they came here... the trouble is, they're HERE, and they need to go home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...often at considerable danger to themselves which is a lot more than many Americans are willing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't matter... much of the "other side" has stopped listening to all the excuse-making and juicy rationalizations... time for Illegals to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP doesn't give a damn except around elections and during one of their corrupt economic meltdowns. The Democrats want a solution. 2010 immigration bill with good SSID card ends this crap. Nothing else does. You brainwashed morons think the Democrats want open borders. Incredible idiocy. Hillary was talking about trade only someday. Typical of how you know absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm getting ready to go to work now.  I drive a truck so it's mandated I have a CDL license.  If I got caught driving without one or it expires, I can get a 10K fine and jail time just for an expired license.
> 
> Until we find a full proof way of getting rid of all illegals, the best thing we can do now is make it as uninviting as possible for them to come here.  Make it a law that states cannot issue drivers licenses.  Make it a law that banks cannot give loans or extend credit to these people.  Make it a law that we landlords have to run a check on any foreigner that wants to rent from us and give us a way to do that.  Increase penalties for those who hire them.  All pupils of public school are checked out that they or their parents are of legal status.
> 
> 
> 
> I moved out of California in 1989.  Sad to say this, but it is a lost cause. Democrats have imported so many of the invaders to stack the ballot boxes with their votes, that they are now indebted to them, and must pander to their wishes.
> 
> It might be easier to get a cow to jump over the moon than get legislation in California in opposition to illegal aliens.  California has become an extension of Mexico.  The best thing that could be done regarding California, and its millions of illegal aliens, is to pass a law making California no longer part of the USA.
> 
> If Mexico wants it, they can have it.  Summer fires, winter floods/mudslides, eathquakes and all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> California acts as a model of what can happen to the rest of the country left to liberals and their open border mentality.  It's gotten so bad in some places that they are passing out poop maps so decent people don't accidentally step in human feces.  It's now the welfare state of the country and while they brag how great their economy is, they are so far in debt it can never be paid back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pass the 2010 democratic comprehensive immigration bill with a good SS ID card and end this GOP klusterfuk, brainwashed functional moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF do you come here and repeat the same shit over and over again?  We got you the last nine times you posted that stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Truth continues to be repetitive. As opposed to your endlessly entertaining and changing GOP propaganda, super duper dupe. And of course you doops don't know Anything about anything, just pure garbage and Hate.
Click to expand...


----------



## AZGAL

I have never heard anyone besides DEMOCRATS call for open borders...just ask Hillary.


----------



## Cecilie1200

francoHFW said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the option to throw the children in jail with the parents? Family unification. No more tears.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not without a change in the law, because whether the no-short-term-memory left recalls it or not, THEY pitched a hissy and insisted that children should not be detained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link to that GOP BS propaganda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judge Orders Release of Immigrant Kids from ICE Detention Centers
> 
> Amazing what you can learn when you're not wasting time trying to find validation for your butthurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it is not Democrats but the courts, super duper. And no it is not a conspiracy LOL.
Click to expand...


It never ceases to amaze me that you get dumber with every post.  You'd think I'd be used to it by now.

You think that judge just pulled this out of her ass, moron?  She was ruling on a case, brought by leftist organizations, and referring to another case, ALSO brought by leftist organizations.  And at the time, every leftist commentator in the country was cheering for the decision, which you NOW consider the height of cruelty.

The original Flores settlement, insisting that unaccompanies minors who crossed the border could not be detained, was brought by the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law and the National Center for Youth Law, aided and abetted by the ACLU of Southern California.  In 2015, those same people - with the addition of some other left-leaning groups - got the Flores settlement extended to accompanied minors, again to the cheering of leftists everywhere.

Oh, also, Judge Dolly Gee, from that article?  Obama appointee in the Central District of California.  What are the odds she's a rock-ribbed Republican?


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I moved out of California in 1989.  Sad to say this, but it is a lost cause. Democrats have imported so many of the invaders to stack the ballot boxes with their votes, that they are now indebted to them, and must pander to their wishes.
> 
> It might be easier to get a cow to jump over the moon than get legislation in California in opposition to illegal aliens.  California has become an extension of Mexico.  The best thing that could be done regarding California, and its millions of illegal aliens, is to pass a law making California no longer part of the USA.
> 
> If Mexico wants it, they can have it.  Summer fires, winter floods/mudslides, eathquakes and all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California acts as a model of what can happen to the rest of the country left to liberals and their open border mentality.  It's gotten so bad in some places that they are passing out poop maps so decent people don't accidentally step in human feces.  It's now the welfare state of the country and while they brag how great their economy is, they are so far in debt it can never be paid back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pass the 2010 democratic comprehensive immigration bill with a good SS ID card and end this GOP klusterfuk, brainwashed functional moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF do you come here and repeat the same shit over and over again?  We got you the last nine times you posted that stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Truth continues to be repetitive. As opposed to your endlessly entertaining and changing GOP propaganda, super duper dupe. And of course you doops don't know Anything about anything, just pure garbage and Hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Typical brainwashed response LOL so you believe Democrats are for open borders, super duper?


----------



## francoHFW

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> California acts as a model of what can happen to the rest of the country left to liberals and their open border mentality.  It's gotten so bad in some places that they are passing out poop maps so decent people don't accidentally step in human feces.  It's now the welfare state of the country and while they brag how great their economy is, they are so far in debt it can never be paid back.
> 
> 
> 
> Pass the 2010 democratic comprehensive immigration bill with a good SS ID card and end this GOP klusterfuk, brainwashed functional moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF do you come here and repeat the same shit over and over again?  We got you the last nine times you posted that stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Truth continues to be repetitive. As opposed to your endlessly entertaining and changing GOP propaganda, super duper dupe. And of course you doops don't know Anything about anything, just pure garbage and Hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical brainwashed response LOL so you believe Democrats are for open borders, super duper?
Click to expand...

Hillary is going to get locked up? The rich pay too much in taxes? People like being on welfare? Obama's deficits had nothing to do with the GOP depression, Obama had control for two years and his policies caused trouble? Just goes on and on... You are on a stupid BS GOP propaganda planet.


----------



## francoHFW

Cecilie1200 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the option to throw the children in jail with the parents? Family unification. No more tears.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not without a change in the law, because whether the no-short-term-memory left recalls it or not, THEY pitched a hissy and insisted that children should not be detained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link to that GOP BS propaganda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judge Orders Release of Immigrant Kids from ICE Detention Centers
> 
> Amazing what you can learn when you're not wasting time trying to find validation for your butthurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it is not Democrats but the courts, super duper. And no it is not a conspiracy LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It never ceases to amaze me that you get dumber with every post.  You'd think I'd be used to it by now.
> 
> You think that judge just pulled this out of her ass, moron?  She was ruling on a case, brought by leftist organizations, and referring to another case, ALSO brought by leftist organizations.  And at the time, every leftist commentator in the country was cheering for the decision, which you NOW consider the height of cruelty.
> 
> The original Flores settlement, insisting that unaccompanies minors who crossed the border could not be detained, was brought by the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law and the National Center for Youth Law, aided and abetted by the ACLU of Southern California.  In 2015, those same people - with the addition of some other left-leaning groups - got the Flores settlement extended to accompanied minors, again to the cheering of leftists everywhere.
> 
> Oh, also, Judge Dolly Gee, from that article?  Obama appointee in the Central District of California.  What are the odds she's a rock-ribbed Republican?
Click to expand...

So, no appeal by the GOP side? I'll go with our courts, not your lying BS propaganda


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> California acts as a model of what can happen to the rest of the country left to liberals and their open border mentality.  It's gotten so bad in some places that they are passing out poop maps so decent people don't accidentally step in human feces.  It's now the welfare state of the country and while they brag how great their economy is, they are so far in debt it can never be paid back.
> 
> 
> 
> Pass the 2010 democratic comprehensive immigration bill with a good SS ID card and end this GOP klusterfuk, brainwashed functional moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF do you come here and repeat the same shit over and over again?  We got you the last nine times you posted that stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Truth continues to be repetitive. As opposed to your endlessly entertaining and changing GOP propaganda, super duper dupe. And of course you doops don't know Anything about anything, just pure garbage and Hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical brainwashed response LOL so you believe Democrats are for open borders, super duper?
Click to expand...


Yes I do.  You (as a leftist) fail to look for the man behind the curtain. 

The goal of the left is to wipe out white people; not in a genocidal way, but in a political way.  

Every other group of people outside of whites vote a majority Democrat.  The Asians vote a majority Democrat, the middle-east people vote a majority Democrat, the Hispanics vote a majority Democrat, the Jewish vote a majority Democrat, the blacks...........forget about it. 

Once they are able to make whites a minority in this country for the first time, they will have access to turn our country into a single-party government forever.  

So if you are white and vote Democrat, you are about the dumbest MF in the country, because you are voting for a party that's trying to wipe YOU out for power.


----------



## francoHFW

AZGAL said:


> I have never heard anyone besides DEMOCRATS call for open borders...just ask Hillary.


She was talking about trade only and someday in the future, super dupe. You live on a ridiculous GOP propaganda planet.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pass the 2010 democratic comprehensive immigration bill with a good SS ID card and end this GOP klusterfuk, brainwashed functional moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF do you come here and repeat the same shit over and over again?  We got you the last nine times you posted that stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Truth continues to be repetitive. As opposed to your endlessly entertaining and changing GOP propaganda, super duper dupe. And of course you doops don't know Anything about anything, just pure garbage and Hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical brainwashed response LOL so you believe Democrats are for open borders, super duper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I do.  You (as a leftist) fail to look for the man behind the curtain.
> 
> The goal of the left is to wipe out white people; not in a genocidal way, but in a political way.
> 
> Every other group of people outside of whites vote a majority Democrat.  The Asians vote a majority Democrat, the middle-east people vote a majority Democrat, the Hispanics vote a majority Democrat, the Jewish vote a majority Democrat, the blacks...........forget about it.
> 
> Once they are able to make whites a minority in this country for the first time, they will have access to turn our country into a single-party government forever.
> 
> So if you are white and vote Democrat, you are about the dumbest MF in the country, because you are voting for a party that's trying to wipe YOU out for power.
Click to expand...

If you make less than$250,000 and vote GOP, you are a brainwashed idiot. In fact, if you vote for the lying thieving GOP anyway, ditto.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pass the 2010 democratic comprehensive immigration bill with a good SS ID card and end this GOP klusterfuk, brainwashed functional moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF do you come here and repeat the same shit over and over again?  We got you the last nine times you posted that stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Truth continues to be repetitive. As opposed to your endlessly entertaining and changing GOP propaganda, super duper dupe. And of course you doops don't know Anything about anything, just pure garbage and Hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical brainwashed response LOL so you believe Democrats are for open borders, super duper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I do.  You (as a leftist) fail to look for the man behind the curtain.
> 
> The goal of the left is to wipe out white people; not in a genocidal way, but in a political way.
> 
> Every other group of people outside of whites vote a majority Democrat.  The Asians vote a majority Democrat, the middle-east people vote a majority Democrat, the Hispanics vote a majority Democrat, the Jewish vote a majority Democrat, the blacks...........forget about it.
> 
> Once they are able to make whites a minority in this country for the first time, they will have access to turn our country into a single-party government forever.
> 
> So if you are white and vote Democrat, you are about the dumbest MF in the country, because you are voting for a party that's trying to wipe YOU out for power.
Click to expand...

You are insane LOL, conspiracy Nut Job brainwashed functional racist moron.


----------



## AZGAL

Although there may be statistics that show certain groups vote "majority Democrat" the hope is that the parties will evolve to represent everyone for a more unified nation. The USA does not need to be torn apart from ongoing internal strife.


----------



## AZGAL

Hillary was not calling for "open borders" for simply trade - liar liar. You know and we all know she made speeches to push for open borders for unregulated immigration. And you Franco keep repeating over and over some defunct Democrat "Immigration reform of 2010"...


----------



## AZGAL

I believe that the Honduran "caravan" has been effective in getting some people asylum in the USA. They use prayer and non violence.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

AZGAL said:


> Although there may be statistics that show certain groups vote "majority Democrat" the hope is that the parties will evolve to represent everyone for a more unified nation. The USA does not need to be torn apart from ongoing internal strife.



Not really because that's not what the Democrats want.  They want very little opposition and the ability to control the entire country.  

This is why they fought Kate's Law, the border, sanctuary cities.  Their plot is to get as many of these illegals living in the country as possible, and if they ever gain enough power again, grant blanket citizenship.  With citizenship comes the right to vote, and they know who these people will vote for.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF do you come here and repeat the same shit over and over again?  We got you the last nine times you posted that stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> Truth continues to be repetitive. As opposed to your endlessly entertaining and changing GOP propaganda, super duper dupe. And of course you doops don't know Anything about anything, just pure garbage and Hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical brainwashed response LOL so you believe Democrats are for open borders, super duper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I do.  You (as a leftist) fail to look for the man behind the curtain.
> 
> The goal of the left is to wipe out white people; not in a genocidal way, but in a political way.
> 
> Every other group of people outside of whites vote a majority Democrat.  The Asians vote a majority Democrat, the middle-east people vote a majority Democrat, the Hispanics vote a majority Democrat, the Jewish vote a majority Democrat, the blacks...........forget about it.
> 
> Once they are able to make whites a minority in this country for the first time, they will have access to turn our country into a single-party government forever.
> 
> So if you are white and vote Democrat, you are about the dumbest MF in the country, because you are voting for a party that's trying to wipe YOU out for power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are insane LOL, conspiracy Nut Job brainwashed functional racist moron.
Click to expand...


And you are a blind as a bat troll.


----------



## deanrd

When children and mothers are running from mortal danger, to send them back to a possible death sentence is only something a monster or a Republican can do.  I can't see Democrats indulging in such nastiness, can you?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF do you come here and repeat the same shit over and over again?  We got you the last nine times you posted that stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> Truth continues to be repetitive. As opposed to your endlessly entertaining and changing GOP propaganda, super duper dupe. And of course you doops don't know Anything about anything, just pure garbage and Hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical brainwashed response LOL so you believe Democrats are for open borders, super duper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I do.  You (as a leftist) fail to look for the man behind the curtain.
> 
> The goal of the left is to wipe out white people; not in a genocidal way, but in a political way.
> 
> Every other group of people outside of whites vote a majority Democrat.  The Asians vote a majority Democrat, the middle-east people vote a majority Democrat, the Hispanics vote a majority Democrat, the Jewish vote a majority Democrat, the blacks...........forget about it.
> 
> Once they are able to make whites a minority in this country for the first time, they will have access to turn our country into a single-party government forever.
> 
> So if you are white and vote Democrat, you are about the dumbest MF in the country, because you are voting for a party that's trying to wipe YOU out for power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you make less than$250,000 and vote GOP, you are a brainwashed idiot. In fact, if you vote for the lying thieving GOP anyway, ditto.
Click to expand...


Under DumBama I lost money--a lot of money.  Now I'm not losing that money anymore, and gaining more money in my paycheck every two weeks.  And according to my tax preparer, I"m in for a windfall for my 2018 tax returns thanks to Trump. 

So who's the brainwashed idiot now?


----------



## AZGAL

Way liberal Dimocrats keep the guilt trip engines going through fake tearjerker melodramatic statements and misleading fake news. I can and I do see the Democrat party at the height of corruption and willing to sell out their countrymen/people to an invasion of drug smuggling invaders whose language and cultures are unlike our own. Most disgusting is how Democrats have pushed many Americans into poverty and the streets. Children and women are running from mortal danger right here. Mothers and fathers are watching their children die of heroin and fentanyl overdoses. The Democrats sideswiped a legitimate candidate from his campaign= Sanders, and lie, lie, lie their pants off in hopes they can fool the American people out of their homeland. Democrat media is stranger than the National Enquirer. The MSM would do better writing soap operas than attempting to tell the "news" as they are incapable of anything but blatant manipulation of citizens.


----------



## protectionist

francoHFW said:


> The GOP doesn't give a damn except around elections and during one of their corrupt economic meltdowns. The Democrats want a solution. 2010 immigration bill with good SSID card ends this crap. Nothing else does. You brainwashed morons think the Democrats want open borders. Incredible idiocy. Hillary was talking about trade only someday. Typical of how you know absolutely nothing.


I challenge you to show how a Social Security card (probably easily falsified) does ANYTHING. (other than allow illegals to stay here and VOTE for Democrats)

Also, you really think anybody is going to think that Democrats don't want open borders, when they vote 99% for sanctuary cities ?  Is there a doctor in the house ?


----------



## protectionist

francoHFW said:


> So it is not Democrats but the courts, super duper. And no it is not a conspiracy LOL.



Nice try.  LOL

Democrats vote to defend sanctuary cities, block mandatory jail time for repeat illegals

Democrats block vote on sanctuary cities


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth continues to be repetitive. As opposed to your endlessly entertaining and changing GOP propaganda, super duper dupe. And of course you doops don't know Anything about anything, just pure garbage and Hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical brainwashed response LOL so you believe Democrats are for open borders, super duper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I do.  You (as a leftist) fail to look for the man behind the curtain.
> 
> The goal of the left is to wipe out white people; not in a genocidal way, but in a political way.
> 
> Every other group of people outside of whites vote a majority Democrat.  The Asians vote a majority Democrat, the middle-east people vote a majority Democrat, the Hispanics vote a majority Democrat, the Jewish vote a majority Democrat, the blacks...........forget about it.
> 
> Once they are able to make whites a minority in this country for the first time, they will have access to turn our country into a single-party government forever.
> 
> So if you are white and vote Democrat, you are about the dumbest MF in the country, because you are voting for a party that's trying to wipe YOU out for power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you make less than$250,000 and vote GOP, you are a brainwashed idiot. In fact, if you vote for the lying thieving GOP anyway, ditto.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under DumBama I lost money--a lot of money.  Now I'm not losing that money anymore, and gaining more money in my paycheck every two weeks.  And according to my tax preparer, I"m in for a windfall for my 2018 tax returns thanks to Trump.
> 
> So who's the brainwashed idiot now?
Click to expand...

Why did you lose money under Obama? Actually because the GOP blocked lower taxes for you and benefits and services. Keep an eye out on your state and local taxes and fees which kill the non-rich, because federal aid just went down. And of course your tax cuts end in 5 years while the the richest keep them forever. Don't worry about the continuing ruin of the middle class and the working class and the infrastructure of the country... Tariffs will hit you too now. Enjoy!


----------



## francoHFW

AZGAL said:


> Hillary was not calling for "open borders" for simply trade - liar liar. You know and we all know she made speeches to push for open borders for unregulated immigration. And you Franco keep repeating over and over some defunct Democrat "Immigration reform of 2010"...


It's all ready to pass, d****** dupe. Don't worry about history, just keep voting for the party of the greedy idiot lying rich, brainwashed functional moron. She made one speech in Brazil to bankers about having a dream about open borders for trade and you are brainwashed, super duper.


----------



## AZGAL

SOROS OPEN BORDERS


----------



## francoHFW

protectionist said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it is not Democrats but the courts, super duper. And no it is not a conspiracy LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try.  LOL
> 
> Democrats vote to defend sanctuary cities, block mandatory jail time for repeat illegals
> 
> Democrats block vote on sanctuary cities
Click to expand...

You lost that argument on immigrant children stupid. Yes Democrats vote for sanctuaries because it's the smart thing to do. Unless you're a racist fascist... Pass a comprehensive bill with a good SS ID card, you incredible dupe.


----------



## francoHFW

AZGAL said:


> SOROS OPEN BORDERS


Link to anything like that, super dupe dingbat?


----------



## AZGAL

You are the Supreme Dupe Dingbat Franco because you have no knowledge of history.


----------



## francoHFW

francoHFW said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it is not Democrats but the courts, super duper. And no it is not a conspiracy LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try.  LOL
> 
> Democrats vote to defend sanctuary cities, block mandatory jail time for repeat illegals
> 
> Democrats block vote on sanctuary cities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lost that argument on immigrant children stupid. Yes Democrats vote for sanctuaries because it's the smart thing to do. Unless you're a racist fascist... Pass a comprehensive bill with a good SS ID card, you incredible dupe.
Click to expand...

Try quoting what we were arguing about... Are you a liar congratulations just like Rush and Sean etc etc


----------



## francoHFW

AZGAL said:


> You are the Supreme Dupe Dingbat Franco because you have no knowledge of history.


I have a masters in history, silly girl.


----------



## francoHFW

AZGAL said:


> Way liberal Dimocrats keep the guilt trip engines going through fake tearjerker melodramatic statements and misleading fake news. I can and I do see the Democrat party at the height of corruption and willing to sell out their countrymen/people to an invasion of drug smuggling invaders whose language and cultures are unlike our own. Most disgusting is how Democrats have pushed many Americans into poverty and the streets. Children and women are running from mortal danger right here. Mothers and fathers are watching their children die of heroin and fentanyl overdoses. The Democrats sideswiped a legitimate candidate from his campaign= Sanders, and lie, lie, lie their pants off in hopes they can fool the American people out of their homeland. Democrat media is stranger than the National Enquirer. The MSM would do better writing soap operas than attempting to tell the "news" as they are incapable of anything but blatant manipulation of citizens.


Funny how no Democrats get arrested, isn't it silly dupe conspiracy Nut Job. Change the channel icaramba


----------



## AZGAL




----------



## francoHFW

francoHFW said:


> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary was not calling for "open borders" for simply trade - liar liar. You know and we all know she made speeches to push for open borders for unregulated immigration. And you Franco keep repeating over and over some defunct Democrat "Immigration reform of 2010"...
> 
> 
> 
> It's all ready to pass, d****** dupe. Don't worry about history, just keep voting for the party of the greedy idiot lying rich, brainwashed functional moron. She made one speech in Brazil to bankers about having a dream about open borders for trade and you are brainwashed, super duper.
Click to expand...

Let's have a link 2 Hillary wanting open immigration... You believe so much crap. Typical GOP voter.


----------



## AZGAL

If you have a Masters in anything, then I am the Pope.


----------



## francoHFW

AZGAL said:


> View attachment 197265


That's more your level. Go back to Facebook and talk about Hillary's pedophile pizza ring and how Soros is a Nazi... Please change the channel...


----------



## francoHFW

AZGAL said:


> If you have a Masters in anything, then I am the Pope.


University of Rochester 1990 plus I read history all the time...


----------



## AZGAL

*Hillary Advocates Wide Open Borders – Says World has a “RIGHT” to Immigrate to the USA*
Breaking News By TruthFeedNews September 23, 2016

"Shortly after Trump’s speech, the Clinton campaign in Ohio tweeted out the story of a Libyan who came to the Unites States on a student visa in 1994, was not able to renew it, and simply stayed in the country illegally. He didn’t exactly live in the shadows, settling in Dayton and founding the Islamic Federation of Ohio and the Islamic Center for Peace. After two decades, he received permanent residency in 2015. In the story, headlined “Donald Trump would have kicked my family out of the country,” the man’s son, whose name was given as Mohamed G., wrote, “There was no way that I could let a person that disrespects my father and other immigrants win the White House.”

On Monday, the Clinton Ohio campaign tweeted Mohamed G.’s picture with Trump’s quote, “No one has the right to immigrate to this country.” The campaign added the comment: “We disagree.”"


----------



## AZGAL

*George Soros has pumped $18 billion into Open Society Foundations ...*
www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-george-soros-foundation-20171017-story.html
Oct 17, 2017 - George *Soros* is founder and chairman of the *Open* Society Foundations. ... backer of liberal causes and candidates, including *Hillary Clinton*.


----------



## AZGAL

Hillary Clinton is announcing a call to citizenship for millions of immigrants as the immigration landscape shapes up for presidential candidates. What is holding back immigration's overhaul?
             Laura Meckler


The Wall Street Journal
@laurameckler 

LAS VEGAS—Hillary Clinton, bidding to maintain Democratic dominance among Hispanic voters, said Tuesday she would work to expand President Barack Obama’s executive actions protecting people in the U.S. illegally from deportation, and push for legislation including a path to citizenship.


----------



## AZGAL




----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the option to throw the children in jail with the parents? Family unification. No more tears.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if we just throw them all out, the families could stay together that way.
Click to expand...

*In 2016, Obama deported 240,000. In 2017, Trump deported 226,000.  At the rate we're deporting, it would take 53 years to deport all 12 million undocumented immigrants and that assumes we have no new arrivals. 

Most of Trump deportations have come near the boarder. As we move away from the border the story gets even worse. 80% of the deportations have come from within 30 miles of the boarder.  These are the easy ones to deport because most of them are new arrivals and are not overstaying visas so the president can use expedited deportation.  However, most of the undocumented immigrants in the country are deeper into the interior.  Many are in sanctuary cities where there is less cooperation with ICE.  Most of them don't qualify for expedited removal.   

Unless we change the law, the 4 to 6 million that overstayed their visas have to be handled in immigration court where each person get's a hearing and they have the right to have their case reviewed by a panel of judges.  Many also have legal council, unlike expedite removal.  Currently it is taking months to years to deport these people.  

The bottom line is what we are doing is not working and you have a president that is zealously deporting everyone he can as fast as he can.  What do you think will happen when a democrat is in the white house or congress is controlled by democrats where unlike Trump they would be very concerned with the rights and welfare of the detainees?

We need to look at a plan that at lease has a chance of working because what we are doing now will never work.*


----------



## francoHFW

AZGAL said:


> *George Soros has pumped $18 billion into Open Society Foundations ...*
> www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-george-soros-foundation-20171017-story.html
> Oct 17, 2017 - George *Soros* is founder and chairman of the *Open* Society Foundations. ... backer of liberal causes and candidates, including *Hillary Clinton*.


The open Society is about propagating democracy and transparency around the world. Has nothing to do with immigration. Brainwashed!


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although there may be statistics that show certain groups vote "majority Democrat" the hope is that the parties will evolve to represent everyone for a more unified nation. The USA does not need to be torn apart from ongoing internal strife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really because that's not what the Democrats want.  They want very little opposition and the ability to control the entire country.
> 
> This is why they fought Kate's Law, the border, sanctuary cities.  Their plot is to get as many of these illegals living in the country as possible, and if they ever gain enough power again, grant blanket citizenship.  With citizenship comes the right to vote, and they know who these people will vote for.
Click to expand...


It is reported that 1 out of 4 AMERICAN kids are Hispanic.  In the future, how do you think they'll vote?


----------



## francoHFW

AZGAL said:


> Hillary Clinton is announcing a call to citizenship for millions of immigrants as the immigration landscape shapes up for presidential candidates. What is holding back immigration's overhaul?
> Laura Meckler
> 
> 
> The Wall Street Journal
> @laurameckler
> 
> LAS VEGAS—Hillary Clinton, bidding to maintain Democratic dominance among Hispanic voters, said Tuesday she would work to expand President Barack Obama’s executive actions protecting people in the U.S. illegally from deportation, and push for legislation including a path to citizenship.


And pass a goddamn plan to stop more from coming, not a stupid useless wall... Laura meckler is a liar and Spinner, super duper.


----------



## JBond

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


This post is idiotic...not sure where to start. Obama policies in place? Safety of children from human sex traffickers?  Drugs?


----------



## protectionist

francoHFW said:


> Don't worry about the continuing ruin of the middle class and the working class and the infrastructure of the country... Tariffs will hit you too now. Enjoy!


_"Continuing ruin of the middle class and the working class" ? _HA HA HA. I told you guys that liberals are daf.  Told'ja!


----------



## francoHFW

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although there may be statistics that show certain groups vote "majority Democrat" the hope is that the parties will evolve to represent everyone for a more unified nation. The USA does not need to be torn apart from ongoing internal strife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really because that's not what the Democrats want.  They want very little opposition and the ability to control the entire country.
> 
> This is why they fought Kate's Law, the border, sanctuary cities.  Their plot is to get as many of these illegals living in the country as possible, and if they ever gain enough power again, grant blanket citizenship.  With citizenship comes the right to vote, and they know who these people will vote for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is reported that 1 out of 4 AMERICAN kids are Hispanic.  In the future, how do you think they'll vote?
Click to expand...

They and blacks are natural Republicans but they know the GOP is full of racists and bigots. Tough luck.


----------



## francoHFW

protectionist said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry about the continuing ruin of the middle class and the working class and the infrastructure of the country... Tariffs will hit you too now. Enjoy!
> 
> 
> 
> _"Continuing ruin of the middle class and the working class" ? _HA HA HA. I told you guys that liberals are daf.  Told'ja!
Click to expand...

Yes the unemployment rate continues to go down icaramba. I'm talking about 35 years of GOP give away to the rich and cuts for the rest. This is GOP rule at work.


Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

*1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.*

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105%  – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 =  96%
2007 =  92%

*A 13% drop since 1980*

*2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.*

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

*An increase of 16% since Reagan.*

*3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.*

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

*A 12.3% drop after Reagan.*

*4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.*

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

*5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.*

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

*A 5.6 times increase.*

*6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.*

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 =  6%
1990 =  3%
2000 =  2%

*A 10% Decrease.*

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = The Fed - Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 - Current Release
5/6 = http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts


----------



## candycorn

francoHFW said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although there may be statistics that show certain groups vote "majority Democrat" the hope is that the parties will evolve to represent everyone for a more unified nation. The USA does not need to be torn apart from ongoing internal strife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really because that's not what the Democrats want.  They want very little opposition and the ability to control the entire country.
> 
> This is why they fought Kate's Law, the border, sanctuary cities.  Their plot is to get as many of these illegals living in the country as possible, and if they ever gain enough power again, grant blanket citizenship.  With citizenship comes the right to vote, and they know who these people will vote for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is reported that 1 out of 4 AMERICAN kids are Hispanic.  In the future, how do you think they'll vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They and blacks are natural Republicans but they know the GOP is full of racists and bigots. Tough luck.
Click to expand...


It is perplexing.  They haven't won a popular vote since 2004 and haven't won a popular vote when they were not the incumbent since 1988.  As  Hispanic immigrants move from the South up into the northern reaches of the country (Where "we don't get many Hispanics" as the INS guy put it before he detained two women in Montana if memory serves), the carefully gerrymandered districts become vulnerable.  

Whether the Democrats can hold on to the Hispanic vote is another question all together--nobody snatches defeat from the jaws of victory like a DEM.  But the GOP is not doing itself any favors.


----------



## OKTexas

francoHFW said:


> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a Masters in anything, then I am the Pope.
> 
> 
> 
> University of Rochester 1990 plus I read history all the time...
Click to expand...



If only you could retain some of it. LOL


.


----------



## protectionist

francoHFW said:


> Let's have a link 2 Hillary wanting open immigration... You believe so much crap. Typical GOP voter.


Are you for real ?















Hillary Clinton: U.S. should take 65,000 Syrian refugees

Clinton Says Taking in Refugees Is 'Who We Are as Americans'


----------



## protectionist

candycorn said:


> It is perplexing.  They haven't won a popular vote since 2004 and haven't won a popular vote when they were not the incumbent since 1988.  As  Hispanic immigrants move from the South up into the northern reaches of the country (Where "we don't get many Hispanics" as the INS guy put it before he detained two women in Montana if memory serves), the carefully gerrymandered districts become vulnerable.
> 
> Whether the Democrats can hold on to the Hispanic vote is another question all together--nobody snatches defeat from the jaws of victory like a DEM.  But the GOP is not doing itself any favors.


Trump won the AMERICAN popular vote. Illegals are going home.  2020 is >> $ MORE YEARS.


----------



## protectionist

candycorn said:


> It is reported that 1 out of 4 AMERICAN kids are Hispanic.  In the future, how do you think they'll vote?


GOP


----------



## protectionist

francoHFW said:


> Yes the unemployment rate continues to go down icaramba. I'm talking about 35 years of GOP give away to the rich and cuts for the rest. This is GOP rule at work.
> 
> 
> Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
> 
> *1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.*
> 
> Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
> 
> But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):
> 
> 1950 = 101%
> 1960 = 105%
> 1970 = 105%
> 1980 = 105%  – Reagan
> 1990 = 100%
> 2000 =  96%
> 2007 =  92%
> 
> *A 13% drop since 1980*
> 
> *2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.*
> 
> Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
> 
> 1950 = 35%
> 1960 = 34%
> 1970 = 34%
> 1980 = 34% – Reagan
> 1990 = 40%
> 2000 = 47%
> 2007 = 50%
> 
> *An increase of 16% since Reagan.*
> 
> *3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.*
> 
> The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
> 
> 1950 = 6.0%
> 1960 = 7.0%
> 1970 = 8.5%
> 1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
> 1982 = 11.2% – Peak
> 1990 = 7.0%
> 2000 = 2.0%
> 2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
> 
> *A 12.3% drop after Reagan.*
> 
> *4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.*
> 
> Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
> 
> 1965 = 46%
> 1970 = 45%
> 1980 = 50% – Reagan
> 1990 = 61%
> 2000 = 69%
> 2007 = 95%
> 
> A 45% increase after 1980.
> 
> *5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.*
> 
> Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
> and the bottom 80%:
> 
> 1980 = 10%
> 2003 = 56%
> 
> *A 5.6 times increase.*
> 
> *6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.*
> 
> The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:
> 
> 1945 = 12%
> 1958 =  6%
> 1990 =  3%
> 2000 =  2%
> 
> *A 10% Decrease.*
> 
> Links:
> 
> 1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
> 1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
> 1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
> 2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
> 3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
> 3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
> 4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
> 4 = The Fed - Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 - Current Release
> 5/6 = http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts


These stats are old and don't include Trump era.  Example > the Business Insider link is from 2010.  Guess who was POTUS then.

Half of the links aren't functional.  Others don't connect to what you wrote.


----------



## francoHFW

OKTexas said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a Masters in anything, then I am the Pope.
> 
> 
> 
> University of Rochester 1990 plus I read history all the time...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If only you could retain some of it. LOL
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

At the moment it comes down to knowing what facts are and which is propaganda, GOP propaganda of course. Did you notice no one in the world agrees with your BS?


----------



## Slyhunter

AZGAL said:


> True asylum seeking reform is something I do support.


Why we need to limit immigration to a trickle.
Our level of living will degrade the more immigrants we allow in. Like Pouring water into a bottle of alcohol. A little doesn't hurt.


----------



## francoHFW

protectionist said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the unemployment rate continues to go down icaramba. I'm talking about 35 years of GOP give away to the rich and cuts for the rest. This is GOP rule at work.
> 
> 
> Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
> 
> *1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.*
> 
> Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
> 
> But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):
> 
> 1950 = 101%
> 1960 = 105%
> 1970 = 105%
> 1980 = 105%  – Reagan
> 1990 = 100%
> 2000 =  96%
> 2007 =  92%
> 
> *A 13% drop since 1980*
> 
> *2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.*
> 
> Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
> 
> 1950 = 35%
> 1960 = 34%
> 1970 = 34%
> 1980 = 34% – Reagan
> 1990 = 40%
> 2000 = 47%
> 2007 = 50%
> 
> *An increase of 16% since Reagan.*
> 
> *3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.*
> 
> The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
> 
> 1950 = 6.0%
> 1960 = 7.0%
> 1970 = 8.5%
> 1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
> 1982 = 11.2% – Peak
> 1990 = 7.0%
> 2000 = 2.0%
> 2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
> 
> *A 12.3% drop after Reagan.*
> 
> *4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.*
> 
> Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
> 
> 1965 = 46%
> 1970 = 45%
> 1980 = 50% – Reagan
> 1990 = 61%
> 2000 = 69%
> 2007 = 95%
> 
> A 45% increase after 1980.
> 
> *5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.*
> 
> Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
> and the bottom 80%:
> 
> 1980 = 10%
> 2003 = 56%
> 
> *A 5.6 times increase.*
> 
> *6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.*
> 
> The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:
> 
> 1945 = 12%
> 1958 =  6%
> 1990 =  3%
> 2000 =  2%
> 
> *A 10% Decrease.*
> 
> Links:
> 
> 1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
> 1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
> 1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
> 2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
> 3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
> 3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
> 4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
> 4 = The Fed - Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 - Current Release
> 5/6 = http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts
> 
> 
> 
> These stats are old and don't include Trump era.  Example > the Business Insider link is from 2010.  Guess who was POTUS then.
> 
> Half of the links aren't functional.  Others don't connect to what you wrote.
Click to expand...

Look at number 3 and number 4. These are facts and things just keep getting worse with GOP tax rates and policy. Trump hasn't done anything except another giveaway to the rich. Unemployment have been improving since 2010.


----------



## francoHFW

Slyhunter said:


> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> True asylum seeking reform is something I do support.
> 
> 
> 
> Why we need to limit immigration to a trickle.
> Our level of living will degrade the more immigrants we allow in. Like Pouring water into a bottle of alcohol. A little doesn't hurt.
Click to expand...

I agree too damn many people... GOP ideas won't work. SSID card with chip for all.


----------



## francoHFW

protectionist said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's have a link 2 Hillary wanting open immigration... You believe so much crap. Typical GOP voter.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for real ?
> 
> View attachment 197277
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary Clinton: U.S. should take 65,000 Syrian refugees
> 
> Clinton Says Taking in Refugees Is 'Who We Are as Americans'
Click to expand...

Your boy bush caused the wreck of the Middle East. Refugees are as scary as kittens. Europe took 5  million and no problem. They just want to go back to Syria. Great job GOP. The World depression of 2008 was great too. Republicans suck. Brainwashed.


----------



## protectionist

francoHFW said:


> Look at number 3 and number 4. These are facts and things just keep getting worse with GOP tax rates and policy. Trump hasn't done anything except another giveaway to the rich. Unemployment have been improving since 2010.


Look at them, why ? They are all old, from past decades of globalist GOP.  The GOP is not that anymore. It is NATIONALIST now - a completely different thing.

And Trump DID do something, he's has brought *the economy* back from a downslide of Obama's last year.  Even Democrats admit the economy has been booming, and Republicans have the momentum going into the 2018 elections.

There has been a dramatic change in the generic polling for Congress. Republicans now lead Democrats by 1 point, according to Reuters. Moreover, there has been a dramatic improvement in President Trump’s approval rating, with the Real Clear Average now up to 44 percent.


----------



## francoHFW

protectionist said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at number 3 and number 4. These are facts and things just keep getting worse with GOP tax rates and policy. Trump hasn't done anything except another giveaway to the rich. Unemployment have been improving since 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> Look at them, why ? They are all old, from past decades of globalist GOP.  The GOP is not that anymore. It is NATIONALIST now - a completely different thing.
> 
> And Trump DID do something, he's has brought *the economy* back from a downslide of Obama's last year.  Even Democrats admit the economy has been booming, and Republicans have the momentum going into the 2018 elections.
> 
> There has been a dramatic change in the generic polling for Congress. Republicans now lead Democrats by 1 point, according to Reuters. Moreover, there has been a dramatic improvement in President Trump’s approval rating, with the Real Clear Average now up to 44 percent.
Click to expand...

I hope you're right... We shall see... But so far no change from George bush in results. Globalism is not a conspiracy, it's just natural. But we need investment in training and education and our people to get the good jobs Germany Etc now are. Just more dumb GOP stuff LOL...


----------



## francoHFW

protectionist said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP doesn't give a damn except around elections and during one of their corrupt economic meltdowns. The Democrats want a solution. 2010 immigration bill with good SSID card ends this crap. Nothing else does. You brainwashed morons think the Democrats want open borders. Incredible idiocy. Hillary was talking about trade only someday. Typical of how you know absolutely nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show how a Social Security card (probably easily falsified) does ANYTHING. (other than allow illegals to stay here and VOTE for Democrats)
> 
> Also, you really think anybody is going to think that Democrats don't want open borders, when they vote 99% for sanctuary cities ?  Is there a doctor in the house ?
Click to expand...

The problem can be solved with computer chips. Sanctuary cities mean that illegal people report crimes, get car insurance and licenses d u h. We have to explain everything to you dupes... Change Channel


----------



## protectionist

francoHFW said:


> The problem can be solved with computer chips. Sanctuary cities mean that illegal people report crimes, get car insurance and licenses d u h. We have to explain everything to you dupes... Change Channel


You're not "explaining", you're bullshitting, to a high degree. A computer chip doesn't show that somebody is eligible to vote, I've already explained to you what does do that.

Sanctuary cities protect illegal aliens from deortation so they can remain here and VOTE for Democrats.  Duh!


----------



## protectionist

francoHFW said:


> I hope you're right... We shall see... But so far no change from George bush in results. Globalism is not a conspiracy, it's just natural. But we need investment in training and education and our people to get the good jobs Germany Etc now are. Just more dumb GOP stuff LOL...


whocares about George Bush.? I hathim. he'sn immirationist, a Muslim ass-kisser, and a globalist fool.


----------



## protectionist

francoHFW said:


> Your boy bush caused the wreck of the Middle East. Refugees are as scary as kittens. Europe took 5  million and no problem. They just want to go back to Syria. Great job GOP. The World depression of 2008 was great too. Republicans suck. Brainwashed.


_"no problem"_ ?  Whaaaaat ???  Europe is a trn wreck from those goofball Mslims they took. Oh that;s right - you watch CNN, I forgot.

And Bush can kiss my ass.


----------



## Coyote

JBond said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> This post is idiotic...not sure where to start. Obama policies in place? Safety of children from human sex traffickers?  Drugs?
Click to expand...


The policy in question here:  100% seperation of children at the border.

What Obama did is irrelevant, that wasn’t the Administration policy then,  it is new.  Strike one.

Human trafficking is a valid concern and agents have always been able to seperate children if they suspect it.  No argument from me there.  However, that is not the reason they are in acting this policy.  Kelly directly stated it was to be a deterrent.  John Kelly: It's not 'cruel' to separate families at the border — children will be 'put into foster care or whatever'
Strike 2.

Drugs....not sure how that is relevant unless the individuals are carrying caught carrying drugs, then of it isn’t just illegal immigration, it is drug trafficking, which again does not require removing children of all.  Strike 3.


----------



## Coyote

AZGAL said:


> *Hillary Advocates Wide Open Borders – Says World has a “RIGHT” to Immigrate to the USA*
> Breaking News By TruthFeedNews September 23, 2016
> 
> "Shortly after Trump’s speech, the Clinton campaign in Ohio tweeted out the story of a Libyan who came to the Unites States on a student visa in 1994, was not able to renew it, and simply stayed in the country illegally. He didn’t exactly live in the shadows, settling in Dayton and founding the Islamic Federation of Ohio and the Islamic Center for Peace. After two decades, he received permanent residency in 2015. In the story, headlined “Donald Trump would have kicked my family out of the country,” the man’s son, whose name was given as Mohamed G., wrote, “There was no way that I could let a person that disrespects my father and other immigrants win the White House.”
> 
> On Monday, the Clinton Ohio campaign tweeted Mohamed G.’s picture with Trump’s quote, “No one has the right to immigrate to this country.” The campaign added the comment: “We disagree.”"


That isn’t calling for open borders.  Talk about distortion.


----------



## Kondor3

Coyote said:


> JBond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> This post is idiotic...not sure where to start. Obama policies in place? Safety of children from human sex traffickers?  Drugs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The policy in question here:  100% seperation of children at the border.
> 
> What Obama did is irrelevant, that wasn’t the Administration policy then,  it is new.  Strike one.
> 
> Human trafficking is a valid concern and agents have always been able to seperate children if they suspect it.  No argument from me there.  However, that is not the reason they are in acting this policy.  Kelly directly stated it was to be a deterrent.  John Kelly: It's not 'cruel' to separate families at the border — children will be 'put into foster care or whatever'
> Strike 2.
> 
> Drugs....not sure how that is relevant unless the individuals are carrying caught carrying drugs, then of it isn’t just illegal immigration, it is drug trafficking, which again does not require removing children of all.  Strike 3.
Click to expand...

The present administration's approach to separating Illegal Alien adults from children during criminal processing is both in compliance with US law and entirely correct.

Those not wishing to expose their children to such separation should not cross onto (nor overstay upon) United States soil without our express prior consent.






 "..._Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time... no, no... don't do it_..."


----------



## Coyote

Kondor3 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> This post is idiotic...not sure where to start. Obama policies in place? Safety of children from human sex traffickers?  Drugs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The policy in question here:  100% seperation of children at the border.
> 
> What Obama did is irrelevant, that wasn’t the Administration policy then,  it is new.  Strike one.
> 
> Human trafficking is a valid concern and agents have always been able to seperate children if they suspect it.  No argument from me there.  However, that is not the reason they are in acting this policy.  Kelly directly stated it was to be a deterrent.  John Kelly: It's not 'cruel' to separate families at the border — children will be 'put into foster care or whatever'
> Strike 2.
> 
> Drugs....not sure how that is relevant unless the individuals are carrying caught carrying drugs, then of it isn’t just illegal immigration, it is drug trafficking, which again does not require removing children of all.  Strike 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The present administration's approach to separating Illegal Alien adults from children during criminal processing is both in compliance with US law and entirely correct.
> 
> Those not wishing to expose their children to such separation should not cross onto (nor overstay upon) United States soil without our express prior consent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time... no, no... don't do it_..."
Click to expand...


Agencies have always been able to exercise discretion, Trump included.


----------



## Cecilie1200

francoHFW said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not without a change in the law, because whether the no-short-term-memory left recalls it or not, THEY pitched a hissy and insisted that children should not be detained.
> 
> 
> 
> Link to that GOP BS propaganda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judge Orders Release of Immigrant Kids from ICE Detention Centers
> 
> Amazing what you can learn when you're not wasting time trying to find validation for your butthurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it is not Democrats but the courts, super duper. And no it is not a conspiracy LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It never ceases to amaze me that you get dumber with every post.  You'd think I'd be used to it by now.
> 
> You think that judge just pulled this out of her ass, moron?  She was ruling on a case, brought by leftist organizations, and referring to another case, ALSO brought by leftist organizations.  And at the time, every leftist commentator in the country was cheering for the decision, which you NOW consider the height of cruelty.
> 
> The original Flores settlement, insisting that unaccompanies minors who crossed the border could not be detained, was brought by the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law and the National Center for Youth Law, aided and abetted by the ACLU of Southern California.  In 2015, those same people - with the addition of some other left-leaning groups - got the Flores settlement extended to accompanied minors, again to the cheering of leftists everywhere.
> 
> Oh, also, Judge Dolly Gee, from that article?  Obama appointee in the Central District of California.  What are the odds she's a rock-ribbed Republican?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, no appeal by the GOP side? I'll go with our courts, not your lying BS propaganda
Click to expand...


"Appeal by the GOP side"?  No idea what you're babbling about.  The case was brought against the government.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AZGAL said:


> Hillary was not calling for "open borders" for simply trade - liar liar. You know and we all know she made speeches to push for open borders for unregulated immigration. And you Franco keep repeating over and over some defunct Democrat "Immigration reform of 2010"...



"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, sometime in the future with energy that's as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere."
Will Hillary explain her dream of 'open borders'?

If all she wanted was open trade, why did she say "open trade AND open borders"?

“You can count on me to defend President Obama’s executive actions on DACA and DAPA when I am president."  Which is repeated on her own website.
Immigration reform - The Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton

Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that she would not deport illegal children or aliens that do not have criminal records — and "I do not want to deport family members, either."
Read Newsmax: Hillary: I Will Not Deport Illegal Children, Family Members | Newsmax.com 

"And the result is that we have the most secure border we have ever had," she said. "Which just strengthens my argument that now it is time to do comprehensive immigration reform." 

"We have a secure border," she urged. "There's no need for this rhetoric and demagoguery that still is carried out on the Republican side. You've run out of excuses. Let's move to comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship."
Hillary Clinton: We Have Secured The Border, Now Let's Get on With Immigration Reform

If she's not a fan of open borders, why did she keep talking about open-border policies?


----------



## Cecilie1200

AZGAL said:


> If you have a Masters in anything, then I am the Pope.



He might.  There are a lot of very silly, ignorant people in the ivory towers of academia, people who have advanced degrees and who, when it rains, have to be watched so they don't look up to see where the water's coming from and drown, like turkeys.


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although there may be statistics that show certain groups vote "majority Democrat" the hope is that the parties will evolve to represent everyone for a more unified nation. The USA does not need to be torn apart from ongoing internal strife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really because that's not what the Democrats want.  They want very little opposition and the ability to control the entire country.
> 
> This is why they fought Kate's Law, the border, sanctuary cities.  Their plot is to get as many of these illegals living in the country as possible, and if they ever gain enough power again, grant blanket citizenship.  With citizenship comes the right to vote, and they know who these people will vote for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is reported that 1 out of 4 AMERICAN kids are Hispanic.  In the future, how do you think they'll vote?
Click to expand...


Depends entirely on how long Democrats continue to tack hard left and act like a bunch of screaming loonies.

Unlike leftists, I don't think "Hispanic" means "gullible and ignorant".


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although there may be statistics that show certain groups vote "majority Democrat" the hope is that the parties will evolve to represent everyone for a more unified nation. The USA does not need to be torn apart from ongoing internal strife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really because that's not what the Democrats want.  They want very little opposition and the ability to control the entire country.
> 
> This is why they fought Kate's Law, the border, sanctuary cities.  Their plot is to get as many of these illegals living in the country as possible, and if they ever gain enough power again, grant blanket citizenship.  With citizenship comes the right to vote, and they know who these people will vote for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is reported that 1 out of 4 AMERICAN kids are Hispanic.  In the future, how do you think they'll vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They and blacks are natural Republicans but they know the GOP is full of racists and bigots. Tough luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is perplexing.  They haven't won a popular vote since 2004 and haven't won a popular vote when they were not the incumbent since 1988.  As  Hispanic immigrants move from the South up into the northern reaches of the country (Where "we don't get many Hispanics" as the INS guy put it before he detained two women in Montana if memory serves), the carefully gerrymandered districts become vulnerable.
> 
> Whether the Democrats can hold on to the Hispanic vote is another question all together--nobody snatches defeat from the jaws of victory like a DEM.  But the GOP is not doing itself any favors.
Click to expand...


What's perplexing is that you keep acting like the "popular vote" - some apocryphal invention that pretends California, New York, and Texas should be the only places deciding on the President - should matter to someone.

I'm also perplexed by the way you think Hispanic people are some hive-mind collective that's going to blindly follow Democrats in a swarm, as if having brown skin trumps (you should excuse the expression) any individual ability to think and hold opinions.

Maybe I'm just incapable of understanding how bigots think.


----------



## koshergrl

Cecilie1200 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although there may be statistics that show certain groups vote "majority Democrat" the hope is that the parties will evolve to represent everyone for a more unified nation. The USA does not need to be torn apart from ongoing internal strife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really because that's not what the Democrats want.  They want very little opposition and the ability to control the entire country.
> 
> This is why they fought Kate's Law, the border, sanctuary cities.  Their plot is to get as many of these illegals living in the country as possible, and if they ever gain enough power again, grant blanket citizenship.  With citizenship comes the right to vote, and they know who these people will vote for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is reported that 1 out of 4 AMERICAN kids are Hispanic.  In the future, how do you think they'll vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They and blacks are natural Republicans but they know the GOP is full of racists and bigots. Tough luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is perplexing.  They haven't won a popular vote since 2004 and haven't won a popular vote when they were not the incumbent since 1988.  As  Hispanic immigrants move from the South up into the northern reaches of the country (Where "we don't get many Hispanics" as the INS guy put it before he detained two women in Montana if memory serves), the carefully gerrymandered districts become vulnerable.
> 
> Whether the Democrats can hold on to the Hispanic vote is another question all together--nobody snatches defeat from the jaws of victory like a DEM.  But the GOP is not doing itself any favors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's perplexing is that you keep acting like the "popular vote" - some apocryphal invention that pretends California, New York, and Texas should be the only places deciding on the President - should matter to someone.
> 
> I'm also perplexed by the way you think Hispanic people are some hive-mind collective that's going to blindly follow Democrats in a swarm, as if having brown skin trumps (you should excuse the expression) any individual ability to think and hold opinions.
> 
> Maybe I'm just incapable of understanding how bigots think.
Click to expand...


They think like the criminals they are.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> JBond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> This post is idiotic...not sure where to start. Obama policies in place? Safety of children from human sex traffickers?  Drugs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The policy in question here:  100% seperation of children at the border.
> 
> What Obama did is irrelevant, that wasn’t the Administration policy then,  it is new.  Strike one.
> 
> Human trafficking is a valid concern and agents have always been able to seperate children if they suspect it.  No argument from me there.  However, that is not the reason they are in acting this policy.  Kelly directly stated it was to be a deterrent.  John Kelly: It's not 'cruel' to separate families at the border — children will be 'put into foster care or whatever'
> Strike 2.
> 
> Drugs....not sure how that is relevant unless the individuals are carrying caught carrying drugs, then of it isn’t just illegal immigration, it is drug trafficking, which again does not require removing children of all.  Strike 3.
Click to expand...


The policies in question here:  releasing illegal immigrant children from detention, as per the prevailing law, and detaining and fast-tracking the deportation of adult illegal immigrants, instead of just letting them wander away and vanish.

What Obama did IS relevant, as that WAS the administration under which the law demanding the release of children was enacted.  It is NOT new.  It's been the law for three years.

Strike one.

You're right that human trafficking is not the primary reason illegal immigrant children are put into foster care or sent to relatives.  The primary reason is that three years ago, leftists screamed and hollered that family detention was "inhumane" and "child abuse", and demanded that all children in the custody of ICE must be released from detention within 5-20 days.  They're changing their tune now because they can no longer use that policy as an excuse for turning illegal immigrant adults loose.

Strike two.

The only thing requiring that children be taken out of ICE custody and put in foster care is the law that leftists demanded, which you steadfastly pretend isn't even being mentioned.

Strike three.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> This post is idiotic...not sure where to start. Obama policies in place? Safety of children from human sex traffickers?  Drugs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The policy in question here:  100% seperation of children at the border.
> 
> What Obama did is irrelevant, that wasn’t the Administration policy then,  it is new.  Strike one.
> 
> Human trafficking is a valid concern and agents have always been able to seperate children if they suspect it.  No argument from me there.  However, that is not the reason they are in acting this policy.  Kelly directly stated it was to be a deterrent.  John Kelly: It's not 'cruel' to separate families at the border — children will be 'put into foster care or whatever'
> Strike 2.
> 
> Drugs....not sure how that is relevant unless the individuals are carrying caught carrying drugs, then of it isn’t just illegal immigration, it is drug trafficking, which again does not require removing children of all.  Strike 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The present administration's approach to separating Illegal Alien adults from children during criminal processing is both in compliance with US law and entirely correct.
> 
> Those not wishing to expose their children to such separation should not cross onto (nor overstay upon) United States soil without our express prior consent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time... no, no... don't do it_..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agencies have always been able to exercise discretion, Trump included.
Click to expand...


No, actually, the 2015 ruling regarding the Flores settlement allows no more discretion than the Trump administration is showing.  It requires that the children be released into the custody of HHS or a relative in five days, which can be extended up to 20 days if there's a huge backlog of cases to process.  But it does not allow any discretion beyond the 20 days.


----------



## Cecilie1200

koshergrl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really because that's not what the Democrats want.  They want very little opposition and the ability to control the entire country.
> 
> This is why they fought Kate's Law, the border, sanctuary cities.  Their plot is to get as many of these illegals living in the country as possible, and if they ever gain enough power again, grant blanket citizenship.  With citizenship comes the right to vote, and they know who these people will vote for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is reported that 1 out of 4 AMERICAN kids are Hispanic.  In the future, how do you think they'll vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They and blacks are natural Republicans but they know the GOP is full of racists and bigots. Tough luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is perplexing.  They haven't won a popular vote since 2004 and haven't won a popular vote when they were not the incumbent since 1988.  As  Hispanic immigrants move from the South up into the northern reaches of the country (Where "we don't get many Hispanics" as the INS guy put it before he detained two women in Montana if memory serves), the carefully gerrymandered districts become vulnerable.
> 
> Whether the Democrats can hold on to the Hispanic vote is another question all together--nobody snatches defeat from the jaws of victory like a DEM.  But the GOP is not doing itself any favors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's perplexing is that you keep acting like the "popular vote" - some apocryphal invention that pretends California, New York, and Texas should be the only places deciding on the President - should matter to someone.
> 
> I'm also perplexed by the way you think Hispanic people are some hive-mind collective that's going to blindly follow Democrats in a swarm, as if having brown skin trumps (you should excuse the expression) any individual ability to think and hold opinions.
> 
> Maybe I'm just incapable of understanding how bigots think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They think like the criminals they are.
Click to expand...


I'll have to take your word for it.


----------



## Rambunctious

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​



How high is the human cost left behind in the countries they flee from?...Why not work and fight to improve the conditions in Central and South America? Why not ease the pain of corruption in their birth place?...why not stop being a stop gab relief valve enabling corruption to continue from wens the migrants have fled?
Compassion comes with a price for the very ones we are compassionate over....but I guess you sleep well after patting yourself on the back....like a good liberal.....


----------



## Coyote

Rambunctious said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How high is the human cost left behind in the countries they flee from?...Why not work and fight to improve the conditions in Central and South America? Why not ease the pain of corruption in their birth place?...why not stop being a stop gab relief valve enabling corruption to continue from wens the migrants have fled?
> Compassion comes with a price for the very ones we are compassionate over....but I guess you sleep well after patting yourself on the back....like a good liberal.....
Click to expand...

Why didnt your ancesters stay and improve the country the fled from?  Oh ya...double standards eh?


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How high is the human cost left behind in the countries they flee from?...Why not work and fight to improve the conditions in Central and South America? Why not ease the pain of corruption in their birth place?...why not stop being a stop gab relief valve enabling corruption to continue from wens the migrants have fled?
> Compassion comes with a price for the very ones we are compassionate over....but I guess you sleep well after patting yourself on the back....like a good liberal.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didnt your ancesters stay and improve the country the fled from?  Oh ya...double standards eh?
Click to expand...

It's sad you can't distinguish between criminals who traffic humans back and forth across the border and legitimate refugees..or recognize the huge amount of suffering that is caused to those refugees by the people who smuggle other people...who you insist we protect..while whining that we try to protect the children they exploit and abuse at teh same time. 



And legitimate refugees.


----------



## Rambunctious

Coyote said:


> Why didnt your ancesters stay and improve the country the fled from? Oh ya...double standards eh?


That was religious differences...much different than a corrupt economic system... But I bet the American Indian wishes we would have....

That was a long time ago Coyote....can we just deal with today? I wasn't alive back then although you may have been.....


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How high is the human cost left behind in the countries they flee from?...Why not work and fight to improve the conditions in Central and South America? Why not ease the pain of corruption in their birth place?...why not stop being a stop gab relief valve enabling corruption to continue from wens the migrants have fled?
> Compassion comes with a price for the very ones we are compassionate over....but I guess you sleep well after patting yourself on the back....like a good liberal.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didnt your ancesters stay and improve the country the fled from?  Oh ya...double standards eh?
Click to expand...


I don't know about Rambunctious, but MY ancestors' country had acquired this neat new territory that it wanted colonized.

So they weren't actually leaving their country at all, except in a strict geographic sense.


----------



## francoHFW

Cecilie1200 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to that GOP BS propaganda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judge Orders Release of Immigrant Kids from ICE Detention Centers
> 
> Amazing what you can learn when you're not wasting time trying to find validation for your butthurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it is not Democrats but the courts, super duper. And no it is not a conspiracy LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It never ceases to amaze me that you get dumber with every post.  You'd think I'd be used to it by now.
> 
> You think that judge just pulled this out of her ass, moron?  She was ruling on a case, brought by leftist organizations, and referring to another case, ALSO brought by leftist organizations.  And at the time, every leftist commentator in the country was cheering for the decision, which you NOW consider the height of cruelty.
> 
> The original Flores settlement, insisting that unaccompanies minors who crossed the border could not be detained, was brought by the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law and the National Center for Youth Law, aided and abetted by the ACLU of Southern California.  In 2015, those same people - with the addition of some other left-leaning groups - got the Flores settlement extended to accompanied minors, again to the cheering of leftists everywhere.
> 
> Oh, also, Judge Dolly Gee, from that article?  Obama appointee in the Central District of California.  What are the odds she's a rock-ribbed Republican?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, no appeal by the GOP side? I'll go with our courts, not your lying BS propaganda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Appeal by the GOP side"?  No idea what you're babbling about.  The case was brought against the government.
Click to expand...

Why wasn't it appealed, dingbat?


----------



## francoHFW

Rambunctious said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How high is the human cost left behind in the countries they flee from?...Why not work and fight to improve the conditions in Central and South America? Why not ease the pain of corruption in their birth place?...why not stop being a stop gab relief valve enabling corruption to continue from wens the migrants have fled?
> Compassion comes with a price for the very ones we are compassionate over....but I guess you sleep well after patting yourself on the back....like a good liberal.....
Click to expand...

Their problem was caused by us--actually you. Why don't we help them? Why are Republicans so terrified of of refugees?


----------



## Rambunctious

francoHFW said:


> Their problem was caused by us--actually you. Why don't we help them? Why are Republicans so terrified of of refugees?


After 8 years of Obama and that question is on your lips????? ask him...


----------



## Kondor3

Coyote said:


> ...Agencies have always been able to exercise discretion, Trump included.


Yep... it is a conscious choice... and badly overdue.


----------



## Kondor3

francoHFW said:


> ...Their problem was caused by us--actually you. Why don't we help them? Why are Republicans so terrified of of refugees?


Nobody's "afraid"... merely insistent now that they go home... besides, the rest of the country doesn't trust your definition of 'refugee' nor your eligibility 'vetting'.

Besides... our country, not theirs... our rules... our laws... our game... we do as we please... and this pleases us... greatly.


----------



## francoHFW

Kondor3 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Their problem was caused by us--actually you. Why don't we help them? Why are Republicans so terrified of of refugees?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody's "afraid"... merely insistent now that they go home... besides, the rest of the country doesn't trust your definition of 'refugee' nor your eligibility 'vetting'.
> 
> Besides... our country, not theirs... our rules... our laws... our game... we do as we please... and this pleases us... greatly.
Click to expand...

p it's really a rhetorical question and they can't go home. You have been brainwashed 2 confuse refugees and immigrants and terrorists for that matter...


----------



## Cecilie1200

francoHFW said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Judge Orders Release of Immigrant Kids from ICE Detention Centers
> 
> Amazing what you can learn when you're not wasting time trying to find validation for your butthurt.
> 
> 
> 
> So it is not Democrats but the courts, super duper. And no it is not a conspiracy LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It never ceases to amaze me that you get dumber with every post.  You'd think I'd be used to it by now.
> 
> You think that judge just pulled this out of her ass, moron?  She was ruling on a case, brought by leftist organizations, and referring to another case, ALSO brought by leftist organizations.  And at the time, every leftist commentator in the country was cheering for the decision, which you NOW consider the height of cruelty.
> 
> The original Flores settlement, insisting that unaccompanies minors who crossed the border could not be detained, was brought by the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law and the National Center for Youth Law, aided and abetted by the ACLU of Southern California.  In 2015, those same people - with the addition of some other left-leaning groups - got the Flores settlement extended to accompanied minors, again to the cheering of leftists everywhere.
> 
> Oh, also, Judge Dolly Gee, from that article?  Obama appointee in the Central District of California.  What are the odds she's a rock-ribbed Republican?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, no appeal by the GOP side? I'll go with our courts, not your lying BS propaganda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Appeal by the GOP side"?  No idea what you're babbling about.  The case was brought against the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wasn't it appealed, dingbat?
Click to expand...


Oh, good grief.  You do know that your Internet connection can do more than look up porn, right?

The government DID appeal the original Flores class action lawsuit, all the way to the Supreme Court at one point, but they eventually reached a settlement, which is why it's called the "Flores SETTLEMENT".

The 2015 decision by Judge Gee of the California District Court was ALSO appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court in 2016.


----------



## francoHFW

Rambunctious said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their problem was caused by us--actually you. Why don't we help them? Why are Republicans so terrified of of refugees?
> 
> 
> 
> After 8 years of Obama and that question is on your lips????? ask him...
Click to expand...

He tried to bring in more and the GOP blocked him d u h..
He also had a hiatus and made the vetting extreme which none of you dupes know about...


----------



## francoHFW

Cecilie1200 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it is not Democrats but the courts, super duper. And no it is not a conspiracy LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It never ceases to amaze me that you get dumber with every post.  You'd think I'd be used to it by now.
> 
> You think that judge just pulled this out of her ass, moron?  She was ruling on a case, brought by leftist organizations, and referring to another case, ALSO brought by leftist organizations.  And at the time, every leftist commentator in the country was cheering for the decision, which you NOW consider the height of cruelty.
> 
> The original Flores settlement, insisting that unaccompanies minors who crossed the border could not be detained, was brought by the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law and the National Center for Youth Law, aided and abetted by the ACLU of Southern California.  In 2015, those same people - with the addition of some other left-leaning groups - got the Flores settlement extended to accompanied minors, again to the cheering of leftists everywhere.
> 
> Oh, also, Judge Dolly Gee, from that article?  Obama appointee in the Central District of California.  What are the odds she's a rock-ribbed Republican?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, no appeal by the GOP side? I'll go with our courts, not your lying BS propaganda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Appeal by the GOP side"?  No idea what you're babbling about.  The case was brought against the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wasn't it appealed, dingbat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, good grief.  You do know that your Internet connection can do more than look up porn, right?
> 
> The government DID appeal the original Flores class action lawsuit, all the way to the Supreme Court at one point, but they eventually reached a settlement, which is why it's called the "Flores SETTLEMENT".
> 
> The 2015 decision by Judge Gee of the California District Court was ALSO appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court in 2016.
Click to expand...

So now you know what I was babbling about, dingbat. So you were wrong twice as always, Super Dupe.


----------



## Rambunctious

francoHFW said:


> He tried to bring in more and the GOP blocked him d u h..
> He also had a hiatus and made the vetting extreme which none of you dupes know about...


That's not how you help them lib....you help them by having the balls to place tough sanctions on their home nations until the bullshit stops...do you know in Guatemala you can not open a small business unless you pay the crooked government the equivalent of $25,000 its a way to keep the haves in control...that one change could rearrange that whole nation...
Why do libs always go to bringing them in here for a life on welfare?
They would be better served to strongly encourage change in their home nation....
Or you build an impenetrable wall to force them to stay home and fight for change there...simple...


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How high is the human cost left behind in the countries they flee from?...Why not work and fight to improve the conditions in Central and South America? Why not ease the pain of corruption in their birth place?...why not stop being a stop gab relief valve enabling corruption to continue from wens the migrants have fled?
> Compassion comes with a price for the very ones we are compassionate over....but I guess you sleep well after patting yourself on the back....like a good liberal.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didnt your ancesters stay and improve the country the fled from?  Oh ya...double standards eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about Rambunctious, but MY ancestors' country had acquired this neat new territory that it wanted colonized.
> 
> So they weren't actually leaving their country at all, except in a strict geographic sense.
Click to expand...

Illegal squatters then?


----------



## Coyote

francoHFW said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How high is the human cost left behind in the countries they flee from?...Why not work and fight to improve the conditions in Central and South America? Why not ease the pain of corruption in their birth place?...why not stop being a stop gab relief valve enabling corruption to continue from wens the migrants have fled?
> Compassion comes with a price for the very ones we are compassionate over....but I guess you sleep well after patting yourself on the back....like a good liberal.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their problem was caused by us--actually you. Why don't we help them? Why are Republicans so terrified of of refugees?
Click to expand...

They make an easy scapegoat to rally people around.  It is nothing new.  They are repeating history.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although there may be statistics that show certain groups vote "majority Democrat" the hope is that the parties will evolve to represent everyone for a more unified nation. The USA does not need to be torn apart from ongoing internal strife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really because that's not what the Democrats want.  They want very little opposition and the ability to control the entire country.
> 
> This is why they fought Kate's Law, the border, sanctuary cities.  Their plot is to get as many of these illegals living in the country as possible, and if they ever gain enough power again, grant blanket citizenship.  With citizenship comes the right to vote, and they know who these people will vote for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is reported that 1 out of 4 AMERICAN kids are Hispanic.  In the future, how do you think they'll vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They and blacks are natural Republicans but they know the GOP is full of racists and bigots. Tough luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is perplexing.  They haven't won a popular vote since 2004 and haven't won a popular vote when they were not the incumbent since 1988.  As  Hispanic immigrants move from the South up into the northern reaches of the country (Where "we don't get many Hispanics" as the INS guy put it before he detained two women in Montana if memory serves), the carefully gerrymandered districts become vulnerable.
> 
> Whether the Democrats can hold on to the Hispanic vote is another question all together--nobody snatches defeat from the jaws of victory like a DEM.  But the GOP is not doing itself any favors.
Click to expand...


So your suggestion is to just surrender.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the option to throw the children in jail with the parents? Family unification. No more tears.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if we just throw them all out, the families could stay together that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In 2016, Obama deported 240,000. In 2017, Trump deported 226,000.  At the rate we're deporting, it would take 53 years to deport all 12 million undocumented immigrants and that assumes we have no new arrivals.
> 
> Most of Trump deportations have come near the boarder. As we move away from the border the story gets even worse. 80% of the deportations have come from within 30 miles of the boarder.  These are the easy ones to deport because most of them are new arrivals and are not overstaying visas so the president can use expedited deportation.  However, most of the undocumented immigrants in the country are deeper into the interior.  Many are in sanctuary cities where there is less cooperation with ICE.  Most of them don't qualify for expedited removal.
> 
> Unless we change the law, the 4 to 6 million that overstayed their visas have to be handled in immigration court where each person get's a hearing and they have the right to have their case reviewed by a panel of judges.  Many also have legal council, unlike expedite removal.  Currently it is taking months to years to deport these people.
> 
> The bottom line is what we are doing is not working and you have a president that is zealously deporting everyone he can as fast as he can.  What do you think will happen when a democrat is in the white house or congress is controlled by democrats where unlike Trump they would be very concerned with the rights and welfare of the detainees?
> 
> We need to look at a plan that at lease has a chance of working because what we are doing now will never work.*
Click to expand...


So what would work, just letting them all stay?  That's called surrendering. 

Trump hired many more deportation judges and plans on hiring more in the future.  You have to show these people who are here and ones willing to try and sneak in that we mean business.  Why do you suppose border crossings are so low since Trump took over?  

In Sandusky, Ohio, home of Cedar Point, they just did a raid on a flower and gardens outlet.  They busted over 130 illegals.  Of course, the owner claims he had no idea these people were illegal, but even though they (to my knowledge) were not criminals, it sends a message to other illegals in this area.  GTF out!  

It's not just the illegals that we are fighting, it's the Democrat party and their commie judges who are trying to stop us from making advancements.  The quicker we can wipe out liberalism, the faster we can solve this problem.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a Masters in anything, then I am the Pope.
> 
> 
> 
> University of Rochester 1990 plus I read history all the time...
Click to expand...


----------



## TemplarKormac

(Ponders whether he should jump back into this discussion or not)


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical brainwashed response LOL so you believe Democrats are for open borders, super duper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I do.  You (as a leftist) fail to look for the man behind the curtain.
> 
> The goal of the left is to wipe out white people; not in a genocidal way, but in a political way.
> 
> Every other group of people outside of whites vote a majority Democrat.  The Asians vote a majority Democrat, the middle-east people vote a majority Democrat, the Hispanics vote a majority Democrat, the Jewish vote a majority Democrat, the blacks...........forget about it.
> 
> Once they are able to make whites a minority in this country for the first time, they will have access to turn our country into a single-party government forever.
> 
> So if you are white and vote Democrat, you are about the dumbest MF in the country, because you are voting for a party that's trying to wipe YOU out for power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you make less than$250,000 and vote GOP, you are a brainwashed idiot. In fact, if you vote for the lying thieving GOP anyway, ditto.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under DumBama I lost money--a lot of money.  Now I'm not losing that money anymore, and gaining more money in my paycheck every two weeks.  And according to my tax preparer, I"m in for a windfall for my 2018 tax returns thanks to Trump.
> 
> So who's the brainwashed idiot now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did you lose money under Obama? Actually because the GOP blocked lower taxes for you and benefits and services. Keep an eye out on your state and local taxes and fees which kill the non-rich, because federal aid just went down. And of course your tax cuts end in 5 years while the the richest keep them forever. Don't worry about the continuing ruin of the middle class and the working class and the infrastructure of the country... Tariffs will hit you too now. Enjoy!
Click to expand...


For one, he greatly increased tobacco taxes after he swore he would never raise taxes--any kind of taxes on people making less than 250K a year.  After commie care started, my employer dropped our coverage and Commie Care rates were too high and didn't cover anything, so I had to pay a penalty for not being able to afford insurance.  

The oppressive penalties are gone and I'm now bringing home more pay out of my check, and as I stated, I will be getting a pretty good income tax refund check next year.  

Any other questions?


----------



## Sahba

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the option to throw the children in jail with the parents? Family unification. No more tears.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if we just throw them all out, the families could stay together that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In 2016, Obama deported 240,000. In 2017, Trump deported 226,000.  At the rate we're deporting, it would take 53 years to deport all 12 million undocumented immigrants and that assumes we have no new arrivals.
> 
> Most of Trump deportations have come near the boarder. As we move away from the border the story gets even worse. 80% of the deportations have come from within 30 miles of the boarder.  These are the easy ones to deport because most of them are new arrivals and are not overstaying visas so the president can use expedited deportation.  However, most of the undocumented immigrants in the country are deeper into the interior.  Many are in sanctuary cities where there is less cooperation with ICE.  Most of them don't qualify for expedited removal.
> 
> Unless we change the law, the 4 to 6 million that overstayed their visas have to be handled in immigration court where each person get's a hearing and they have the right to have their case reviewed by a panel of judges.  Many also have legal council, unlike expedite removal.  Currently it is taking months to years to deport these people.
> 
> The bottom line is what we are doing is not working and you have a president that is zealously deporting everyone he can as fast as he can.  What do you think will happen when a democrat is in the white house or congress is controlled by democrats where unlike Trump they would be very concerned with the rights and welfare of the detainees?
> 
> We need to look at a plan that at lease has a chance of working because what we are doing now will never work.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what would work, just letting them all stay?  That's called surrendering.
> 
> Trump hired many more deportation judges and plans on hiring more in the future.  You have to show these people who are here and ones willing to try and sneak in that we mean business.  Why do you suppose border crossings are so low since Trump took over?
> 
> In Sandusky, Ohio, home of Cedar Point, they just did a raid on a flower and gardens outlet.  They busted over 130 illegals.  Of course, the owner claims he had no idea these people were illegal, but even though they (to my knowledge) were not criminals, it sends a message to other illegals in this area.  GTF out!
> 
> It's not just the illegals that we are fighting, it's the Democrat party and their commie judges who are trying to stop us from making advancements.  The quicker we can wipe out liberalism, the faster we can solve this problem.
Click to expand...

From what I have heard about the garden center bust there were was a fair amt. of identity theft... deceased individuals SS#'s and fake documents (at least some were paying taxes for dead people) lol...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Sahba said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the option to throw the children in jail with the parents? Family unification. No more tears.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if we just throw them all out, the families could stay together that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In 2016, Obama deported 240,000. In 2017, Trump deported 226,000.  At the rate we're deporting, it would take 53 years to deport all 12 million undocumented immigrants and that assumes we have no new arrivals.
> 
> Most of Trump deportations have come near the boarder. As we move away from the border the story gets even worse. 80% of the deportations have come from within 30 miles of the boarder.  These are the easy ones to deport because most of them are new arrivals and are not overstaying visas so the president can use expedited deportation.  However, most of the undocumented immigrants in the country are deeper into the interior.  Many are in sanctuary cities where there is less cooperation with ICE.  Most of them don't qualify for expedited removal.
> 
> Unless we change the law, the 4 to 6 million that overstayed their visas have to be handled in immigration court where each person get's a hearing and they have the right to have their case reviewed by a panel of judges.  Many also have legal council, unlike expedite removal.  Currently it is taking months to years to deport these people.
> 
> The bottom line is what we are doing is not working and you have a president that is zealously deporting everyone he can as fast as he can.  What do you think will happen when a democrat is in the white house or congress is controlled by democrats where unlike Trump they would be very concerned with the rights and welfare of the detainees?
> 
> We need to look at a plan that at lease has a chance of working because what we are doing now will never work.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what would work, just letting them all stay?  That's called surrendering.
> 
> Trump hired many more deportation judges and plans on hiring more in the future.  You have to show these people who are here and ones willing to try and sneak in that we mean business.  Why do you suppose border crossings are so low since Trump took over?
> 
> In Sandusky, Ohio, home of Cedar Point, they just did a raid on a flower and gardens outlet.  They busted over 130 illegals.  Of course, the owner claims he had no idea these people were illegal, but even though they (to my knowledge) were not criminals, it sends a message to other illegals in this area.  GTF out!
> 
> It's not just the illegals that we are fighting, it's the Democrat party and their commie judges who are trying to stop us from making advancements.  The quicker we can wipe out liberalism, the faster we can solve this problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From what I have heard about the garden center bust there were was a fair amt. of identity theft... deceased individuals SS#'s and fake documents (at least some were paying taxes for dead people) lol...
Click to expand...


It will be an ongoing story for a while.  The shop owner is probably scared to death of what the public will think, so he (she) will be willing to say anything.  

I never trust first reports on anything.  In two weeks from today (if the media follows the story) we will get more of the truth.


----------



## TemplarKormac

francoHFW said:


> You have been brainwashed 2 confuse refugees and immigrants and terrorists for that matter...


 Curious, leftists like you have been confusing all three of those groups for the past couple of years.

Here's what you've done thus far:

You have tried to blur the distinction between Islamic terrorists and actual refugees from majority Muslim countries. When Trump took action against the terrorists, you flatly said he was banning refugees. Period.

You have tried to blur the distinction between immigration and illegal immigration. When Trump tried to take action against illegal immigration, you flatly said he was against immigration. Period.

Funny how you're lecturing us on confusing the three when you're _doing it_ _on purpose._


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although there may be statistics that show certain groups vote "majority Democrat" the hope is that the parties will evolve to represent everyone for a more unified nation. The USA does not need to be torn apart from ongoing internal strife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really because that's not what the Democrats want.  They want very little opposition and the ability to control the entire country.
> 
> This is why they fought Kate's Law, the border, sanctuary cities.  Their plot is to get as many of these illegals living in the country as possible, and if they ever gain enough power again, grant blanket citizenship.  With citizenship comes the right to vote, and they know who these people will vote for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is reported that 1 out of 4 AMERICAN kids are Hispanic.  In the future, how do you think they'll vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They and blacks are natural Republicans but they know the GOP is full of racists and bigots. Tough luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is perplexing.  They haven't won a popular vote since 2004 and haven't won a popular vote when they were not the incumbent since 1988.  As  Hispanic immigrants move from the South up into the northern reaches of the country (Where "we don't get many Hispanics" as the INS guy put it before he detained two women in Montana if memory serves), the carefully gerrymandered districts become vulnerable.
> 
> Whether the Democrats can hold on to the Hispanic vote is another question all together--nobody snatches defeat from the jaws of victory like a DEM.  But the GOP is not doing itself any favors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your suggestion is to just surrender.
Click to expand...


Perhaps not be a total prick


----------



## JBond

francoHFW said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry about the continuing ruin of the middle class and the working class and the infrastructure of the country... Tariffs will hit you too now. Enjoy!
> 
> 
> 
> _"Continuing ruin of the middle class and the working class" ? _HA HA HA. I told you guys that liberals are daf.  Told'ja!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the unemployment rate continues to go down icaramba. I'm talking about 35 years of GOP give away to the rich and cuts for the rest. This is GOP rule at work.
> 
> 
> Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
> 
> *1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.*
> 
> Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
> 
> But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):
> 
> 1950 = 101%
> 1960 = 105%
> 1970 = 105%
> 1980 = 105%  – Reagan
> 1990 = 100%
> 2000 =  96%
> 2007 =  92%
> 
> *A 13% drop since 1980*
> 
> *2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.*
> 
> Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
> 
> 1950 = 35%
> 1960 = 34%
> 1970 = 34%
> 1980 = 34% – Reagan
> 1990 = 40%
> 2000 = 47%
> 2007 = 50%
> 
> *An increase of 16% since Reagan.*
> 
> *3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.*
> 
> The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
> 
> 1950 = 6.0%
> 1960 = 7.0%
> 1970 = 8.5%
> 1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
> 1982 = 11.2% – Peak
> 1990 = 7.0%
> 2000 = 2.0%
> 2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
> 
> *A 12.3% drop after Reagan.*
> 
> *4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.*
> 
> Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
> 
> 1965 = 46%
> 1970 = 45%
> 1980 = 50% – Reagan
> 1990 = 61%
> 2000 = 69%
> 2007 = 95%
> 
> A 45% increase after 1980.
> 
> *5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.*
> 
> Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
> and the bottom 80%:
> 
> 1980 = 10%
> 2003 = 56%
> 
> *A 5.6 times increase.*
> 
> *6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.*
> 
> The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:
> 
> 1945 = 12%
> 1958 =  6%
> 1990 =  3%
> 2000 =  2%
> 
> *A 10% Decrease.*
> 
> Links:
> 
> 1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
> 1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
> 1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
> 2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
> 3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
> 3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
> 4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
> 4 = The Fed - Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 - Current Release
> 5/6 = http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts
Click to expand...

Only libs would bitch about people having more income. Screw your cherry picked stats.

Yes, the US middle class is shrinking, but it's because Americans are moving up. And no, Americans are not struggling to afford a home. - AEI


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How high is the human cost left behind in the countries they flee from?...Why not work and fight to improve the conditions in Central and South America? Why not ease the pain of corruption in their birth place?...why not stop being a stop gab relief valve enabling corruption to continue from wens the migrants have fled?
> Compassion comes with a price for the very ones we are compassionate over....but I guess you sleep well after patting yourself on the back....like a good liberal.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didnt your ancesters stay and improve the country the fled from?  Oh ya...double standards eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's sad you can't distinguish between criminals who traffic humans back and forth across the border and legitimate refugees..or recognize the huge amount of suffering that is caused to those refugees by the people who smuggle other people...who you insist we protect..while whining that we try to protect the children they exploit and abuse at teh same time.
> 
> 
> 
> And legitimate refugees.
Click to expand...

Explain to me how a policy that confiscates 100% of the children makes that distinction?

I will wait.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really because that's not what the Democrats want.  They want very little opposition and the ability to control the entire country.
> 
> This is why they fought Kate's Law, the border, sanctuary cities.  Their plot is to get as many of these illegals living in the country as possible, and if they ever gain enough power again, grant blanket citizenship.  With citizenship comes the right to vote, and they know who these people will vote for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is reported that 1 out of 4 AMERICAN kids are Hispanic.  In the future, how do you think they'll vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They and blacks are natural Republicans but they know the GOP is full of racists and bigots. Tough luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is perplexing.  They haven't won a popular vote since 2004 and haven't won a popular vote when they were not the incumbent since 1988.  As  Hispanic immigrants move from the South up into the northern reaches of the country (Where "we don't get many Hispanics" as the INS guy put it before he detained two women in Montana if memory serves), the carefully gerrymandered districts become vulnerable.
> 
> Whether the Democrats can hold on to the Hispanic vote is another question all together--nobody snatches defeat from the jaws of victory like a DEM.  But the GOP is not doing itself any favors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your suggestion is to just surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps not be a total prick
Click to expand...


Support for protecting your borders is being a total prick?


----------



## dblack

TemplarKormac said:


> (Ponders whether he should jump back into this discussion or not)


Don't do it. Save yourself.


----------



## eagle1462010

Have the life jackets been issued yet..............Is the order given to abandon ship given yet.........We are down by the stern listing 20 degrees to port.


----------



## Sahba

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How high is the human cost left behind in the countries they flee from?...Why not work and fight to improve the conditions in Central and South America? Why not ease the pain of corruption in their birth place?...why not stop being a stop gab relief valve enabling corruption to continue from wens the migrants have fled?
> Compassion comes with a price for the very ones we are compassionate over....but I guess you sleep well after patting yourself on the back....like a good liberal.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didnt your ancesters stay and improve the country the fled from?  Oh ya...double standards eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's sad you can't distinguish between criminals who traffic humans back and forth across the border and legitimate refugees..or recognize the huge amount of suffering that is caused to those refugees by the people who smuggle other people...who you insist we protect..while whining that we try to protect the children they exploit and abuse at teh same time.
> 
> 
> 
> And legitimate refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain to me how a policy that confiscates 100% of the children makes that distinction?
> 
> I will wait.
Click to expand...

Note to 'illegal' alien parents with children... Don't get arrested... !  O my.. that's harsh... lol

The large number of arrests continue despite the Trump administration's announcement that it will continue to separate children from their illegal immigrant parents, who are incarcerated. Opponents from the ACLU say the policy "is brutal, offensive" and "shocks the conscience."

Alex Azar, Health and Human Services Secretary, defended the practice, saying* the best way for immigrant families to remain united is to present themselves at a legal border crossing and make their case*. He said children are not kept in cages, as has been reported; rather, they are given food, clean living conditions, education, recreation and healthcare.

"Individual children are separated from their parents only when those parents cross the border illegally," Azar told lawmakers while testifying before a House committee. "We can't have children with parents who are in incarceration."


----------



## protectionist

Coyote said:


> The policy in question here:  100% seperation of children at the border.
> 
> What Obama did is irrelevant, that wasn’t the Administration policy then,  it is new.  Strike one.
> 
> Human trafficking is a valid concern and agents have always been able to seperate children if they suspect it.  No argument from me there.  However, that is not the reason they are in acting this policy.  Kelly directly stated it was to be a deterrent.  John Kelly: It's not 'cruel' to separate families at the border — children will be 'put into foster care or whatever'
> Strike 2.
> 
> Drugs....not sure how that is relevant unless the individuals are carrying caught carrying drugs, then of it isn’t just illegal immigration, it is drug trafficking, which again does not require removing children of all.  Strike 3.


The strike 1 is against Obama, for his catch & release policy that didn't separate anybody, because nobody was arrested.

There is no strike 2.When people are arrested they are always separated from their kids.  American prisons contain thousands of Americans who are separated from their kids (and for much longer than illegal aliens are).

Strike 3 ?  Drug trafficking doesn't require parent separation from children ? How does any rime resulting in incarceration, not result is separation ?


----------



## Flopper

francoHFW said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry about the continuing ruin of the middle class and the working class and the infrastructure of the country... Tariffs will hit you too now. Enjoy!
> 
> 
> 
> _"Continuing ruin of the middle class and the working class" ? _HA HA HA. I told you guys that liberals are daf.  Told'ja!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the unemployment rate continues to go down icaramba. I'm talking about 35 years of GOP give away to the rich and cuts for the rest. This is GOP rule at work.
> 
> 
> Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
> 
> *1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.*
> 
> Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
> 
> But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):
> 
> 1950 = 101%
> 1960 = 105%
> 1970 = 105%
> 1980 = 105%  – Reagan
> 1990 = 100%
> 2000 =  96%
> 2007 =  92%
> 
> *A 13% drop since 1980*
> 
> *2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.*
> 
> Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
> 
> 1950 = 35%
> 1960 = 34%
> 1970 = 34%
> 1980 = 34% – Reagan
> 1990 = 40%
> 2000 = 47%
> 2007 = 50%
> 
> *An increase of 16% since Reagan.*
> 
> *3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.*
> 
> The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
> 
> 1950 = 6.0%
> 1960 = 7.0%
> 1970 = 8.5%
> 1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
> 1982 = 11.2% – Peak
> 1990 = 7.0%
> 2000 = 2.0%
> 2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
> 
> *A 12.3% drop after Reagan.*
> 
> *4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.*
> 
> Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
> 
> 1965 = 46%
> 1970 = 45%
> 1980 = 50% – Reagan
> 1990 = 61%
> 2000 = 69%
> 2007 = 95%
> 
> A 45% increase after 1980.
> 
> *5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.*
> 
> Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
> and the bottom 80%:
> 
> 1980 = 10%
> 2003 = 56%
> 
> *A 5.6 times increase.*
> 
> *6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.*
> 
> The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:
> 
> 1945 = 12%
> 1958 =  6%
> 1990 =  3%
> 2000 =  2%
> 
> *A 10% Decrease.*
> 
> Links:
> 
> 1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
> 1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
> 1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
> 2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
> 3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
> 3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
> 4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
> 4 = The Fed - Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 - Current Release
> 5/6 = http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts
Click to expand...

*Unemployment stands at 3.8% which is well below what economist consider full employment.  Crops across the country are rotting in fields as more farm workers return to Mexico because wages are rising attracting workers from the US.  Pew research says more immigrants are returning to Mexico than arriving, which may be good for some, but bad news for farmers.  If current trends continue, we will be inviting a lot of the people we are deporting back into the US within the next 2 years.+*
*California’s Farms Face Serious Labor Shortage*


----------



## Rambunctious

Flopper said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry about the continuing ruin of the middle class and the working class and the infrastructure of the country... Tariffs will hit you too now. Enjoy!
> 
> 
> 
> _"Continuing ruin of the middle class and the working class" ? _HA HA HA. I told you guys that liberals are daf.  Told'ja!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the unemployment rate continues to go down icaramba. I'm talking about 35 years of GOP give away to the rich and cuts for the rest. This is GOP rule at work.
> 
> 
> Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
> 
> *1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.*
> 
> Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
> 
> But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):
> 
> 1950 = 101%
> 1960 = 105%
> 1970 = 105%
> 1980 = 105%  – Reagan
> 1990 = 100%
> 2000 =  96%
> 2007 =  92%
> 
> *A 13% drop since 1980*
> 
> *2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.*
> 
> Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
> 
> 1950 = 35%
> 1960 = 34%
> 1970 = 34%
> 1980 = 34% – Reagan
> 1990 = 40%
> 2000 = 47%
> 2007 = 50%
> 
> *An increase of 16% since Reagan.*
> 
> *3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.*
> 
> The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
> 
> 1950 = 6.0%
> 1960 = 7.0%
> 1970 = 8.5%
> 1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
> 1982 = 11.2% – Peak
> 1990 = 7.0%
> 2000 = 2.0%
> 2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
> 
> *A 12.3% drop after Reagan.*
> 
> *4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.*
> 
> Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
> 
> 1965 = 46%
> 1970 = 45%
> 1980 = 50% – Reagan
> 1990 = 61%
> 2000 = 69%
> 2007 = 95%
> 
> A 45% increase after 1980.
> 
> *5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.*
> 
> Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
> and the bottom 80%:
> 
> 1980 = 10%
> 2003 = 56%
> 
> *A 5.6 times increase.*
> 
> *6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.*
> 
> The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:
> 
> 1945 = 12%
> 1958 =  6%
> 1990 =  3%
> 2000 =  2%
> 
> *A 10% Decrease.*
> 
> Links:
> 
> 1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
> 1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
> 1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
> 2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
> 3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
> 3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
> 4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
> 4 = The Fed - Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 - Current Release
> 5/6 = http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Unemployment stands at 3.8% which is well below what economist consider full employment.  Crops across the country are rotting in fields as more farm workers return to Mexico because wages are rising attracting workers from the US.  Pew research says more immigrants are returning to Mexico than arriving, which may be good for some, but bad news for farmers.  If current trends continue, we will be inviting a lot of the people we are deporting back into the US within the next 2 years.+*
> *California’s Farms Face Serious Labor Shortage*
Click to expand...

Pay better..... and hire American...the sugar beat industry is doing it and doing well thank you....

Tired of whinny farmers....pay a living wage high enough to attract US citizens or support a new migrant worker program...I know your labor costs will go up either way but hey!....welcome to the real world....


----------



## Coyote

protectionist said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The policy in question here:  100% seperation of children at the border.
> 
> What Obama did is irrelevant, that wasn’t the Administration policy then,  it is new.  Strike one.
> 
> Human trafficking is a valid concern and agents have always been able to seperate children if they suspect it.  No argument from me there.  However, that is not the reason they are in acting this policy.  Kelly directly stated it was to be a deterrent.  John Kelly: It's not 'cruel' to separate families at the border — children will be 'put into foster care or whatever'
> Strike 2.
> 
> Drugs....not sure how that is relevant unless the individuals are carrying caught carrying drugs, then of it isn’t just illegal immigration, it is drug trafficking, which again does not require removing children of all.  Strike 3.
> 
> 
> 
> *The strike 1 is against Obama, for his catch & release policy that didn't separate anybody, because nobody was arrested.*
> 
> There is no strike 2.When people are arrested they are always separated from their kids.  American prisons contain thousands of Americans who are separated from their kids (and for much longer than illegal aliens are).
> 
> Strike 3 ?  Drug trafficking doesn't require parent separation from children ? How does any rime resulting in incarceration, not result is separation ?
Click to expand...


You are wrong.

Children were removed from suspected traffickes and those were arrested.  They have always seperated kids from suspected traffickers.  Fail.

Two.  Kids of parents in prison typically go to a relative - the other parent, grandparents.  The parent in custody has a hearing and a trial before this occurs - particularly when you are talking about a misdeamenor.  Illegal entry is not murder.  Fail.

Three.  I don't understand the drug trafficking reference in relation to the issue.

Four.  My office window is open and someone set off a SKUNK!!!


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> [
> *In 2016, Obama deported 240,000. In 2017, Trump deported 226,000.  At the rate we're deporting, it would take 53 years to deport all 12 million undocumented immigrants and that assumes we have no new arrivals.
> 
> Most of Trump deportations have come near the boarder. As we move away from the border the story gets even worse. 80% of the deportations have come from within 30 miles of the boarder.  These are the easy ones to deport because most of them are new arrivals and are not overstaying visas so the president can use expedited deportation.  However, most of the undocumented immigrants in the country are deeper into the interior.  Many are in sanctuary cities where there is less cooperation with ICE.  Most of them don't qualify for expedited removal.
> 
> Unless we change the law, the 4 to 6 million that overstayed their visas have to be handled in immigration court where each person get's a hearing and they have the right to have their case reviewed by a panel of judges.  Many also have legal council, unlike expedite removal.  Currently it is taking months to years to deport these people.
> 
> The bottom line is what we are doing is not working and you have a president that is zealously deporting everyone he can as fast as he can.  What do you think will happen when a democrat is in the white house or congress is controlled by democrats where unlike Trump they would be very concerned with the rights and welfare of the detainees?
> 
> We need to look at a plan that at lease has a chance of working because what we are doing now will never work.*


Obama deported almost NOBODY in 2016, and his deportations were near zero. The 240,000 number is not deportations, it is summons's issued to appear in an immigration court (which 99% illegal aliens don't show up).  Big difference between real deportations (someone returning to home country), and a catch & release ruse that has almost everyone staying in the US.

Illegal aliens in sanctuary cities can be easily found and deported.  The "plan" that will work is to tell sanctuary city leaders that they will be arrested and imprisoned, if they don't cooperate fully with ICE.  They then, will embark on a program similar to Eisenhower's Operation Wetback in 1954, when INS agents went houses to house, hunting down illegal aliens, and arresting them.  Millions were deported in a short period of time.

Sessions need to stop fussing around, and get down to business.


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is perplexing.  They haven't won a popular vote since 2004 and haven't won a popular vote when they were not the incumbent since 1988.  As  Hispanic immigrants move from the South up into the northern reaches of the country (Where "we don't get many Hispanics" as the INS guy put it before he detained two women in Montana if memory serves), the carefully gerrymandered districts become vulnerable.
> 
> Whether the Democrats can hold on to the Hispanic vote is another question all together--nobody snatches defeat from the jaws of victory like a DEM.  But the GOP is not doing itself any favors.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump won the AMERICAN popular vote. Illegals are going home.  2020 is >> $ MORE YEARS.
Click to expand...

*At the current rate of deportation (270,00/yr), in 2 years the 12 million undocumented immigrants in the US will be 11.64 million + the number that have entered the US in 2 years.  We need a plan that will actually work.  Expedited deportations of illegal immigrants entering the country near the border is not going to work because most immigrants are further North, and don't qualify for expedited removal.
*
*California’s Farms Face Serious Labor Shortage*


----------



## protectionist

Coyote said:


> You are wrong.
> 
> Children were removed from suspected traffickes and those were arrested.  They have always seperated kids from suspected traffickers.  Fail.
> 
> Two.  Kids of parents in prison typically go to a relative - the other parent, grandparents.  The parent in custody has a hearing and a trial before this occurs - particularly when you are talking about a misdeamenor.  Illegal entry is not murder.  Fail.
> 
> Three.  I don't understand the drug trafficking reference in relation to the issue.
> 
> Four.  My office window is open and someone set off a SKUNK!!!


1.  Traffickers were a tiny minority of the cases.  Generally, nobody was arrested because of catch & release.

2.  I did not fail.  I say again > When people are arrested they are always separated from their kids, (and what you said was a confirmation of that)

3.  Neither do I, but you brought it up, not me.

4.  Close your window.


----------



## francoHFW

Rambunctious said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry about the continuing ruin of the middle class and the working class and the infrastructure of the country... Tariffs will hit you too now. Enjoy!
> 
> 
> 
> _"Continuing ruin of the middle class and the working class" ? _HA HA HA. I told you guys that liberals are daf.  Told'ja!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the unemployment rate continues to go down icaramba. I'm talking about 35 years of GOP give away to the rich and cuts for the rest. This is GOP rule at work.
> 
> 
> Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
> 
> *1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.*
> 
> Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
> 
> But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):
> 
> 1950 = 101%
> 1960 = 105%
> 1970 = 105%
> 1980 = 105%  – Reagan
> 1990 = 100%
> 2000 =  96%
> 2007 =  92%
> 
> *A 13% drop since 1980*
> 
> *2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.*
> 
> Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
> 
> 1950 = 35%
> 1960 = 34%
> 1970 = 34%
> 1980 = 34% – Reagan
> 1990 = 40%
> 2000 = 47%
> 2007 = 50%
> 
> *An increase of 16% since Reagan.*
> 
> *3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.*
> 
> The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
> 
> 1950 = 6.0%
> 1960 = 7.0%
> 1970 = 8.5%
> 1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
> 1982 = 11.2% – Peak
> 1990 = 7.0%
> 2000 = 2.0%
> 2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
> 
> *A 12.3% drop after Reagan.*
> 
> *4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.*
> 
> Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
> 
> 1965 = 46%
> 1970 = 45%
> 1980 = 50% – Reagan
> 1990 = 61%
> 2000 = 69%
> 2007 = 95%
> 
> A 45% increase after 1980.
> 
> *5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.*
> 
> Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
> and the bottom 80%:
> 
> 1980 = 10%
> 2003 = 56%
> 
> *A 5.6 times increase.*
> 
> *6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.*
> 
> The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:
> 
> 1945 = 12%
> 1958 =  6%
> 1990 =  3%
> 2000 =  2%
> 
> *A 10% Decrease.*
> 
> Links:
> 
> 1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
> 1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
> 1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
> 2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
> 3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
> 3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
> 4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
> 4 = The Fed - Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 - Current Release
> 5/6 = http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Unemployment stands at 3.8% which is well below what economist consider full employment.  Crops across the country are rotting in fields as more farm workers return to Mexico because wages are rising attracting workers from the US.  Pew research says more immigrants are returning to Mexico than arriving, which may be good for some, but bad news for farmers.  If current trends continue, we will be inviting a lot of the people we are deporting back into the US within the next 2 years.+*
> *California’s Farms Face Serious Labor Shortage*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pay better..... and hire American...the sugar beat industry is doing it and doing well thank you....
> 
> Tired of whinny farmers....pay a living wage high enough to attract US citizens or support a new migrant worker program...I know your labor costs will go up either way but hey!....welcome to the real world....
Click to expand...

So you are a Democrat now?


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> * We need a plan that actually works.  *


The "plan" is posted 1 minute before you posted this.


----------



## Rambunctious

francoHFW said:


> So you are a Democrat now?


I'm America and Americans first....


----------



## francoHFW

protectionist said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> Children were removed from suspected traffickes and those were arrested.  They have always seperated kids from suspected traffickers.  Fail.
> 
> Two.  Kids of parents in prison typically go to a relative - the other parent, grandparents.  The parent in custody has a hearing and a trial before this occurs - particularly when you are talking about a misdeamenor.  Illegal entry is not murder.  Fail.
> 
> Three.  I don't understand the drug trafficking reference in relation to the issue.
> 
> Four.  My office window is open and someone set off a SKUNK!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Traffickers were a tiny minority of the cases.  Generally, nobody was arrested because of catch & release.
> 
> 2.  I did not fail.  I say again > When people are arrested they are always separated from their kids, (and what you said was a confirmation of that)
> 
> 3.  Neither do I, but you brought it up, not me.
> 
> 4.  Close your window.
Click to expand...

People trying for Asylum actually super dupe.


----------



## francoHFW

Rambunctious said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are a Democrat now?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm America and Americans first....
Click to expand...

So you're a Democrat and so is Trump? Whatever we'll see... but the giant tax cut for the rich and giant corporations does not bode well.


----------



## protectionist

Rambunctious said:


> Pay better..... and hire American...the sugar beat industry is doing it and doing well thank you....
> 
> Tired of whinny farmers....pay a living wage high enough to attract US citizens or support a new migrant worker program...I know your labor costs will go up either way but hey!....welcome to the real world....


Exactly right. I have no sympathy for traitorous businesses who hire illegal aliens because they say they can't afford to pay American standard wages.  If you can't do that, then you can't afford to be in business, and you shouldn't be in it.

So what do you do ?   Go out and do what all the rest of us who can't afford to own a business do.  Get a job!


----------



## JBond

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


Laws are so confusing. Missouri tax code sucks.What is the issue? The government sucks at taking care of kids? We know.


----------



## Rambunctious

protectionist said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pay better..... and hire American...the sugar beat industry is doing it and doing well thank you....
> 
> Tired of whinny farmers....pay a living wage high enough to attract US citizens or support a new migrant worker program...I know your labor costs will go up either way but hey!....welcome to the real world....
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right. I have no sympathy for traitorous businesses who hire illegal aliens because they say they can't afford to pay American standard wages.  If you can't do that, then you can't afford to be in business, and you shouldn't be in it.
> 
> So what do you do ?   Go out and do what all the rest of us who can't afford to own a business do.  Get a job!
Click to expand...

We pay people not to work and call it government assistance and we allow illegal migrants to flood our fields at half the cost the position should compensate....creating a welfare dependent class of easily guided sheeple to vote to keep the status quo in place so the swamp can continue to enrich themselves....


----------



## francoHFW

JBond said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> Laws are so confusing. Missouri tax code sucks.What is the issue? The government sucks at taking care of kids? We know.
Click to expand...

Republican tax policy slowly ruins everybody but the mega rich... Less federal taxes equals more State and local taxes which kill the non-rich. End of story.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *Unemployment stands at 3.8% which is well below what economist consider full employment.  Crops across the country are rotting in fields as more farm workers return to Mexico because wages are rising attracting workers from the US.  Pew research says more immigrants are returning to Mexico than arriving, which may be good for some, but bad news for farmers.  If current trends continue, we will be inviting a lot of the people we are deporting back into the US within the next 2 years.+*
> *California’s Farms Face Serious Labor Shortage*


When there is a labor shortage, wages are high.  But wages are NOT high. They are very low (in accordance with cheap, foreign labor)  If farmers want to be farmers in the US, they need to pay US wages, or else, go out and get a job, like the rest of us.


----------



## protectionist

francoHFW said:


> People trying for Asylum actually super dupe.


Who say they're doing that. What about them ?


----------



## protectionist

francoHFW said:


> Republican tax policy slowly ruins everybody but the mega rich... Less federal taxes equals more State and local taxes which kill the non-rich. End of story.


But IS IT_ "Less federal taxes"_, when GDP growth went from Obama's 1.2% to Trump's 3.2% ?


----------



## OKTexas

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How high is the human cost left behind in the countries they flee from?...Why not work and fight to improve the conditions in Central and South America? Why not ease the pain of corruption in their birth place?...why not stop being a stop gab relief valve enabling corruption to continue from wens the migrants have fled?
> Compassion comes with a price for the very ones we are compassionate over....but I guess you sleep well after patting yourself on the back....like a good liberal.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didnt your ancesters stay and improve the country the fled from?  Oh ya...double standards eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's sad you can't distinguish between criminals who traffic humans back and forth across the border and legitimate refugees..or recognize the huge amount of suffering that is caused to those refugees by the people who smuggle other people...who you insist we protect..while whining that we try to protect the children they exploit and abuse at teh same time.
> 
> 
> 
> And legitimate refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain to me how a policy that confiscates 100% of the children makes that distinction?
> 
> I will wait.
Click to expand...



When are you going to get through your head that the federal courts say a child can't be detained more than 9 days. The courts are dictating the removal of children, not the administration.


.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> JBond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> Laws are so confusing. Missouri tax code sucks.What is the issue? The government sucks at taking care of kids? We know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republican tax policy slowly ruins everybody but the mega rich... Less federal taxes equals more State and local taxes which kill the non-rich. End of story.
Click to expand...


If it were up to me, the feds would get about a quarter of the money they get now and we could afford more local taxes.  Local taxes and localized programs are much better than the feds.  You have more control over the money and less waste because local politicians are more likely to get voted out for abuse of tax dollars than anybody on the federal level.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Two. Kids of parents in prison typically go to a relative - the other parent, grandparents. The parent in custody has a hearing and a trial before this occurs - particularly when you are talking about a misdeamenor. Illegal entry is not murder. Fail.



If you read your own OP even it stated that's what the feds do, they put children with families if they have family here.


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> *In 2016, Obama deported 240,000. In 2017, Trump deported 226,000.  At the rate we're deporting, it would take 53 years to deport all 12 million undocumented immigrants and that assumes we have no new arrivals.
> 
> Most of Trump deportations have come near the boarder. As we move away from the border the story gets even worse. 80% of the deportations have come from within 30 miles of the boarder.  These are the easy ones to deport because most of them are new arrivals and are not overstaying visas so the president can use expedited deportation.  However, most of the undocumented immigrants in the country are deeper into the interior.  Many are in sanctuary cities where there is less cooperation with ICE.  Most of them don't qualify for expedited removal.
> 
> Unless we change the law, the 4 to 6 million that overstayed their visas have to be handled in immigration court where each person get's a hearing and they have the right to have their case reviewed by a panel of judges.  Many also have legal council, unlike expedite removal.  Currently it is taking months to years to deport these people.
> 
> The bottom line is what we are doing is not working and you have a president that is zealously deporting everyone he can as fast as he can.  What do you think will happen when a democrat is in the white house or congress is controlled by democrats where unlike Trump they would be very concerned with the rights and welfare of the detainees?
> 
> We need to look at a plan that at lease has a chance of working because what we are doing now will never work.*
> 
> 
> 
> Obama deported almost NOBODY in 2016, and his deportations were near zero. The 240,000 number is not deportations, it is summons's issued to appear in an immigration court (which 99% illegal aliens don't show up).  Big difference between real deportations (someone returning to home country), and a catch & release ruse that has almost everyone staying in the US.
> 
> Illegal aliens in sanctuary cities can be easily found and deported.  The "plan" that will work is to tell sanctuary city leaders that they will be arrested and imprisoned, if they don't cooperate fully with ICE.  They then, will embark on a program similar to Eisenhower's Operation Wetback in 1954, when INS agents went houses to house, hunting down illegal aliens, and arresting them.  Millions were deported in a short period of time.
> 
> Sessions need to stop fussing around, and get down to business.
Click to expand...

*Wrong! According to ICE: 
There were 240,255 removals in 2016.
FY 2016 ICE Immigration Removals
*


----------



## Slyhunter

OKTexas said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How high is the human cost left behind in the countries they flee from?...Why not work and fight to improve the conditions in Central and South America? Why not ease the pain of corruption in their birth place?...why not stop being a stop gab relief valve enabling corruption to continue from wens the migrants have fled?
> Compassion comes with a price for the very ones we are compassionate over....but I guess you sleep well after patting yourself on the back....like a good liberal.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didnt your ancesters stay and improve the country the fled from?  Oh ya...double standards eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's sad you can't distinguish between criminals who traffic humans back and forth across the border and legitimate refugees..or recognize the huge amount of suffering that is caused to those refugees by the people who smuggle other people...who you insist we protect..while whining that we try to protect the children they exploit and abuse at teh same time.
> 
> 
> 
> And legitimate refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain to me how a policy that confiscates 100% of the children makes that distinction?
> 
> I will wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When are you going to get through your head that the federal courts say a child can't be detained more than 9 days. The courts are dictating the removal of children, not the administration.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Removal of children to where? The streets? back home to their home countries where they belong? in 9 days. Ok.


----------



## Flopper

Rambunctious said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pay better..... and hire American...the sugar beat industry is doing it and doing well thank you....
> 
> Tired of whinny farmers....pay a living wage high enough to attract US citizens or support a new migrant worker program...I know your labor costs will go up either way but hey!....welcome to the real world....
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right. I have no sympathy for traitorous businesses who hire illegal aliens because they say they can't afford to pay American standard wages.  If you can't do that, then you can't afford to be in business, and you shouldn't be in it.
> 
> So what do you do ?   Go out and do what all the rest of us who can't afford to own a business do.  Get a job!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We pay people not to work and call it government assistance and we allow illegal migrants to flood our fields at half the cost the position should compensate....creating a welfare dependent class of easily guided sheeple to vote to keep the status quo in place so the swamp can continue to enrich themselves....
Click to expand...

*If American farmers paid workers twice what they make now, they would lose a large percent of the 135 billion dollars in food product exports.  Even if American workers would work the fields for twice the pay, farmers couldn't pay it. *


----------



## OKTexas

Slyhunter said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> How high is the human cost left behind in the countries they flee from?...Why not work and fight to improve the conditions in Central and South America? Why not ease the pain of corruption in their birth place?...why not stop being a stop gab relief valve enabling corruption to continue from wens the migrants have fled?
> Compassion comes with a price for the very ones we are compassionate over....but I guess you sleep well after patting yourself on the back....like a good liberal.....
> 
> 
> 
> Why didnt your ancesters stay and improve the country the fled from?  Oh ya...double standards eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's sad you can't distinguish between criminals who traffic humans back and forth across the border and legitimate refugees..or recognize the huge amount of suffering that is caused to those refugees by the people who smuggle other people...who you insist we protect..while whining that we try to protect the children they exploit and abuse at teh same time.
> 
> 
> 
> And legitimate refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain to me how a policy that confiscates 100% of the children makes that distinction?
> 
> I will wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When are you going to get through your head that the federal courts say a child can't be detained more than 9 days. The courts are dictating the removal of children, not the administration.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Removal of children to where? The streets? back home to their home countries where they belong? in 9 days. Ok.
Click to expand...



They're turned over to DHS for temporary placement, either with family already here or foster care. That's the law.


.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pay better..... and hire American...the sugar beat industry is doing it and doing well thank you....
> 
> Tired of whinny farmers....pay a living wage high enough to attract US citizens or support a new migrant worker program...I know your labor costs will go up either way but hey!....welcome to the real world....
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right. I have no sympathy for traitorous businesses who hire illegal aliens because they say they can't afford to pay American standard wages.  If you can't do that, then you can't afford to be in business, and you shouldn't be in it.
> 
> So what do you do ?   Go out and do what all the rest of us who can't afford to own a business do.  Get a job!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We pay people not to work and call it government assistance and we allow illegal migrants to flood our fields at half the cost the position should compensate....creating a welfare dependent class of easily guided sheeple to vote to keep the status quo in place so the swamp can continue to enrich themselves....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If American farmers paid workers twice what they make now, they would lose a large percent of the 135 billion dollars in food product exports.  Even if American workers would work the fields for twice the pay, farmers couldn't pay it. *
Click to expand...


They would have to do what everybody else did, and that is raise their prices.  If labor becomes so expensive the can't find any workers, then the next step is to invest in automation.


----------



## Flopper

Slyhunter said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> How high is the human cost left behind in the countries they flee from?...Why not work and fight to improve the conditions in Central and South America? Why not ease the pain of corruption in their birth place?...why not stop being a stop gab relief valve enabling corruption to continue from wens the migrants have fled?
> Compassion comes with a price for the very ones we are compassionate over....but I guess you sleep well after patting yourself on the back....like a good liberal.....
> 
> 
> 
> Why didnt your ancesters stay and improve the country the fled from?  Oh ya...double standards eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's sad you can't distinguish between criminals who traffic humans back and forth across the border and legitimate refugees..or recognize the huge amount of suffering that is caused to those refugees by the people who smuggle other people...who you insist we protect..while whining that we try to protect the children they exploit and abuse at teh same time.
> 
> 
> 
> And legitimate refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain to me how a policy that confiscates 100% of the children makes that distinction?
> 
> I will wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When are you going to get through your head that the federal courts say a child can't be detained more than 9 days. The courts are dictating the removal of children, not the administration.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Removal of children to where? The streets? back home to their home countries where they belong? in 9 days. Ok.
Click to expand...

*I never saw the 9 day rule but I'm sure there must be one.  Children who accompany parents to detention are either held with parents in a family detention center or they're separated.  Currently the administration opts to separate the parents and their children.   

The children are turned over to US Health and Human Services who keep them until they are turned over to a foster care agency for placement.  In foster care, they are often moved from family to family.  Recently it was reported that DHS was unable to determine the whereabouts of nearly 1500 kids.  This means the parents will likely be deported without their kids under the Trump zero tolerance policy. *


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pay better..... and hire American...the sugar beat industry is doing it and doing well thank you....
> 
> Tired of whinny farmers....pay a living wage high enough to attract US citizens or support a new migrant worker program...I know your labor costs will go up either way but hey!....welcome to the real world....
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right. I have no sympathy for traitorous businesses who hire illegal aliens because they say they can't afford to pay American standard wages.  If you can't do that, then you can't afford to be in business, and you shouldn't be in it.
> 
> So what do you do ?   Go out and do what all the rest of us who can't afford to own a business do.  Get a job!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We pay people not to work and call it government assistance and we allow illegal migrants to flood our fields at half the cost the position should compensate....creating a welfare dependent class of easily guided sheeple to vote to keep the status quo in place so the swamp can continue to enrich themselves....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If American farmers paid workers twice what they make now, they would lose a large percent of the 135 billion dollars in food product exports.  Even if American workers would work the fields for twice the pay, farmers couldn't pay it. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They would have to do what everybody else did, and that is raise their prices.  If labor becomes so expensive the can't find any workers, then the next step is to invest in automation.
Click to expand...

*There is still a lot of farm and field work that can't be done by machines.  However much of the picking done manually could be mechanized but at a high cost.  Again, the farmer would have to raise prices making his product less competitive on world markets, and also in the US. *


----------



## percysunshine

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​



None of this stuff would be an issue if the Latin American Socialists were not destroying their own countries and driving their populations into flight.


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is reported that 1 out of 4 AMERICAN kids are Hispanic.  In the future, how do you think they'll vote?
> 
> 
> 
> They and blacks are natural Republicans but they know the GOP is full of racists and bigots. Tough luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is perplexing.  They haven't won a popular vote since 2004 and haven't won a popular vote when they were not the incumbent since 1988.  As  Hispanic immigrants move from the South up into the northern reaches of the country (Where "we don't get many Hispanics" as the INS guy put it before he detained two women in Montana if memory serves), the carefully gerrymandered districts become vulnerable.
> 
> Whether the Democrats can hold on to the Hispanic vote is another question all together--nobody snatches defeat from the jaws of victory like a DEM.  But the GOP is not doing itself any favors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your suggestion is to just surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps not be a total prick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Support for protecting your borders is being a total prick?
Click to expand...


A hard and fast policy of Ripping kids from their parents is


----------



## Gracie

Look....its not nice to separate kids from families but this is on the parents doing this shit, isn't it? Why are we subject to nice nice crap by people breaking our laws but every other country gets a pass? Imagine Trying to move to any place in europe..france, uk, spain, etc...taking yer kids with ya. What do you think those countries would do? Put you up in a motel with your family while you apply for citizenship? Oh hell no.
So what IS the answer? Keep doing what we are doing to stop people with harsh consequences for THEIR actions. If this means dividing kids from parents..well....maybe eventually the parents will get a clue and cease breaking our laws.


----------



## Flopper

percysunshine said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of this stuff would be an issue if the Latin American Socialists were not destroying their own countries and driving their populations into flight.
Click to expand...

*Honduras which is where most of the asylum seekers are coming from is a democratic republic like the US but the leadership is far right.  Honduras is a great example what can happen in a poor country under far right conservative leadership.  The government, the national and local police are so corrupt it's hard to say whether the gangs or the police are worse.    *


----------



## percysunshine

Flopper said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of this stuff would be an issue if the Latin American Socialists were not destroying their own countries and driving their populations into flight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Honduras which is where most of the asylum seekers are coming from is a democratic republic like the US but the leadership is far right.  Honduras is a great example what can happen in a poor country under far right conservative leadership.  The government, the national and local police are so corrupt it's hard to say whether the gangs or the police are worse.    *
Click to expand...


Says who? Show the statistics of Honduran nationals illegally emigrating to the US. The Huffington Post is not a valid source.


----------



## Flopper

Gracie said:


> Look....its not nice to separate kids from families but this is on the parents doing this shit, isn't it? Why are we subject to nice nice crap by people breaking our laws but every other country gets a pass? Imagine Trying to move to any place in europe..france, uk, spain, etc...taking yer kids with ya. What do you think those countries would do? Put you up in a motel with your family while you apply for citizenship? Oh hell no.
> So what IS the answer? Keep doing what we are doing to stop people with harsh consequences for THEIR actions. If this means dividing kids from parents..well....maybe eventually the parents will get a clue and cease breaking our laws.


*That's pretty unlikely.  Most of those attempting to enter illegally now are not job seekers from Mexico. They come from places that are so bad, there's nothing we can do to them that is worst than home.  In Honduras when they take away your kids which is very common, they're either dead or wish they were.  *


----------



## Gracie

Flopper said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look....its not nice to separate kids from families but this is on the parents doing this shit, isn't it? Why are we subject to nice nice crap by people breaking our laws but every other country gets a pass? Imagine Trying to move to any place in europe..france, uk, spain, etc...taking yer kids with ya. What do you think those countries would do? Put you up in a motel with your family while you apply for citizenship? Oh hell no.
> So what IS the answer? Keep doing what we are doing to stop people with harsh consequences for THEIR actions. If this means dividing kids from parents..well....maybe eventually the parents will get a clue and cease breaking our laws.
> 
> 
> 
> *That's pretty unlikely.  Most of those attempting to enter illegally now are not job seekers from Mexico. They come from places that are so bad, there's nothing we can do to them that is worst than home.  In Honduras when they take away your kids which is very common, they're either dead or wish they were.  *
Click to expand...

So...WE are supposed to now support and raise their kids?


----------



## Flopper

Gracie said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look....its not nice to separate kids from families but this is on the parents doing this shit, isn't it? Why are we subject to nice nice crap by people breaking our laws but every other country gets a pass? Imagine Trying to move to any place in europe..france, uk, spain, etc...taking yer kids with ya. What do you think those countries would do? Put you up in a motel with your family while you apply for citizenship? Oh hell no.
> So what IS the answer? Keep doing what we are doing to stop people with harsh consequences for THEIR actions. If this means dividing kids from parents..well....maybe eventually the parents will get a clue and cease breaking our laws.
> 
> 
> 
> *That's pretty unlikely.  Most of those attempting to enter illegally now are not job seekers from Mexico. They come from places that are so bad, there's nothing we can do to them that is worst than home.  In Honduras when they take away your kids which is very common, they're either dead or wish they were.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...WE are supposed to now support and raise their kids?
Click to expand...

*If they go into foster care instead of staying with their parents in a family detention center, it's certainly possible.*


----------



## Gracie

Flopper said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look....its not nice to separate kids from families but this is on the parents doing this shit, isn't it? Why are we subject to nice nice crap by people breaking our laws but every other country gets a pass? Imagine Trying to move to any place in europe..france, uk, spain, etc...taking yer kids with ya. What do you think those countries would do? Put you up in a motel with your family while you apply for citizenship? Oh hell no.
> So what IS the answer? Keep doing what we are doing to stop people with harsh consequences for THEIR actions. If this means dividing kids from parents..well....maybe eventually the parents will get a clue and cease breaking our laws.
> 
> 
> 
> *That's pretty unlikely.  Most of those attempting to enter illegally now are not job seekers from Mexico. They come from places that are so bad, there's nothing we can do to them that is worst than home.  In Honduras when they take away your kids which is very common, they're either dead or wish they were.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...WE are supposed to now support and raise their kids?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If they go into foster care instead of staying with their parents in a family detention center, it's certainly possible.*
Click to expand...

Um. Yeah. No.
We need to take care of our own.


----------



## Taz

HappyJoy said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
Click to expand...

It's a deterrent, as in, don't want to be separated from your children, then don't bring them here illegally. Once the word gets around, they'll cut it out. maybe.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Gracie said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look....its not nice to separate kids from families but this is on the parents doing this shit, isn't it? Why are we subject to nice nice crap by people breaking our laws but every other country gets a pass? Imagine Trying to move to any place in europe..france, uk, spain, etc...taking yer kids with ya. What do you think those countries would do? Put you up in a motel with your family while you apply for citizenship? Oh hell no.
> So what IS the answer? Keep doing what we are doing to stop people with harsh consequences for THEIR actions. If this means dividing kids from parents..well....maybe eventually the parents will get a clue and cease breaking our laws.
> 
> 
> 
> *That's pretty unlikely.  Most of those attempting to enter illegally now are not job seekers from Mexico. They come from places that are so bad, there's nothing we can do to them that is worst than home.  In Honduras when they take away your kids which is very common, they're either dead or wish they were.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...WE are supposed to now support and raise their kids?
Click to expand...


Of course we are.  We are the suckers.  If you come here, we are supposed to take care of you.  We are supposed to take care of your children.  We are to provide you with a place to live, food to eat, medical care we don't provide our own.   Make sure you tell your family still on the other side of the border that this country now 20 trillion in debt will just have taxpayers fund all your goodies.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> They and blacks are natural Republicans but they know the GOP is full of racists and bigots. Tough luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is perplexing.  They haven't won a popular vote since 2004 and haven't won a popular vote when they were not the incumbent since 1988.  As  Hispanic immigrants move from the South up into the northern reaches of the country (Where "we don't get many Hispanics" as the INS guy put it before he detained two women in Montana if memory serves), the carefully gerrymandered districts become vulnerable.
> 
> Whether the Democrats can hold on to the Hispanic vote is another question all together--nobody snatches defeat from the jaws of victory like a DEM.  But the GOP is not doing itself any favors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your suggestion is to just surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps not be a total prick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Support for protecting your borders is being a total prick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A hard and fast policy of Ripping kids from their parents is
Click to expand...



Well then we are pricks.  If you don't want to deal with pricks, then stay in your own country.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pay better..... and hire American...the sugar beat industry is doing it and doing well thank you....
> 
> Tired of whinny farmers....pay a living wage high enough to attract US citizens or support a new migrant worker program...I know your labor costs will go up either way but hey!....welcome to the real world....
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right. I have no sympathy for traitorous businesses who hire illegal aliens because they say they can't afford to pay American standard wages.  If you can't do that, then you can't afford to be in business, and you shouldn't be in it.
> 
> So what do you do ?   Go out and do what all the rest of us who can't afford to own a business do.  Get a job!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We pay people not to work and call it government assistance and we allow illegal migrants to flood our fields at half the cost the position should compensate....creating a welfare dependent class of easily guided sheeple to vote to keep the status quo in place so the swamp can continue to enrich themselves....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If American farmers paid workers twice what they make now, they would lose a large percent of the 135 billion dollars in food product exports.  Even if American workers would work the fields for twice the pay, farmers couldn't pay it. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They would have to do what everybody else did, and that is raise their prices.  If labor becomes so expensive the can't find any workers, then the next step is to invest in automation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There is still a lot of farm and field work that can't be done by machines.  However much of the picking done manually could be mechanized but at a high cost.  Again, the farmer would have to raise prices making his product less competitive on world markets, and also in the US. *
Click to expand...


Then that's what needs to happen.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right. I have no sympathy for traitorous businesses who hire illegal aliens because they say they can't afford to pay American standard wages.  If you can't do that, then you can't afford to be in business, and you shouldn't be in it.
> 
> So what do you do ?   Go out and do what all the rest of us who can't afford to own a business do.  Get a job!
> 
> 
> 
> We pay people not to work and call it government assistance and we allow illegal migrants to flood our fields at half the cost the position should compensate....creating a welfare dependent class of easily guided sheeple to vote to keep the status quo in place so the swamp can continue to enrich themselves....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If American farmers paid workers twice what they make now, they would lose a large percent of the 135 billion dollars in food product exports.  Even if American workers would work the fields for twice the pay, farmers couldn't pay it. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They would have to do what everybody else did, and that is raise their prices.  If labor becomes so expensive the can't find any workers, then the next step is to invest in automation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There is still a lot of farm and field work that can't be done by machines.  However much of the picking done manually could be mechanized but at a high cost.  Again, the farmer would have to raise prices making his product less competitive on world markets, and also in the US. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then that's what needs to happen.
Click to expand...

Or we could do the intelligent thing and have a good ID card including for seasonal workers and end illegal immigration forever. You idiots with the useless wall will just keep this mess going forever, what the mega rich idiot greedy GOP Masters want...


----------



## francoHFW

percysunshine said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of this stuff would be an issue if the Latin American Socialists were not destroying their own countries and driving their populations into flight.
Click to expand...

Actually they are fleeing drug gangs caused by our stupid War on Drugs. Actually your stupid War on Drugs.


----------



## francoHFW

Gracie said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look....its not nice to separate kids from families but this is on the parents doing this shit, isn't it? Why are we subject to nice nice crap by people breaking our laws but every other country gets a pass? Imagine Trying to move to any place in europe..france, uk, spain, etc...taking yer kids with ya. What do you think those countries would do? Put you up in a motel with your family while you apply for citizenship? Oh hell no.
> So what IS the answer? Keep doing what we are doing to stop people with harsh consequences for THEIR actions. If this means dividing kids from parents..well....maybe eventually the parents will get a clue and cease breaking our laws.
> 
> 
> 
> *That's pretty unlikely.  Most of those attempting to enter illegally now are not job seekers from Mexico. They come from places that are so bad, there's nothing we can do to them that is worst than home.  In Honduras when they take away your kids which is very common, they're either dead or wish they were.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...WE are supposed to now support and raise their kids?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If they go into foster care instead of staying with their parents in a family detention center, it's certainly possible.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um. Yeah. No.
> We need to take care of our own.
Click to expand...

We are the richest country on Earth and we can do both with intelligent government. Which we haven't had for 50 years. Thanks GOP for keeping stupid wedge issues going forever to keep the dupes in line...


----------



## francoHFW

Gracie said:


> Look....its not nice to separate kids from families but this is on the parents doing this shit, isn't it? Why are we subject to nice nice crap by people breaking our laws but every other country gets a pass? Imagine Trying to move to any place in europe..france, uk, spain, etc...taking yer kids with ya. What do you think those countries would do? Put you up in a motel with your family while you apply for citizenship? Oh hell no.
> So what IS the answer? Keep doing what we are doing to stop people with harsh consequences for THEIR actions. If this means dividing kids from parents..well....maybe eventually the parents will get a clue and cease breaking our laws.


This is about them trying to get Asylum from gang violence caused by your stupid War on Drugs.


----------



## MaryL

Well, to flip the OP's initial question the other way : What human cost is acceptable in ALLOWING illegal immigration?

I have seen enough, our country is being divided.   We have pro illegal exploiters  and their political Quislings that are so cynical about this issue it is disgusting.

 And we have poor Americans relegated to the curb and poverty as a result, and the net effect of allowing illegal immigration is the dissolution of American culture.  Unacceptable.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> We pay people not to work and call it government assistance and we allow illegal migrants to flood our fields at half the cost the position should compensate....creating a welfare dependent class of easily guided sheeple to vote to keep the status quo in place so the swamp can continue to enrich themselves....
> 
> 
> 
> *If American farmers paid workers twice what they make now, they would lose a large percent of the 135 billion dollars in food product exports.  Even if American workers would work the fields for twice the pay, farmers couldn't pay it. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They would have to do what everybody else did, and that is raise their prices.  If labor becomes so expensive the can't find any workers, then the next step is to invest in automation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There is still a lot of farm and field work that can't be done by machines.  However much of the picking done manually could be mechanized but at a high cost.  Again, the farmer would have to raise prices making his product less competitive on world markets, and also in the US. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then that's what needs to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or we could do the intelligent thing and have a good ID card including for seasonal workers and end illegal immigration forever. You idiots with the useless wall will just keep this mess going forever, what the mega rich idiot greedy GOP Masters want...
Click to expand...


Oh please.  You commies are all for ID cards except when it comes to voting.  

Yeah, an ID card will stop the flow of illegals into this country, give Americans their jobs back, and stop the flow of money going over the border every year. Yeah, a stupid card will do all that. 

But we'll keep letting them have anchor babies, keep giving them drivers licenses, keep printing signs and ballots in their language, keep allowing them to send their kids to our schools and get loans from the banks.  

You are such a puppet.  You're exactly what the Democrat party depends on.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If American farmers paid workers twice what they make now, they would lose a large percent of the 135 billion dollars in food product exports.  Even if American workers would work the fields for twice the pay, farmers couldn't pay it. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They would have to do what everybody else did, and that is raise their prices.  If labor becomes so expensive the can't find any workers, then the next step is to invest in automation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There is still a lot of farm and field work that can't be done by machines.  However much of the picking done manually could be mechanized but at a high cost.  Again, the farmer would have to raise prices making his product less competitive on world markets, and also in the US. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then that's what needs to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or we could do the intelligent thing and have a good ID card including for seasonal workers and end illegal immigration forever. You idiots with the useless wall will just keep this mess going forever, what the mega rich idiot greedy GOP Masters want...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please.  You commies are all for ID cards except when it comes to voting.
> 
> Yeah, an ID card will stop the flow of illegals into this country, give Americans their jobs back, and stop the flow of money going over the border every year. Yeah, a stupid card will do all that.
> 
> But we'll keep letting them have anchor babies, keep giving them drivers licenses, keep printing signs and ballots in their language, keep allowing them to send their kids to our schools and get loans from the banks.
> 
> You are such a puppet.  You're exactly what the Democrat party depends on.
Click to expand...

There are no commies, dingbat dupe. A highly enforced ID card is the only answer, would end everything you mentioned, unlike a wall and horrible harassment laws and treatment that appeal to misinformed often racist GOP dupes. You idiots believe Democrats are for open borders and are communists LOL! Brainwashed functional moron is you. Totally misinformed.


----------



## francoHFW

MaryL said:


> Well, to flip the OP's initial question the other way : What human cost is acceptable in ALLOWING illegal immigration?
> 
> I have seen enough, our country is being divided.   We have pro illegal exploiters  and their political Quislings that are so cynical about this issue it is disgusting.
> 
> And we have poor Americans relegated to the curb and poverty as a result, and the net effect of allowing illegal immigration is the dissolution of American culture.  Unacceptable.


Poor Americans like that are the result of the last 35 years of GOP dominance and obstruction. So end it and stop dicking around stupid un American walls and screwing random Hispanics...


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *Wrong! According to ICE:
> There were 240,255 removals in 2016.
> FY 2016 ICE Immigration Removals*


Wrong!  That was OBAMA's ICE, which defined a summons and a walk-away ("catch & release") as a deportation.  Sorry.  Doesn't meet my definition >> ie.  somebody leaving the USA, and gone back to their home country.

I already mentioned this. Some people have to be told twice (or is it 3 ?)


----------



## protectionist

francoHFW said:


> There are no commies, dingbat dupe. A highly enforced ID card is the only answer, would end everything you mentioned, unlike a wall and horrible harassment laws and treatment that appeal to misinformed often racist GOP dupes. You idiots believe Democrats are for open borders and are communists LOL! Brainwashed functional moron is you. Totally misinformed.


1.  Coming in here and pretending that amnesty-voting, sanctuary city-voting Democrats are not for open borders is simply asinine.

2.  An ID card only (maybe) informs that you are you.....not that you're eligible to vote.


----------



## protectionist

francoHFW said:


> Poor Americans like that are the result of the last 35 years of GOP dominance and obstruction. So end it and stop dicking around stupid un American walls and screwing random Hispanics...


Poor Americans are also the result of Democrat open border policies (amnesty, sanctuary, birthright citizenship, welfare for illegals, etc) and thus, resulting illegal immigration taking jobs away from Americans. It also results from businesses being deprived of sales due to immigration remittances$$$$.


----------



## MaryL

When you think about illegal aliens, you probably are thinking a poor little group of famished Mexicans hiding in the shadows, barley eking out a living fearing a knock on their door. Well, think again. No, instead they are emboldened to strut around like they can't do any wrong. Because they get SANCTUARY.  I live in a sanctuary city/state. And yet I see homeless Americans living tents begging for money. Most of these people lost their jobs and homes because entire industries switched to illegal aliens, it happens, it's  a non negotiable fact.  Poor Americans want a better life too, and they deserve a little more recognition and respect than being treated like disposable trash. Why don't we give poor Americans sanctuary instead?


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *There is still a lot of farm and field work that can't be done by machines.  However much of the picking done manually could be mechanized but at a high cost.  Again, the farmer would have to raise prices making his product less competitive on world markets, and also in the US. *


If farmers can't pay American wages, they can't afford to be farmers in America.


----------



## protectionist

MaryL said:


> When you think about illegal aliens, you probably are thinking a poor little group of famished Mexicans hiding in the shadows, barley eking out a living fearing a knock on their door. Well, think again. No, instead they are emboldened to strut around like they can't do any wrong. Because they get SANCTUARY.  I live in a sanctuary city/state. And yet I see homeless Americans living tents begging for money. Most of these people lost their jobs and homes because entire industries switched to illegal aliens, it happens, it's  a non negotiable fact.  Poor Americans want a better life too, and they deserve a little more recognition and respect than being treated like disposable trash. Why don't we give poor Americans sanctuary instead?


I have seen Mexicans (unable to speak English) showing up at the welfare office, driving shiny, new cars.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> * In foster care, they are often moved from family to family.  Recently it was reported that DHS was unable to determine the whereabouts of nearly 1500 kids.  This means the parents will likely be deported without their kids under the Trump zero tolerance policy. *


Lucky for the kids.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *If American farmers paid workers twice what they make now, they would lose a large percent of the 135 billion dollars in food product exports.  Even if American workers would work the fields for twice the pay, farmers couldn't pay it. *


Then they shouldn't be farmers..  


They can do what all the rest of us who can't afford to own a business ,do.  Go out and GET A JOB​


----------



## francoHFW

protectionist said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no commies, dingbat dupe. A highly enforced ID card is the only answer, would end everything you mentioned, unlike a wall and horrible harassment laws and treatment that appeal to misinformed often racist GOP dupes. You idiots believe Democrats are for open borders and are communists LOL! Brainwashed functional moron is you. Totally misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Coming in here and pretending that amnesty-voting, sanctuary city-voting Democrats are not for open borders is simply asinine.
> 
> 2.  An ID card only (maybe) informs that you are you.....not that you're eligible to vote.
Click to expand...

It does whatever the computer chip says. It can also be voter ID so we can end that imaginary GOP crisis LOL.


----------



## francoHFW

protectionist said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Americans like that are the result of the last 35 years of GOP dominance and obstruction. So end it and stop dicking around stupid un American walls and screwing random Hispanics...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Americans are also the result of Democrat open border policies (amnesty, sanctuary, birthright citizenship, welfare for illegals, etc) and thus, resulting illegal immigration taking jobs away from Americans. It also results from businesses being deprived of sales due to immigration remittances$$$$.
Click to expand...

Amnesty was Reagan but Republicans refused to follow up with a good ID card or or something ! Fix it and stop parroting BS nonexistent and irrelevant GOP crises and Scandals, super duper.


----------



## francoHFW

francoHFW said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Americans like that are the result of the last 35 years of GOP dominance and obstruction. So end it and stop dicking around stupid un American walls and screwing random Hispanics...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Americans are also the result of Democrat open border policies (amnesty, sanctuary, birthright citizenship, welfare for illegals, etc) and thus, resulting illegal immigration taking jobs away from Americans. It also results from businesses being deprived of sales due to immigration remittances$$$$.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amnesty was Reagan but Republicans refused to follow up with a good ID card or or something ! Fix it and stop parroting BS nonexistent and irrelevant GOP crises and Scandals, super duper.
Click to expand...

Nobody is for open borders for for immigrants, you ridiculous chump.


----------



## protectionist

percysunshine said:


> None of this stuff would be an issue if the Latin American Socialists were not destroying their own countries and driving their populations into flight.


And nowhere is that more clearly the case than in the train wreck to our south known as Mexico. 

If they broke up the monopolies, and allowed Mexican small businessmen to compete, thereby opening thousands of companies and hiring millions of people, poor Mexicans would be happy in Mexico, instead of migrating north.

Also, needed is to deprive Mexico of the tons of Billions$$/year they get from USA remittances$$ and us paying their poverty bill - thankfully, we *finally* have a POTUS who is working on that.


----------



## francoHFW

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If American farmers paid workers twice what they make now, they would lose a large percent of the 135 billion dollars in food product exports.  Even if American workers would work the fields for twice the pay, farmers couldn't pay it. *
> 
> 
> 
> Then they shouldn't be farmers..
> 
> 
> They can do what all the rest of us who can't afford to own a business ,do.  Go out and GET A JOB​
Click to expand...

Or we could do the intelligent thing and have seasonal workers as we do and follow up on them and and of course give them a f******ID card to do it


----------



## protectionist

candycorn said:


> A hard and fast policy of Ripping kids from their parents is


Which is why illegal aliens shouldn't be doing that, and the lowlife country that send them here.


----------



## francoHFW

protectionist said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of this stuff would be an issue if the Latin American Socialists were not destroying their own countries and driving their populations into flight.
> 
> 
> 
> And nowhere is that more clearly the case than in the train wreck to our south known as Mexico.
> 
> If they broke up the monopolies, and allowed Mexican small businessmen to compete, thereby opening thousands of companies and hiring millions of people, poor Mexicans would be happy in Mexico, instead of migrating north.
> 
> Also, needed is to deprive Mexico of the tons of Billions$$/year they get from USA remittances$$ and us paying their poverty bill - thankfully, we *finally* have a POTUS who is working on that.
Click to expand...

Mexico is ruined by drug gangs and resultant corruption, stupid dupe, caused by us. Caused by us, hater dupe.


----------



## protectionist

francoHFW said:


> Or we could do the intelligent thing and have seasonal workers as we do and follow up on them and and of course give them a f******ID card to do it


IF we NEED seasonal workers.


----------



## francoHFW

protectionist said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or we could do the intelligent thing and have seasonal workers as we do and follow up on them and and of course give them a f******ID card to do it
> 
> 
> 
> IF we NEED seasonal workers.
Click to expand...

We do, to keep cost of produce down... Or by all means whatever. But do it intelligently and a goddamn facking ID card like most other modern countries have. But of course that would be communist right, GOP dupe?


----------



## protectionist

francoHFW said:


> Mexico is ruined by drug gangs and resultant corruption, stupid dupe, caused by us. Caused by us, hater dupe.


You just got told (in Post # 1923) what is, and has been, ruining Mexico, and none of it is caused by us, STUPID DUPE.


----------



## Flopper

Taz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a deterrent, as in, don't want to be separated from your children, then don't bring them here illegally. Once the word gets around, they'll cut it out. maybe.
Click to expand...

*Now that would be pretty dumb, applying for asylum out of fear for the lives of the family members and then leave the kids there.*


----------



## Slyhunter

Flopper said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a deterrent, as in, don't want to be separated from your children, then don't bring them here illegally. Once the word gets around, they'll cut it out. maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Now that would be pretty dumb, applying for asylum out of fear for the lives of the family members and then leave the kids there.*
Click to expand...

Instead of fleeing they should fight for their country and have a revolution.


----------



## MaryL

protectionist said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you think about illegal aliens, you probably are thinking a poor little group of famished Mexicans hiding in the shadows, barley eking out a living fearing a knock on their door. Well, think again. No, instead they are emboldened to strut around like they can't do any wrong. Because they get SANCTUARY.  I live in a sanctuary city/state. And yet I see homeless Americans living tents begging for money. Most of these people lost their jobs and homes because entire industries switched to illegal aliens, it happens, it's  a non negotiable fact.  Poor Americans want a better life too, and they deserve a little more recognition and respect than being treated like disposable trash. Why don't we give poor Americans sanctuary instead?
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen Mexicans (unable to speak English) showing up at the welfare office, driving shiny, new cars.
Click to expand...

There are so many layers to this. Anecdotal evidence, then there's all those pols and statistics and analysis by so called experts.   Let me boil down my 25 year plus experience with Illegal aliens. It comes down to: Illegal aliens just aren't worth selling out America. It cheapens and devalues basic human standards. It's not about humanitarianism, the fact they dispossess Americans and create poverty HERE  makes a lie of that statement. We ALL want a better life, after all.


----------



## protectionist

francoHFW said:


> We do, to keep cost of produce down... Or by all means whatever. But do it intelligently and a goddamn facking ID card like most other modern countries have. But of course that would be communist right, GOP dupe?


Cost of produce (or any product) remains the same regardless of wages. Companies cannot raise prices above their market price - to do so, causes catastrophic SALES REDUCTIONS.

What do you think made the price of any given product in the first place, leftist dupe ?  Somebody's lucky number ?  

You don't run your economic system by depriving your citizens of jobs.  We still have 3.8% unemployment, so some Americans are still without jobs, and anybody can pick fruit - don't need engineers and scientists to do that.


----------



## imawhosure

You are screwed, that is all you need know-)


----------



## francoHFW

protectionist said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A hard and fast policy of Ripping kids from their parents is
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why illegal aliens shouldn't be doing that, and the lowlife country that send them here.
Click to expand...

The problem is it's happening with those trying for Asylum... Ordinary illegals caught that could happen, but that would be for a few days before being sent back right? Actually they could keep them together since they're all illegal. Why do you GOPers have to be cruel just for the hell of it. Of course racism no longer exists, right? LOL!


----------



## francoHFW

protectionist said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico is ruined by drug gangs and resultant corruption, stupid dupe, caused by us. Caused by us, hater dupe.
> 
> 
> 
> You just got told (in Post # 1923) what is, and has been, ruining Mexico, and none of it is caused by us, STUPID DUPE.
Click to expand...

So there is no drug gang problem in Mexico? No resultant corruption? You are out of your mind.


----------



## francoHFW

imawhosure said:


> You are screwed, that is all you need know-)


Pass the goddamn ID card with computer chip. And enforce it. End it. Democrats have been trying to get that forever. Your brainwashing Heroes block actual Solutions, super duper s.


----------



## imawhosure

francoHFW said:


> imawhosure said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are screwed, that is all you need know-)
> 
> 
> 
> Pass the goddamn ID card with computer chip. And enforce it. End it. Democrats have been trying to get that forever. Your brainwashing Heroes block actual Solutions, super duper s.
Click to expand...



Hey super DUPEr, how the hell you doing?

Good to see you are here, even as your whole damn Leftist agenda collapses.   

What a deal, isn't it!  And you thought you had it, lololololol!


----------



## Natural Citizen

Coyote said:


> That isn’t calling for open borders.  Talk about distortion.



There's a case to be made for open borders. But this demands a free society. We don't have a free society. But if we did, there's a case to be made for it. 

Anyway. Are you like a warrior chick now? Raaaaaaaar....


----------



## Flopper

Slyhunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a deterrent, as in, don't want to be separated from your children, then don't bring them here illegally. Once the word gets around, they'll cut it out. maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Now that would be pretty dumb, applying for asylum out of fear for the lives of the family members and then leave the kids there.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Instead of fleeing they should fight for their country and have a revolution.
Click to expand...

*They did.  They had 5 of them.*


----------



## Pop23

Flopper said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a deterrent, as in, don't want to be separated from your children, then don't bring them here illegally. Once the word gets around, they'll cut it out. maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Now that would be pretty dumb, applying for asylum out of fear for the lives of the family members and then leave the kids there.*
Click to expand...


The fear that caused them to also leave their papers behind?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or we could do the intelligent thing and have seasonal workers as we do and follow up on them and and of course give them a f******ID card to do it
> 
> 
> 
> IF we NEED seasonal workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We do, to keep cost of produce down... Or by all means whatever. But do it intelligently and a goddamn facking ID card like most other modern countries have. But of course that would be communist right, GOP dupe?
Click to expand...


If your concern is keeping prices down, why don't we get rid of the national minimum wage?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of this stuff would be an issue if the Latin American Socialists were not destroying their own countries and driving their populations into flight.
> 
> 
> 
> And nowhere is that more clearly the case than in the train wreck to our south known as Mexico.
> 
> If they broke up the monopolies, and allowed Mexican small businessmen to compete, thereby opening thousands of companies and hiring millions of people, poor Mexicans would be happy in Mexico, instead of migrating north.
> 
> Also, needed is to deprive Mexico of the tons of Billions$$/year they get from USA remittances$$ and us paying their poverty bill - thankfully, we *finally* have a POTUS who is working on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mexico is ruined by drug gangs and resultant corruption, stupid dupe, caused by us. Caused by us, hater dupe.
Click to expand...


It has nothing to do with us.  Even if it did, that would mean you support a wall to help keep the drugs out of this country.


----------



## protectionist

francoHFW said:


> So there is no drug gang problem in Mexico? No resultant corruption? You are out of your mind.


I didn't say there wasn't. Here's something to get you up to speed on Mexico. I wrote it a few years ago, but it's still valid.

CDZ - Brief Expose' Of The Mexican Invasion Of The United States (1950-2016)


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a deterrent, as in, don't want to be separated from your children, then don't bring them here illegally. Once the word gets around, they'll cut it out. maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Now that would be pretty dumb, applying for asylum out of fear for the lives of the family members and then leave the kids there.*
Click to expand...


So then it somehow becomes our problem, right?  Why didn't they just stay in Mexico if that's what they feared?


----------



## protectionist

francoHFW said:


> The problem is it's happening with those trying for Asylum... Ordinary illegals caught that could happen, but that would be for a few days before being sent back right? Actually they could keep them together since they're all illegal. Why do you GOPers have to be cruel just for the hell of it. Of course racism no longer exists, right? LOL!


Never let an opportunity to flash the race card go by unused, right ?


----------



## Gracie

francoHFW said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look....its not nice to separate kids from families but this is on the parents doing this shit, isn't it? Why are we subject to nice nice crap by people breaking our laws but every other country gets a pass? Imagine Trying to move to any place in europe..france, uk, spain, etc...taking yer kids with ya. What do you think those countries would do? Put you up in a motel with your family while you apply for citizenship? Oh hell no.
> So what IS the answer? Keep doing what we are doing to stop people with harsh consequences for THEIR actions. If this means dividing kids from parents..well....maybe eventually the parents will get a clue and cease breaking our laws.
> 
> 
> 
> This is about them trying to get Asylum from gang violence caused by your stupid War on Drugs.
Click to expand...

Not our problem. Its THEIR problem.
As I said...we need to concentrate on our own.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *They did.  They had 5 of them.*


Looks like they needed 6.


----------



## Gracie

francoHFW said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look....its not nice to separate kids from families but this is on the parents doing this shit, isn't it? Why are we subject to nice nice crap by people breaking our laws but every other country gets a pass? Imagine Trying to move to any place in europe..france, uk, spain, etc...taking yer kids with ya. What do you think those countries would do? Put you up in a motel with your family while you apply for citizenship? Oh hell no.
> So what IS the answer? Keep doing what we are doing to stop people with harsh consequences for THEIR actions. If this means dividing kids from parents..well....maybe eventually the parents will get a clue and cease breaking our laws.
> 
> 
> 
> *That's pretty unlikely.  Most of those attempting to enter illegally now are not job seekers from Mexico. They come from places that are so bad, there's nothing we can do to them that is worst than home.  In Honduras when they take away your kids which is very common, they're either dead or wish they were.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...WE are supposed to now support and raise their kids?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If they go into foster care instead of staying with their parents in a family detention center, it's certainly possible.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um. Yeah. No.
> We need to take care of our own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are the richest country on Earth and we can do both with intelligent government. Which we haven't had for 50 years. Thanks GOP for keeping stupid wedge issues going forever to keep the dupes in line...
Click to expand...

We are not the world police or the world food bank or the world hospital. 
We need to take care of our own. Period.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Ray From Cleveland said:


> If your concern is keeping prices down, why don't we get rid of the national minimum wage?



Better yet, why don't we shut down the fed's printing press? Because that's the real reason prices go up. But we don't want that, do we? It costs money to bomb coloreds and steal their oil, huh.


----------



## protectionist

francoHFW said:


> Pass the goddamn ID card with computer chip. And enforce it. End it. Democrats have been trying to get that forever. Your brainwashing Heroes block actual Solutions, super duper s.


What exactly are you saying that this illustrious ID card is going to do ?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> They would have to do what everybody else did, and that is raise their prices.  If labor becomes so expensive the can't find any workers, then the next step is to invest in automation.
> 
> 
> 
> *There is still a lot of farm and field work that can't be done by machines.  However much of the picking done manually could be mechanized but at a high cost.  Again, the farmer would have to raise prices making his product less competitive on world markets, and also in the US. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then that's what needs to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or we could do the intelligent thing and have a good ID card including for seasonal workers and end illegal immigration forever. You idiots with the useless wall will just keep this mess going forever, what the mega rich idiot greedy GOP Masters want...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please.  You commies are all for ID cards except when it comes to voting.
> 
> Yeah, an ID card will stop the flow of illegals into this country, give Americans their jobs back, and stop the flow of money going over the border every year. Yeah, a stupid card will do all that.
> 
> But we'll keep letting them have anchor babies, keep giving them drivers licenses, keep printing signs and ballots in their language, keep allowing them to send their kids to our schools and get loans from the banks.
> 
> You are such a puppet.  You're exactly what the Democrat party depends on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no commies, dingbat dupe. A highly enforced ID card is the only answer, would end everything you mentioned, unlike a wall and horrible harassment laws and treatment that appeal to misinformed often racist GOP dupes. You idiots believe Democrats are for open borders and are communists LOL! Brainwashed functional moron is you. Totally misinformed.
Click to expand...


Would you like to play a game?  I'll post a quote and you tell me if it's a Democrat platform or the USCP platform.  I bet you miss half the time.  

Your stupid card won't do squat.  It won't stop people from coming to this country, fake cards will be made and sold on the black market, and it won't do a damn thing about drugs coming into this country.


----------



## protectionist

Gracie said:


> We are not the world police or the world food bank or the world hospital.
> We need to take care of our own. Period.


Yes. And when other countries become less reliant on us (in a number of ways), they'll start being more reliant on themselves.  Sure they're poor, but so were we many years ago.  And many of us still are now (including many seniors and veterans)


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a deterrent, as in, don't want to be separated from your children, then don't bring them here illegally. Once the word gets around, they'll cut it out. maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Now that would be pretty dumb, applying for asylum out of fear for the lives of the family members and then leave the kids there.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then it somehow becomes our problem, right?  Why didn't they just stay in Mexico if that's what they feared?
Click to expand...

*Yes, it does become our problem when they cross our boarders. Mexico does send them back and they grant asylum to only 1 in 20 that apply. With the deteriorating relations between the US and Mexico, they're probably busing them to the US boarder so they'll be our problem.*


----------



## protectionist

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Would you like to play a game?  I'll post a quote and you tell me if it's a Democrat platform or the USCP platform.  I bet you miss half the time.
> 
> Your stupid card won't do squat.  It won't stop people from coming to this country, fake cards will be made and sold on the black market, and it won't do a damn thing about drugs coming into this country.


They were selling fake County photo ID cards at my local flea market, a few months ago.  (only $10 each) - but they still don't show that you're a citizen (eligible to vote)


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *Yes, it does become our problem when they cross our boarders. Mexico does send them back and they grant asylum to only 1 in 20 that apply. With the deteriorating relations between the US and Mexico, they're probably busing them to the US boarder so they'll be our problem.*


They've been doing that for decades.

Vicente Fox Says Remittances Largest Source Of Revenue Since 2003, Gloats At Getting Illegals And Matricula Consular Into US : Diggers Realm


----------



## francoHFW

imawhosure said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> imawhosure said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are screwed, that is all you need know-)
> 
> 
> 
> Pass the goddamn ID card with computer chip. And enforce it. End it. Democrats have been trying to get that forever. Your brainwashing Heroes block actual Solutions, super duper s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey super DUPEr, how the hell you doing?
> 
> Good to see you are here, even as your whole damn Leftist agenda collapses.
> 
> What a deal, isn't it!  And you thought you had it, lololololol!
Click to expand...

We haven't been able to pass anything for 30 years...


----------



## francoHFW

protectionist said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to play a game?  I'll post a quote and you tell me if it's a Democrat platform or the USCP platform.  I bet you miss half the time.
> 
> Your stupid card won't do squat.  It won't stop people from coming to this country, fake cards will be made and sold on the black market, and it won't do a damn thing about drugs coming into this country.
> 
> 
> 
> They were selling fake County photo ID cards at my local flea market, a few months ago.  (only $10 each) - but they still don't show that you're a citizen (eligible to vote)
Click to expand...

No computer chips there, super duper.


----------



## francoHFW

Natural Citizen said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn’t calling for open borders.  Talk about distortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a case to be made for open borders. But this demands a free society. We don't have a free society. But if we did, there's a case to be made for it.
> 
> Anyway. Are you like a warrior chick now? Raaaaaaaar....
Click to expand...

No one wants open borders for immigrants, super duper. Change the channel


----------



## Natural Citizen

francoHFW said:


> No one wants open borders for immigrants, super duper. Change the channel



What no one wants is freedom. It isn't popular.


----------



## francoHFW

protectionist said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to play a game?  I'll post a quote and you tell me if it's a Democrat platform or the USCP platform.  I bet you miss half the time.
> 
> Your stupid card won't do squat.  It won't stop people from coming to this country, fake cards will be made and sold on the black market, and it won't do a damn thing about drugs coming into this country.
> 
> 
> 
> They were selling fake County photo ID cards at my local flea market, a few months ago.  (only $10 each) - but they still don't show that you're a citizen (eligible to vote)
Click to expand...

They do that now and and people use them because of you, super dupe. Great job


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a deterrent, as in, don't want to be separated from your children, then don't bring them here illegally. Once the word gets around, they'll cut it out. maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Now that would be pretty dumb, applying for asylum out of fear for the lives of the family members and then leave the kids there.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then it somehow becomes our problem, right?  Why didn't they just stay in Mexico if that's what they feared?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, it does become our problem when they cross our boarders. Mexico does send them back and they grant asylum to only 1 in 20 that apply. With the deteriorating relations between the US and Mexico, they're probably busing them to the US boarder so they'll be our problem.*
Click to expand...


They are not our problem, Mexico is our problem.  It's no different than if we sent these people to the Canadian border.  We did it to them.  We should not be allowing them to trample across our land into Canada.


----------



## francoHFW

Natural Citizen said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants open borders for immigrants, super duper. Change the channel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What no one wants is freedom. It isn't popular.
Click to expand...

What kind of freedom, mystery man? Legalize It


----------



## Natural Citizen

francoHFW said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants open borders for immigrants, super duper. Change the channel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What no one wants is freedom. It isn't popular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What kind of freedom, mystery man? Legalize It
Click to expand...


Legalize what? Freedom?  I wish we would.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> 
> 
> It's a deterrent, as in, don't want to be separated from your children, then don't bring them here illegally. Once the word gets around, they'll cut it out. maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Now that would be pretty dumb, applying for asylum out of fear for the lives of the family members and then leave the kids there.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then it somehow becomes our problem, right?  Why didn't they just stay in Mexico if that's what they feared?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, it does become our problem when they cross our boarders. Mexico does send them back and they grant asylum to only 1 in 20 that apply. With the deteriorating relations between the US and Mexico, they're probably busing them to the US boarder so they'll be our problem.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not our problem, Mexico is our problem.  It's no different than if we sent these people to the Canadian border.  We did it to them.  We should not be allowing them to trample across our land into Canada.
Click to expand...




Natural Citizen said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn’t calling for open borders.  Talk about distortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a case to be made for open borders. But this demands a free society. We don't have a free society. But if we did, there's a case to be made for it.
> 
> Anyway. Are you like a warrior chick now? Raaaaaaaar....
Click to expand...

There is only a stupid argument for open borders. That's why no one wants them, except in super dupe world...


----------



## francoHFW

Natural Citizen said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants open borders for immigrants, super duper. Change the channel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What no one wants is freedom. It isn't popular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What kind of freedom, mystery man? Legalize It
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legalize what? Freedom?  I wish we would.
Click to expand...

Marijuana.


----------



## francoHFW

Natural Citizen said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants open borders for immigrants, super duper. Change the channel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What no one wants is freedom. It isn't popular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What kind of freedom, mystery man? Legalize It
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legalize what? Freedom?  I wish we would.
Click to expand...

Freedom can mean anything.


----------



## Natural Citizen

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a deterrent, as in, don't want to be separated from your children, then don't bring them here illegally. Once the word gets around, they'll cut it out. maybe.
> 
> 
> 
> *Now that would be pretty dumb, applying for asylum out of fear for the lives of the family members and then leave the kids there.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then it somehow becomes our problem, right?  Why didn't they just stay in Mexico if that's what they feared?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, it does become our problem when they cross our boarders. Mexico does send them back and they grant asylum to only 1 in 20 that apply. With the deteriorating relations between the US and Mexico, they're probably busing them to the US boarder so they'll be our problem.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not our problem, Mexico is our problem.  It's no different than if we sent these people to the Canadian border.  We did it to them.  We should not be allowing them to trample across our land into Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn’t calling for open borders.  Talk about distortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a case to be made for open borders. But this demands a free society. We don't have a free society. But if we did, there's a case to be made for it.
> 
> Anyway. Are you like a warrior chick now? Raaaaaaaar....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is only a stupid argument for open borders. That's why no one wants them, except in super dupe world...
Click to expand...


People don't want them because people do not understand freedom.

Eventually, that wall is gonna keep you and your money in if you ever want to walk that hard earned money across the border. 

As. I said previously, however, we don't have a free society.  So it's moot until such a time exists.

First thing that needs to be doee is end the welfare state. That'll stop the initiative to come here. I don't see that happening.


----------



## Natural Citizen

francoHFW said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants open borders for immigrants, super duper. Change the channel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What no one wants is freedom. It isn't popular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What kind of freedom, mystery man? Legalize It
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legalize what? Freedom?  I wish we would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marijuana.
Click to expand...


Oh. Well, the drug war is another thing that we need to end. Agreed.


----------



## Natural Citizen

francoHFW said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants open borders for immigrants, super duper. Change the channel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What no one wants is freedom. It isn't popular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What kind of freedom, mystery man? Legalize It
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legalize what? Freedom?  I wish we would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Freedom can mean anything.
Click to expand...


Freedom in America only means liberty against government-over-man.


----------



## francoHFW

First you have to believe that lots of immigrants are on welfare. False GOP propaganda. Just like the idea that people want to be on welfare. It is good thing to have when the corrupt GOP starts another corrupt depression.


----------



## Natural Citizen

francoHFW said:


> First you have to believe that lots of immigrants are on welfare. False GOP propaganda. Just like the idea that people want to be on welfare. It is good thing to have when the corrupt GOP starts another corrupt depression.



I think the GOPers are just as statist and just as dependent upon the welfare state as many of those on the so-called left.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Ah well. I'm going to watch a movie with the little ms. 

You all enjoy your Mexican hunting.


----------



## Natural Citizen

And deluding yourselves. lol.


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is perplexing.  They haven't won a popular vote since 2004 and haven't won a popular vote when they were not the incumbent since 1988.  As  Hispanic immigrants move from the South up into the northern reaches of the country (Where "we don't get many Hispanics" as the INS guy put it before he detained two women in Montana if memory serves), the carefully gerrymandered districts become vulnerable.
> 
> Whether the Democrats can hold on to the Hispanic vote is another question all together--nobody snatches defeat from the jaws of victory like a DEM.  But the GOP is not doing itself any favors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your suggestion is to just surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps not be a total prick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Support for protecting your borders is being a total prick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A hard and fast policy of Ripping kids from their parents is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well then we are pricks.  If you don't want to deal with pricks, then stay in your own country.
Click to expand...


You’re being pricks to a growing population of Americans dumbass…while trying to appease one that is dying off; yours.  They are not going to vote for you….


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your suggestion is to just surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps not be a total prick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Support for protecting your borders is being a total prick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A hard and fast policy of Ripping kids from their parents is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well then we are pricks.  If you don't want to deal with pricks, then stay in your own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re being pricks to a growing population of Americans dumbass…while trying to appease one that is dying off; yours.  They are not going to vote for you….
Click to expand...


They are not Americans, they are invaders.  Learn the difference.


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps not be a total prick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Support for protecting your borders is being a total prick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A hard and fast policy of Ripping kids from their parents is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well then we are pricks.  If you don't want to deal with pricks, then stay in your own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re being pricks to a growing population of Americans dumbass…while trying to appease one that is dying off; yours.  They are not going to vote for you….
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not Americans, they are invaders.  Learn the difference.
Click to expand...


25% of the kids in the nation are Americans of Hispanic descent….  You guys better fire up the voter suppression machines because they are going to grow up and vote against you because you’re acting like a complete prick right now…when you don’t have to.  

They are Americans…not illegals.  Learn the difference.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Support for protecting your borders is being a total prick?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A hard and fast policy of Ripping kids from their parents is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well then we are pricks.  If you don't want to deal with pricks, then stay in your own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re being pricks to a growing population of Americans dumbass…while trying to appease one that is dying off; yours.  They are not going to vote for you….
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not Americans, they are invaders.  Learn the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 25% of the kids in the nation are Americans of Hispanic descent….  You guys better fire up the voter suppression machines because they are going to grow up and vote against you because you’re acting like a complete prick right now…when you don’t have to.
> 
> They are Americans…not illegals.  Learn the difference.
Click to expand...


So who is trying to keep American kids of Hispanic descent out of this country?  That's not what's being discussed here.  What's being discussed are the invaders that are using our tax dollars, taking American jobs, causing us to spend billions every year to try and keep them out, and changing our country. 

You surrender first liberals will be the demise of this country yet.  Once you ruin this place, there is no other USA  to move to.  It will turn into yet another third world shithole.


----------



## francoHFW

Natural Citizen said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants open borders for immigrants, super duper. Change the channel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What no one wants is freedom. It isn't popular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What kind of freedom, mystery man? Legalize It
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legalize what? Freedom?  I wish we would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Freedom can mean anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom in America only means liberty against government-over-man.
Click to expand...

Such as examples please. I would say legalize drugs and treat addicts and mental health, 5 week vacations living wage


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A hard and fast policy of Ripping kids from their parents is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then we are pricks.  If you don't want to deal with pricks, then stay in your own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re being pricks to a growing population of Americans dumbass…while trying to appease one that is dying off; yours.  They are not going to vote for you….
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not Americans, they are invaders.  Learn the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 25% of the kids in the nation are Americans of Hispanic descent….  You guys better fire up the voter suppression machines because they are going to grow up and vote against you because you’re acting like a complete prick right now…when you don’t have to.
> 
> They are Americans…not illegals.  Learn the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who is trying to keep American kids of Hispanic descent out of this country?  That's not what's being discussed here.  What's being discussed are the invaders that are using our tax dollars, taking American jobs, causing us to spend billions every year to try and keep them out, and changing our country.
> 
> You surrender first liberals will be the demise of this country yet.  Once you ruin this place, there is no other USA  to move to.  It will turn into yet another third world shithole.
Click to expand...


Oh my goodness….

The American kids are here already.  

Keeping illegals out and sending them home is the right thing to do….  Can you please get this through your skull.  They agree with you.  I agree with you. I think most here agree with you.  We may differ on the impact, how many jobs they are taking, etc…  But illegals being here and being deported are something that I think is common ground. 

I hope you get it.

What is wrong is the hard and fast rule of ripping kids from their parents.  As mentioned about a week ago, one such immigrant from Brazil had not seen her kid for 8 months.  Mass murderers don’t go 8 months without being able to have a visit from family members.

This is what I meant by being a prick.  

We are being unnecessarily cruel to people.


----------



## percysunshine

francoHFW said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of this stuff would be an issue if the Latin American Socialists were not destroying their own countries and driving their populations into flight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually they are fleeing drug gangs caused by our stupid War on Drugs. Actually your stupid War on Drugs.
Click to expand...


Now this is my war?

Where are my soldiers?  If I have soldiers, I have alot of cool stuff for them to do.

Or did you just have a flash back or something....


----------



## francoHFW

percysunshine said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of this stuff would be an issue if the Latin American Socialists were not destroying their own countries and driving their populations into flight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually they are fleeing drug gangs caused by our stupid War on Drugs. Actually your stupid War on Drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now this is my war?
> 
> Where are my soldiers?  If I have soldiers, I have alot of cool stuff for them to do.
> 
> Or did you just have a flash back or something....
Click to expand...

Your GOP War on Drugs you know LOL


----------



## percysunshine

francoHFW said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of this stuff would be an issue if the Latin American Socialists were not destroying their own countries and driving their populations into flight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually they are fleeing drug gangs caused by our stupid War on Drugs. Actually your stupid War on Drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now this is my war?
> 
> Where are my soldiers?  If I have soldiers, I have alot of cool stuff for them to do.
> 
> Or did you just have a flash back or something....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your GOP War on Drugs you know LOL
Click to expand...


The war on drugs was just a battalion in the army fighting the war on poverty.

Who won that one?


----------



## talksalot

Coyote said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue isn't allowing or not allowing them to stay.  Read the OP.
Click to expand...

So the answer is to put kids in jail with their criminal parents?


----------



## francoHFW

percysunshine said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of this stuff would be an issue if the Latin American Socialists were not destroying their own countries and driving their populations into flight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually they are fleeing drug gangs caused by our stupid War on Drugs. Actually your stupid War on Drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now this is my war?
> 
> Where are my soldiers?  If I have soldiers, I have alot of cool stuff for them to do.
> 
> Or did you just have a flash back or something....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your GOP War on Drugs you know LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war on drugs was just a battalion in the army fighting the war on poverty.
> 
> Who won that one?
Click to expand...

Bulshit the Democrats had the war on poverty, the Republicans the War on Drugs.


----------



## dblack

francoHFW said:


> Democrats had the war on poverty, the Republicans the War on Drugs.



It's a good thing too. We're so much better off now that poverty and drugs have been eliminated.


----------



## percysunshine

francoHFW said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of this stuff would be an issue if the Latin American Socialists were not destroying their own countries and driving their populations into flight.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they are fleeing drug gangs caused by our stupid War on Drugs. Actually your stupid War on Drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now this is my war?
> 
> Where are my soldiers?  If I have soldiers, I have alot of cool stuff for them to do.
> 
> Or did you just have a flash back or something....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your GOP War on Drugs you know LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war on drugs was just a battalion in the army fighting the war on poverty.
> 
> Who won that one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bulshit the Democrats had the war on poverty, the Republicans the War on Drugs.
Click to expand...


Sounds to me like both the Democrats and the Republicans are not very accomplished at social engineering.


----------



## dblack

percysunshine said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they are fleeing drug gangs caused by our stupid War on Drugs. Actually your stupid War on Drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is my war?
> 
> Where are my soldiers?  If I have soldiers, I have alot of cool stuff for them to do.
> 
> Or did you just have a flash back or something....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your GOP War on Drugs you know LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war on drugs was just a battalion in the army fighting the war on poverty.
> 
> Who won that one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bulshit the Democrats had the war on poverty, the Republicans the War on Drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like both the Democrats and the Republicans are not very accomplished at social engineering.
Click to expand...


It's the thought that counts.


----------



## francoHFW

percysunshine said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they are fleeing drug gangs caused by our stupid War on Drugs. Actually your stupid War on Drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is my war?
> 
> Where are my soldiers?  If I have soldiers, I have alot of cool stuff for them to do.
> 
> Or did you just have a flash back or something....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your GOP War on Drugs you know LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war on drugs was just a battalion in the army fighting the war on poverty.
> 
> Who won that one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bulshit the Democrats had the war on poverty, the Republicans the War on Drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like both the Democrats and the Republicans are not very accomplished at social engineering.
Click to expand...

The war on poverty worked under LBJ. The last time it was tried. The war on pot is just stupid.


----------



## dblack

francoHFW said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is my war?
> 
> Where are my soldiers?  If I have soldiers, I have alot of cool stuff for them to do.
> 
> Or did you just have a flash back or something....
> 
> 
> 
> Your GOP War on Drugs you know LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war on drugs was just a battalion in the army fighting the war on poverty.
> 
> Who won that one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bulshit the Democrats had the war on poverty, the Republicans the War on Drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like both the Democrats and the Republicans are not very accomplished at social engineering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The war on poverty worked under LBJ. The last time it was tried. The war on pot is just stupid.
Click to expand...


"It's different when we do it".


----------



## percysunshine

francoHFW said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is my war?
> 
> Where are my soldiers?  If I have soldiers, I have alot of cool stuff for them to do.
> 
> Or did you just have a flash back or something....
> 
> 
> 
> Your GOP War on Drugs you know LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war on drugs was just a battalion in the army fighting the war on poverty.
> 
> Who won that one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bulshit the Democrats had the war on poverty, the Republicans the War on Drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like both the Democrats and the Republicans are not very accomplished at social engineering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The war on poverty worked under LBJ. The last time it was tried. The war on pot is just stupid.
Click to expand...


The war on poverty was a colossal failure. Bureaucratic inertia is the only reason why people keep working at it.

Like the war on drugs....


----------



## percysunshine

dblack said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is my war?
> 
> Where are my soldiers?  If I have soldiers, I have alot of cool stuff for them to do.
> 
> Or did you just have a flash back or something....
> 
> 
> 
> Your GOP War on Drugs you know LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war on drugs was just a battalion in the army fighting the war on poverty.
> 
> Who won that one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bulshit the Democrats had the war on poverty, the Republicans the War on Drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like both the Democrats and the Republicans are not very accomplished at social engineering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the thought that counts.
Click to expand...


It is a debatable proposition as to how many progressives can actually count. If we tested them...anything could happen.


----------



## protectionist

francoHFW said:


> No computer chips there, super duper.


Computer chip doesn't prove citizenship (voting eligibility) - unless its linked to a birth certificate or naturalization.  You haven't said anything about those things.


----------



## protectionist

francoHFW said:


> No one wants open borders for immigrants, super duper. Change the channel


Democrats all do, and they work at it, 24/7.


----------



## protectionist

francoHFW said:


> They do that now and and people use them because of you, super dupe. Great job


Don't know what you're talking about.  Because of me ? If I had my way, none of them would even be here, period.


----------



## HappyJoy

Slyhunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a deterrent, as in, don't want to be separated from your children, then don't bring them here illegally. Once the word gets around, they'll cut it out. maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Now that would be pretty dumb, applying for asylum out of fear for the lives of the family members and then leave the kids there.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Instead of fleeing they should fight for their country and have a revolution.
Click to expand...


Cuz you'd totally do that.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> 
> 
> It's a deterrent, as in, don't want to be separated from your children, then don't bring them here illegally. Once the word gets around, they'll cut it out. maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Now that would be pretty dumb, applying for asylum out of fear for the lives of the family members and then leave the kids there.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then it somehow becomes our problem, right?  Why didn't they just stay in Mexico if that's what they feared?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, it does become our problem when they cross our boarders. Mexico does send them back and they grant asylum to only 1 in 20 that apply. With the deteriorating relations between the US and Mexico, they're probably busing them to the US boarder so they'll be our problem.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not our problem, Mexico is our problem.  It's no different than if we sent these people to the Canadian border.  We did it to them.  We should not be allowing them to trample across our land into Canada.
Click to expand...

*Hate to break your bubble, but Mexico does not send these people to the US.  Although Mexico is a lot tougher on illegals than we are, a lot get through and they probably don't do much to stop them.

Mexico could certainly do a better job stopping these people in their country so they do not reach our boarder.  However, why should they do that?  Exactly what is the US doing for Mexico other than insulting and threatening them daily.  US Mexican relations are the worst they been in decades, thanks to Trump so I certainly wouldn't expect any help from them on immigration or drug enforcement.*


----------



## HappyJoy

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a deterrent, as in, don't want to be separated from your children, then don't bring them here illegally. Once the word gets around, they'll cut it out. maybe.
> 
> 
> 
> *Now that would be pretty dumb, applying for asylum out of fear for the lives of the family members and then leave the kids there.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then it somehow becomes our problem, right?  Why didn't they just stay in Mexico if that's what they feared?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, it does become our problem when they cross our boarders. Mexico does send them back and they grant asylum to only 1 in 20 that apply. With the deteriorating relations between the US and Mexico, they're probably busing them to the US boarder so they'll be our problem.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not our problem, Mexico is our problem.  It's no different than if we sent these people to the Canadian border.  We did it to them.  We should not be allowing them to trample across our land into Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Hate to break your bubble, but Mexico does not send these people to the US.  Although Mexico is a lot tougher on illegals than we are, a lot get through and they probably don't do much to stop them.
> 
> Mexico could certainly do a better job stopping these people in their country so they do not reach our boarder.  However, why should they do that?  Exactly what is the US doing for Mexico other than insulting and threatening them daily.  US Mexican relations are the worst they been in decades, thanks to Trump so I certainly wouldn't expect any help from them on immigration or drug enforcement.*
Click to expand...



Remember when we had allies? It seems a mere 18 months ago.


----------



## Flopper

talksalot said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue isn't allowing or not allowing them to stay.  Read the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the answer is to put kids in jail with their criminal parents?
Click to expand...

*No, in a family detention center.  Throwing these kids in foster care is not only more expensive, more devastating for the kids, but you can bet the US government is going lose a bunch of them.  They've lost track of 1500.  Then you're going to have parents in the headlines being thrown out of the country without their kids.  How incredible stupid and it's all about one man's ego.*


----------



## francoHFW

protectionist said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> No computer chips there, super duper.
> 
> 
> 
> Computer chip doesn't prove citizenship (voting eligibility) - unless its linked to a birth certificate or naturalization.  You haven't said anything about those things.
Click to expand...

Your ID card with computer chip proves Who You Are and what your citizenship is. I don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## francoHFW

protectionist said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do that now and and people use them because of you, super dupe. Great job
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know what you're talking about.  Because of me ? If I had my way, none of them would even be here, period.
Click to expand...

You are GOP and our ID cards are a joke thanks to the GOP d u h.


----------



## francoHFW

protectionist said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants open borders for immigrants, super duper. Change the channel
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats all do, and they work at it, 24/7.
Click to expand...

Find one anywhere... You are brainwashed out of your tiny mind, super duper.


----------



## protectionist

candycorn said:


> 25% of the kids in the nation are Americans of Hispanic descent….  You guys better fire up the voter suppression machines because they are going to grow up and vote against you because you’re acting like a complete prick right now…when you don’t have to.
> 
> They are Americans…not illegals.  Learn the difference.


I'm half Hispanic, and I personally know hundred of Hispanics in 4 states of the US where I've lived.  I don't know any who vote against Trump, or who are for illegal immigration.

You must think Hispanics are stupid, and can easily be conned by Democrats. That's not how it is.  And how do you get to call illegal aliens "Americans" ? * They're not Americans*, they are ALIENS.  Buy a dictionary.

These pictures show American Hispanics, not aliens.


----------



## HappyJoy

protectionist said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 25% of the kids in the nation are Americans of Hispanic descent….  You guys better fire up the voter suppression machines because they are going to grow up and vote against you because you’re acting like a complete prick right now…when you don’t have to.
> 
> They are Americans…not illegals.  Learn the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm half Hispanic, and I personally know hundred of Hispanics in 4 states of the US where I've lived.  I don't know any who vote against Trump, or who are for illegal immigration.
Click to expand...


That's crazy, because most Hispanics did not vote for Trump. Weird, it's almost like you don't know shit.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *Hate to break your bubble, but Mexico does not send these people to the US.  Although Mexico is a lot tougher on illegals than we are, a lot get through and they probably don't do much to stop them.
> 
> Mexico could certainly do a better job stopping these people in their country so they do not reach our boarder.  However, why should they do that?  Exactly what is the US doing for Mexico other than insulting and threatening them daily.  US Mexican relations are the worst they been in decades, thanks to Trump so I certainly wouldn't expect any help from them on immigration or drug enforcement.*


Boy, are you ever mixed up.  Sheeesh!

1.  Mexico has BEEN sending these illegals to us for decades.  Their remittances has been Mexico's # 1 source of income, and their presidents have openy bragged about it.

Vicente Fox Says Remittances Largest Source Of Revenue Since 2003, Gloats At Getting Illegals And Matricula Consular Into US : Diggers Realm

2.  Mexico has sent illegals here with published guidebooks for migrants, showing them how to evade US immigration authorities.





http://eagleforum.org/topics/amnesty/Mexican-Guidebook.pdf

3. Mexico should no send their migrants here because they are engaging in 21st century IMPERIALISM, in which their people come here, steal millions of jobs, and extract (last report) $28 Billion/year out of our economy, which is re-inserted (by wired remittances) into THEIR economy. International burglary.
Can I come to your house and remove your wealth (TV, computers, etc) and then re-insert them into my house ?  You wouldn't mind ?  OK, I'll be right over.

3.  US Mexican relations are NOT the worst they been in decades.  Under the last 6 presidents, Mexico has been robbing us blind.  That's not good relations.  Only difference now, is that Trump is making them be accountable on it.  If they don't like it, tough.  They're lucky we haven't attacked them militarily (which is still an option)

4. Of course you wouldn't expect help from them.  Would you expect help from somebody who burglarizes you house, while you're sleeping ?


----------



## protectionist

HappyJoy said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 25% of the kids in the nation are Americans of Hispanic descent….  You guys better fire up the voter suppression machines because they are going to grow up and vote against you because you’re acting like a complete prick right now…when you don’t have to.
> 
> They are Americans…not illegals.  Learn the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm half Hispanic, and I personally know hundred of Hispanics in 4 states of the US where I've lived.  I don't know any who vote against Trump, or who are for illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's crazy, because most Hispanics did not vote for Trump. Weird, it's almost like you don't know shit.
Click to expand...

More voted for Hillary than Trump, but millions of them were illegal aliens.  I'm talking about AMERICAN Hispanics, not the foreign invaders. The % for Trump is growing rapidly, and that was before the big increase in deportations.  Like blacks, Hispanics are seeing THEIR unemployment rates dropping to record low levels.

Another election surprise: Many Hispanics backed Trump


----------



## protectionist

HappyJoy said:


> Remember when we had allies? It seems a mere 18 months ago.


In my lifetime, Mexico has NEVER been an ally of the US. (I'm 72 years old).  The only US president that dealt properly with thieving Mexico, before Trump, is Eisenhower, who had Operation Wetback in 1954, in which INS agents went house to house in SW states, hunting down illegal aliens, and arresting them.

Millions were deported. By 1959, illegal immigration to the US was near zero.

Eisenhower sent millions of adult male illegals to the south of Mexico - Vera Cruz - (where they couldn't return here so easily).  They were shipped, taken to the shallow water shorelines, and dumped in the water.  The Mexican govt politicians protested furiously. Eisenhower paid NO ATTENTION to them.


----------



## keepitreal

Coyote said:


> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL. You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.


Choices have consequences.
Parents, who put their children in that predicament,
are to blame, no one else.

What makes illegal immigrants any different,
than someone, who uses children to steal,
sell drugs, be a look out, panhandle, etc

You have people bringing, not just one child,
but, 2, 3, 4, 5 children, into a life of poverty.

Choices have consequences.


----------



## Natural Citizen

francoHFW said:


> Such as examples please. I would say legalize drugs and treat addicts and mental health, 5 week vacations living wage



Well, the drug war incentivizes the cartels and small timers to smuggle across the border. Ending the war on drugs will put a big dent in that aspect of the illegal crossings.

As far as legalizing drugs themselves, I've never been a fan of the federal government telling people what they can and can't consume. Leave it to the states as our founders rightly intended, if there must be a debate on it. I'm a big fan of the right to freedom of choice  If we legalize heroin, how many people here are going to go out tomorrow and suddenly say hey, I'm going to take heroin? Very, very, few. But they're also not going to say, oh sht, I need the government to take care of me and protect me from taking heroin, so I need laws to stop me  from taking heroin. lol. How stupid does that sound?

It's similar to gambling. I don't gamble and so long as someone else doesn't force me to do it, I don't want to violate someone elses freedom of choice to gamble.

Now. I think laws at the State level to protect children from drugs is a different story.

On treatment, the fundamental coutlier of the right to freedom of choice to take drugs is the right to assume responsibility for oneself. So, that's all I have to say about treatment. 

There's more people addicted to prescription drugs than illegal drugs, to be honest. This compounds things because that could be treated as a crime because they're overprescribing to people. A large majority of these people shooting up places have been on the psychotropic drugs.

As far as sending some kid to jail for smoking some plant and then leaving him in there for years only to come out a hardened criminal is not the solution. And sometimes, the feds are taking the families' homes and property when their kids get locked up for it. There's a few stories about that out there, too.

You're going to have to be specific of what you want exaples of because you lost me there. Examples of what and germane to what?


----------



## francoHFW

Natural Citizen said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such as examples please. I would say legalize drugs and treat addicts and mental health, 5 week vacations living wage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the drug war incentivizes the cartels and small timers to smuggle across the border. Ending the war on drugs will put a big dent in that aspect of the illegal crossings.
> 
> As far as legalizing drugs themselves, I've never been a fan of the federal government telling people what they can and can't consume. Leave it to the states as our founders rightly intended, if there must be a debate on it. I'm a big fan of the right to freedom of choice  If we legalize heroin, how many people here are going to go out tomorrow and suddenly say hey, I'm going to take heroin? Very, very, few. But they're also not going to say, oh sht, I need the government to take care of me and protect me from taking heroin, so I need laws to stop me  from taking heroin. lol. How stupid does that sound?
> 
> It's similar to gambling. I don't gamble and so long as someone else doesn't force me to do it, I don't want to violate someone elses freedom of choice to gamble.
> 
> Now. I think laws at the State level to protect children from drugs is a different story.
> 
> On treatment, the fundamental coutlier of the right to freedom of choice to take drugs is the right to assume responsibility for oneself. So, that's all I have to say about treatment.
> 
> There's more people addicted to prescription drugs than illegal drugs, to be honest. This compounds things because that could be treated as a crime because they're overprescribing to people. A large majority of these people shooting up places have been on the psychotropic drugs.
> 
> As far as sending some kid to jail for smoking some plant and then leaving him in there for years only to come out a hardened criminal is not the solution. And sometimes, the feds are taking the families' homes and property when their kids get locked up for it. There's a few stories about that out there, too.
> 
> You're going to have to be specific of what you want exaples of because you lost me there. Examples of what and germane to what?
Click to expand...

So everyone should be free to do what they want if not hurting anyone else... Fine, now stop the GOP from doing it.


----------



## Natural Citizen

francoHFW said:


> So everyone should be free to do what they want if not hurting anyone else... Fine, now stop the GOP from doing it.



If you want to take drugs, then I respect your right to assume responsibility for yourself. This is the fundamental basis for your right to freedom of choice.

I don't care what the GOP does. In fact, I dislike the GOP more than I dislike the Democrats.

A lot of the people on the left, good people of average means, all they really want to do is look out for their fellow man. I can appreciate that. Where they lose me is on a lot of their solutions.

I wrote in Ron Paul last time. Again. We only got 1 electoral vote, but it did give me some semblance of confidence that there's still a handful of refuseniks left and nobody can ever say I wasted my vote.

That left vs right nonsense is laughable. It's like a bunch of monkees trying to hump a football. It just won't work.


----------



## protectionist

francoHFW said:


> You are GOP and our ID cards are a joke thanks to the GOP d u h.


So what's your solution for the cards ? (note: I've lost count how many times I've asked you this)

Also, it is the GOP who is FOR VOTER ID.  It's the Democrats who oppose it.  We all know that.


----------



## protectionist

francoHFW said:


> Fine, now stop the GOP from doing it.


Stop the GOP from doing what ?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

protectionist said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 25% of the kids in the nation are Americans of Hispanic descent….  You guys better fire up the voter suppression machines because they are going to grow up and vote against you because you’re acting like a complete prick right now…when you don’t have to.
> 
> They are Americans…not illegals.  Learn the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm half Hispanic, and I personally know hundred of Hispanics in 4 states of the US where I've lived.  I don't know any who vote against Trump, or who are for illegal immigration.
> 
> You must think Hispanics are stupid, and can easily be conned by Democrats. That's not how it is.  And how do you get to call illegal aliens "Americans" ? * They're not Americans*, they are ALIENS.  Buy a dictionary.
> 
> These pictures show American Hispanics, not aliens.
Click to expand...


You hit the nail on the head.  The Democrat party is so used to buying votes that they expect everybody will fall in line if they give them something. 

Yes, it's worked with the blacks and has for many years, but it doesn't mean all non-white people can be hoodwinked like that.  Not many blacks take an interest in politics or are otherwise ignorant of it.  It's why liberal radio talk shows and stations failed so badly in the past.  Politics is time consuming.  You need to read, watch and listen a lot.  For me, politics is nearly my entire day.  I go to work listening to news radio, continue once at work, continue again on the way home from work, and then come here at the end of the day.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a deterrent, as in, don't want to be separated from your children, then don't bring them here illegally. Once the word gets around, they'll cut it out. maybe.
> 
> 
> 
> *Now that would be pretty dumb, applying for asylum out of fear for the lives of the family members and then leave the kids there.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then it somehow becomes our problem, right?  Why didn't they just stay in Mexico if that's what they feared?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, it does become our problem when they cross our boarders. Mexico does send them back and they grant asylum to only 1 in 20 that apply. With the deteriorating relations between the US and Mexico, they're probably busing them to the US boarder so they'll be our problem.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not our problem, Mexico is our problem.  It's no different than if we sent these people to the Canadian border.  We did it to them.  We should not be allowing them to trample across our land into Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Hate to break your bubble, but Mexico does not send these people to the US.  Although Mexico is a lot tougher on illegals than we are, a lot get through and they probably don't do much to stop them.
> 
> Mexico could certainly do a better job stopping these people in their country so they do not reach our boarder.  However, why should they do that?  Exactly what is the US doing for Mexico other than insulting and threatening them daily.  US Mexican relations are the worst they been in decades, thanks to Trump so I certainly wouldn't expect any help from them on immigration or drug enforcement.*
Click to expand...


Is that what you think?  Then how did our media pickup on the fact this current crop of people were on their way here two weeks before they arrived? 

Of course Mexico allows them to come here; they always have.  They know why they are coming here and give them their blessing.  

Mexico allows them to come here, and then they are our problem.  They bring kids with them, and then they are our problem.  They disappear and never show up for court, and then they are our problem.  Gangs form and sell drugs, and then that is our problem.  

Solution to our problem?  Close the southern border down completely. I'm sick of problems invading our country and then we have to spend the money and find a solution to those problems.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is my war?
> 
> Where are my soldiers?  If I have soldiers, I have alot of cool stuff for them to do.
> 
> Or did you just have a flash back or something....
> 
> 
> 
> Your GOP War on Drugs you know LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war on drugs was just a battalion in the army fighting the war on poverty.
> 
> Who won that one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bulshit the Democrats had the war on poverty, the Republicans the War on Drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like both the Democrats and the Republicans are not very accomplished at social engineering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The war on poverty worked under LBJ. The last time it was tried. The war on pot is just stupid.
Click to expand...


Poverty is over in the US?  That must be breaking news I haven't heard of yet.  I think you're lying because the Democrats would never allow poverty to stop.  Without poverty, there is no Democrat party.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then we are pricks.  If you don't want to deal with pricks, then stay in your own country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re being pricks to a growing population of Americans dumbass…while trying to appease one that is dying off; yours.  They are not going to vote for you….
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not Americans, they are invaders.  Learn the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 25% of the kids in the nation are Americans of Hispanic descent….  You guys better fire up the voter suppression machines because they are going to grow up and vote against you because you’re acting like a complete prick right now…when you don’t have to.
> 
> They are Americans…not illegals.  Learn the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who is trying to keep American kids of Hispanic descent out of this country?  That's not what's being discussed here.  What's being discussed are the invaders that are using our tax dollars, taking American jobs, causing us to spend billions every year to try and keep them out, and changing our country.
> 
> You surrender first liberals will be the demise of this country yet.  Once you ruin this place, there is no other USA  to move to.  It will turn into yet another third world shithole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my goodness….
> 
> The American kids are here already.
> 
> Keeping illegals out and sending them home is the right thing to do….  Can you please get this through your skull.  They agree with you.  I agree with you. I think most here agree with you.  We may differ on the impact, how many jobs they are taking, etc…  But illegals being here and being deported are something that I think is common ground.
> 
> I hope you get it.
> 
> What is wrong is the hard and fast rule of ripping kids from their parents.  As mentioned about a week ago, one such immigrant from Brazil had not seen her kid for 8 months.  Mass murderers don’t go 8 months without being able to have a visit from family members.
> 
> This is what I meant by being a prick.
> 
> We are being unnecessarily cruel to people.
Click to expand...


Well then it's about time we started to be cruel, because being nice certainly didn't work.  If anything, it made things worse.  The definition of insanity is.................

Report: Immigrant workers account for all employment growth since 2007


----------



## protectionist

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You hit the nail on the head.  The Democrat party is so used to buying votes that they expect everybody will fall in line if they give them something.
> 
> Yes, it's worked with the blacks and has for many years, but it doesn't mean all non-white people can be hoodwinked like that.  Not many blacks take an interest in politics or are otherwise ignorant of it.  It's why liberal radio talk shows and stations failed so badly in the past.  Politics is time consuming.  You need to read, watch and listen a lot.  For me, politics is nearly my entire day.  I go to work listening to news radio, continue once at work, continue again on the way home from work, and then come here at the end of the day.


Keep up the GOOD work.


----------



## Taz

Flopper said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a deterrent, as in, don't want to be separated from your children, then don't bring them here illegally. Once the word gets around, they'll cut it out. maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Now that would be pretty dumb, applying for asylum out of fear for the lives of the family members and then leave the kids there.*
Click to expand...

The only fear they have is the fear of not living here. So their country is shit, are we going to take EVERYONE from shit countries? How much room do you have at your house?


----------



## Taz

Natural Citizen said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants open borders for immigrants, super duper. Change the channel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What no one wants is freedom. It isn't popular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What kind of freedom, mystery man? Legalize It
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legalize what? Freedom?  I wish we would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marijuana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh. Well, the drug war is another thing that we need to end. Agreed.
Click to expand...

The drug war is just another in a long line of wars that we've lost.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

protectionist said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You hit the nail on the head.  The Democrat party is so used to buying votes that they expect everybody will fall in line if they give them something.
> 
> Yes, it's worked with the blacks and has for many years, but it doesn't mean all non-white people can be hoodwinked like that.  Not many blacks take an interest in politics or are otherwise ignorant of it.  It's why liberal radio talk shows and stations failed so badly in the past.  Politics is time consuming.  You need to read, watch and listen a lot.  For me, politics is nearly my entire day.  I go to work listening to news radio, continue once at work, continue again on the way home from work, and then come here at the end of the day.
> 
> 
> 
> Keep up the GOOD work.
Click to expand...


And you too sir.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Taz said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> What no one wants is freedom. It isn't popular.
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of freedom, mystery man? Legalize It
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legalize what? Freedom?  I wish we would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marijuana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh. Well, the drug war is another thing that we need to end. Agreed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The drug war is just another in a long line of wars that we've lost.
Click to expand...


Not really.  That would be like saying the war on murder failed or the war on theft.  Laws don't eliminate crime in our country, it controls it to some degree.


----------



## Taz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of freedom, mystery man? Legalize It
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Legalize what? Freedom?  I wish we would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marijuana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh. Well, the drug war is another thing that we need to end. Agreed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The drug war is just another in a long line of wars that we've lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.  That would be like saying the war on murder failed or the war on theft.  Laws don't eliminate crime in our country, it controls it to some degree.
Click to expand...

Ive never heard of a war of murder. A war on drug, yes. Anyways, we haven't won a war since WWII, and even then, we needed help.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Taz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Legalize what? Freedom?  I wish we would.
> 
> 
> 
> Marijuana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh. Well, the drug war is another thing that we need to end. Agreed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The drug war is just another in a long line of wars that we've lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.  That would be like saying the war on murder failed or the war on theft.  Laws don't eliminate crime in our country, it controls it to some degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ive never heard of a war of murder. A war on drug, yes. Anyways, we haven't won a war since WWII, and even then, we needed help.
Click to expand...


Well......I don't believe there was ever a war on women either.  Catchy title, but no real wars in reality. 

In the past couple of years a few people I knew (and related to) died because of drugs.  Legalizing it just isn't a good idea.  One time my apartment was robbed by drug addicts, another time a drug addict tenant of mine nearly burned my house down, it's just too much of a problem.  

Legalizing all dope would make matters five times worse.


----------



## Taz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marijuana.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh. Well, the drug war is another thing that we need to end. Agreed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The drug war is just another in a long line of wars that we've lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.  That would be like saying the war on murder failed or the war on theft.  Laws don't eliminate crime in our country, it controls it to some degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ive never heard of a war of murder. A war on drug, yes. Anyways, we haven't won a war since WWII, and even then, we needed help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well......I don't believe there was ever a war on women either.  Catchy title, but no real wars in reality.
> 
> In the past couple of years a few people I knew (and related to) died because of drugs.  Legalizing it just isn't a good idea.  One time my apartment was robbed by drug addicts, another time a drug addict tenant of mine nearly burned my house down, it's just too much of a problem.
> 
> Legalizing all dope would make matters five times worse.
Click to expand...

Trump looks like he is going to legalize weed. It's a good first step.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How high is the human cost left behind in the countries they flee from?...Why not work and fight to improve the conditions in Central and South America? Why not ease the pain of corruption in their birth place?...why not stop being a stop gab relief valve enabling corruption to continue from wens the migrants have fled?
> Compassion comes with a price for the very ones we are compassionate over....but I guess you sleep well after patting yourself on the back....like a good liberal.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didnt your ancesters stay and improve the country the fled from?  Oh ya...double standards eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about Rambunctious, but MY ancestors' country had acquired this neat new territory that it wanted colonized.
> 
> So they weren't actually leaving their country at all, except in a strict geographic sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illegal squatters then?
Click to expand...


You seem to be missing the part where it wasn't illegal.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Taz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh. Well, the drug war is another thing that we need to end. Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> The drug war is just another in a long line of wars that we've lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.  That would be like saying the war on murder failed or the war on theft.  Laws don't eliminate crime in our country, it controls it to some degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ive never heard of a war of murder. A war on drug, yes. Anyways, we haven't won a war since WWII, and even then, we needed help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well......I don't believe there was ever a war on women either.  Catchy title, but no real wars in reality.
> 
> In the past couple of years a few people I knew (and related to) died because of drugs.  Legalizing it just isn't a good idea.  One time my apartment was robbed by drug addicts, another time a drug addict tenant of mine nearly burned my house down, it's just too much of a problem.
> 
> Legalizing all dope would make matters five times worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump looks like he is going to legalize weed. It's a good first step.
Click to expand...


He doesn't have that kind of power to legalize weed.  But even if he could, it would only result in more people using it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How high is the human cost left behind in the countries they flee from?...Why not work and fight to improve the conditions in Central and South America? Why not ease the pain of corruption in their birth place?...why not stop being a stop gab relief valve enabling corruption to continue from wens the migrants have fled?
> Compassion comes with a price for the very ones we are compassionate over....but I guess you sleep well after patting yourself on the back....like a good liberal.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didnt your ancesters stay and improve the country the fled from?  Oh ya...double standards eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's sad you can't distinguish between criminals who traffic humans back and forth across the border and legitimate refugees..or recognize the huge amount of suffering that is caused to those refugees by the people who smuggle other people...who you insist we protect..while whining that we try to protect the children they exploit and abuse at teh same time.
> 
> 
> 
> And legitimate refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain to me how a policy that confiscates 100% of the children makes that distinction?
> 
> I will wait.
Click to expand...


Why ask us?  WE weren't the ones who screamed and hollered for that law.  Go find some leftists who insisted it was "the humane thing to do" and ask them.


----------



## HappyJoy

protectionist said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 25% of the kids in the nation are Americans of Hispanic descent….  You guys better fire up the voter suppression machines because they are going to grow up and vote against you because you’re acting like a complete prick right now…when you don’t have to.
> 
> They are Americans…not illegals.  Learn the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm half Hispanic, and I personally know hundred of Hispanics in 4 states of the US where I've lived.  I don't know any who vote against Trump, or who are for illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's crazy, because most Hispanics did not vote for Trump. Weird, it's almost like you don't know shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More voted for Hillary than Trump, but millions of them were illegal aliens.  I'm talking about AMERICAN Hispanics, not the foreign invaders. The % for Trump is growing rapidly, and that was before the big increase in deportations.  Like blacks, Hispanics are seeing THEIR unemployment rates dropping to record low levels.
> 
> Another election surprise: Many Hispanics backed Trump
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 25% of the kids in the nation are Americans of Hispanic descent….  You guys better fire up the voter suppression machines because they are going to grow up and vote against you because you’re acting like a complete prick right now…when you don’t have to.
> 
> They are Americans…not illegals.  Learn the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm half Hispanic, and I personally know hundred of Hispanics in 4 states of the US where I've lived.  I don't know any who vote against Trump, or who are for illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's crazy, because most Hispanics did not vote for Trump. Weird, it's almost like you don't know shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More voted for Hillary than Trump, but millions of them were illegal aliens.  I'm talking about AMERICAN Hispanics, not the foreign invaders. The % for Trump is growing rapidly, and that was before the big increase in deportations.  Like blacks, Hispanics are seeing THEIR unemployment rates dropping to record low levels.
> 
> Another election surprise: Many Hispanics backed Trump
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


1) Only idiots think 'illegals' voted en mass in our elections.
2) Your own link tells you that more Hispanics voted for Clinton than Trump by 2 to 1.

You have to be a special kind of Trump fluffer to actually post the crap you do and pretend you have any amount of dignity.


----------



## HappyJoy

protectionist said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when we had allies? It seems a mere 18 months ago.
> 
> 
> 
> In my lifetime, Mexico has NEVER been an ally of the US. (I'm 72 years old).  The only US president that dealt properly with thieving Mexico, before Trump, is Eisenhower, who had Operation Wetback in 1954, in which INS agents went house to house in SW states, hunting down illegal aliens, and arresting them.
> 
> Millions were deported. By 1959, illegal immigration to the US was near zero.
> 
> Eisenhower sent millions of adult male illegals to the south of Mexico - Vera Cruz - (where they couldn't return here so easily).  They were shipped, taken to the shallow water shorelines, and dumped in the water.  The Mexican govt politicians protested furiously. Eisenhower paid NO ATTENTION to them.
Click to expand...


Mexico is an important trading partner and they also fought in WWII. Our border with Mexico is one of the largest peaceful borders on the planet between two countries. 

They are not our enemy.


----------



## HappyJoy

Taz said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> What no one wants is freedom. It isn't popular.
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of freedom, mystery man? Legalize It
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legalize what? Freedom?  I wish we would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marijuana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh. Well, the drug war is another thing that we need to end. Agreed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The drug war is just another in a long line of wars that we've lost.
Click to expand...


Correction, the drug war is  just another in a long line of wars that we've lost and never should have gotten ourselves into in the first place.


----------



## HappyJoy

Taz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a deterrent, as in, don't want to be separated from your children, then don't bring them here illegally. Once the word gets around, they'll cut it out. maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Now that would be pretty dumb, applying for asylum out of fear for the lives of the family members and then leave the kids there.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only fear they have is the fear of not living here. So their country is shit, are we going to take EVERYONE from shit countries? How much room do you have at your house?
Click to expand...


Just the same, they applied legally as asylum seekers, obeyed the law and we still separated the families for another other reason other than spite.


----------



## Taz

HappyJoy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of freedom, mystery man? Legalize It
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Legalize what? Freedom?  I wish we would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marijuana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh. Well, the drug war is another thing that we need to end. Agreed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The drug war is just another in a long line of wars that we've lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correction, the drug war is  just another in a long line of wars that we've lost and never should have gotten ourselves into in the first place.
Click to expand...

That too.


----------



## Taz

HappyJoy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a deterrent, as in, don't want to be separated from your children, then don't bring them here illegally. Once the word gets around, they'll cut it out. maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Now that would be pretty dumb, applying for asylum out of fear for the lives of the family members and then leave the kids there.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only fear they have is the fear of not living here. So their country is shit, are we going to take EVERYONE from shit countries? How much room do you have at your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just the same, they applied legally as asylum seekers, obeyed the law and we still separated the families for another other reason other than spite.
Click to expand...

They come anyways knowing what will happen, so not our problem.


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re being pricks to a growing population of Americans dumbass…while trying to appease one that is dying off; yours.  They are not going to vote for you….
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not Americans, they are invaders.  Learn the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 25% of the kids in the nation are Americans of Hispanic descent….  You guys better fire up the voter suppression machines because they are going to grow up and vote against you because you’re acting like a complete prick right now…when you don’t have to.
> 
> They are Americans…not illegals.  Learn the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who is trying to keep American kids of Hispanic descent out of this country?  That's not what's being discussed here.  What's being discussed are the invaders that are using our tax dollars, taking American jobs, causing us to spend billions every year to try and keep them out, and changing our country.
> 
> You surrender first liberals will be the demise of this country yet.  Once you ruin this place, there is no other USA  to move to.  It will turn into yet another third world shithole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my goodness….
> 
> The American kids are here already.
> 
> Keeping illegals out and sending them home is the right thing to do….  Can you please get this through your skull.  They agree with you.  I agree with you. I think most here agree with you.  We may differ on the impact, how many jobs they are taking, etc…  But illegals being here and being deported are something that I think is common ground.
> 
> I hope you get it.
> 
> What is wrong is the hard and fast rule of ripping kids from their parents.  As mentioned about a week ago, one such immigrant from Brazil had not seen her kid for 8 months.  Mass murderers don’t go 8 months without being able to have a visit from family members.
> 
> This is what I meant by being a prick.
> 
> We are being unnecessarily cruel to people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then it's about time we started to be cruel, because being nice certainly didn't work.  If anything, it made things worse.  The definition of insanity is.................
> 
> Report: Immigrant workers account for all employment growth since 2007
Click to expand...


So…now we sponsor cruelty as an official policy.

To call such a policy insane is probably being charitable.  

Just as an aside….should we lop off the hands of shoplifters…..blind one eye of people who jump turnstiles on the L line…caine folks who sneak into movie theaters?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are not Americans, they are invaders.  Learn the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 25% of the kids in the nation are Americans of Hispanic descent….  You guys better fire up the voter suppression machines because they are going to grow up and vote against you because you’re acting like a complete prick right now…when you don’t have to.
> 
> They are Americans…not illegals.  Learn the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who is trying to keep American kids of Hispanic descent out of this country?  That's not what's being discussed here.  What's being discussed are the invaders that are using our tax dollars, taking American jobs, causing us to spend billions every year to try and keep them out, and changing our country.
> 
> You surrender first liberals will be the demise of this country yet.  Once you ruin this place, there is no other USA  to move to.  It will turn into yet another third world shithole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my goodness….
> 
> The American kids are here already.
> 
> Keeping illegals out and sending them home is the right thing to do….  Can you please get this through your skull.  They agree with you.  I agree with you. I think most here agree with you.  We may differ on the impact, how many jobs they are taking, etc…  But illegals being here and being deported are something that I think is common ground.
> 
> I hope you get it.
> 
> What is wrong is the hard and fast rule of ripping kids from their parents.  As mentioned about a week ago, one such immigrant from Brazil had not seen her kid for 8 months.  Mass murderers don’t go 8 months without being able to have a visit from family members.
> 
> This is what I meant by being a prick.
> 
> We are being unnecessarily cruel to people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then it's about time we started to be cruel, because being nice certainly didn't work.  If anything, it made things worse.  The definition of insanity is.................
> 
> Report: Immigrant workers account for all employment growth since 2007
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So…now we sponsor cruelty as an official policy.
> 
> To call such a policy insane is probably being charitable.
> 
> Just as an aside….should we lop off the hands of shoplifters…..blind one eye of people who jump turnstiles on the L line…caine folks who sneak into movie theaters?
Click to expand...


Would it eliminate shoplifting or not?  Works in the middle east pretty well. 

You might not believe this, but some of us don't consider taking care of kids as cruelty.  In fact millions of Americans have other people taking care of their children every day in this country.  They even pay people to do it.


----------



## Taz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 25% of the kids in the nation are Americans of Hispanic descent….  You guys better fire up the voter suppression machines because they are going to grow up and vote against you because you’re acting like a complete prick right now…when you don’t have to.
> 
> They are Americans…not illegals.  Learn the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who is trying to keep American kids of Hispanic descent out of this country?  That's not what's being discussed here.  What's being discussed are the invaders that are using our tax dollars, taking American jobs, causing us to spend billions every year to try and keep them out, and changing our country.
> 
> You surrender first liberals will be the demise of this country yet.  Once you ruin this place, there is no other USA  to move to.  It will turn into yet another third world shithole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my goodness….
> 
> The American kids are here already.
> 
> Keeping illegals out and sending them home is the right thing to do….  Can you please get this through your skull.  They agree with you.  I agree with you. I think most here agree with you.  We may differ on the impact, how many jobs they are taking, etc…  But illegals being here and being deported are something that I think is common ground.
> 
> I hope you get it.
> 
> What is wrong is the hard and fast rule of ripping kids from their parents.  As mentioned about a week ago, one such immigrant from Brazil had not seen her kid for 8 months.  Mass murderers don’t go 8 months without being able to have a visit from family members.
> 
> This is what I meant by being a prick.
> 
> We are being unnecessarily cruel to people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then it's about time we started to be cruel, because being nice certainly didn't work.  If anything, it made things worse.  The definition of insanity is.................
> 
> Report: Immigrant workers account for all employment growth since 2007
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So…now we sponsor cruelty as an official policy.
> 
> To call such a policy insane is probably being charitable.
> 
> Just as an aside….should we lop off the hands of shoplifters…..blind one eye of people who jump turnstiles on the L line…caine folks who sneak into movie theaters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it eliminate shoplifting or not?  Works in the middle east pretty well.
> 
> You might not believe this, but some of us don't consider taking care of kids as cruelty.  In fact millions of Americans have other people taking care of their children every day in this country.  They even pay people to do it.
Click to expand...

If chopping off hands worked in the Middle East, they wouldn't still be doing it.


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 25% of the kids in the nation are Americans of Hispanic descent….  You guys better fire up the voter suppression machines because they are going to grow up and vote against you because you’re acting like a complete prick right now…when you don’t have to.
> 
> They are Americans…not illegals.  Learn the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who is trying to keep American kids of Hispanic descent out of this country?  That's not what's being discussed here.  What's being discussed are the invaders that are using our tax dollars, taking American jobs, causing us to spend billions every year to try and keep them out, and changing our country.
> 
> You surrender first liberals will be the demise of this country yet.  Once you ruin this place, there is no other USA  to move to.  It will turn into yet another third world shithole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my goodness….
> 
> The American kids are here already.
> 
> Keeping illegals out and sending them home is the right thing to do….  Can you please get this through your skull.  They agree with you.  I agree with you. I think most here agree with you.  We may differ on the impact, how many jobs they are taking, etc…  But illegals being here and being deported are something that I think is common ground.
> 
> I hope you get it.
> 
> What is wrong is the hard and fast rule of ripping kids from their parents.  As mentioned about a week ago, one such immigrant from Brazil had not seen her kid for 8 months.  Mass murderers don’t go 8 months without being able to have a visit from family members.
> 
> This is what I meant by being a prick.
> 
> We are being unnecessarily cruel to people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then it's about time we started to be cruel, because being nice certainly didn't work.  If anything, it made things worse.  The definition of insanity is.................
> 
> Report: Immigrant workers account for all employment growth since 2007
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So…now we sponsor cruelty as an official policy.
> 
> To call such a policy insane is probably being charitable.
> 
> Just as an aside….should we lop off the hands of shoplifters…..blind one eye of people who jump turnstiles on the L line…caine folks who sneak into movie theaters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it eliminate shoplifting or not?  Works in the middle east pretty well.
Click to expand...

I suppose it may.  And if it doesn’t?  Amputate legs too?



Ray From Cleveland said:


> You might not believe this, but some of us don't consider taking care of kids as cruelty.  In fact millions of Americans have other people taking care of their children every day in this country.  They even pay people to do it.



Do they keep the kids from their mothers for 8 months and prevent the parent from seeing their child too?


----------



## HappyJoy

Taz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> 
> 
> It's a deterrent, as in, don't want to be separated from your children, then don't bring them here illegally. Once the word gets around, they'll cut it out. maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Now that would be pretty dumb, applying for asylum out of fear for the lives of the family members and then leave the kids there.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only fear they have is the fear of not living here. So their country is shit, are we going to take EVERYONE from shit countries? How much room do you have at your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just the same, they applied legally as asylum seekers, obeyed the law and we still separated the families for another other reason other than spite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They come anyways knowing what will happen, so not our problem.
Click to expand...


They are following the law, like I said there is no reason to separate families other than spite. We need immigration into this country, our economy depends on it.


----------



## pismoe

seperate these mexicans and 'otm' and their widdle bambinos simply to send a message .


----------



## Taz

HappyJoy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a deterrent, as in, don't want to be separated from your children, then don't bring them here illegally. Once the word gets around, they'll cut it out. maybe.
> 
> 
> 
> *Now that would be pretty dumb, applying for asylum out of fear for the lives of the family members and then leave the kids there.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only fear they have is the fear of not living here. So their country is shit, are we going to take EVERYONE from shit countries? How much room do you have at your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just the same, they applied legally as asylum seekers, obeyed the law and we still separated the families for another other reason other than spite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They come anyways knowing what will happen, so not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are following the law, like I said there is no reason to separate families other than spite. We need immigration into this country, our economy depends on it.
Click to expand...

We need EDUCATED immigration, not just maids and fruit pickers.


----------



## HappyJoy

Taz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Now that would be pretty dumb, applying for asylum out of fear for the lives of the family members and then leave the kids there.*
> 
> 
> 
> The only fear they have is the fear of not living here. So their country is shit, are we going to take EVERYONE from shit countries? How much room do you have at your house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just the same, they applied legally as asylum seekers, obeyed the law and we still separated the families for another other reason other than spite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They come anyways knowing what will happen, so not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are following the law, like I said there is no reason to separate families other than spite. We need immigration into this country, our economy depends on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need EDUCATED immigration, not just maids and fruit pickers.
Click to expand...


No, actually we don't.

More Unskilled Workers, Please

Unskilled Immigrants Do Not Harm Americans

The Danger From Low-Skilled Immigrants: Not Having Them

Read the articles, I could pull out quotes from them but I get the feeling I'm already wasting my time linking the articles.

Other than that treating people like cattle is inhumane no matter how you want to make excuses for it.


----------



## Taz

HappyJoy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only fear they have is the fear of not living here. So their country is shit, are we going to take EVERYONE from shit countries? How much room do you have at your house?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just the same, they applied legally as asylum seekers, obeyed the law and we still separated the families for another other reason other than spite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They come anyways knowing what will happen, so not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are following the law, like I said there is no reason to separate families other than spite. We need immigration into this country, our economy depends on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need EDUCATED immigration, not just maids and fruit pickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually we don't.
> 
> More Unskilled Workers, Please
> 
> Unskilled Immigrants Do Not Harm Americans
> 
> The Danger From Low-Skilled Immigrants: Not Having Them
> 
> Read the articles, I could pull out quotes from them but I get the feeling I'm already wasting my time linking the articles.
> 
> Other than that treating people like cattle is inhumane no matter how you want to make excuses for it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't believe in open borders. And I don't believe in filling the country with unskilled workers. I didn't say we didn't need ANY, just not a free-for-all.


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 25% of the kids in the nation are Americans of Hispanic descent….  You guys better fire up the voter suppression machines because they are going to grow up and vote against you because you’re acting like a complete prick right now…when you don’t have to.
> 
> They are Americans…not illegals.  Learn the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who is trying to keep American kids of Hispanic descent out of this country?  That's not what's being discussed here.  What's being discussed are the invaders that are using our tax dollars, taking American jobs, causing us to spend billions every year to try and keep them out, and changing our country.
> 
> You surrender first liberals will be the demise of this country yet.  Once you ruin this place, there is no other USA  to move to.  It will turn into yet another third world shithole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my goodness….
> 
> The American kids are here already.
> 
> Keeping illegals out and sending them home is the right thing to do….  Can you please get this through your skull.  They agree with you.  I agree with you. I think most here agree with you.  We may differ on the impact, how many jobs they are taking, etc…  But illegals being here and being deported are something that I think is common ground.
> 
> I hope you get it.
> 
> What is wrong is the hard and fast rule of ripping kids from their parents.  As mentioned about a week ago, one such immigrant from Brazil had not seen her kid for 8 months.  Mass murderers don’t go 8 months without being able to have a visit from family members.
> 
> This is what I meant by being a prick.
> 
> We are being unnecessarily cruel to people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then it's about time we started to be cruel, because being nice certainly didn't work.  If anything, it made things worse.  The definition of insanity is.................
> 
> Report: Immigrant workers account for all employment growth since 2007
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So…now we sponsor cruelty as an official policy.
> 
> To call such a policy insane is probably being charitable.
> 
> Just as an aside….should we lop off the hands of shoplifters…..blind one eye of people who jump turnstiles on the L line…caine folks who sneak into movie theaters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it eliminate shoplifting or not?  Works in the middle east pretty well.
> 
> You might not believe this, but some of us don't consider taking care of kids as cruelty.  In fact millions of Americans have other people taking care of their children every day in this country.  They even pay people to do it.
Click to expand...


Machine gun nests at every intersection to gun down jaywalkers….good idea or not?


----------



## HappyJoy

Taz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just the same, they applied legally as asylum seekers, obeyed the law and we still separated the families for another other reason other than spite.
> 
> 
> 
> They come anyways knowing what will happen, so not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are following the law, like I said there is no reason to separate families other than spite. We need immigration into this country, our economy depends on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need EDUCATED immigration, not just maids and fruit pickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually we don't.
> 
> More Unskilled Workers, Please
> 
> Unskilled Immigrants Do Not Harm Americans
> 
> The Danger From Low-Skilled Immigrants: Not Having Them
> 
> Read the articles, I could pull out quotes from them but I get the feeling I'm already wasting my time linking the articles.
> 
> Other than that treating people like cattle is inhumane no matter how you want to make excuses for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, I don't believe in open borders. And I don't believe in filling the country with unskilled workers. I didn't say we didn't need ANY, just not a free-for-all.
Click to expand...


Nobody believes in open borders, can we finally kill that strawman?  Like it or not, we need unskilled workers here, we don't have enough currently but you'd rather blabber about some idiotic notion that you don't believe in 'filling the country with unskilled workers', whatever that hell that means. Shit,who can argue with such a defined and well thought out position.


----------



## pismoe

just my opinion but we need no more immigration of any type into a country , USA in which had a legal population of 310 million in 2010 and thats not counting illegals .


----------



## HappyJoy

pismoe said:


> just my opinion but we need no more immigration of any type into a country , USA in which had a legal population of 310 million in 2010 and thats not counting illegals .



It's weird, your post contained an actual statistic but the way you used it was completely irrelevant.


----------



## pismoe

310 million legal people of all types in USA not counting illegals in 2010 census and in 1970 USA was about 210 million .   Easy to see , just check out census records .    There is no reason for more immigration of any type into the USA especially when the imported are third worlders   HJoy .


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

HappyJoy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> They come anyways knowing what will happen, so not our problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are following the law, like I said there is no reason to separate families other than spite. We need immigration into this country, our economy depends on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need EDUCATED immigration, not just maids and fruit pickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually we don't.
> 
> More Unskilled Workers, Please
> 
> Unskilled Immigrants Do Not Harm Americans
> 
> The Danger From Low-Skilled Immigrants: Not Having Them
> 
> Read the articles, I could pull out quotes from them but I get the feeling I'm already wasting my time linking the articles.
> 
> Other than that treating people like cattle is inhumane no matter how you want to make excuses for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, I don't believe in open borders. And I don't believe in filling the country with unskilled workers. I didn't say we didn't need ANY, just not a free-for-all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody believes in open borders, can we finally kill that strawman?  Like it or not, we need unskilled workers here, we don't have enough currently but you'd rather blabber about some idiotic notion that you don't believe in 'filling the country with unskilled workers', whatever that hell that means. Shit,who can argue with such a defined and well thought out position.
Click to expand...


Hmmm.  If we need unskilled workers so bad, I guess the 3.8% unemployed in our country must be skilled workers.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who is trying to keep American kids of Hispanic descent out of this country?  That's not what's being discussed here.  What's being discussed are the invaders that are using our tax dollars, taking American jobs, causing us to spend billions every year to try and keep them out, and changing our country.
> 
> You surrender first liberals will be the demise of this country yet.  Once you ruin this place, there is no other USA  to move to.  It will turn into yet another third world shithole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my goodness….
> 
> The American kids are here already.
> 
> Keeping illegals out and sending them home is the right thing to do….  Can you please get this through your skull.  They agree with you.  I agree with you. I think most here agree with you.  We may differ on the impact, how many jobs they are taking, etc…  But illegals being here and being deported are something that I think is common ground.
> 
> I hope you get it.
> 
> What is wrong is the hard and fast rule of ripping kids from their parents.  As mentioned about a week ago, one such immigrant from Brazil had not seen her kid for 8 months.  Mass murderers don’t go 8 months without being able to have a visit from family members.
> 
> This is what I meant by being a prick.
> 
> We are being unnecessarily cruel to people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then it's about time we started to be cruel, because being nice certainly didn't work.  If anything, it made things worse.  The definition of insanity is.................
> 
> Report: Immigrant workers account for all employment growth since 2007
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So…now we sponsor cruelty as an official policy.
> 
> To call such a policy insane is probably being charitable.
> 
> Just as an aside….should we lop off the hands of shoplifters…..blind one eye of people who jump turnstiles on the L line…caine folks who sneak into movie theaters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it eliminate shoplifting or not?  Works in the middle east pretty well.
> 
> You might not believe this, but some of us don't consider taking care of kids as cruelty.  In fact millions of Americans have other people taking care of their children every day in this country.  They even pay people to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Machine gun nests at every intersection to gun down jaywalkers….good idea or not?
Click to expand...


I think that would be a good idea if jaywalkers were changing our language, taking jobs other Americans should have, costing us billions of dollars every year, killing American citizens, then sure, gun em down.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> Do they keep the kids from their mothers for 8 months and prevent the parent from seeing their child too?



Only if they came here uninvited.


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they keep the kids from their mothers for 8 months and prevent the parent from seeing their child too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if they came here uninvited.
Click to expand...


So, you’re saying people pay someone to take their kids away from them for 8 months?  

Not sure what you’re smoking….it’s probably not legal.


----------



## pismoe

Taz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just the same, they applied legally as asylum seekers, obeyed the law and we still separated the families for another other reason other than spite.
> 
> 
> 
> They come anyways knowing what will happen, so not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are following the law, like I said there is no reason to separate families other than spite. We need immigration into this country, our economy depends on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need EDUCATED immigration, not just maids and fruit pickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually we don't.
> 
> More Unskilled Workers, Please
> 
> Unskilled Immigrants Do Not Harm Americans
> 
> The Danger From Low-Skilled Immigrants: Not Having Them
> 
> Read the articles, I could pull out quotes from them but I get the feeling I'm already wasting my time linking the articles.
> 
> Other than that treating people like cattle is inhumane no matter how you want to make excuses for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, I don't believe in open borders. And I don't believe in filling the country with unskilled workers. I didn't say we didn't need ANY, just not a free-for-all.
Click to expand...

-----------------------------------   when you give government , politicians and government employees a way to rig things like legal immigration , illegal immigration , visa's , anchor babies and other special super duper type visa's , refugee status and other ways to manipulate government the politicians , government employees and government will manipulate as they pursue their personal agendas .    See 'mrobama' and the 'bush's' as an example of manipulation of government and its policies in pursuit of their own agendas Taz


----------



## Taz

HappyJoy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> They come anyways knowing what will happen, so not our problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are following the law, like I said there is no reason to separate families other than spite. We need immigration into this country, our economy depends on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need EDUCATED immigration, not just maids and fruit pickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually we don't.
> 
> More Unskilled Workers, Please
> 
> Unskilled Immigrants Do Not Harm Americans
> 
> The Danger From Low-Skilled Immigrants: Not Having Them
> 
> Read the articles, I could pull out quotes from them but I get the feeling I'm already wasting my time linking the articles.
> 
> Other than that treating people like cattle is inhumane no matter how you want to make excuses for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, I don't believe in open borders. And I don't believe in filling the country with unskilled workers. I didn't say we didn't need ANY, just not a free-for-all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody believes in open borders, can we finally kill that strawman?  Like it or not, we need unskilled workers here, we don't have enough currently but you'd rather blabber about some idiotic notion that you don't believe in 'filling the country with unskilled workers', whatever that hell that means. Shit,who can argue with such a defined and well thought out position.
Click to expand...

Then your concession is duly noted. Thank you.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

We have plenty of unskilled workers.  We just pay them not to work.   If we made poverty more painful and left them no choice but to work perhaps they would.  We have thousands of homeless who might be workers.  We aren't using what we have.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they keep the kids from their mothers for 8 months and prevent the parent from seeing their child too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if they came here uninvited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you’re saying people pay someone to take their kids away from them for 8 months?
> 
> Not sure what you’re smoking….it’s probably not legal.
Click to expand...


Let me put it this way:  If I knew the place I was going to were going to take my children from me, I wouldn't go there, and if I did, I wouldn't take my children with me.  

So now the word starts spreading far south of our border that this is the way we handle people like this.  Maybe most will just stay the hell away from this country and keep their problems over there instead of bringing their problems over here for us to deal with.  

You have to start somewhere, otherwise there is no deterrent to invading this country.


----------



## Silhouette

*What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration? *

And the cost to already US citizen children who are being denied or cut back on services and opportunity in their homeland because of a swarm of immigrants flooding into this country; all clamoring for our dwindling resources?

Or do those children not count?
Undocumented children a drain on U.S. schools


> *Currently, the U.S. spends approximately $12,000 per year to educate each child in public school.* And the influx of children who are in the country illegally further increases those costs. That's because more regular teachers have to be hired, and - because many students don't speak English - more bilingual teachers and resources have to be brought in as well......*According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, as of 2009, taxpayers have spent over $440 million on English instruction classes for children - some of whom are here legally, some not - Needless to say, this puts a huge burden on local districts and states - many of which are already struggling to provide a good education for the children who live there legally.* As Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin puts it: *"Already one in four Oklahoma children struggle(s) with hunger. One in four will drop out of high school before graduating. It is wrong for the president to ask Oklahomans to divert their attention and limited resources away from our own children*."



We can't wet-nurse the entire world at the expense of our own children.  It's physically impossible.  Especially when the illegal immigrant children's parents cannot and do not pay payroll taxes because they can't be hired legally.  It's a true system of complete guaranteed freeloading at the cost of US children.

If we really wanted to help Hispanic children get a leg up, we'd spend more time establishing trade with their countries of origin so their economies would improve and they can take care of their own.  If their burden is too great because each parents have 8-10 children apiece, then like the US, they need to educate their youth young about planned parenthood and financial responsibility.  Enabling other countries' poor-planning and fuck ups just can't be sustained anymore by the US.  The problem's origin is in other countries, NOT the US.


----------



## HappyJoy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are following the law, like I said there is no reason to separate families other than spite. We need immigration into this country, our economy depends on it.
> 
> 
> 
> We need EDUCATED immigration, not just maids and fruit pickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually we don't.
> 
> More Unskilled Workers, Please
> 
> Unskilled Immigrants Do Not Harm Americans
> 
> The Danger From Low-Skilled Immigrants: Not Having Them
> 
> Read the articles, I could pull out quotes from them but I get the feeling I'm already wasting my time linking the articles.
> 
> Other than that treating people like cattle is inhumane no matter how you want to make excuses for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, I don't believe in open borders. And I don't believe in filling the country with unskilled workers. I didn't say we didn't need ANY, just not a free-for-all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody believes in open borders, can we finally kill that strawman?  Like it or not, we need unskilled workers here, we don't have enough currently but you'd rather blabber about some idiotic notion that you don't believe in 'filling the country with unskilled workers', whatever that hell that means. Shit,who can argue with such a defined and well thought out position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  If we need unskilled workers so bad, I guess the 3.8% unemployed in our country must be skilled workers.
Click to expand...


We need unskilled workers because we don't have enough of our own and as our population ages the need is only going to be greater. I've already provided links but you chose to ignore them and instead rely on your own xenophobia.


----------



## HappyJoy

Taz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are following the law, like I said there is no reason to separate families other than spite. We need immigration into this country, our economy depends on it.
> 
> 
> 
> We need EDUCATED immigration, not just maids and fruit pickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually we don't.
> 
> More Unskilled Workers, Please
> 
> Unskilled Immigrants Do Not Harm Americans
> 
> The Danger From Low-Skilled Immigrants: Not Having Them
> 
> Read the articles, I could pull out quotes from them but I get the feeling I'm already wasting my time linking the articles.
> 
> Other than that treating people like cattle is inhumane no matter how you want to make excuses for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, I don't believe in open borders. And I don't believe in filling the country with unskilled workers. I didn't say we didn't need ANY, just not a free-for-all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody believes in open borders, can we finally kill that strawman?  Like it or not, we need unskilled workers here, we don't have enough currently but you'd rather blabber about some idiotic notion that you don't believe in 'filling the country with unskilled workers', whatever that hell that means. Shit,who can argue with such a defined and well thought out position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then your concession is duly noted. Thank you.
Click to expand...


Wasn't there a troll on this board who used to reply to posts just like that? Can't remember his name but when he ran out of  things to say he basically took credit for a concession that was never given. 

What you have given is stating that you don't give a shit about families of immigrants who even come here legally to be separated and your reason for not caring which is an influx of unskilled workers isn't even a problem and in actuality we need more of them but you ignore all of that and go on your merry way.


----------



## Taz

HappyJoy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need EDUCATED immigration, not just maids and fruit pickers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually we don't.
> 
> More Unskilled Workers, Please
> 
> Unskilled Immigrants Do Not Harm Americans
> 
> The Danger From Low-Skilled Immigrants: Not Having Them
> 
> Read the articles, I could pull out quotes from them but I get the feeling I'm already wasting my time linking the articles.
> 
> Other than that treating people like cattle is inhumane no matter how you want to make excuses for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, I don't believe in open borders. And I don't believe in filling the country with unskilled workers. I didn't say we didn't need ANY, just not a free-for-all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody believes in open borders, can we finally kill that strawman?  Like it or not, we need unskilled workers here, we don't have enough currently but you'd rather blabber about some idiotic notion that you don't believe in 'filling the country with unskilled workers', whatever that hell that means. Shit,who can argue with such a defined and well thought out position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then your concession is duly noted. Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't there a troll on this board who used to reply to posts just like that? Can't remember his name but when he ran out of  things to say he basically took credit for a concession that was never given.
> 
> What you have given is stating that you don't give a shit about families of immigrants who even come here legally to be separated and your reason for not caring which is an influx of unskilled workers isn't even a problem and in actuality we need more of them but you ignore all of that and go on your merry way.
Click to expand...

Coming here illegally isn't coming here legally. Now you know.


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hate to break your bubble, but Mexico does not send these people to the US.  Although Mexico is a lot tougher on illegals than we are, a lot get through and they probably don't do much to stop them.
> 
> Mexico could certainly do a better job stopping these people in their country so they do not reach our boarder.  However, why should they do that?  Exactly what is the US doing for Mexico other than insulting and threatening them daily.  US Mexican relations are the worst they been in decades, thanks to Trump so I certainly wouldn't expect any help from them on immigration or drug enforcement.*
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, are you ever mixed up.  Sheeesh!
> 
> 1.  Mexico has BEEN sending these illegals to us for decades.  Their remittances has been Mexico's # 1 source of income, and their presidents have openy bragged about it.
> 
> Vicente Fox Says Remittances Largest Source Of Revenue Since 2003, Gloats At Getting Illegals And Matricula Consular Into US : Diggers Realm
> 
> 2.  Mexico has sent illegals here with published guidebooks for migrants, showing them how to evade US immigration authorities.
> 
> View attachment 197559
> 
> http://eagleforum.org/topics/amnesty/Mexican-Guidebook.pdf
> 
> 3. Mexico should no send their migrants here because they are engaging in 21st century IMPERIALISM, in which their people come here, steal millions of jobs, and extract (last report) $28 Billion/year out of our economy, which is re-inserted (by wired remittances) into THEIR economy. International burglary.
> Can I come to your house and remove your wealth (TV, computers, etc) and then re-insert them into my house ?  You wouldn't mind ?  OK, I'll be right over.
> 
> 3.  US Mexican relations are NOT the worst they been in decades.  Under the last 6 presidents, Mexico has been robbing us blind.  That's not good relations.  Only difference now, is that Trump is making them be accountable on it.  If they don't like it, tough.  They're lucky we haven't attacked them militarily (which is still an option)
> 
> 4. Of course you wouldn't expect help from them.  Would you expect help from somebody who burglarizes you house, while you're sleeping ?
Click to expand...

*This trash does not deserve a reply.  It's alt-right propaganda and false news which is what you get from the links like Eagle Forum and Diggers Realm.

The Mexican Manual for Crossing the boarder, "Counselor Protection Guide" was published 14 years ago when Mexicans were flowing across the boarder at a rate of 500,000 a year, over twice what it is today).  In 2000 to 2005, 300 to 500 people/yr were dying at or near the boarder crossings.  US boarder enforcement was totally inadequate.  90% of the boarder was protected only by barbed wire fencing.  Boarder Patrol Agents numbered less than 4,000 compared to the 19,000 today.  Large US farms were advertising in Mexico for field hands promising wages five times what they were earning.  This is the context of period when the pamphlet was written.  It should also be noted that the pamphlet was available at US Consulates.

The purpose of pamphlet, "Counselor Protection Guide" was written to save lives, warn immigrants about dangers of crossing. However, for those who had decided to make the attempt there was life saving advice and instructions as to how to conduct yourself in the US.  The pamphlet begins:
*
_*"Dear fellow citizen:
This guide tries to provide you with some practical advice that may be useful to you in case you have made the difficult decision to seek new work opportunities outside of your own country.

The safe way of entering another country is by first obtaining your passport, which is issued by the Delegations of the Secretariat of Foreign Relations, and your visa, which you request at the Embassy or Consulate of the country to where you wish to travel."*_
*
The pamphlet is 29 pages, half of which is filled with warnings of the dangers of crossing and alien smugglers.  It warns of consequences of not having legal documentation.   The remainder of the pamphlet advises what to do and not to do in US such as never run from the boarder patrol, never lie to any immigration agents, never claim a false nationality, never resist arrest, never carry false documents, never carry a weapon, never drive without a drivers license etc.

I think this pamphlet is far more likely to discourage illegal boarder crossing than encourage them and would likely help save lives.  You be the judge.*
*Mexico's Official "Guide For The Mexican Migrant" | www.dallas.org*
*A Mexican Manual for Illegal Migrants Upsets Some in U.S.*
*Mexico–United States barrier - Wikipedia*
*Illegal Immigration on Decline, Report Finds*


----------



## francoHFW

protectionist said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are GOP and our ID cards are a joke thanks to the GOP d u h.
> 
> 
> 
> So what's your solution for the cards ? (note: I've lost count how many times I've asked you this)
> 
> Also, it is the GOP who is FOR VOTER ID.  It's the Democrats who oppose it.  We all know that.
Click to expand...

People prove their citizenship when they register. It is a phony crisis. The only two illegal voters caught were for Trump LOL. 

The solution is computer chips. Could also be used 4 voter ID and medical history if we had good health care.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Slyhunter said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> How high is the human cost left behind in the countries they flee from?...Why not work and fight to improve the conditions in Central and South America? Why not ease the pain of corruption in their birth place?...why not stop being a stop gab relief valve enabling corruption to continue from wens the migrants have fled?
> Compassion comes with a price for the very ones we are compassionate over....but I guess you sleep well after patting yourself on the back....like a good liberal.....
> 
> 
> 
> Why didnt your ancesters stay and improve the country the fled from?  Oh ya...double standards eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's sad you can't distinguish between criminals who traffic humans back and forth across the border and legitimate refugees..or recognize the huge amount of suffering that is caused to those refugees by the people who smuggle other people...who you insist we protect..while whining that we try to protect the children they exploit and abuse at teh same time.
> 
> 
> 
> And legitimate refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain to me how a policy that confiscates 100% of the children makes that distinction?
> 
> I will wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When are you going to get through your head that the federal courts say a child can't be detained more than 9 days. The courts are dictating the removal of children, not the administration.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Removal of children to where? The streets? back home to their home countries where they belong? in 9 days. Ok.
Click to expand...


Foster care, if they have no relatives in the country legally.

And don't holler at us about it.  It wasn't our idea.


----------



## Natural Citizen

protectionist said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are GOP and our ID cards are a joke thanks to the GOP d u h.
> 
> 
> 
> So what's your solution for the cards ? (note: I've lost count how many times I've asked you this)
> 
> Also, it is the GOP who is FOR VOTER ID.  It's the Democrats who oppose it.  We all know that.
Click to expand...


I'm okay with State ID, but we don't want a national ID card.

The GOP is actually moving in that direction. That's what the whole voter ID thing is about except their base is too shallow to realize it. The humor of it is it'll give the illegal immigrants a national ID card, too.

Worse yet, a national ID card is a contradiction of what a free society is all about.


----------



## Natural Citizen

francoHFW said:


> The solution is computer chips. Could also be used 4 voter ID and medical history if we had good health care.



Paperz pleez...


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why didnt your ancesters stay and improve the country the fled from?  Oh ya...double standards eh?
> 
> 
> 
> It's sad you can't distinguish between criminals who traffic humans back and forth across the border and legitimate refugees..or recognize the huge amount of suffering that is caused to those refugees by the people who smuggle other people...who you insist we protect..while whining that we try to protect the children they exploit and abuse at teh same time.
> 
> 
> 
> And legitimate refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain to me how a policy that confiscates 100% of the children makes that distinction?
> 
> I will wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When are you going to get through your head that the federal courts say a child can't be detained more than 9 days. The courts are dictating the removal of children, not the administration.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Removal of children to where? The streets? back home to their home countries where they belong? in 9 days. Ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I never saw the 9 day rule but I'm sure there must be one.  Children who accompany parents to detention are either held with parents in a family detention center or they're separated.  Currently the administration opts to separate the parents and their children.
> 
> The children are turned over to US Health and Human Services who keep them until they are turned over to a foster care agency for placement.  In foster care, they are often moved from family to family.  Recently it was reported that DHS was unable to determine the whereabouts of nearly 1500 kids.  This means the parents will likely be deported without their kids under the Trump zero tolerance policy. *
Click to expand...


The administration doesn't "opt" for anything.  The law says that children cannot be detained longer than 5 days, unless there's a huge backlog of cases, in which case it can be extended to 20 days, but that's it.  The administration has no choice, unless you want President Trump to act like King Trump and simply rewrite the law himself (as Obama did).

This is NOT "Trump's policy".  HIS policy is not to use this as an excuse to turn the adults loose and let them wander away and vanish.

As for "1500 missing kids", you really need to stop getting your "news" from social media.  HHS reported that it made follow-up calls to check on the kids, and about 1500 of them couldn't be reached by phone and their guardians didn't call back.  Do you usually overreact and assume someone is "missing" if they don't answer the phone?


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> They and blacks are natural Republicans but they know the GOP is full of racists and bigots. Tough luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is perplexing.  They haven't won a popular vote since 2004 and haven't won a popular vote when they were not the incumbent since 1988.  As  Hispanic immigrants move from the South up into the northern reaches of the country (Where "we don't get many Hispanics" as the INS guy put it before he detained two women in Montana if memory serves), the carefully gerrymandered districts become vulnerable.
> 
> Whether the Democrats can hold on to the Hispanic vote is another question all together--nobody snatches defeat from the jaws of victory like a DEM.  But the GOP is not doing itself any favors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your suggestion is to just surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps not be a total prick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Support for protecting your borders is being a total prick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A hard and fast policy of Ripping kids from their parents is
Click to expand...


Well then, perhaps LEFTISTS shouldn't have been total pricks and insisted on it.


----------



## Natural Citizen

francoHFW said:


> The solution is computer chips. Could also be used 4 voter ID and medical history if we had good health care.



The funny part about it is this is preceisely where the GOP is taking us.


----------



## francoHFW

Cecilie1200 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is perplexing.  They haven't won a popular vote since 2004 and haven't won a popular vote when they were not the incumbent since 1988.  As  Hispanic immigrants move from the South up into the northern reaches of the country (Where "we don't get many Hispanics" as the INS guy put it before he detained two women in Montana if memory serves), the carefully gerrymandered districts become vulnerable.
> 
> Whether the Democrats can hold on to the Hispanic vote is another question all together--nobody snatches defeat from the jaws of victory like a DEM.  But the GOP is not doing itself any favors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your suggestion is to just surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps not be a total prick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Support for protecting your borders is being a total prick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A hard and fast policy of Ripping kids from their parents is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then, perhaps LEFTISTS shouldn't have been total pricks and insisted on it.
Click to expand...

Link?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of this stuff would be an issue if the Latin American Socialists were not destroying their own countries and driving their populations into flight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Honduras which is where most of the asylum seekers are coming from is a democratic republic like the US but the leadership is far right.  Honduras is a great example what can happen in a poor country under far right conservative leadership.  The government, the national and local police are so corrupt it's hard to say whether the gangs or the police are worse.    *
Click to expand...


The most recent numbers available actually show that 80% of refugees seeking asylum in the US come from Africa.


----------



## francoHFW

Natural Citizen said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The solution is computer chips. Could also be used 4 voter ID and medical history if we had good health care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The funny part about it is this is preceisely where the GOP is taking us.
Click to expand...

 they have been fighting it so long obviously they need to be for it 4  things to change... That is typically how progress happens... The GOP finally stops obstructing and then takes credit LOL. Thank you scumbag GOP and silly dupes....


----------



## francoHFW

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of this stuff would be an issue if the Latin American Socialists were not destroying their own countries and driving their populations into flight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Honduras which is where most of the asylum seekers are coming from is a democratic republic like the US but the leadership is far right.  Honduras is a great example what can happen in a poor country under far right conservative leadership.  The government, the national and local police are so corrupt it's hard to say whether the gangs or the police are worse.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The most recent numbers available actually show that 80% of refugees seeking asylum in the US come from Africa.
Click to expand...

Link?


----------



## francoHFW

Natural Citizen said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The solution is computer chips. Could also be used 4 voter ID and medical history if we had good health care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperz pleez...
Click to expand...

We already have driver's licenses that are close. Of course your attitude is typical after decades of the scumbag GOP brainwashing...


----------



## Natural Citizen

francoHFW said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The solution is computer chips. Could also be used 4 voter ID and medical history if we had good health care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The funny part about it is this is preceisely where the GOP is taking us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they have been fighting it so long obviously they need to be for things to change... That is typically how progress happens... The GOP finally stops obstructing and then takes credit LOL. Thank you scumbag GOP and silly dupes....
Click to expand...


Courtesy of the GOP.....lolol.

H.R.4760 gives DACA recipients a 3-year renewable legal status while establishing a mandatory national identification system that would require every American to carry this new card which cable capable of carrying biometric data such as fingerprints and retina scans. If implemented, this card could be used as a *tracking device*, and it would be *required to hold a job*, *open a bank account*, or *get on a plane*.


Allows federal bureaucrats to include biometric identification information on the card, potentially even including fingerprints, retinal scans, or scans of veins on the back of hands, which could easily be used as a tracking device.
It would be required for all US workers, regardless of place of birth, making it illegal for anyone to hold a job in the US who doesn’t obtain an ID card.
Requires all employers to purchase an “ID scanner” to verify the ID cards with the federal government. Every time any citizen applies for a job, the government would know—and you can bet it’s only a matter of time until “ID scans” will be required to make routine purchases, as well.

*Sponsor:* Rep. Goodlatte, Bob [R-VA-6] (Introduced 01/10/2018)
*Committees:* House - Judiciary; Education and the Workforce; Homeland Security; Foreign Affairs; Ways and Means; Armed Services; Oversight and Government Reform; Agriculture; Transportation and Infrastructure; Natural Resources
*Latest Action:* House - 01/24/2018 Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.  (All Actions)
*Notes:* On 5/9/2018, a motion was filed to discharge the Committee on Rules from the consideration of H.RES. 774, a resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4760). A discharge petition requires 218 signatures for further action. (Discharge Petition No. 115-10: text with signatures.)


----------



## Natural Citizen

francoHFW said:


> We already have driver's licenses that are close. Of course your attitude is typical after decades of the scumbag GOP brainwashing...



The GOP is giving you what you want.

Though I do not consent, rest assured they hate a free society just as much as you do.

And their base will love them for it. Observably.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marijuana.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh. Well, the drug war is another thing that we need to end. Agreed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The drug war is just another in a long line of wars that we've lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.  That would be like saying the war on murder failed or the war on theft.  Laws don't eliminate crime in our country, it controls it to some degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ive never heard of a war of murder. A war on drug, yes. Anyways, we haven't won a war since WWII, and even then, we needed help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well......I don't believe there was ever a war on women either.  Catchy title, but no real wars in reality.
> 
> In the past couple of years a few people I knew (and related to) died because of drugs.  Legalizing it just isn't a good idea.  One time my apartment was robbed by drug addicts, another time a drug addict tenant of mine nearly burned my house down, it's just too much of a problem.
> 
> Legalizing all dope would make matters five times worse.
Click to expand...

People die because  illegal drugs are full of poison. They should at least legalize methadone and other healthier alternatives in programs and treatments. It is now totally out of control. GOP policy Law and Order Nanny state is a disgrace, along with our default GOP immigration policy, Mental Health non-system, living wage not!, Giant tax cuts for the rich and service cuts for everyone else, b******character assassination propaganda machine 4 haters like you. 35 years of regression and garbage. Great job!


----------



## francoHFW

Natural Citizen said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already have driver's licenses that are close. Of course your attitude is typical after decades of the scumbag GOP brainwashing...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP is giving you what you want.
> 
> Though I do not consent, rest assured they hate a free society just as much as you do.
> 
> And their base will love them for it. Observably.
Click to expand...

Somehow almost all successful countries manage it LOL.


----------



## francoHFW

Natural Citizen said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already have driver's licenses that are close. Of course your attitude is typical after decades of the scumbag GOP brainwashing...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP is giving you what you want.
> 
> Though I do not consent, rest assured they hate a free society just as much as you do.
> 
> And their base will love them for it. Observably.
Click to expand...

We need a card for everyone, not just DACA.... Another half half measure that will do nothing. They can just steal someone's identity as usual.


----------



## tycho1572

I hope democrats will eventually see the consequences of them telling people they can illegally enter this country.


----------



## tycho1572

It’s a very cruel stance to take.


----------



## OKTexas

francoHFW said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your suggestion is to just surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps not be a total prick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Support for protecting your borders is being a total prick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A hard and fast policy of Ripping kids from their parents is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then, perhaps LEFTISTS shouldn't have been total pricks and insisted on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...



Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online

.


----------



## francoHFW

OKTexas said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps not be a total prick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Support for protecting your borders is being a total prick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A hard and fast policy of Ripping kids from their parents is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then, perhaps LEFTISTS shouldn't have been total pricks and insisted on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> .
Click to expand...

That is our wonderful justice system and Constitution, NOT LEFTISTS, CONSPIRACY NUT JOBS.


----------



## Natural Citizen

francoHFW said:


> We need a card for everyone, not just DACA.... Another half half measure that will do nothing. They can just steal someone's identity as usual.



Every single liberty we've lost has been in the name of security.

I can't even fly without having my cock diddled.


----------



## francoHFW

francoHFW said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Support for protecting your borders is being a total prick?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A hard and fast policy of Ripping kids from their parents is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then, perhaps LEFTISTS shouldn't have been total pricks and insisted on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is our wonderful justice system and Constitution, NOT LEFTISTS, CONSPIRACY NUT JOBS.
Click to expand...

Pass a good work ID card and enforce it. And end this crap.


----------



## francoHFW

francoHFW said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A hard and fast policy of Ripping kids from their parents is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, perhaps LEFTISTS shouldn't have been total pricks and insisted on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is our wonderful justice system and Constitution, NOT LEFTISTS, CONSPIRACY NUT JOBS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pass a good work ID card and enforce it. And end this crap.
Click to expand...

And yes amnesty of sort for Worthy illegals the GOP basically invited in.


----------



## francoHFW

Natural Citizen said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need a card for everyone, not just DACA.... Another half half measure that will do nothing. They can just steal someone's identity as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every single liberty we've lost has been in the name of security.
> 
> I can't even fly without having my cock diddled.
Click to expand...

So the illegal problem goes on... Thank you very much, GOP Dupe. Even if you don't vote for them... If you don't vote democratic, you are voting for The GOP. Just like they want


----------



## Natural Citizen

If we've read any of the past bills that have been introduced with regard to national id cards, every single time there has been no limitation t owha tthey can put on those documents. Further, the bills have always allowed the definition of terrorism to be redefined. There have ben no limitiations to that.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The drug war is just another in a long line of wars that we've lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  That would be like saying the war on murder failed or the war on theft.  Laws don't eliminate crime in our country, it controls it to some degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ive never heard of a war of murder. A war on drug, yes. Anyways, we haven't won a war since WWII, and even then, we needed help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well......I don't believe there was ever a war on women either.  Catchy title, but no real wars in reality.
> 
> In the past couple of years a few people I knew (and related to) died because of drugs.  Legalizing it just isn't a good idea.  One time my apartment was robbed by drug addicts, another time a drug addict tenant of mine nearly burned my house down, it's just too much of a problem.
> 
> Legalizing all dope would make matters five times worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump looks like he is going to legalize weed. It's a good first step.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't have that kind of power to legalize weed.  But even if he could, it would only result in more people using it.
Click to expand...

And using less opioids and other hard drugs.


----------



## francoHFW

Natural Citizen said:


> If we've read any of the past bills that have been introduced with regard to national id cards, every single time there has been no limitation t owha tthey can put on those documents. Further, the bills have always allowed the definition of terrorism to be redefined. There have ben no limitiations to that.


Bologna. Link?


----------



## Natural Citizen

francoHFW said:


> So the illegal problem goes on... Thank you very much, GOP Dupe. Even if you don't vote for them... If you don't vote democratic, you are voting for The GOP. Just like they want



Not if we end their incentive to come here illegally. That's the solution. And, of course, ending the war on drugs. That'll end the incentive for the drug smugglers/cartels.

The fact of the matter is the GOP is giving you what you want. It's just a political football game where there's really no difference in parties aside from their flavor of welfare.Freedom isn;t popular to either brand of so-called leadership aside from a few stragglers in there.

As I said, I do not consent to what they're doing.


----------



## OKTexas

francoHFW said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Support for protecting your borders is being a total prick?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A hard and fast policy of Ripping kids from their parents is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then, perhaps LEFTISTS shouldn't have been total pricks and insisted on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is our wonderful justice system and Constitution, NOT LEFTISTS, CONSPIRACY NUT JOBS.
Click to expand...



Who do you think filed the suit? Commiecrats always use the courts when they can't get their way. Your dear leader gave the parent a NTA, Trump isn't being so generous.


.


----------



## OKTexas

francoHFW said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A hard and fast policy of Ripping kids from their parents is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, perhaps LEFTISTS shouldn't have been total pricks and insisted on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is our wonderful justice system and Constitution, NOT LEFTISTS, CONSPIRACY NUT JOBS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pass a good work ID card and enforce it. And end this crap.
Click to expand...



Why not enforce e-verify?


.


----------



## francoHFW

OKTexas said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A hard and fast policy of Ripping kids from their parents is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, perhaps LEFTISTS shouldn't have been total pricks and insisted on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is our wonderful justice system and Constitution, NOT LEFTISTS, CONSPIRACY NUT JOBS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think filed the suit? Commiecrats always use the courts when they can't get their way. Your dear leader gave the parent a NTA, Trump isn't being so generous.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Sorry about the Constitution, GOP dupes. There are no communists anymore, just moderates and GOP nut jobs. A national ID card, a Healthcare System, good daycare, cheap training and College Etc, a living wage, good vacations, the rich paying there fair share Etc are not communism, brainwashed functional moron.


----------



## OKTexas

francoHFW said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, perhaps LEFTISTS shouldn't have been total pricks and insisted on it.
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is our wonderful justice system and Constitution, NOT LEFTISTS, CONSPIRACY NUT JOBS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pass a good work ID card and enforce it. And end this crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yes amnesty of sort for Worthy illegals the GOP basically invited in.
Click to expand...



"Worthy illegals", talk about an oxymoron. LMAO


.


----------



## Natural Citizen

On the topic of welfare, while I'm thinking of it. I want to be clear about that. I see nothing wrong with a welfare program at the State level. Nor did the Framers for that matter. The States do have the power to do that and really, it's the moral thing to do to help their citizens if they need it.

But the federal welfare, no. They lack just power to do that.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Anyway. Franco, practice your people skills. You lack discipline. Respectfully.

Good luck with your new Reich. As I said, the GOP is your friend along that journey. And, again, their base, too, will love them for it.


----------



## francoHFW

OKTexas said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, perhaps LEFTISTS shouldn't have been total pricks and insisted on it.
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is our wonderful justice system and Constitution, NOT LEFTISTS, CONSPIRACY NUT JOBS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pass a good work ID card and enforce it. And end this crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not enforce e-verify?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

That would be a start LOL. But according to GOP employers, also communism LOL... We need Democrats in total control for about 12 years at least. They should disband your bought off brainwashed party....


----------



## francoHFW

Natural Citizen said:


> Anyway. Franco, practice your people skills. You lack discipline. Respectfully.
> 
> Good luck with your new Reich. As I said, the GOP is your friend along that journey. And, again, their base, too, will love them for it.


There is one solution for the illegal problem. Amnesty for the Worthy, enforced ID card to end more coming.


----------



## OKTexas

francoHFW said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, perhaps LEFTISTS shouldn't have been total pricks and insisted on it.
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is our wonderful justice system and Constitution, NOT LEFTISTS, CONSPIRACY NUT JOBS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think filed the suit? Commiecrats always use the courts when they can't get their way. Your dear leader gave the parent a NTA, Trump isn't being so generous.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry about the Constitution, GOP dupes. There are no communists anymore, just moderates and GOP nut jobs. A national ID card, a Healthcare System, good daycare, cheap training and College Etc, a living wage, good vacations, the rich paying there fair share Etc are not communism, brainwashed functional moron.
Click to expand...



U funny GI. LMAO


.


----------



## francoHFW

Natural Citizen said:


> On the topic of welfare, while I'm thinking of it. I want to be clear about that. I see nothing wrong with a welfare program at the State level. Nor did the Framers for that matter. The States do have the power to do that and really, it's the moral thing to do to help their citizens if they need it.
> 
> But the federal welfare, no. They lack just power to do that.


State governments should be ended. When Democrats get control...


----------



## Natural Citizen

francoHFW said:


> ....enforced ID card to end more coming.



It kind of reminds me of the thing about wanting everyone to register their guns. Do criminals register their guns? Come on, man. Get real.

Naturally, we'll be left with the same phenomenon when the federal government starts registering people in a database with unlimited amount of information and no clear definition of what surmises a terrorist. Is a terrorist going to go register himself? Of course not.

It's war on us.


----------



## francoHFW

OKTexas said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is our wonderful justice system and Constitution, NOT LEFTISTS, CONSPIRACY NUT JOBS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pass a good work ID card and enforce it. And end this crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yes amnesty of sort for Worthy illegals the GOP basically invited in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Worthy illegals", talk about an oxymoron. LMAO
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

In 2007, 94% of illegal adult men worked, 65 percent paid taxes, and 35% owned homes. The GOP refused Solutions and basically invited them in. The GOP only gives a damn in elections and corrupt GOP depressions, super duper dupes.


----------



## OKTexas

francoHFW said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is our wonderful justice system and Constitution, NOT LEFTISTS, CONSPIRACY NUT JOBS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pass a good work ID card and enforce it. And end this crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not enforce e-verify?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be a start LOL. But according to GOP employers, also communism LOL... We need Democrats in total control for about 12 years at least. They should disband your bought off brainwashed party....
Click to expand...



You would shrivel up and blow away if you didn't have your hate for the GOP, be careful what you wish for.


.


----------



## francoHFW

Natural Citizen said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....enforced ID card to end more coming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It kind of reminds me of the thing about wanting everyone to register their guns. Do criminals register their guns? Come on, man. Get real.
> 
> Naturally, we'll be left with the same phenomenon when the federal government starts registering people in a database with unlimited amount of information and no clear definition of what surmises a terrorist. Is a terrorist going to go register himself? Of course not.
> 
> It's war on us.
Click to expand...

If they do any crime armed with illegal guns, give them 5 years. 1 year for possession of same.


----------



## OKTexas

francoHFW said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway. Franco, practice your people skills. You lack discipline. Respectfully.
> 
> Good luck with your new Reich. As I said, the GOP is your friend along that journey. And, again, their base, too, will love them for it.
> 
> 
> 
> There is one solution for the illegal problem. Amnesty for the Worthy, enforced ID card to end more coming.
Click to expand...



Enforced ID does nothing for off the books employment. Only way to fix that is jailing people that do it.


.


----------



## francoHFW

OKTexas said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> That is our wonderful justice system and Constitution, NOT LEFTISTS, CONSPIRACY NUT JOBS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pass a good work ID card and enforce it. And end this crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not enforce e-verify?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be a start LOL. But according to GOP employers, also communism LOL... We need Democrats in total control for about 12 years at least. They should disband your bought off brainwashed party....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You would shrivel up and blow away if you didn't have your hate for the GOP, be careful what you wish for.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Yes I know you are brainwashed about democratic Party evil and Corruption. With no evidence of course. GOP corruption and crime are well documented. Their giveaway to the greedy idiot corrupt rich and outrageous propaganda has ruined the rest and the country the last 35 years.


----------



## francoHFW

OKTexas said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway. Franco, practice your people skills. You lack discipline. Respectfully.
> 
> Good luck with your new Reich. As I said, the GOP is your friend along that journey. And, again, their base, too, will love them for it.
> 
> 
> 
> There is one solution for the illegal problem. Amnesty for the Worthy, enforced ID card to end more coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Enforced ID does nothing for off the books employment. Only way to fix that is jailing people that do it.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Of course stopping illegal work is the point of enforcement. Then illegals stop coming.


----------



## LuckyDuck

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
Click to expand...

Then, separating children from their parents if they parents happen to be murderers, robbers, thieves, drug dealers, et cetera, is evil and thus the children must accompany them into state and federal penitentiaries?
To cross a border without going through customs IS ACTUALLY a crime and as a crime has been committed, the individuals who did this, must be processed accordingly and any separation they experience is both temporary and done in a safe manner, plus, all minors are treated well and are put back with the family as soon as possible...….AND....DEPORTED, as they should be.  There is a process for entering foreign nations and that process must be followed by those seeking to enter the nation.
Further, two other related issues:
1.  All who seek to enter, must be thoroughly vetted to ensure that we are not getting known murderers, rapists, thieves, drug-cartel members, deadbeat dads, or terrorists.  We have enough of them as it is.  
2.  Many of those coming over illegally, come from Central America, claiming to be leaving their own nation in fear for their lives.....it would be logical if they left a city they were in danger in and just went to another city in their own country or, if they didn't feel safe in their own nation, they can enter the very next nation to them and would thus not only be safe, but also be entering a nation which has the same language.
Last, this open borders concept is dangerous, one only has to look at what is happening in Europe, as they let in millions of Muslims and are now paying the deadly price for doing so.  Terrorist attacks and especially rapes are commonplace.


----------



## WelfareQueen

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​





Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally?  It's a thought.


----------



## Coyote

WelfareQueen said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally?  It's a thought.
Click to expand...


I have no problem with that.  I have no problem with a hearing and, if determined deportation.

Do you think it's necessary to inact this draconian policy in the meantime?


----------



## OKTexas

francoHFW said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the topic of welfare, while I'm thinking of it. I want to be clear about that. I see nothing wrong with a welfare program at the State level. Nor did the Framers for that matter. The States do have the power to do that and really, it's the moral thing to do to help their citizens if they need it.
> 
> But the federal welfare, no. They lack just power to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> State governments should be ended. When Democrats get control...
Click to expand...



That's when you'll see a second amendment solution, is that really what you want?


.


----------



## Natural Citizen

francoHFW said:


> State governments should be ended. When Democrats get control...



Well, you can't do that. Franco. What the heck? Jiminy crickets, man. America is a compound Republic. A federation of Republics and a central Republic. The State Republics have all of the power to keep the Federal Republic limited for liberty. Not that they're doing a very good job of it. They're not.

Hold on a second, let me go to my files. You're killing me here. I have a bunch of pdf files from my books and I think you might benefit from learning about our system of government and why it is just that way. I  think you're reading the wrong books. Really, I do, and the route you're taking, you're laying your head on your own sword, brother.

K, I found a the one I wanted. Principle 6 of the America Ideal of 1776 - The 12 Basic American Principles by Harold Abert Long 1976.

It's not that much to read, it won't kill you.



A principle of the traditional american philosophy of governance. Principle 6 of 12....

*
6. Decentralized Government*

". . . true barriers [bulwarks] of our liberty in this country are our State governments . . ." (Thomas Jefferson, 1811 letter to Destutt de Tracy)


*The Principle
*
1. The traditional American philosophy teaches that
decentralization of governmental power, to the maximum
practicable extent, is essential to the security of Man's
God-given, unalienable rights.


*Man's Unalienable Rights and "States Rights" Doubly
Protected*

2. It asserts that these rights are most securely protected by a
federated system of government--consisting of a central
government (a Republic) and State governments (each a
Republic). Under this system, the whole quantity of
governmental power is not only limited by written
Constitution, Federal and State, but also decentralized so that
the vast majority of powers are kept on the State and local
levels. The correct definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally
limited government of the representative type, created by a
written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable
(from its original meaning) by them only by amendment--with
its powers divided between three separate branches:
Executive, Legislative and Judicial. The American system is "a
compound Republic"--a federation, or combination, of central
and State Republics--under which: "The different governments
will control each other . . . ," while within each Republic there
are two safeguarding features: (a) a division of powers, as well
as (b) a system of checks and balances between separate
departments: "Hence a double security arises to the rights of
the people." (The Federalist, number 51, by Madison.)

*
Greater Quantity of Power Retained by Each State*

3. By far the greater quantity and variety of power was
retained by the government of each State when the United
States Constitution was framed and adopted in 1787-1788.
Only a comparatively small part of each State's power was
delegated by its people to the new central, or Federal,
government--chiefly the powers concerning "war, peace,
negotiation and foreign commerce" (per The Federalist,
number 45 by Madison). This delegated-power
government--the central Republic--was granted few and
limited powers; while each State's government is a full-power
Republic under the State Constitution, subject to its
restrictions, also to that grant, and to the few restrictions
specified expressly in the United States Constitution as
applying to the governments of the States.


*"Home Rule" the Basic, Controlling Principle*

4. This federated system of decentralized power is a chief
characteristic of the American governmental arrangements.
This is in keeping with the controlling intent of those who
framed and adopted each of its Amendments. The main aim
was to preserve maximum "Home Rule" by the States, to keep
the greatest feasible quantity of power as close as possible to
the source--the people--where they can best watch it alertly
so as to check and prevent its abuse or misuse, as well as to
prevent its unsound, or unnecessary, expansion, to the peril or
perhaps doom of their liberties.


*Economic Liberty and Decentralized Government*

5. Such decentralized government is favorable, indeed
essential, to America's traditional philosophy and system of
economic liberty--the inseparable and indispensable economic
aspect of the indivisible whole of Individual Liberty-
Responsibility. This includes the system of individual, private,
competitive enterprise (called Individual Enterprise--the term
used by President Jefferson in his 1801 Annual Message to
Congress). This system features a free-market economy--free
from Government-over-Man controls, although subject to just
regulation as authorized by the Constitution's pertinent
provisions) under just laws expressive of "just powers" (to use
the term of the Declaration of Independence) designed to
protect the equal rights of all Individuals and thus to
safeguard sound competition--which gives full play to
individual initiative inspired by the incentive of economic
liberty of The Individual and is a main characteristic of the
traditional American philosophy. This right is not a goal or
end, in and of itself, but a necessary means, and it is an
essential and main support of Man's unalienable rights. It
involves freedom of choice by both producer-seller and
consumer-buyer, subject always to the potently persuasive
influence of community opinion and standards in the sound
environment of an ethical society which emphasizes the duty
factor of Individual Liberty-Responsibility, including due
respect for the equal rights of others. This means that the
central government is limited strictly to the consistent role of
mere regulation (not control) to those ends--regulation as
limited by the Constitution. This excludes any control by the
central government directly or indirectly of the whole or any
part of the national economy, which includes all of the
people's economic activities.

The free-market economy is controlled by the people as a
whole through their acting as buyers and sellers--a multitude
of Individuals generally acting individually as both buyer and
seller of things or services a number of times each day in the
ordinary course of life's daily activities, involving transactions
great or small--through their exercise of freedom of choice
daily, even hourly; for example, the free-market economy is
both a result and instrument of the exercise of this freedom of
Individuals--not a mechanistic, independently operating
"Thing" which oppressively controls human beings.


*Sample Warnings by The Founders*

6. The American people and their leaders in 1776-1787 were
determined that the central government should never be
allowed to possess power to act, or be permitted to act, as a
"consolidated" government with sovereign, unlimited power
over all of the people and things in the country. Vigilant friends
of Individual Liberty, including for example leaders such as
Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton and
James Madison, warned repeatedly and emphatically against
the danger of ever permitting such a government to exist in
America.


*Samuel Adams' Opinion*

7. Samuel Adams, firebrand patriot-leader always in the lead
for both American Independence and Man's Liberty against
Government-over-Man, expressed fear in this regard in 1789
(letter to Richard Henry Lee) in keeping with his never varying
sentiments. He said that he feared misinterpretation of the
Constitution would bring about fully centralized (consolidated)
power in the Federal government at the expense of the States
and "sink both in despotism."


Hamilton's Opinion

8. In the New York Ratifying Convention in 1788, Hamilton
warned sharply that the States' powers reserved under the
Constitution must be safeguarded for the sake of Individual
Liberty and that Congress would never fail to safeguard them:
". . . unless they become madmen."


*Hamilton and Madison in "The Federalist"*

9. This sound line of thought was stressed by Hamilton and
Madison, in their joint report in The Federalist (for example,
numbers 17 and 28 by Hamilton, and 45 and 46 by Madison),
recording the intent of the 1787 Framing Convention as
expressed in the Constitution. The foregoing sentiments of
these leaders were shared by their fellow leaders and the
American people in general of that day--as reflecting truly
American principles--and by Jefferson second to none.


*Jefferson's Opinion*

10. In his First Inaugural Address as President, Jefferson
stated that the State governments are "the surest bulwarks
against anti-republican tendencies"--that is, tendencies which
conflict with the American form of government: a Republic. He
stated in a letter to Destutt de Tracy (1811): "But the true
barriers [bulwarks] of our liberty in this country are our State
governments . . ." With regard to the people's freedom from
Government-over-Man controls by the Federal government, in
keeping with the Constitution's limits on that government's
power, Jefferson stated in his Annual Message to Congress, in
1801: "Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation,
the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when
left most free to individual enterprise." In the above-
mentioned 1811 letter, Jefferson also discussed the
prospective use of the Militia of the States--all acting
together--to resist the forces of any Federal usurpers acting in
violation of the Constitution to oppress or dominate the people
or government of any State.


*Some Peaceable Remedies of the People Against an Offending Federal Government*

11. Some of the peaceable remedies of the people of any State
against what they consider to be anti-Constitution, or
otherwise offensive, conduct by the Federal government--by
any of its Branches, or by all of them combined--as
contemplated by the Convention which framed the
Constitution, were specified in The Federalist number 46 by
Madison, with silent acquiescence of his co-author Hamilton,
as follows:

"On the other hand, should an unwarrantable
measure of the federal government be unpopular in
particular states, which would seldom fail to be the
case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which
may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition
to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the
people, their repugnance and perhaps refusal to
co-operate with the officers of the union, the frowns
of the executive magistracy [officials] of the state,
the embarrassments created by legislative devices,
which would often be added on such occasions,
would oppose in any state difficulties not to be
despised; would form in a large state very serious
impediments, and where the sentiments of several
adjoining states happened to be in union, would
present obstructions which the federal government
would hardly be willing to encounter."

The most extremely "unwarrantable measure" is an
unconstitutional measure. Madison here expressed the
understanding also of those who framed the Constitution and
of their fellow leaders in the State Ratifying Conventions as
well as of the people in general--all extremely jealous of their
hard-won liberties and determined to act vigorously against
any danger to them from the greatly feared, central
government if it should ever threaten to over-step the limits
imposed on its powers under the constitution, as amended.
Protests by State legislatures against what they would
consider to be abuses of power or usurpations, potential or
actual, by the central government were of course included as a
main element in what Madison referred to her as "legislative
devices . . . impediments . . . obstructions." Actual examples
occurring afterward are the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions
of 1798 and the Hartford Convention Resolutions of 1815
(discussed in Principle 3, Pars. 5-6). Some additional remedies
of the people, of a peaceable nature, are political action--use
of the ballot in elections--and amendment of the Constitution
by the people (Art. V); while impeachment by Congress of any
officials guilty of acting as defaulting public trustees is
provided for (Art. I, Sec. 2,3).

*
State's Self-defense by Force, in Last Resort, per "The Federalist"*

12. With regard to use by the States of force--use of their
Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing
arms)--in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to
oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation
of the Constitution's limits on Federal power, Hamilton and
Madison discussed at length and in detail in The Federalist
(numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison) the assumption
and expectation of The Framers that all States would marshall
their forces and act jointly to crush the usurpers' forces. This
understanding of The Framers was shared by the members of
the State Ratifying Conventions and the leaders and people in
general of that day--all fearless foes of any and all enemies of
Free Man in America. They believed that all true Americans
must be ready to fight and die for Liberty, especially against
tyrannical Federal officials who, as usurpers, violate not only
the Constitution but also their oath of office: to support the
Constitution only. It was also contemplated that any
non-military force used by the Federal usurpers would be
countered by the States' use of their own non-military forces:
Sheriff's posses (posses comitatus) and any civilian police
forces. (See also Par. 12 of Principle 5.)

*
The Civil over The Military*

13. The traditional American philosophy requires, as a
fundamental of the system of checks and balances, that The
Civil must always be in complete control of The Military. The
Founders and their fellow Americans were painfully aware of
the lesson of history that large standing armies are, in
peacetime, potentially dangerous to the people's liberties. In
1776, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, for example, made
this clear in these words: ". . . that standing armies in time of
peace should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in
all cases the military should be under strict subordination to,
and governed by, the civil power." Another, related element in
the system of checks and balances is the requirement of the
Constitution (Article VI) that all Federal officials--both civil and
military--take an oath to support the Constitution [only]; with
the result that all military officers, thus controlled
fundamentally and supremely by the Constitution, must be
obedient to the civil authority--chief of all the President--but
only as to orders which are not violative of the Constitution.
The Military are, therefore, obligated by the Constitution not
only to refuse to obey any orders of Federal usurpers--
automatically made by the Constitution itself null and void
from the start--but to support the Constitution only, at all
times and under all circumstances, as the sovereign people's
fundamental law. State officials, civil and military, are likewise
so required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the
United States--meaning, in part, to resist Federal usurpers by
all necessary means: by force in last resort.

*
The Conclusion*

14. The truly American formula, in accordance with the
traditional philosophy, for sound and enduring
self-government by means of constitutionally limited
government with adequate protection assured for Individual

*Liberty, is this: Limited and Decentralized for Liberty.*



As an aside, Franco, I think you'd benefit by understanding what it is that you;re actually asking for when you say that the States authority over the fed should by ended. So, let us learn the difference between a Republic and a Democracy.

Fro mthe same book, by the way....

*An Important Distinction: A Democracy versus A Republic...
*
These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The
Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.


*A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man. This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy
or a Representative Democracy.


A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s  God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.
*


----------



## OKTexas

francoHFW said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is our wonderful justice system and Constitution, NOT LEFTISTS, CONSPIRACY NUT JOBS.
> 
> 
> 
> Pass a good work ID card and enforce it. And end this crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not enforce e-verify?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be a start LOL. But according to GOP employers, also communism LOL... We need Democrats in total control for about 12 years at least. They should disband your bought off brainwashed party....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You would shrivel up and blow away if you didn't have your hate for the GOP, be careful what you wish for.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I know you are brainwashed about democratic Party evil and Corruption. With no evidence of course. GOP corruption and crime are well documented. Their giveaway to the greedy idiot corrupt rich and outrageous propaganda has ruined the rest and the country the last 35 years.
Click to expand...



Success envy, that's sooooooooooooooooooo you. ROFLMFAO


.


----------



## francoHFW

LuckyDuck said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then, separating children from their parents if they parents happen to be murderers, robbers, thieves, drug dealers, et cetera, is evil and thus the children must accompany them into state and federal penitentiaries?
> To cross a border without going through customs IS ACTUALLY a crime and as a crime has been committed, the individuals who did this, must be processed accordingly and any separation they experience is both temporary and done in a safe manner, plus, all minors are treated well and are put back with the family as soon as possible...….AND....DEPORTED, as they should be.  There is a process for entering foreign nations and that process must be followed by those seeking to enter the nation.
> Further, two other related issues:
> 1.  All who seek to enter, must be thoroughly vetted to ensure that we are not getting known murderers, rapists, thieves, drug-cartel members, deadbeat dads, or terrorists.  We have enough of them as it is.
> 2.  Many of those coming over illegally, come from Central America, claiming to be leaving their own nation in fear for their lives.....it would be logical if they left a city they were in danger in and just went to another city in their own country or, if they didn't feel safe in their own nation, they can enter the very next nation to them and would thus not only be safe, but also be entering a nation which has the same language.
> Last, this open borders concept is dangerous, one only has to look at what is happening in Europe, as they let in millions of Muslims and are now paying the deadly price for doing so.  Terrorist attacks and especially rapes are commonplace.
Click to expand...

The millions you are talking about are refugees from war and are as dangerous as kittens. Basically every terrorist is a citizen and born in country, just like ours. They get pissed off dealing with racist right-wingers. Brainwashed functional moron.


----------



## francoHFW

OKTexas said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pass a good work ID card and enforce it. And end this crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not enforce e-verify?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be a start LOL. But according to GOP employers, also communism LOL... We need Democrats in total control for about 12 years at least. They should disband your bought off brainwashed party....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You would shrivel up and blow away if you didn't have your hate for the GOP, be careful what you wish for.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I know you are brainwashed about democratic Party evil and Corruption. With no evidence of course. GOP corruption and crime are well documented. Their giveaway to the greedy idiot corrupt rich and outrageous propaganda has ruined the rest and the country the last 35 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Success envy, that's sooooooooooooooooooo you. ROFLMFAO
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I have no problem with Rich Democrats,, just low life greedy idiot lying thieving or just plain greedy GOP rich, super duper. Change the channel.


----------



## OKTexas

Coyote said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally?  It's a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that.  I have no problem with a hearing and, if determined deportation.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to inact this draconian policy in the meantime?
Click to expand...



It's been proven it is in accordance with a federal court order, yet you refuse to acknowledge that FACT. You're starting to sound like the broken record Matthew.


.


----------



## Coyote

LuckyDuck said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then, separating children from their parents if they parents happen to be murderers, robbers, thieves, drug dealers, et cetera, is evil and thus the children must accompany them into state and federal penitentiaries?
> To cross a border without going through customs IS ACTUALLY a crime and as a crime has been committed, the individuals who did this, must be processed accordingly and any separation they experience is both temporary and done in a safe manner, plus, all minors are treated well and are put back with the family as soon as possible...….AND....DEPORTED, as they should be.  There is a process for entering foreign nations and that process must be followed by those seeking to enter the nation.
> Further, two other related issues:
> 1.  All who seek to enter, must be thoroughly vetted to ensure that we are not getting known murderers, rapists, thieves, drug-cartel members, deadbeat dads, or terrorists.  We have enough of them as it is.
> 2.  Many of those coming over illegally, come from Central America, claiming to be leaving their own nation in fear for their lives.....it would be logical if they left a city they were in danger in and just went to another city in their own country or, if they didn't feel safe in their own nation, they can enter the very next nation to them and would thus not only be safe, but also be entering a nation which has the same language.
> Last, this open borders concept is dangerous, one only has to look at what is happening in Europe, as they let in millions of Muslims and are now paying the deadly price for doing so.  Terrorist attacks and especially rapes are commonplace.
Click to expand...


Murderers, robbers, thieves, drug dealers are dangerous and those are felonies.

Illegally entering the country is a misdeamenor in most cases.

This isn't about open borders, it's about what to do *between arrest and a hearing*.  


They are not necessarily treated well.  They range in age from a few months of age to teens, and the younger they are the less they understand what is happening, only that they are forceably removed from the only people they know in a country they don't know and put with strangers.  Because this wasn't the policy before, the are put into over crowded former military barracks, not with families.  The foster system can't handle the overload.  As to reunited as "soon as possible" - parents aren't even told where their children are and the numbers are so great those kids may very well get lost.

‘They just took them?’ Frantic parents separated from their kids fill courts on the border


----------



## Coyote

OKTexas said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally?  It's a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that.  I have no problem with a hearing and, if determined deportation.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to inact this draconian policy in the meantime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's been proven it is in accordance with a federal court order, yet you refuse to acknowledge that FACT. You're starting to sound like the broken record Matthew.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...



I really don't care who I sound like to *you*.  Agencies have ALWAYS had discretion in these matters.  You refuse to acknowledge that.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Now that would be pretty dumb, applying for asylum out of fear for the lives of the family members and then leave the kids there.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then it somehow becomes our problem, right?  Why didn't they just stay in Mexico if that's what they feared?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, it does become our problem when they cross our boarders. Mexico does send them back and they grant asylum to only 1 in 20 that apply. With the deteriorating relations between the US and Mexico, they're probably busing them to the US boarder so they'll be our problem.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not our problem, Mexico is our problem.  It's no different than if we sent these people to the Canadian border.  We did it to them.  We should not be allowing them to trample across our land into Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Hate to break your bubble, but Mexico does not send these people to the US.  Although Mexico is a lot tougher on illegals than we are, a lot get through and they probably don't do much to stop them.
> 
> Mexico could certainly do a better job stopping these people in their country so they do not reach our boarder.  However, why should they do that?  Exactly what is the US doing for Mexico other than insulting and threatening them daily.  US Mexican relations are the worst they been in decades, thanks to Trump so I certainly wouldn't expect any help from them on immigration or drug enforcement.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what you think?  Then how did our media pickup on the fact this current crop of people were on their way here two weeks before they arrived?
> 
> Of course Mexico allows them to come here; they always have.  They know why they are coming here and give them their blessing.
> 
> Mexico allows them to come here, and then they are our problem.  They bring kids with them, and then they are our problem.  They disappear and never show up for court, and then they are our problem.  Gangs form and sell drugs, and then that is our problem.
> 
> Solution to our problem?  Close the southern border down completely. I'm sick of problems invading our country and then we have to spend the money and find a solution to those problems.
Click to expand...

*It's pretty hard not to notice hundreds of people marching across the country headed toward the US boarder.

You don't seem to get it.  It is not the responsibility of Mexico to protect our boarders.  Does the US stop people headed for the Mexican boarder or the Canadian border?

You're being incredible xenophobia.  You consider Honduran families fleeing from violence and seeking refuge as invaders when the problem is not of their making.  You lay the blame for gangs selling drugs on immigrants when the real problem is the US huge demand for illegal drugs.

If you're really tired of this shit, then you should be supporting a plan that will actually work regardless of who is in the white house or which party is controlling congress.  Trump can't possible come anywhere close to deporting 12 million undocumented immigrants during his term in office.  The deportations he's doing now is barely keeping up with the inflow of immigrants. Without support from both parties, nothing is going to change.*


----------



## OKTexas

francoHFW said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not enforce e-verify?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a start LOL. But according to GOP employers, also communism LOL... We need Democrats in total control for about 12 years at least. They should disband your bought off brainwashed party....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You would shrivel up and blow away if you didn't have your hate for the GOP, be careful what you wish for.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I know you are brainwashed about democratic Party evil and Corruption. With no evidence of course. GOP corruption and crime are well documented. Their giveaway to the greedy idiot corrupt rich and outrageous propaganda has ruined the rest and the country the last 35 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Success envy, that's sooooooooooooooooooo you. ROFLMFAO
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no problem with Rich Democrats,, just low life greedy idiot lying thieving or just playing greedy GOP rich, super duper. Change the channel.
Click to expand...



OH OKAY, so you're just a plain old hypocrite.


.


----------



## Natural Citizen

OKTexas said:


> That's when you'll see a second amendment solution, is that really what you want?



And The Federalist (numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison) is clear to the point that the people have that authority. The moral duty, to be clear.


----------



## protectionist

francoHFW said:


> People prove their citizenship when they register. It is a phony crisis. The only two illegal voters caught were for Trump LOL.
> 
> The solution is computer chips. Could also be used 4 voter ID and medical history if we had good health care.


FALSE!  I registered recently, and showed no proof of citizenship at all.   Liberals try to claim the obvious is phony. Only thing phony (obviously) is their claims.

Won't matter. Trump will get re-elected in 2020, and will get rid of all the illegal aliens, and their illegal VOTES.


----------



## OKTexas

Coyote said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally?  It's a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that.  I have no problem with a hearing and, if determined deportation.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to inact this draconian policy in the meantime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's been proven it is in accordance with a federal court order, yet you refuse to acknowledge that FACT. You're starting to sound like the broken record Matthew.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't care who I sound like to *you*.  Agencies have ALWAYS had discretion in these matters.  You refuse to acknowledge that.
Click to expand...



Wrong, the courts took that away. Deal with it.


.


----------



## Mac1958

Coyote, out of curiosity - now that we're 2,000+ responses in, have you received many actual answers to the question posed in your thread title?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then it somehow becomes our problem, right?  Why didn't they just stay in Mexico if that's what they feared?
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, it does become our problem when they cross our boarders. Mexico does send them back and they grant asylum to only 1 in 20 that apply. With the deteriorating relations between the US and Mexico, they're probably busing them to the US boarder so they'll be our problem.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not our problem, Mexico is our problem.  It's no different than if we sent these people to the Canadian border.  We did it to them.  We should not be allowing them to trample across our land into Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Hate to break your bubble, but Mexico does not send these people to the US.  Although Mexico is a lot tougher on illegals than we are, a lot get through and they probably don't do much to stop them.
> 
> Mexico could certainly do a better job stopping these people in their country so they do not reach our boarder.  However, why should they do that?  Exactly what is the US doing for Mexico other than insulting and threatening them daily.  US Mexican relations are the worst they been in decades, thanks to Trump so I certainly wouldn't expect any help from them on immigration or drug enforcement.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what you think?  Then how did our media pickup on the fact this current crop of people were on their way here two weeks before they arrived?
> 
> Of course Mexico allows them to come here; they always have.  They know why they are coming here and give them their blessing.
> 
> Mexico allows them to come here, and then they are our problem.  They bring kids with them, and then they are our problem.  They disappear and never show up for court, and then they are our problem.  Gangs form and sell drugs, and then that is our problem.
> 
> Solution to our problem?  Close the southern border down completely. I'm sick of problems invading our country and then we have to spend the money and find a solution to those problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It's pretty hard not to notice hundreds of people marching across the country headed toward the US boarder.
> 
> You don't seem to get it.  It is not the responsibility of Mexico to protect our boarders.  Does the US stop people headed for the Mexican boarder or the Canadian border?
> 
> You're being incredible xenophobia.  You consider Honduran families fleeing from violence and seeking refuge as invaders when the problem is not of their making.  You lay the blame for gangs selling drugs on immigrants when the real problem is the US huge demand for illegal drugs.
> 
> If you're really tired of this shit, then you should be supporting a plan that will actually work regardless of who is in the white house or which party is controlling congress.  Trump can't possible come anywhere close to deporting 12 million undocumented immigrants during his term in office.  The deportations he's doing now is barely keeping up with the inflow of immigrants. Without support from both parties, nothing is going to change.*
Click to expand...


But you're never going to get support from both parties--only one.  The Democrats goal is to get as many of these immigrants into this country as possible.  Why do you suppose they are fighting to keep their sanctuary cities and states?  Why do you suppose they stopped Kate's Law?  Why do you suppose they are really against the wall?  Does this sound like a group of people wanting to stop illegal immigration? 

If the US allowed a band of Mexicans to cross our country into Canada, then yes, the US is responsible for not stopping them long before they hit the Canadian border.  We should have stopped them at the Mexican border.


----------



## Kondor3

Flopper said:


> ...It's pretty hard not to notice hundreds of people marching across the country headed toward the US boarder...


Yep. The Mexicans gave them a "pass through" rather than "eat" them, themselves.



> ...You don't seem to get it.  It is not the responsibility of Mexico to protect our boarders.  Does the US stop people headed for the Mexican boarder or the Canadian border?...


True. The Mexicans dump their own riff-raff on our side of the border, so there's no reason to believe they'll stop other Central American riff-raff from passing through.



> ...You're being incredible xenophobia...


It is not xenophobic to insist upon the integrity of our national borders and the sovereignty of our soil.



> ...You consider Honduran families fleeing from violence and seeking refuge as invaders when the problem is not of their making...


1. families, and truckloads of singles outside a family framework
2. doesn't matter that they're fleeing from violence
3. doesn't matter that they're seeking refuge
4. they are, indeed, invaders
5. doesn't matter that the problem is not of their making
6. not our circus, not our monkeys - tough $hit - next time, try going south rather than north



> ...You lay the blame for gangs selling drugs on immigrants when the real problem is the US huge demand for illegal drugs...


There is a kernel of truth to that; time to give the cops authority to shoot inner-city drug dealers on sight, without warning.



> ...If you're really tired of this shit, then you should be supporting a plan that will actually work regardless of who is in the white house or which party is controlling congress...


Trouble is, neither side is to be trusted; Pubs want the near-slave labor, Dems want the grateful future voters; neither side is acting in America's best interests.



> ...Trump can't possible come anywhere close to deporting 12 million *undocumented immigrants* during his term in office...


True. Time to crucify a few hundred Big Employers of *Illegal Aliens*, metaphorically, in the law courts, in order to put the brakes on Illegal Labor in this country.



> ...The deportations he's doing now is barely keeping up with the inflow of immigrants. Without support from both parties, nothing is going to change.


True. Best to circumvent Congress and close down the entire Southern Border; with whatever combination of non-lethal and lethal force is required.


----------



## OKTexas

protectionist said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> People prove their citizenship when they register. It is a phony crisis. The only two illegal voters caught were for Trump LOL.
> 
> The solution is computer chips. Could also be used 4 voter ID and medical history if we had good health care.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  I registered recently, and showed no proof of citizenship at all.   Liberals try to claim the obvious is phony. Only thing phony (obviously) is their claims.
> 
> Won't matter. Trump will get re-elected in 2020, and will get rid of all the illegal aliens, and their illegal VOTES.
Click to expand...



In fact the courts have made it illegal to require proof of citizenship to register, they say the feds rule and they only require you to say you're a citizen.


.


----------



## OKTexas

Mac1958 said:


> Coyote, out of curiosity - now that we're 2,000+ responses in, have you received many actual answers to the question posed in your thread title?




The answer is obvious, what ever the hell it takes. PERIOD


.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marijuana.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh. Well, the drug war is another thing that we need to end. Agreed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The drug war is just another in a long line of wars that we've lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.  That would be like saying the war on murder failed or the war on theft.  Laws don't eliminate crime in our country, it controls it to some degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ive never heard of a war of murder. A war on drug, yes. Anyways, we haven't won a war since WWII, and even then, we needed help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well......I don't believe there was ever a war on women either.  Catchy title, but no real wars in reality.
> 
> In the past couple of years a few people I knew (and related to) died because of drugs.  Legalizing it just isn't a good idea.  One time my apartment was robbed by drug addicts, another time a drug addict tenant of mine nearly burned my house down, it's just too much of a problem.
> 
> Legalizing all dope would make matters five times worse.
Click to expand...

*Not sure about that.  Read about Portugal after 10 years of decriminalization of all drugs.  With the illegal drug business estimated at 40 billion a year and growing rapidly, we will reach a point where we will have no choice. I'm not in favor of it but we're running out of options. The war on drugs was lost decades ago.  There is no way we can control the growing use of illegal drugs.
Ten Years Ago Portugal Decriminalized All Drugs. What Happened Next? | The Fix *


----------



## Cosmos

HappyJoy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
Click to expand...


A human would go the the Port of Entry and present their immigrant visa that they obtained at the US Consulate in Mexico City.

A fucking animal crosses anywhere they can get away with it.

So yeah, there's that aspect.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the topic of welfare, while I'm thinking of it. I want to be clear about that. I see nothing wrong with a welfare program at the State level. Nor did the Framers for that matter. The States do have the power to do that and really, it's the moral thing to do to help their citizens if they need it.
> 
> But the federal welfare, no. They lack just power to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> State governments should be ended. When Democrats get control...
Click to expand...


The Democrats are going to amend the US Constitution?


----------



## francoHFW

OKTexas said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a start LOL. But according to GOP employers, also communism LOL... We need Democrats in total control for about 12 years at least. They should disband your bought off brainwashed party....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would shrivel up and blow away if you didn't have your hate for the GOP, be careful what you wish for.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I know you are brainwashed about democratic Party evil and Corruption. With no evidence of course. GOP corruption and crime are well documented. Their giveaway to the greedy idiot corrupt rich and outrageous propaganda has ruined the rest and the country the last 35 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Success envy, that's sooooooooooooooooooo you. ROFLMFAO
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no problem with Rich Democrats,, just low life greedy idiot lying thieving or just playing greedy GOP rich, super duper. Change the channel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OH OKAY, so you're just a plain old hypocrite.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Rich Democrats want to be taxed their fair share, for the good of the country, doop.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the topic of welfare, while I'm thinking of it. I want to be clear about that. I see nothing wrong with a welfare program at the State level. Nor did the Framers for that matter. The States do have the power to do that and really, it's the moral thing to do to help their citizens if they need it.
> 
> But the federal welfare, no. They lack just power to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> State governments should be ended. When Democrats get control...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democrats are going to amend the US Constitution?
Click to expand...

That is my Theory. Won't happen. Just like justice truth American Way


----------



## Natural Citizen

Flopper said:


> *Not sure about that.  Read about Portugal after 10 years of decriminalization of all drugs.  With the illegal drug business estimated at 40 billion a year and growing rapidly, we will reach a point where we will have no choice. I'm not in favor of it but we're running out of options. The war on drugs was lost decades ago.  There is no way we can control the growing use of illegal drugs.
> Ten Years Ago Portugal Decriminalized All Drugs. What Happened Next? | The Fix *




There's possibly a minor flipside to legalizing drugs.

The cartels will see their cash cow dwindle away. It is possible, likely even, that those drug wars will move across our border and we might see Americans killed in their own country if the cartels see legalization as competition.

Of course, that's conjecture. But legitimate conjecture, I think.


----------



## Natural Citizen

francoHFW said:


> If they do any crime armed with illegal guns, give them 5 years. 1 year for possession of same.



You're missing the point, Franco. Your federal database and national id just became moot.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh. Well, the drug war is another thing that we need to end. Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> The drug war is just another in a long line of wars that we've lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.  That would be like saying the war on murder failed or the war on theft.  Laws don't eliminate crime in our country, it controls it to some degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ive never heard of a war of murder. A war on drug, yes. Anyways, we haven't won a war since WWII, and even then, we needed help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well......I don't believe there was ever a war on women either.  Catchy title, but no real wars in reality.
> 
> In the past couple of years a few people I knew (and related to) died because of drugs.  Legalizing it just isn't a good idea.  One time my apartment was robbed by drug addicts, another time a drug addict tenant of mine nearly burned my house down, it's just too much of a problem.
> 
> Legalizing all dope would make matters five times worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People die because  illegal drugs are full of poison. They should at least legalize methadone and other healthier alternatives in programs and treatments. It is now totally out of control. GOP policy Law and Order Nanny state is a disgrace, along with our default GOP immigration policy, Mental Health non-system, living wage not!, Giant tax cuts for the rich and service cuts for everyone else, b******character assassination propaganda machine 4 haters like you. 35 years of regression and garbage. Great job!
Click to expand...


You are too brainwashed to discuss this issue; you're too far gone already.  Everything in the entire world is the GOP's fault in your tiny mind.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The drug war is just another in a long line of wars that we've lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  That would be like saying the war on murder failed or the war on theft.  Laws don't eliminate crime in our country, it controls it to some degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ive never heard of a war of murder. A war on drug, yes. Anyways, we haven't won a war since WWII, and even then, we needed help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well......I don't believe there was ever a war on women either.  Catchy title, but no real wars in reality.
> 
> In the past couple of years a few people I knew (and related to) died because of drugs.  Legalizing it just isn't a good idea.  One time my apartment was robbed by drug addicts, another time a drug addict tenant of mine nearly burned my house down, it's just too much of a problem.
> 
> Legalizing all dope would make matters five times worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People die because  illegal drugs are full of poison. They should at least legalize methadone and other healthier alternatives in programs and treatments. It is now totally out of control. GOP policy Law and Order Nanny state is a disgrace, along with our default GOP immigration policy, Mental Health non-system, living wage not!, Giant tax cuts for the rich and service cuts for everyone else, b******character assassination propaganda machine 4 haters like you. 35 years of regression and garbage. Great job!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are too brainwashed to discuss this issue; you're too far gone already.  Everything in the entire world is the GOP's fault in your tiny mind.
Click to expand...

Just since Teddy Roosevelt... Twenties, wrecked League of Nations and World economy, 30s isolationist GOP let Hitler and Japanese run wild, since then stupid Wars and covert anti democracy, then Reagan ism Wrecking our country and the Middle East.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The drug war is just another in a long line of wars that we've lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  That would be like saying the war on murder failed or the war on theft.  Laws don't eliminate crime in our country, it controls it to some degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ive never heard of a war of murder. A war on drug, yes. Anyways, we haven't won a war since WWII, and even then, we needed help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well......I don't believe there was ever a war on women either.  Catchy title, but no real wars in reality.
> 
> In the past couple of years a few people I knew (and related to) died because of drugs.  Legalizing it just isn't a good idea.  One time my apartment was robbed by drug addicts, another time a drug addict tenant of mine nearly burned my house down, it's just too much of a problem.
> 
> Legalizing all dope would make matters five times worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People die because  illegal drugs are full of poison. They should at least legalize methadone and other healthier alternatives in programs and treatments. It is now totally out of control. GOP policy Law and Order Nanny state is a disgrace, along with our default GOP immigration policy, Mental Health non-system, living wage not!, Giant tax cuts for the rich and service cuts for everyone else, b******character assassination propaganda machine 4 haters like you. 35 years of regression and garbage. Great job!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are too brainwashed to discuss this issue; you're too far gone already.  Everything in the entire world is the GOP's fault in your tiny mind.
Click to expand...

Funny how the whole rest of the world disagrees with your alternate facts and b*******policies, super duper.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

HappyJoy said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need EDUCATED immigration, not just maids and fruit pickers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually we don't.
> 
> More Unskilled Workers, Please
> 
> Unskilled Immigrants Do Not Harm Americans
> 
> The Danger From Low-Skilled Immigrants: Not Having Them
> 
> Read the articles, I could pull out quotes from them but I get the feeling I'm already wasting my time linking the articles.
> 
> Other than that treating people like cattle is inhumane no matter how you want to make excuses for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, I don't believe in open borders. And I don't believe in filling the country with unskilled workers. I didn't say we didn't need ANY, just not a free-for-all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody believes in open borders, can we finally kill that strawman?  Like it or not, we need unskilled workers here, we don't have enough currently but you'd rather blabber about some idiotic notion that you don't believe in 'filling the country with unskilled workers', whatever that hell that means. Shit,who can argue with such a defined and well thought out position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  If we need unskilled workers so bad, I guess the 3.8% unemployed in our country must be skilled workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We need unskilled workers because we don't have enough of our own and as our population ages the need is only going to be greater. I've already provided links but you chose to ignore them and instead rely on your own xenophobia.
Click to expand...


Yes, that's what it is, xenophobia.  You must be desperate to use that worn out card.


----------



## francoHFW

Natural Citizen said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they do any crime armed with illegal guns, give them 5 years. 1 year for possession of same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point, Franco. Your federal database and national id just became moot.
Click to expand...

It would help if intelligent policies were passed LOL!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  That would be like saying the war on murder failed or the war on theft.  Laws don't eliminate crime in our country, it controls it to some degree.
> 
> 
> 
> Ive never heard of a war of murder. A war on drug, yes. Anyways, we haven't won a war since WWII, and even then, we needed help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well......I don't believe there was ever a war on women either.  Catchy title, but no real wars in reality.
> 
> In the past couple of years a few people I knew (and related to) died because of drugs.  Legalizing it just isn't a good idea.  One time my apartment was robbed by drug addicts, another time a drug addict tenant of mine nearly burned my house down, it's just too much of a problem.
> 
> Legalizing all dope would make matters five times worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People die because  illegal drugs are full of poison. They should at least legalize methadone and other healthier alternatives in programs and treatments. It is now totally out of control. GOP policy Law and Order Nanny state is a disgrace, along with our default GOP immigration policy, Mental Health non-system, living wage not!, Giant tax cuts for the rich and service cuts for everyone else, b******character assassination propaganda machine 4 haters like you. 35 years of regression and garbage. Great job!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are too brainwashed to discuss this issue; you're too far gone already.  Everything in the entire world is the GOP's fault in your tiny mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just since Teddy Roosevelt... Twenties, wrecked League of Nations and World economy, 30s isolationist GOP let Hitler and Japanese run wild, since then stupid Wars and covert anti democracy, then Reagan ism Wrecking our country and the Middle East.
Click to expand...


----------



## Natural Citizen

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You are too brainwashed to discuss this issue; you're too far gone already.



He does not understand that he will not be immune to the monster he wants to create.


----------



## OKTexas

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, it does become our problem when they cross our boarders. Mexico does send them back and they grant asylum to only 1 in 20 that apply. With the deteriorating relations between the US and Mexico, they're probably busing them to the US boarder so they'll be our problem.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not our problem, Mexico is our problem.  It's no different than if we sent these people to the Canadian border.  We did it to them.  We should not be allowing them to trample across our land into Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Hate to break your bubble, but Mexico does not send these people to the US.  Although Mexico is a lot tougher on illegals than we are, a lot get through and they probably don't do much to stop them.
> 
> Mexico could certainly do a better job stopping these people in their country so they do not reach our boarder.  However, why should they do that?  Exactly what is the US doing for Mexico other than insulting and threatening them daily.  US Mexican relations are the worst they been in decades, thanks to Trump so I certainly wouldn't expect any help from them on immigration or drug enforcement.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what you think?  Then how did our media pickup on the fact this current crop of people were on their way here two weeks before they arrived?
> 
> Of course Mexico allows them to come here; they always have.  They know why they are coming here and give them their blessing.
> 
> Mexico allows them to come here, and then they are our problem.  They bring kids with them, and then they are our problem.  They disappear and never show up for court, and then they are our problem.  Gangs form and sell drugs, and then that is our problem.
> 
> Solution to our problem?  Close the southern border down completely. I'm sick of problems invading our country and then we have to spend the money and find a solution to those problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It's pretty hard not to notice hundreds of people marching across the country headed toward the US boarder.
> 
> You don't seem to get it.  It is not the responsibility of Mexico to protect our boarders.  Does the US stop people headed for the Mexican boarder or the Canadian border?
> 
> You're being incredible xenophobia.  You consider Honduran families fleeing from violence and seeking refuge as invaders when the problem is not of their making.  You lay the blame for gangs selling drugs on immigrants when the real problem is the US huge demand for illegal drugs.
> 
> If you're really tired of this shit, then you should be supporting a plan that will actually work regardless of who is in the white house or which party is controlling congress.  Trump can't possible come anywhere close to deporting 12 million undocumented immigrants during his term in office.  The deportations he's doing now is barely keeping up with the inflow of immigrants. Without support from both parties, nothing is going to change.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're never going to get support from both parties--only one.  The Democrats goal is to get as many of these immigrants into this country as possible.  Why do you suppose they are fighting to keep their sanctuary cities and states?  Why do you suppose they stopped Kate's Law?  Why do you suppose they are really against the wall?  Does this sound like a group of people wanting to stop illegal immigration?
> 
> If the US allowed a band of Mexicans to cross our country into Canada, then yes, the US is responsible for not stopping them long before they hit the Canadian border.  We should have stopped them at the Mexican border.
Click to expand...



Actually maobama let a bunch into the US and they went to Canada. At first they accepted them with open arms, now not so much.


.


----------



## Flopper

Taz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just the same, they applied legally as asylum seekers, obeyed the law and we still separated the families for another other reason other than spite.
> 
> 
> 
> They come anyways knowing what will happen, so not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are following the law, like I said there is no reason to separate families other than spite. We need immigration into this country, our economy depends on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need EDUCATED immigration, not just maids and fruit pickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually we don't.
> 
> More Unskilled Workers, Please
> 
> Unskilled Immigrants Do Not Harm Americans
> 
> The Danger From Low-Skilled Immigrants: Not Having Them
> 
> Read the articles, I could pull out quotes from them but I get the feeling I'm already wasting my time linking the articles.
> 
> Other than that treating people like cattle is inhumane no matter how you want to make excuses for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, I don't believe in open borders. And I don't believe in filling the country with unskilled workers. I didn't say we didn't need ANY, just not a free-for-all.
Click to expand...

*Despite the narrative that uneducated, unskilled immigrants enter the US to dominate the job market, the data tells a different story. Foreign-born individuals in the U.S are just as likely as native born Americans to be college educated with 1/3 of immigrants holding a bachelor’s degree or higher.  America has switched from importing people who are, on average less educated than the natives to people who are better educated.  If immigration quotas and trends remain unchanged, leadership in America business is going to look a lot different in the future. 
Nearly Half of Immigrants Enter the U.S. With a College Degree*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Natural Citizen said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not sure about that.  Read about Portugal after 10 years of decriminalization of all drugs.  With the illegal drug business estimated at 40 billion a year and growing rapidly, we will reach a point where we will have no choice. I'm not in favor of it but we're running out of options. The war on drugs was lost decades ago.  There is no way we can control the growing use of illegal drugs.
> Ten Years Ago Portugal Decriminalized All Drugs. What Happened Next? | The Fix *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's possibly a minor flipside to legalizing drugs.
> 
> The cartels will see their cash cow dwindle away. It is possible, likely even, that those drug wars will move across our border and we might see Americans killed in their own country if the cartels see legalization as competition.
> 
> Of course, that's conjecture. But legitimate conjecture, I think.
Click to expand...


I remember when they were trying to get the lottery passed in our state many years ago.  One of the claims was that it would stop illegal gambling and wipe out the mob.  Instead, the mob started to use the new lottery numbers for their own game.  They just had a better payout than the lottery and did even better.  

When they pushed the issue of legalized pot in Colorado, it was claimed that it would stop the illegal sales of pot on the street.  What actually happened is that pot dealers beat the price of high taxed legal weed, and they are selling more than ever.


----------



## OKTexas

francoHFW said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would shrivel up and blow away if you didn't have your hate for the GOP, be careful what you wish for.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I know you are brainwashed about democratic Party evil and Corruption. With no evidence of course. GOP corruption and crime are well documented. Their giveaway to the greedy idiot corrupt rich and outrageous propaganda has ruined the rest and the country the last 35 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Success envy, that's sooooooooooooooooooo you. ROFLMFAO
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no problem with Rich Democrats,, just low life greedy idiot lying thieving or just playing greedy GOP rich, super duper. Change the channel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OH OKAY, so you're just a plain old hypocrite.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rich Democrats want to be taxed their fair share, for the good of the country, doop.
Click to expand...



You really believe that and you call me a doop. ROFLMAO

Tell me doop, how many are making voluntary donations to the government? You should take up fishing, you're damn sure not very good at this.


.


----------



## Natural Citizen

francoHFW said:


> It would help if intelligent policies were passed LOL!



Well. I dunno, Franco. Forrest Gump's mama always said that stupid is as stupid does. Remember that movie? I always liked that movie. I must have seen it a guhzillion times.

Of course, Menken was always delightfully thoughtful. He'd mentioned that the most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, and intolerable.

And that every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.

Oh how I long for that day, Franco. Though, I doubt it will happen in our lifetimes. The people's will to finish something only goes so far as the next reality television show. And grown men stand around and watch while their unarmed peers are beaten to a bloody pulp, sometimes death itself, by men from the government with guns.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *This trash does not deserve a reply.  It's alt-right propaganda and false news which is what you get from the links like Eagle Forum and Diggers Realm.
> 
> The Mexican Manual for Crossing the boarder, "Counselor Protection Guide" was published 14 years ago when Mexicans were flowing across the boarder at a rate of 500,000 a year, over twice what it is today).  In 2000 to 2005, 300 to 500 people/yr were dying at or near the boarder crossings.  US boarder enforcement was totally inadequate.  90% of the boarder was protected only by barbed wire fencing.  Boarder Patrol Agents numbered less than 4,000 compared to the 19,000 today.  Large US farms were advertising in Mexico for field hands promising wages five times what they were earning.  This is the context of period when the pamphlet was written.  It should also be noted that the pamphlet was available at US Consulates.
> 
> The purpose of pamphlet, "Counselor Protection Guide" was written to save lives, warn immigrants about dangers of crossing. However, for those who had decided to make the attempt there was life saving advice and instructions as to how to conduct yourself in the US.  The pamphlet begins:
> *
> _*"Dear fellow citizen:
> This guide tries to provide you with some practical advice that may be useful to you in case you have made the difficult decision to seek new work opportunities outside of your own country.
> 
> The safe way of entering another country is by first obtaining your passport, which is issued by the Delegations of the Secretariat of Foreign Relations, and your visa, which you request at the Embassy or Consulate of the country to where you wish to travel."*_
> *
> The pamphlet is 29 pages, half of which is filled with warnings of the dangers of crossing and alien smugglers.  It warns of consequences of not having legal documentation.   The remainder of the pamphlet advises what to do and not to do in US such as never run from the boarder patrol, never lie to any immigration agents, never claim a false nationality, never resist arrest, never carry false documents, never carry a weapon, never drive without a drivers license etc.
> 
> I think this pamphlet is far more likely to discourage illegal boarder crossing than encourage them and would likely help save lives.  You be the judge.*
> *Mexico's Official "Guide For The Mexican Migrant" | www.dallas.org*
> *A Mexican Manual for Illegal Migrants Upsets Some in U.S.*
> *Mexico–United States barrier - Wikipedia*
> *Illegal Immigration on Decline, Report Finds*


You talk like we're not allowed to talk about thr recent past.  Recall that I started my post with >>_ "Mexico has *BEEN* sending these illegals to us for decades._"  So yes, it's talking about the recent past. That's allowed you know.  But all this past stuff isn't just past.  Mexico still is raking in $28 Billion/year in remittances from the USA.   Wanna slam this source too ? >>>

Remittance Flows Worldwide in 2016

As for your claims about false news, it is YOUR post that is false.  Vicente Fox did indeed brag and gloat about US remittances being Mexico's #  source of revenue, and Diggersrealm is 100% factually correct about that, and it is YOU who are INCORRECT.

As for eagle forum, just like Diggers Realm, they also are factually correct, and the link shows actual reprints of the guidebook itself, and readers can see for themselves. That can't be propagandized.

What a laugh to hear liberals talk about propaganda, all the while that they go around citing such pathetically fake news outlets as CNN, and the New York Laughingstock Times, which has been a joke ever since they went up against the National Enquirer, and came out with egg all over their New York faces.  Remember that ?  Times has never recovered from it.

Lastly, Mexico doesn't have to send migrants here as a way of perpetrating 21st century imperialism, and pillaging the US for $28 Billion/year + tens of Billion$$ more in welfare relief (us paying their poverty bill).  Instead, if they had an ounce of decency, they would break up their monopolies, spread the economy around to the Mexican population in general, and print a guidebook to help Mexican entrepreneurs get started in business, instead of one about running off to the US.

They have made a choice.  They've chosen to retain their monopoly economy (Telex, Pemex,etc), and make their biggest income $$$ parasiting the USA, and they're doing it every bit as much now, as when screwball Fox went around blabbering and bragging about Mexico's plunder of the US economy.


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> They come anyways knowing what will happen, so not our problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are following the law, like I said there is no reason to separate families other than spite. We need immigration into this country, our economy depends on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need EDUCATED immigration, not just maids and fruit pickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually we don't.
> 
> More Unskilled Workers, Please
> 
> Unskilled Immigrants Do Not Harm Americans
> 
> The Danger From Low-Skilled Immigrants: Not Having Them
> 
> Read the articles, I could pull out quotes from them but I get the feeling I'm already wasting my time linking the articles.
> 
> Other than that treating people like cattle is inhumane no matter how you want to make excuses for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, I don't believe in open borders. And I don't believe in filling the country with unskilled workers. I didn't say we didn't need ANY, just not a free-for-all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Despite the narrative that uneducated, unskilled immigrants enter the US to dominate the job market, the data tells a different story. Foreign-born individuals in the U.S are just as likely as native born Americans to be college educated with 1/3 of immigrants holding a bachelor’s degree or higher.  America has switched from importing people who are, on average less educated than the natives to people who are better educated.  If immigration quotas and trends remain unchanged, leadership in America business is going to look a lot different in the future.
> Nearly Half of Immigrants Enter the U.S. With a College Degree*
Click to expand...



Immigrants, not illegal aliens.


.


----------



## protectionist

Natural Citizen said:


> I'm okay with State ID, but we don't want a national ID card.
> 
> The GOP is actually moving in that direction. That's what the whole voter ID thing is about except their base is too shallow to realize it. The humor of it is it'll give the illegal immigrants a national ID card, too.
> 
> Worse yet, a national ID card is a contradiction of what a free society is all about.


No it's not.  A national ID card is already in existence.  it's called a birth certificate, and it is what validates a citizens right to vote.   It, as well as naturalization papers, are the only things that does that.

These should be required for voting, but as yet, our system is the lack of verification.  22 states don't even require ANY ID at all, and none require citizenship ID.  All of this is an invitation for illegal voters.  This needs to be fixed in addition to the abolition of mail voting.

Being a free society doesn't mean being free to do anything one wants. We're not "free" to kill, steal, rape, commit arson, etc., nor should people be free to illegally vote.


----------



## Flopper

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's sad you can't distinguish between criminals who traffic humans back and forth across the border and legitimate refugees..or recognize the huge amount of suffering that is caused to those refugees by the people who smuggle other people...who you insist we protect..while whining that we try to protect the children they exploit and abuse at teh same time.
> 
> 
> 
> And legitimate refugees.
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to me how a policy that confiscates 100% of the children makes that distinction?
> 
> I will wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When are you going to get through your head that the federal courts say a child can't be detained more than 9 days. The courts are dictating the removal of children, not the administration.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Removal of children to where? The streets? back home to their home countries where they belong? in 9 days. Ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I never saw the 9 day rule but I'm sure there must be one.  Children who accompany parents to detention are either held with parents in a family detention center or they're separated.  Currently the administration opts to separate the parents and their children.
> 
> The children are turned over to US Health and Human Services who keep them until they are turned over to a foster care agency for placement.  In foster care, they are often moved from family to family.  Recently it was reported that DHS was unable to determine the whereabouts of nearly 1500 kids.  This means the parents will likely be deported without their kids under the Trump zero tolerance policy. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The administration doesn't "opt" for anything.  The law says that children cannot be detained longer than 5 days, unless there's a huge backlog of cases, in which case it can be extended to 20 days, but that's it.  The administration has no choice, unless you want President Trump to act like King Trump and simply rewrite the law himself (as Obama did).
> 
> This is NOT "Trump's policy".  HIS policy is not to use this as an excuse to turn the adults loose and let them wander away and vanish.
> 
> As for "1500 missing kids", you really need to stop getting your "news" from social media.  HHS reported that it made follow-up calls to check on the kids, and about 1500 of them couldn't be reached by phone and their guardians didn't call back.  Do you usually overreact and assume someone is "missing" if they don't answer the phone?
Click to expand...

*It certainly is an option.  There are over half dozen family detention centers used by ICE.  Families can be detained in family detention centers, but not un-escorted children.

Taking children away from parents is an old and rather discussing tactic used by every administration.  It goes like this. Plead no contest or not guilty and you will be united with your family.  Plead guilty and you can be detained and separated from your family for up to a year waiting for trial, and no we have no information as to what has happened to your family.  Not surprising, almost all parents plead guilty and the administration gets faster deportations.*


----------



## percysunshine

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of this stuff would be an issue if the Latin American Socialists were not destroying their own countries and driving their populations into flight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Honduras which is where most of the asylum seekers are coming from is a democratic republic like the US but the leadership is far right.  Honduras is a great example what can happen in a poor country under far right conservative leadership.  The government, the national and local police are so corrupt it's hard to say whether the gangs or the police are worse.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The most recent numbers available actually show that 80% of refugees seeking asylum in the US come from Africa.
Click to expand...


Ah...fleeing the Arab Spring. Another foreign policy gift from Susan Rice.


----------



## Natural Citizen

protectionist said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm okay with State ID, but we don't want a national ID card.
> 
> The GOP is actually moving in that direction. That's what the whole voter ID thing is about except their base is too shallow to realize it. The humor of it is it'll give the illegal immigrants a national ID card, too.
> 
> Worse yet, a national ID card is a contradiction of what a free society is all about.
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not.  A national ID card is already in existence.  it's called a birth certificate, and it is what validates a citizens right to vote.  It, as well as naturalization papers, are the only things that does that.
> 
> These should be required for voting, but as yet, our system is the lack of verification.  22 states don't even require ANY ID at all, and none require citizenship ID.  All of this is an invitation for illegal voters.  This needs to be fixed in addition to the abolition of mail voting.
> 
> Being a free society doesn't mean being free to do anything one wants. We're not "free" to kill, steal, rape, commit arson, etc., nor should people be free to illegally vote.
Click to expand...


A free society means liberty form government-over-man, as I 'd said earlier in the thread. Not once did I insinuate that people were free to kill, steal, and rape.

And I'm offended that you''re creating the illusion that I did so.

And a birth certificate isn't a card attached to a biometric, trackable, database with an unlimited amount of documents attached to it, including a very vague discription of what surmises whether ot not one might be a terrorist.


----------



## MaryL

The human cost of illegal immigration. Entire industries that were  blue collar lower middle class just vanish, people lose long time jobs, and can't find work. Illegal or questionable  Mexican immigrants just subvert the entire  lower economic system, and poor blue collar American jobs are given to whetters. So that's the harm in blithely allowing illegal so called "immigrants" in here without question, well, let me tell you... I have seen  poor Americans living in tents , they live hand to mouth and in quiet desperation. Their kids  go without supper, and THEY too want a better life. I think we need to give sanctuary to American poor, not Mexican wet backs.


----------



## protectionist

LOL.  I can't help but laugh about that time the National Enquirer handed the New York Times its ass in the credibility smear fight.  I'm just curious,....  Does anybody remember that ?


----------



## protectionist

Natural Citizen said:


> A free society means liberty form government-over-man, as I 'd said earlier in the thread. Not once did I insinuate that people were free to kill, steal, and rape.
> 
> And I'm offended that you''re creating the illusion that I did so.
> 
> And a birth certificate isn't a card attached to a biometric, trackable, database with an unlimited amount of documents attached to it, including a very vague discription of what surmises whether ot not one might be a terrorist.


I created nothing about you, and if you're offended, that is NOT MY PROBLEM.

And a birth certificate may not necessarily be a biometric, trackable, database, but it does have one thing that all that stuff you mentioned, ordinarily does not have >  proof of citizenship and the right to vote.


----------



## Flopper

OKTexas said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, perhaps LEFTISTS shouldn't have been total pricks and insisted on it.
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is our wonderful justice system and Constitution, NOT LEFTISTS, CONSPIRACY NUT JOBS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pass a good work ID card and enforce it. And end this crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not enforce e-verify?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

*E-Verify is mostly a volunteer program.  If it becomes mandatory, everyone who works, 150 million would have to be verified to get a job.  If only 1% of the data is wrong, it will effect 1.5 million workers.  The data for E-verify comes from 20 different databases from over a dozen different agencies so how do you get it corrected?  Maybe a better question, how do you get your new employer to hold the job open while you get the E-Verify mess fixed.

Of course most people that hire undocumented immigrants, know they are undocumented and they hire them anyway. *


----------



## MaryL

I said this before (wink wink). I have no idea on what level, but  there needs to be a  investigation and deep investigations into what is driving minor local officials to create sanctuary cities for illegal  aliens, it seems some body is overstepping here.


----------



## Natural Citizen

protectionist said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worse yet, a national ID card is a contradiction of what a free society is all about.
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not.
Click to expand...


Alright. Let's do it this way.

You disagreed with my assessment that a national id card was a contradiction of what a free society is all about.

You said, specifically, ''no it's not.''

Do you support a National ID card? If so, then, why? If not, then, why not? And how, precisely, is a national id card not a contradiction of what living in a free society is all about?

I do not support National ID cards for reasons I've laid out. Though, if necessary, I'm willing to be very, very, thorough in explaining why I do not consent to the National ID card and what is wrong with a National ID card.

What's the conservative view that I'm missing here? I like to learn.

francoHFW you're gonna want to see this. Remember what I was saying to you earlier?

Well, we're gonna demonstrate it here. protectionist is gonna teach us what's so conservative  and what is so free about a national id card. He's gonna teach us how being free means we need a national id card.


----------



## MaryL

If you look up "sanctuary cities" you will  find that it is NOT a part of the democratic process. It is actually antidemocratic and imposed on us without our consent...And that, given the fact how illegals have disrupted and otherwise shattered our lower class into oblivion, I am not liking this situation to much.


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to me how a policy that confiscates 100% of the children makes that distinction?
> 
> I will wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When are you going to get through your head that the federal courts say a child can't be detained more than 9 days. The courts are dictating the removal of children, not the administration.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Removal of children to where? The streets? back home to their home countries where they belong? in 9 days. Ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I never saw the 9 day rule but I'm sure there must be one.  Children who accompany parents to detention are either held with parents in a family detention center or they're separated.  Currently the administration opts to separate the parents and their children.
> 
> The children are turned over to US Health and Human Services who keep them until they are turned over to a foster care agency for placement.  In foster care, they are often moved from family to family.  Recently it was reported that DHS was unable to determine the whereabouts of nearly 1500 kids.  This means the parents will likely be deported without their kids under the Trump zero tolerance policy. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The administration doesn't "opt" for anything.  The law says that children cannot be detained longer than 5 days, unless there's a huge backlog of cases, in which case it can be extended to 20 days, but that's it.  The administration has no choice, unless you want President Trump to act like King Trump and simply rewrite the law himself (as Obama did).
> 
> This is NOT "Trump's policy".  HIS policy is not to use this as an excuse to turn the adults loose and let them wander away and vanish.
> 
> As for "1500 missing kids", you really need to stop getting your "news" from social media.  HHS reported that it made follow-up calls to check on the kids, and about 1500 of them couldn't be reached by phone and their guardians didn't call back.  Do you usually overreact and assume someone is "missing" if they don't answer the phone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It certainly is an option.  There are over half dozen family detention centers used by ICE.  Families can be detained in family detention centers, but not un-escorted children.
> 
> Taking children away from parents is an old and rather discussing tactic used by every administration.  It goes like this. Plead no contest or not guilty and you will be united with your family.  Plead guilty and you can be detained and separated from your family for up to a year waiting for trial, and no we have no information as to what has happened to your family.  Not surprising, almost all parents plead guilty and the administration gets faster deportations.*
Click to expand...



I think you got that a bit ass backwards.


.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, it does become our problem when they cross our boarders. Mexico does send them back and they grant asylum to only 1 in 20 that apply. With the deteriorating relations between the US and Mexico, they're probably busing them to the US boarder so they'll be our problem.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not our problem, Mexico is our problem.  It's no different than if we sent these people to the Canadian border.  We did it to them.  We should not be allowing them to trample across our land into Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Hate to break your bubble, but Mexico does not send these people to the US.  Although Mexico is a lot tougher on illegals than we are, a lot get through and they probably don't do much to stop them.
> 
> Mexico could certainly do a better job stopping these people in their country so they do not reach our boarder.  However, why should they do that?  Exactly what is the US doing for Mexico other than insulting and threatening them daily.  US Mexican relations are the worst they been in decades, thanks to Trump so I certainly wouldn't expect any help from them on immigration or drug enforcement.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what you think?  Then how did our media pickup on the fact this current crop of people were on their way here two weeks before they arrived?
> 
> Of course Mexico allows them to come here; they always have.  They know why they are coming here and give them their blessing.
> 
> Mexico allows them to come here, and then they are our problem.  They bring kids with them, and then they are our problem.  They disappear and never show up for court, and then they are our problem.  Gangs form and sell drugs, and then that is our problem.
> 
> Solution to our problem?  Close the southern border down completely. I'm sick of problems invading our country and then we have to spend the money and find a solution to those problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It's pretty hard not to notice hundreds of people marching across the country headed toward the US boarder.
> 
> You don't seem to get it.  It is not the responsibility of Mexico to protect our boarders.  Does the US stop people headed for the Mexican boarder or the Canadian border?
> 
> You're being incredible xenophobia.  You consider Honduran families fleeing from violence and seeking refuge as invaders when the problem is not of their making.  You lay the blame for gangs selling drugs on immigrants when the real problem is the US huge demand for illegal drugs.
> 
> If you're really tired of this shit, then you should be supporting a plan that will actually work regardless of who is in the white house or which party is controlling congress.  Trump can't possible come anywhere close to deporting 12 million undocumented immigrants during his term in office.  The deportations he's doing now is barely keeping up with the inflow of immigrants. Without support from both parties, nothing is going to change.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're never going to get support from both parties--only one.  The Democrats goal is to get as many of these immigrants into this country as possible.  Why do you suppose they are fighting to keep their sanctuary cities and states?  Why do you suppose they stopped Kate's Law?  Why do you suppose they are really against the wall?  Does this sound like a group of people wanting to stop illegal immigration?
> 
> If the US allowed a band of Mexicans to cross our country into Canada, then yes, the US is responsible for not stopping them long before they hit the Canadian border.  We should have stopped them at the Mexican border.
Click to expand...

Your prospective is clouded by extremist views.  All democrat do not want to get every immigrant possible into the country and every republican doesn't want to deport 12 million people.  Left leaning democrats and right leaning republican have even less stronger views and true independents tend to swing back and forth on issues. So there is plenty of middle ground.

There are several trends that indicate that the illegal immigration problem will become less of a problem in coming years.  Better jobs in Mexico, better pay for farm and factory workers, and better security on our boarder has resulted in a drop in the undocumented immigration population.  Pew Research estimated that the numbers have dropped several million.  And there no reason to think that that the number will not continue to drop.  With the right kind of legislation we can see those numbers drop even faster.


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is our wonderful justice system and Constitution, NOT LEFTISTS, CONSPIRACY NUT JOBS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pass a good work ID card and enforce it. And end this crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not enforce e-verify?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *E-Verify is mostly a volunteer program.  If it becomes mandatory, everyone who works, 150 million would have to be verified to get a job.  If only 1% of the data is wrong, it will effect 1.5 million workers.  The data for E-verify comes from 20 different databases from over a dozen different agencies so how do you get it corrected?  Maybe a better question, how do you get your new employer to hold the job open while you get the E-Verify mess fixed.
> 
> Of course most people that hire undocumented immigrants, know they are undocumented and they hire them anyway. *
Click to expand...



E-verify is voluntary because commiecrats want it that way. And employers that hire illegals should be jailed and their businesses confiscated under RICO. Only a couple would need be arrested and that crap would stop.


.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are not our problem, Mexico is our problem.  It's no different than if we sent these people to the Canadian border.  We did it to them.  We should not be allowing them to trample across our land into Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> *Hate to break your bubble, but Mexico does not send these people to the US.  Although Mexico is a lot tougher on illegals than we are, a lot get through and they probably don't do much to stop them.
> 
> Mexico could certainly do a better job stopping these people in their country so they do not reach our boarder.  However, why should they do that?  Exactly what is the US doing for Mexico other than insulting and threatening them daily.  US Mexican relations are the worst they been in decades, thanks to Trump so I certainly wouldn't expect any help from them on immigration or drug enforcement.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what you think?  Then how did our media pickup on the fact this current crop of people were on their way here two weeks before they arrived?
> 
> Of course Mexico allows them to come here; they always have.  They know why they are coming here and give them their blessing.
> 
> Mexico allows them to come here, and then they are our problem.  They bring kids with them, and then they are our problem.  They disappear and never show up for court, and then they are our problem.  Gangs form and sell drugs, and then that is our problem.
> 
> Solution to our problem?  Close the southern border down completely. I'm sick of problems invading our country and then we have to spend the money and find a solution to those problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It's pretty hard not to notice hundreds of people marching across the country headed toward the US boarder.
> 
> You don't seem to get it.  It is not the responsibility of Mexico to protect our boarders.  Does the US stop people headed for the Mexican boarder or the Canadian border?
> 
> You're being incredible xenophobia.  You consider Honduran families fleeing from violence and seeking refuge as invaders when the problem is not of their making.  You lay the blame for gangs selling drugs on immigrants when the real problem is the US huge demand for illegal drugs.
> 
> If you're really tired of this shit, then you should be supporting a plan that will actually work regardless of who is in the white house or which party is controlling congress.  Trump can't possible come anywhere close to deporting 12 million undocumented immigrants during his term in office.  The deportations he's doing now is barely keeping up with the inflow of immigrants. Without support from both parties, nothing is going to change.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're never going to get support from both parties--only one.  The Democrats goal is to get as many of these immigrants into this country as possible.  Why do you suppose they are fighting to keep their sanctuary cities and states?  Why do you suppose they stopped Kate's Law?  Why do you suppose they are really against the wall?  Does this sound like a group of people wanting to stop illegal immigration?
> 
> If the US allowed a band of Mexicans to cross our country into Canada, then yes, the US is responsible for not stopping them long before they hit the Canadian border.  We should have stopped them at the Mexican border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your prospective is clouded by extremist views.  All democrat do not want to get every immigrant possible into the country and every republican doesn't want to deport 12 million people.  Left leaning democrats and right leaning republican have even less stronger views and true independents tend to swing back and forth on issues. So there is plenty of middle ground.
> 
> There are several trends that indicate that the illegal immigration problem will become less of a problem in coming years.  Better jobs in Mexico, better pay for farm and factory workers, and better security on our boarder has resulted in a drop in the undocumented immigration population.  Pew Research estimated that the numbers have dropped several million.  And there no reason to think that that the number will not continue to drop.  With the right kind of legislation we can see those numbers drop even faster.
Click to expand...


Are you going to stand by that?  Okay......one more time: 

Why are Democrats fighting so hard to keep their sanctuary cities and states? 

Why are Democrats fighting so hard to keep the wall from being built; so strongly to the point that they even threatened to shut down the government over it? 

Why did Democrats defeat Kate's Law; a law that would imprison felons who returned back to the country after deportation?  

Every action they take can only be answered one way: they want as many immigrants in this country as possible.  If they ever gain total control over the federal government again, they will grant citizenship to each and every one, and along with citizenship comes the right to vote.  

The goal of the Democrat party is to make this country a single-party government forever.


----------



## percysunshine

.
I think we should ask Canada about their illegal imigration policy. They seem to be running out of resources dealing with it.

Canada warns immigrants in U.S. about heading north of the border


----------



## Flopper

MaryL said:


> If you look up "sanctuary cities" you will  find that it is NOT a part of the democratic process. It is actually antidemocratic and imposed on us without our consent...And that, given the fact how illegals have disrupted and otherwise shattered our lower class into oblivion, I am not liking this situation to much.


*The reality of sanctuary cities is that most of the people that live there simply don't want wholesale deportation of families, friends, employees, and employers that are doing no harm and in some cases an asset to the city.  If you live in a sanctuary city and disagree, then vote the suckers out of office.

BTW, a sanctuary city simply limits their cooperation with the federal government's effort to enforce immigration law.  The degree of cooperation varies widely between cities just as it varies between individuals.  Some city councils pass resolutions declaring that they are a sanctuary city.  They don't require that their employees do anything but encourage citizens to respect their neighbors regardless of their nationality.  In most of these cities, there is nothing the federal government can do about it.  If people don't want to cooperate with the government that is there right.   You can't make them.*


----------



## MaryL

Flopper said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look up "sanctuary cities" you will  find that it is NOT a part of the democratic process. It is actually antidemocratic and imposed on us without our consent...And that, given the fact how illegals have disrupted and otherwise shattered our lower class into oblivion, I am not liking this situation to much.
> 
> 
> 
> *The reality of sanctuary cities is that most of the people that live there simply don't want wholesale deportation of families, friends, employees, and employers that are doing no harm and in some cases an asset to the city.  If you live in a sanctuary city and disagree, then vote the suckers out of office.
> 
> BTW, a sanctuary city simply limits their cooperation with the federal government's effort to enforce immigration law.  The degree of cooperation varies widely between cities just as it varies between individuals.  Some city councils pass resolutions declaring that they are a sanctuary city.  They don't require that their employees do anything but encourage citizens to respect their neighbors regardless of their nationality.  In most of these cities, there is nothing the federal government can do about it.  If people don't want to cooperate with the government that is there right.   You can't make them.*
Click to expand...

We see this issue  on a far different level here , you don't acknowledge the connection of American poor dispossessed by illegals,  despite all that rigmarole,  um, why isn't something as significant as making  a city  a "sanctuary" to illegal aliens up to popular vote? Why shouldn't it be?


----------



## candycorn

Flopper Makes a good point.  There are essentially two tickets to state or federal government: one red and the other blue.  Left to their own devices, you would likely find large swaths of purple in their wardrobe mixed in with the blue and red overcoats they wear to get elected and keep their office


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look up "sanctuary cities" you will  find that it is NOT a part of the democratic process. It is actually antidemocratic and imposed on us without our consent...And that, given the fact how illegals have disrupted and otherwise shattered our lower class into oblivion, I am not liking this situation to much.
> 
> 
> 
> *The reality of sanctuary cities is that most of the people that live there simply don't want wholesale deportation of families, friends, employees, and employers that are doing no harm and in some cases an asset to the city.  If you live in a sanctuary city and disagree, then vote the suckers out of office.
> 
> BTW, a sanctuary city simply limits their cooperation with the federal government's effort to enforce immigration law.  The degree of cooperation varies widely between cities just as it varies between individuals.  Some city councils pass resolutions declaring that they are a sanctuary city.  They don't require that their employees do anything but encourage citizens to respect their neighbors regardless of their nationality.  In most of these cities, there is nothing the federal government can do about it.  If people don't want to cooperate with the government that is there right.   You can't make them.*
Click to expand...


Not when liberal activist judges have anything to say about it.........no.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ive never heard of a war of murder. A war on drug, yes. Anyways, we haven't won a war since WWII, and even then, we needed help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......I don't believe there was ever a war on women either.  Catchy title, but no real wars in reality.
> 
> In the past couple of years a few people I knew (and related to) died because of drugs.  Legalizing it just isn't a good idea.  One time my apartment was robbed by drug addicts, another time a drug addict tenant of mine nearly burned my house down, it's just too much of a problem.
> 
> Legalizing all dope would make matters five times worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People die because  illegal drugs are full of poison. They should at least legalize methadone and other healthier alternatives in programs and treatments. It is now totally out of control. GOP policy Law and Order Nanny state is a disgrace, along with our default GOP immigration policy, Mental Health non-system, living wage not!, Giant tax cuts for the rich and service cuts for everyone else, b******character assassination propaganda machine 4 haters like you. 35 years of regression and garbage. Great job!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are too brainwashed to discuss this issue; you're too far gone already.  Everything in the entire world is the GOP's fault in your tiny mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just since Teddy Roosevelt... Twenties, wrecked League of Nations and World economy, 30s isolationist GOP let Hitler and Japanese run wild, since then stupid Wars and covert anti democracy, then Reagan ism Wrecking our country and the Middle East.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Good argument... Don't worry about history LOL you just get the same horror Time After Time...


----------



## francoHFW

percysunshine said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of this stuff would be an issue if the Latin American Socialists were not destroying their own countries and driving their populations into flight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Honduras which is where most of the asylum seekers are coming from is a democratic republic like the US but the leadership is far right.  Honduras is a great example what can happen in a poor country under far right conservative leadership.  The government, the national and local police are so corrupt it's hard to say whether the gangs or the police are worse.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The most recent numbers available actually show that 80% of refugees seeking asylum in the US come from Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah...fleeing the Arab Spring. Another foreign policy gift from Susan Rice.
Click to expand...

B******* they are... They are fleeing GOP war zones and sub-Saharan areas still in the corrupt GOP depression... Great job! Tunisia and Libya thank us for the Arab Spring. Egypt the Brotherhood blew it. Syria is a tragedy but they almost got rid of their dictator.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look up "sanctuary cities" you will  find that it is NOT a part of the democratic process. It is actually antidemocratic and imposed on us without our consent...And that, given the fact how illegals have disrupted and otherwise shattered our lower class into oblivion, I am not liking this situation to much.
> 
> 
> 
> *The reality of sanctuary cities is that most of the people that live there simply don't want wholesale deportation of families, friends, employees, and employers that are doing no harm and in some cases an asset to the city.  If you live in a sanctuary city and disagree, then vote the suckers out of office.
> 
> BTW, a sanctuary city simply limits their cooperation with the federal government's effort to enforce immigration law.  The degree of cooperation varies widely between cities just as it varies between individuals.  Some city councils pass resolutions declaring that they are a sanctuary city.  They don't require that their employees do anything but encourage citizens to respect their neighbors regardless of their nationality.  In most of these cities, there is nothing the federal government can do about it.  If people don't want to cooperate with the government that is there right.   You can't make them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when liberal activist judges have anything to say about it.........no.
Click to expand...

It is all our wonderful justice system. Appeal it or it is the right thing. And I don't want to hear any stupid conspiracy theories.


----------



## percysunshine

francoHFW said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of this stuff would be an issue if the Latin American Socialists were not destroying their own countries and driving their populations into flight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Honduras which is where most of the asylum seekers are coming from is a democratic republic like the US but the leadership is far right.  Honduras is a great example what can happen in a poor country under far right conservative leadership.  The government, the national and local police are so corrupt it's hard to say whether the gangs or the police are worse.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The most recent numbers available actually show that 80% of refugees seeking asylum in the US come from Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah...fleeing the Arab Spring. Another foreign policy gift from Susan Rice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> B******* they are... They are fleeing GOP war zones and sub-Saharan areas still in the corrupt GOP depression... Great job! Tunisia and Libya thank us for the Arab Spring. Egypt the Brotherhood blew it. Syria is a tragedy but they almost got rid of their dictator.
Click to expand...


Is this the part where Hillary kills Qadaffi and turns North Africa into an international arms bazzaar?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look up "sanctuary cities" you will  find that it is NOT a part of the democratic process. It is actually antidemocratic and imposed on us without our consent...And that, given the fact how illegals have disrupted and otherwise shattered our lower class into oblivion, I am not liking this situation to much.
> 
> 
> 
> *The reality of sanctuary cities is that most of the people that live there simply don't want wholesale deportation of families, friends, employees, and employers that are doing no harm and in some cases an asset to the city.  If you live in a sanctuary city and disagree, then vote the suckers out of office.
> 
> BTW, a sanctuary city simply limits their cooperation with the federal government's effort to enforce immigration law.  The degree of cooperation varies widely between cities just as it varies between individuals.  Some city councils pass resolutions declaring that they are a sanctuary city.  They don't require that their employees do anything but encourage citizens to respect their neighbors regardless of their nationality.  In most of these cities, there is nothing the federal government can do about it.  If people don't want to cooperate with the government that is there right.   You can't make them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when liberal activist judges have anything to say about it.........no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is all our wonderful justice system. Appeal it or it is the right thing. And I don't want to hear any stupid conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...


Bull.  What law is there that states the federal government MUST provide funds to anybody?  Trump threatened to cut funds to sanctuary cities, and a commie judge forbade it.


----------



## MaryL

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look up "sanctuary cities" you will  find that it is NOT a part of the democratic process. It is actually antidemocratic and imposed on us without our consent...And that, given the fact how illegals have disrupted and otherwise shattered our lower class into oblivion, I am not liking this situation to much.
> 
> 
> 
> *The reality of sanctuary cities is that most of the people that live there simply don't want wholesale deportation of families, friends, employees, and employers that are doing no harm and in some cases an asset to the city.  If you live in a sanctuary city and disagree, then vote the suckers out of office.
> 
> BTW, a sanctuary city simply limits their cooperation with the federal government's effort to enforce immigration law.  The degree of cooperation varies widely between cities just as it varies between individuals.  Some city councils pass resolutions declaring that they are a sanctuary city.  They don't require that their employees do anything but encourage citizens to respect their neighbors regardless of their nationality.  In most of these cities, there is nothing the federal government can do about it.  If people don't want to cooperate with the government that is there right.   You can't make them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when liberal activist judges have anything to say about it.........no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is all our wonderful justice system. Appeal it or it is the right thing. And I don't want to hear any stupid conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

I have been a juror in Denver, and too many of the plaintiffs were just  illegal Mexicans that just ended up being deported. OH, they had families and houses and that ended badly for them Imagine being a juror in that mess. I despise our local or state  government for putting us in this position, either way. Nobody got a vote on whether or not we wanted illegals, they just sort of magical and extra judicially/legally appeared here. What is the human cost of allowing illegal aliens? Millions of dollars in wasted time debating this pointless issue. Nobody else in American  history has ever gotten sanctuary given to them before.


----------



## WelfareQueen

Coyote said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally?  It's a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that.  I have no problem with a hearing and, if determined deportation.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to inact this draconian policy in the meantime?
Click to expand...



My understanding is that it would be inhumane to house small children in adult detention facilities with potential pedophiles or other serious criminals.  Kind of makes sense doesn't?  Would you want your 8 year old child housed in a maximum security prison with adult male inmates?  My guess is probably not.  

That is why kids are adults are separated.  Plus...it is the Law.  And we are a Nation of Laws or should be.


----------



## francoHFW

percysunshine said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of this stuff would be an issue if the Latin American Socialists were not destroying their own countries and driving their populations into flight.
> 
> 
> 
> *Honduras which is where most of the asylum seekers are coming from is a democratic republic like the US but the leadership is far right.  Honduras is a great example what can happen in a poor country under far right conservative leadership.  The government, the national and local police are so corrupt it's hard to say whether the gangs or the police are worse.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The most recent numbers available actually show that 80% of refugees seeking asylum in the US come from Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah...fleeing the Arab Spring. Another foreign policy gift from Susan Rice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> B******* they are... They are fleeing GOP war zones and sub-Saharan areas still in the corrupt GOP depression... Great job! Tunisia and Libya thank us for the Arab Spring. Egypt the Brotherhood blew it. Syria is a tragedy but they almost got rid of their dictator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this the part where Hillary kills Qadaffi and turns North Africa into an international arms bazzaar?
Click to expand...

I thought the whole country was an Isis slave market, super duper. They are doing fine except for Isis. Isis is about gone.


----------



## francoHFW

francoHFW said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Honduras which is where most of the asylum seekers are coming from is a democratic republic like the US but the leadership is far right.  Honduras is a great example what can happen in a poor country under far right conservative leadership.  The government, the national and local police are so corrupt it's hard to say whether the gangs or the police are worse.    *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most recent numbers available actually show that 80% of refugees seeking asylum in the US come from Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah...fleeing the Arab Spring. Another foreign policy gift from Susan Rice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> B******* they are... They are fleeing GOP war zones and sub-Saharan areas still in the corrupt GOP depression... Great job! Tunisia and Libya thank us for the Arab Spring. Egypt the Brotherhood blew it. Syria is a tragedy but they almost got rid of their dictator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this the part where Hillary kills Qadaffi and turns North Africa into an international arms bazzaar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought the whole country was an Isis slave market, super duper. They are doing fine except for Isis. Isis is about gone.
Click to expand...

Actually they are bit overrun with blacks from sub-Saharan Africa fleeing the George W bush World depression and War which often follows GOP depressions. Great job again stupid GOP and silly dupes like you...


----------



## Coyote

WelfareQueen said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally?  It's a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that.  I have no problem with a hearing and, if determined deportation.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to inact this draconian policy in the meantime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that it would be inhumane to house small children in adult detention facilities with potential pedophiles or other serious criminals.  Kind of makes sense doesn't?  Would you want your 8 year old child housed in a maximum security prison with adult male inmates?  My guess is probably not.
> 
> That is why kids are adults are separated.  Plus...it is the Law.  And we are a Nation of Laws or should be.
Click to expand...

We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.  Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders.  Kids don’t have to be removed.  We exercised this discretion before why not now?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally?  It's a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that.  I have no problem with a hearing and, if determined deportation.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to inact this draconian policy in the meantime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that it would be inhumane to house small children in adult detention facilities with potential pedophiles or other serious criminals.  Kind of makes sense doesn't?  Would you want your 8 year old child housed in a maximum security prison with adult male inmates?  My guess is probably not.
> 
> That is why kids are adults are separated.  Plus...it is the Law.  And we are a Nation of Laws or should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.  Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders.  Kids don’t have to be removed.  We exercised this discretion before why not now?
Click to expand...


Good point. 

So we exercised that discretion before, and what result do we have today?


----------



## francoHFW

WelfareQueen said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally?  It's a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that.  I have no problem with a hearing and, if determined deportation.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to inact this draconian policy in the meantime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that it would be inhumane to house small children in adult detention facilities with potential pedophiles or other serious criminals.  Kind of makes sense doesn't?  Would you want your 8 year old child housed in a maximum security prison with adult male inmates?  My guess is probably not.
> 
> That is why kids are adults are separated.  Plus...it is the Law.  And we are a Nation of Laws or should be.
Click to expand...

People are worried about all the people asking for Asylum and their children. Thanks to the drug war back home great job.


----------



## francoHFW

MaryL said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look up "sanctuary cities" you will  find that it is NOT a part of the democratic process. It is actually antidemocratic and imposed on us without our consent...And that, given the fact how illegals have disrupted and otherwise shattered our lower class into oblivion, I am not liking this situation to much.
> 
> 
> 
> *The reality of sanctuary cities is that most of the people that live there simply don't want wholesale deportation of families, friends, employees, and employers that are doing no harm and in some cases an asset to the city.  If you live in a sanctuary city and disagree, then vote the suckers out of office.
> 
> BTW, a sanctuary city simply limits their cooperation with the federal government's effort to enforce immigration law.  The degree of cooperation varies widely between cities just as it varies between individuals.  Some city councils pass resolutions declaring that they are a sanctuary city.  They don't require that their employees do anything but encourage citizens to respect their neighbors regardless of their nationality.  In most of these cities, there is nothing the federal government can do about it.  If people don't want to cooperate with the government that is there right.   You can't make them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when liberal activist judges have anything to say about it.........no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is all our wonderful justice system. Appeal it or it is the right thing. And I don't want to hear any stupid conspiracy theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have been a juror in Denver, and too many of the plaintiffs were just  illegal Mexicans that just ended up being deported. OH, they had families and houses and that ended badly for them Imagine being a juror in that mess. I despise our local or state  government for putting us in this position, either way. Nobody got a vote on whether or not we wanted illegals, they just sort of magical and extra judicially/legally appeared here. What is the human cost of allowing illegal aliens? Millions of dollars in wasted time debating this pointless issue. Nobody else in American  history has ever gotten sanctuary given to them before.
Click to expand...

What is your solution, I believe the only solution is amnesty for the Worthy and computer chip ID card to stop more coming....


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look up "sanctuary cities" you will  find that it is NOT a part of the democratic process. It is actually antidemocratic and imposed on us without our consent...And that, given the fact how illegals have disrupted and otherwise shattered our lower class into oblivion, I am not liking this situation to much.
> 
> 
> 
> *The reality of sanctuary cities is that most of the people that live there simply don't want wholesale deportation of families, friends, employees, and employers that are doing no harm and in some cases an asset to the city.  If you live in a sanctuary city and disagree, then vote the suckers out of office.
> 
> BTW, a sanctuary city simply limits their cooperation with the federal government's effort to enforce immigration law.  The degree of cooperation varies widely between cities just as it varies between individuals.  Some city councils pass resolutions declaring that they are a sanctuary city.  They don't require that their employees do anything but encourage citizens to respect their neighbors regardless of their nationality.  In most of these cities, there is nothing the federal government can do about it.  If people don't want to cooperate with the government that is there right.   You can't make them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when liberal activist judges have anything to say about it.........no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is all our wonderful justice system. Appeal it or it is the right thing. And I don't want to hear any stupid conspiracy theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull.  What law is there that states the federal government MUST provide funds to anybody?  Trump threatened to cut funds to sanctuary cities, and a commie judge forbade it.
Click to expand...

As I said, appeal it or shut the f******.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look up "sanctuary cities" you will  find that it is NOT a part of the democratic process. It is actually antidemocratic and imposed on us without our consent...And that, given the fact how illegals have disrupted and otherwise shattered our lower class into oblivion, I am not liking this situation to much.
> 
> 
> 
> *The reality of sanctuary cities is that most of the people that live there simply don't want wholesale deportation of families, friends, employees, and employers that are doing no harm and in some cases an asset to the city.  If you live in a sanctuary city and disagree, then vote the suckers out of office.
> 
> BTW, a sanctuary city simply limits their cooperation with the federal government's effort to enforce immigration law.  The degree of cooperation varies widely between cities just as it varies between individuals.  Some city councils pass resolutions declaring that they are a sanctuary city.  They don't require that their employees do anything but encourage citizens to respect their neighbors regardless of their nationality.  In most of these cities, there is nothing the federal government can do about it.  If people don't want to cooperate with the government that is there right.   You can't make them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when liberal activist judges have anything to say about it.........no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is all our wonderful justice system. Appeal it or it is the right thing. And I don't want to hear any stupid conspiracy theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull.  What law is there that states the federal government MUST provide funds to anybody?  Trump threatened to cut funds to sanctuary cities, and a commie judge forbade it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said, appeal it or shut the f******.
Click to expand...


Don't tell me what to do troll.


----------



## francoHFW

MaryL said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look up "sanctuary cities" you will  find that it is NOT a part of the democratic process. It is actually antidemocratic and imposed on us without our consent...And that, given the fact how illegals have disrupted and otherwise shattered our lower class into oblivion, I am not liking this situation to much.
> 
> 
> 
> *The reality of sanctuary cities is that most of the people that live there simply don't want wholesale deportation of families, friends, employees, and employers that are doing no harm and in some cases an asset to the city.  If you live in a sanctuary city and disagree, then vote the suckers out of office.
> 
> BTW, a sanctuary city simply limits their cooperation with the federal government's effort to enforce immigration law.  The degree of cooperation varies widely between cities just as it varies between individuals.  Some city councils pass resolutions declaring that they are a sanctuary city.  They don't require that their employees do anything but encourage citizens to respect their neighbors regardless of their nationality.  In most of these cities, there is nothing the federal government can do about it.  If people don't want to cooperate with the government that is there right.   You can't make them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when liberal activist judges have anything to say about it.........no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is all our wonderful justice system. Appeal it or it is the right thing. And I don't want to hear any stupid conspiracy theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have been a juror in Denver, and too many of the plaintiffs were just  illegal Mexicans that just ended up being deported. OH, they had families and houses and that ended badly for them Imagine being a juror in that mess. I despise our local or state  government for putting us in this position, either way. Nobody got a vote on whether or not we wanted illegals, they just sort of magical and extra judicially/legally appeared here. What is the human cost of allowing illegal aliens? Millions of dollars in wasted time debating this pointless issue. Nobody else in American  history has ever gotten sanctuary given to them before.
Click to expand...

When Reagan granted amnesty the GOP blocked the ID cards and enforcement needed 2 stop them from coming and getting jobs and paying taxes and buying houses. The GOP caused this and now block the solution again. GOP sucks.


----------



## MaryL

All people get  to chime in here. They voted for Trump. some didn't, that's democracy.  They voted on legalizing marijuana  even, but not ONCE anywhere have we Americans got to VOTE on allowing the state to skirt, no, flaunt  federal immigration laws. It's shocking actually. Most of us would like to get to vote on that, being that this is still a democracy and all. So why can't we vote on that? Does that threaten somebody? We can't leave this up to a rabble after all.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The reality of sanctuary cities is that most of the people that live there simply don't want wholesale deportation of families, friends, employees, and employers that are doing no harm and in some cases an asset to the city.  If you live in a sanctuary city and disagree, then vote the suckers out of office.
> 
> BTW, a sanctuary city simply limits their cooperation with the federal government's effort to enforce immigration law.  The degree of cooperation varies widely between cities just as it varies between individuals.  Some city councils pass resolutions declaring that they are a sanctuary city.  They don't require that their employees do anything but encourage citizens to respect their neighbors regardless of their nationality.  In most of these cities, there is nothing the federal government can do about it.  If people don't want to cooperate with the government that is there right.   You can't make them.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not when liberal activist judges have anything to say about it.........no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is all our wonderful justice system. Appeal it or it is the right thing. And I don't want to hear any stupid conspiracy theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull.  What law is there that states the federal government MUST provide funds to anybody?  Trump threatened to cut funds to sanctuary cities, and a commie judge forbade it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said, appeal it or shut the f******.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't tell me what to do troll.
Click to expand...

Be a misinformed traitor then lol... This is the Trump disgrace so far, and fox Etc making up garbage about our justice system...


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.



Interesting...

How much? How much discretion is required for it to be acceptable?

You say we're a nation of laws. Are we? Are we a nation of laws when we continually look for ways to circumvent them like we do with immigration? Like states and cities do with sanctuary laws?



Coyote said:


> Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders. Kids don’t have to be removed. We exercised this discretion before why not now?



That's like saying there should be no consequences for their coming here illegally. If they aren't going to obey our laws with one set of consequences, then another continuum of consequences must be set in place. The severity of the punishment must be enhanced.

What do you think would serve as a reliable and "humane" deterrent?


----------



## TemplarKormac

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when liberal activist judges have anything to say about it.........no.
> 
> 
> 
> It is all our wonderful justice system. Appeal it or it is the right thing. And I don't want to hear any stupid conspiracy theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull.  What law is there that states the federal government MUST provide funds to anybody?  Trump threatened to cut funds to sanctuary cities, and a commie judge forbade it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said, appeal it or shut the f******.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't tell me what to do troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be a misinformed traitor then lol... This is the Trump disgrace so far, and fox Etc making up garbage about our justice system...
Click to expand...

LOL You called him a traitor.

That's funny. Because he's not. You can't call everyone who disagrees with you a traitor.


----------



## francoHFW

MaryL said:


> All people get  to chime in here. They voted for Trump. some didn't, that's democracy.  They voted on legalizing marijuana  even, but not ONCE anywhere have we Americans got to VOTE on allowing the state to skirt, no, flaunt  federal immigration laws. It's shocking actually. Most of us would like to get to vote on that, being that this is still a democracy and all. So why can't we vote on that? Does that threaten somebody? We can't leave this up to a rabble after all.


Yes it's threatens a lot of people who the GOP invited to come here and work and pay taxes and own homes. The ones who play the game will be allowed to stay or the GOP will be voted out big time. Their base is a brainwashed Rabble. But stop more from coming, a wall won't do it. I only see an ID card and enforcement  at employment and everywhere else for that matter. Legalize pot and help their countries and our opioid addicts...


----------



## francoHFW

TemplarKormac said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all our wonderful justice system. Appeal it or it is the right thing. And I don't want to hear any stupid conspiracy theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull.  What law is there that states the federal government MUST provide funds to anybody?  Trump threatened to cut funds to sanctuary cities, and a commie judge forbade it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said, appeal it or shut the f******.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't tell me what to do troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be a misinformed traitor then lol... This is the Trump disgrace so far, and fox Etc making up garbage about our justice system...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL You called him a traitor.
> 
> That's funny. Because he's not. You can't call everyone who disagrees with you a traitor.
Click to expand...

People who denigrate our esteemed institutions with no evidence are deplorable.


----------



## francoHFW

francoHFW said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull.  What law is there that states the federal government MUST provide funds to anybody?  Trump threatened to cut funds to sanctuary cities, and a commie judge forbade it.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, appeal it or shut the f******.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't tell me what to do troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be a misinformed traitor then lol... This is the Trump disgrace so far, and fox Etc making up garbage about our justice system...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL You called him a traitor.
> 
> That's funny. Because he's not. You can't call everyone who disagrees with you a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People who denigrate our esteemed institutions with no evidence are deplorable.
Click to expand...

. our justice system is the one that comes to mind. They are straight arrows overeager if anything... This email scandal thing is getting out of hand on the right wing propaganda machine, super dupers. Emails are b******* LOL.


----------



## francoHFW

You duped jackasses want the justice system to to investigate your phony scandals. It's already been done and your scandals are total crap propaganda.


----------



## TemplarKormac

francoHFW said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull.  What law is there that states the federal government MUST provide funds to anybody?  Trump threatened to cut funds to sanctuary cities, and a commie judge forbade it.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, appeal it or shut the f******.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't tell me what to do troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be a misinformed traitor then lol... This is the Trump disgrace so far, and fox Etc making up garbage about our justice system...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL You called him a traitor.
> 
> That's funny. Because he's not. You can't call everyone who disagrees with you a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People who denigrate our esteemed institutions with no evidence are deplorable.
Click to expand...


It's a free country. A free country elected Trump. I'm sorry you can't handle that.

In the event you grow a spine, perhaps you will learn to deal with it.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hate to break your bubble, but Mexico does not send these people to the US.  Although Mexico is a lot tougher on illegals than we are, a lot get through and they probably don't do much to stop them.
> 
> Mexico could certainly do a better job stopping these people in their country so they do not reach our boarder.  However, why should they do that?  Exactly what is the US doing for Mexico other than insulting and threatening them daily.  US Mexican relations are the worst they been in decades, thanks to Trump so I certainly wouldn't expect any help from them on immigration or drug enforcement.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you think?  Then how did our media pickup on the fact this current crop of people were on their way here two weeks before they arrived?
> 
> Of course Mexico allows them to come here; they always have.  They know why they are coming here and give them their blessing.
> 
> Mexico allows them to come here, and then they are our problem.  They bring kids with them, and then they are our problem.  They disappear and never show up for court, and then they are our problem.  Gangs form and sell drugs, and then that is our problem.
> 
> Solution to our problem?  Close the southern border down completely. I'm sick of problems invading our country and then we have to spend the money and find a solution to those problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It's pretty hard not to notice hundreds of people marching across the country headed toward the US boarder.
> 
> You don't seem to get it.  It is not the responsibility of Mexico to protect our boarders.  Does the US stop people headed for the Mexican boarder or the Canadian border?
> 
> You're being incredible xenophobia.  You consider Honduran families fleeing from violence and seeking refuge as invaders when the problem is not of their making.  You lay the blame for gangs selling drugs on immigrants when the real problem is the US huge demand for illegal drugs.
> 
> If you're really tired of this shit, then you should be supporting a plan that will actually work regardless of who is in the white house or which party is controlling congress.  Trump can't possible come anywhere close to deporting 12 million undocumented immigrants during his term in office.  The deportations he's doing now is barely keeping up with the inflow of immigrants. Without support from both parties, nothing is going to change.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're never going to get support from both parties--only one.  The Democrats goal is to get as many of these immigrants into this country as possible.  Why do you suppose they are fighting to keep their sanctuary cities and states?  Why do you suppose they stopped Kate's Law?  Why do you suppose they are really against the wall?  Does this sound like a group of people wanting to stop illegal immigration?
> 
> If the US allowed a band of Mexicans to cross our country into Canada, then yes, the US is responsible for not stopping them long before they hit the Canadian border.  We should have stopped them at the Mexican border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your prospective is clouded by extremist views.  All democrat do not want to get every immigrant possible into the country and every republican doesn't want to deport 12 million people.  Left leaning democrats and right leaning republican have even less stronger views and true independents tend to swing back and forth on issues. So there is plenty of middle ground.
> 
> There are several trends that indicate that the illegal immigration problem will become less of a problem in coming years.  Better jobs in Mexico, better pay for farm and factory workers, and better security on our boarder has resulted in a drop in the undocumented immigration population.  Pew Research estimated that the numbers have dropped several million.  And there no reason to think that that the number will not continue to drop.  With the right kind of legislation we can see those numbers drop even faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you going to stand by that?  Okay......one more time:
> 
> Why are Democrats fighting so hard to keep their sanctuary cities and states?
> 
> Why are Democrats fighting so hard to keep the wall from being built; so strongly to the point that they even threatened to shut down the government over it?
> 
> Why did Democrats defeat Kate's Law; a law that would imprison felons who returned back to the country after deportation?
> 
> Every action they take can only be answered one way: they want as many immigrants in this country as possible.  If they ever gain total control over the federal government again, they will grant citizenship to each and every one, and along with citizenship comes the right to vote.
> 
> The goal of the Democrat party is to make this country a single-party government forever.
Click to expand...


*The primary reason people, both democrats and some republicans support their sanctuary city is they believe undocumented immigrants living in their community doing no harm should not be deported.  For example, a friend of our family has had a maid, Camila who has been with them for over 10 years.  Her husband has a roofing business.  They both over stayed their visas many years ago. They came to the US with their 2 kids and had two more while in the states.  Today, they live in terror that they will be deported breaking up their family.  If deported, the guidelines required they be banned from entering the country for a minimum of 10 year to life.  And what did they do to deserve such punish?  Nothing.  They simply overstayed their visa, a civil infraction, not even a crime.  To answer your question, there are many people like Camila and her family that I would do all that I can to make sure she stays in this country.  I have no problem deporting drug dealers, gang members and felons, but not people who don't deserve such harsh punishment.*
* I can't answer for all Democrats but for myself, I believe there is far better solution than a 2000 mile wall.  Trump has already said, he was willing to consider not putting a wall in places where there was a natural barrier such as rivers or mountains.  I think he's on the right track but it needs to be expanded.  We should supply the type security needed for the area whether it be a wall, fence, electronic surveillance, or increased border patrol.  A 2,000 mile wall across our southern border would be a lasting symbol of American fear, hatred and isolationism.  *
*I'm not familiar with Kate's Law so, I can't comment.*


----------



## Flopper

Natural Citizen said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not sure about that.  Read about Portugal after 10 years of decriminalization of all drugs.  With the illegal drug business estimated at 40 billion a year and growing rapidly, we will reach a point where we will have no choice. I'm not in favor of it but we're running out of options. The war on drugs was lost decades ago.  There is no way we can control the growing use of illegal drugs.
> Ten Years Ago Portugal Decriminalized All Drugs. What Happened Next? | The Fix *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's possibly a minor flipside to legalizing drugs.
> 
> The cartels will see their cash cow dwindle away. It is possible, likely even, that those drug wars will move across our border and we might see Americans killed in their own country if the cartels see legalization as competition.
> 
> Of course, that's conjecture. But legitimate conjecture, I think.
Click to expand...

*I don't know what they could do about it.  Haven't heard of that type of problem in other countries that have legalized.  I would suspect they would do exactly what the Mafia did in the 30's when prohibition was ended, go into other businesses such as drugs in other countries, gambling, prostration, ect..*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you think?  Then how did our media pickup on the fact this current crop of people were on their way here two weeks before they arrived?
> 
> Of course Mexico allows them to come here; they always have.  They know why they are coming here and give them their blessing.
> 
> Mexico allows them to come here, and then they are our problem.  They bring kids with them, and then they are our problem.  They disappear and never show up for court, and then they are our problem.  Gangs form and sell drugs, and then that is our problem.
> 
> Solution to our problem?  Close the southern border down completely. I'm sick of problems invading our country and then we have to spend the money and find a solution to those problems.
> 
> 
> 
> *It's pretty hard not to notice hundreds of people marching across the country headed toward the US boarder.
> 
> You don't seem to get it.  It is not the responsibility of Mexico to protect our boarders.  Does the US stop people headed for the Mexican boarder or the Canadian border?
> 
> You're being incredible xenophobia.  You consider Honduran families fleeing from violence and seeking refuge as invaders when the problem is not of their making.  You lay the blame for gangs selling drugs on immigrants when the real problem is the US huge demand for illegal drugs.
> 
> If you're really tired of this shit, then you should be supporting a plan that will actually work regardless of who is in the white house or which party is controlling congress.  Trump can't possible come anywhere close to deporting 12 million undocumented immigrants during his term in office.  The deportations he's doing now is barely keeping up with the inflow of immigrants. Without support from both parties, nothing is going to change.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're never going to get support from both parties--only one.  The Democrats goal is to get as many of these immigrants into this country as possible.  Why do you suppose they are fighting to keep their sanctuary cities and states?  Why do you suppose they stopped Kate's Law?  Why do you suppose they are really against the wall?  Does this sound like a group of people wanting to stop illegal immigration?
> 
> If the US allowed a band of Mexicans to cross our country into Canada, then yes, the US is responsible for not stopping them long before they hit the Canadian border.  We should have stopped them at the Mexican border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your prospective is clouded by extremist views.  All democrat do not want to get every immigrant possible into the country and every republican doesn't want to deport 12 million people.  Left leaning democrats and right leaning republican have even less stronger views and true independents tend to swing back and forth on issues. So there is plenty of middle ground.
> 
> There are several trends that indicate that the illegal immigration problem will become less of a problem in coming years.  Better jobs in Mexico, better pay for farm and factory workers, and better security on our boarder has resulted in a drop in the undocumented immigration population.  Pew Research estimated that the numbers have dropped several million.  And there no reason to think that that the number will not continue to drop.  With the right kind of legislation we can see those numbers drop even faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you going to stand by that?  Okay......one more time:
> 
> Why are Democrats fighting so hard to keep their sanctuary cities and states?
> 
> Why are Democrats fighting so hard to keep the wall from being built; so strongly to the point that they even threatened to shut down the government over it?
> 
> Why did Democrats defeat Kate's Law; a law that would imprison felons who returned back to the country after deportation?
> 
> Every action they take can only be answered one way: they want as many immigrants in this country as possible.  If they ever gain total control over the federal government again, they will grant citizenship to each and every one, and along with citizenship comes the right to vote.
> 
> The goal of the Democrat party is to make this country a single-party government forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The primary reason people, both democrats and some republicans support their sanctuary city is they believe undocumented immigrants living in their community doing no harm should not be deported.  For example, a friend of our family has had a maid, Camila who has been with them for over 10 years.  Her husband has a roofing business.  They both over stayed their visas many years ago. They came to the US with their 2 kids and had two more while in the states.  Today, they live in terror that they will be deported breaking up their family.  If deported, the guidelines required they be banned from entering the country for a minimum of 10 year to life.  And what did they do to deserve such punish?  Nothing.  They simply overstayed their visa, a civil infraction, not even a crime.  To answer your question, there are many people like Camila and her family that I would do all that I can to make sure she stays in this country.  I have no problem deporting drug dealers, gang members and felons, but not people who don't deserve such harsh punishment.*
> * I can't answer for all Democrats but for myself, I believe there is far better solution than a 2000 mile wall.  Trump has already said, he was willing to consider not putting a wall in places where there was a natural barrier such as rivers or mountains.  I think he's on the right track but it needs to be expanded.  We should supply the type security needed for the area whether it be a wall, fence, electronic surveillance, or increased border patrol.  A 2,000 mile wall across our southern border would be a lasting symbol of American fear, hatred and isolationism.  *
> *I'm not familiar with Kate's Law so, I can't comment.*
Click to expand...


Kate's Law was designed by the Republicans in remembrance of Kate Steinle who was shot by an illegal that was deported several times and repeatedly came back.  Claiming it was an accident that he "found" a stolen police officers gun, shot it accidentally, and killed this young woman, he got off scott free.  

Prior to that court decision, Kate's Law would have required that any illegal felon deported that came back and caught would face the minimum of five years in prison.  Democrats stopped that law when they led the Senate.  San Francisco is a SANCTUARY CITY, and after a prior infraction, ICE asked them to hold this lowlife until they could get to him.  They refused.  

So ask yourself, why would Democrats stop a law that banned criminals from coming back to this country?  Once again, the answer is simple: they don't care about Americans, they care about getting as many foreigners into this country as they can (criminal or not) so they can create a single-party government. 

This has nothing to do with your friend maid, your lawn care guy, or the illegal at the car wash.  It's a smoke screen.  The Democrat party became the anti-white party who's goal is to make whites a minority in this country as soon as possible.  If and when they can do that, we will be a one party country forever.  

Look for the man behind the curtain.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

TemplarKormac said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all our wonderful justice system. Appeal it or it is the right thing. And I don't want to hear any stupid conspiracy theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull.  What law is there that states the federal government MUST provide funds to anybody?  Trump threatened to cut funds to sanctuary cities, and a commie judge forbade it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said, appeal it or shut the f******.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't tell me what to do troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be a misinformed traitor then lol... This is the Trump disgrace so far, and fox Etc making up garbage about our justice system...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL You called him a traitor.
> 
> That's funny. Because he's not. You can't call everyone who disagrees with you a traitor.
Click to expand...


He can't help it.  That's what trolls do.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Kind of humorous that when the courts discriminate, it's called discretion. Ha. I saw that term in the thread some place.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Flopper said:


> The primary reason people, both democrats and some republicans support their sanctuary city is they believe undocumented immigrants living in their community doing no harm should not be deported.



The flaw in that argument is this:

The harm was committed when they came here illegally. So they have caused harm, by legal standards. While it might not have been harmful to you when they came here illegally, it is harm according to the law. 

Another thing is that these "laws" are not having the desired effect, they are being used to shield criminal illegals as well.

Only laws like these can be abused so easily, and that was most likely the reasoning behind them.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not sure about that.  Read about Portugal after 10 years of decriminalization of all drugs.  With the illegal drug business estimated at 40 billion a year and growing rapidly, we will reach a point where we will have no choice. I'm not in favor of it but we're running out of options. The war on drugs was lost decades ago.  There is no way we can control the growing use of illegal drugs.
> Ten Years Ago Portugal Decriminalized All Drugs. What Happened Next? | The Fix *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's possibly a minor flipside to legalizing drugs.
> 
> The cartels will see their cash cow dwindle away. It is possible, likely even, that those drug wars will move across our border and we might see Americans killed in their own country if the cartels see legalization as competition.
> 
> Of course, that's conjecture. But legitimate conjecture, I think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember when they were trying to get the lottery passed in our state many years ago.  One of the claims was that it would stop illegal gambling and wipe out the mob.  Instead, the mob started to use the new lottery numbers for their own game.  They just had a better payout than the lottery and did even better.
> 
> When they pushed the issue of legalized pot in Colorado, it was claimed that it would stop the illegal sales of pot on the street.  What actually happened is that pot dealers beat the price of high taxed legal weed, and they are selling more than ever.
Click to expand...

*I don't think that's a problem in Washington.  The pot is legally grown mostly on local farms and in California so there couldn't be the kind of profit the mob would expect.  Biggest benefit is law enforcement can devote resources to serious crimes.  One thing I don't like about it being legalized is the pot shops can't accept credit cards because of federal law so it's a cash business which makes the shops a big target for robbers.  There also may be some zoning restrictions because they are located in rather shabby areas.  I really don't think legalizing pot has has created either the positive or negative impact that people expected.*


----------



## Flopper

OKTexas said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> That is our wonderful justice system and Constitution, NOT LEFTISTS, CONSPIRACY NUT JOBS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pass a good work ID card and enforce it. And end this crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not enforce e-verify?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *E-Verify is mostly a volunteer program.  If it becomes mandatory, everyone who works, 150 million would have to be verified to get a job.  If only 1% of the data is wrong, it will effect 1.5 million workers.  The data for E-verify comes from 20 different databases from over a dozen different agencies so how do you get it corrected?  Maybe a better question, how do you get your new employer to hold the job open while you get the E-Verify mess fixed.
> 
> Of course most people that hire undocumented immigrants, know they are undocumented and they hire them anyway. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> E-verify is voluntary because commiecrats want it that way. And employers that hire illegals should be jailed and their businesses confiscated under RICO. Only a couple would need be arrested and that crap would stop.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

*I think it's voluntary because it's not accurate enough.  It's one of many things that need to be changed. Many of the big farms contract with labor supplier who supposedly check immigration status, thus letting the farmer off the hook. *


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is our wonderful justice system and Constitution, NOT LEFTISTS, CONSPIRACY NUT JOBS.
> 
> 
> 
> Pass a good work ID card and enforce it. And end this crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not enforce e-verify?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *E-Verify is mostly a volunteer program.  If it becomes mandatory, everyone who works, 150 million would have to be verified to get a job.  If only 1% of the data is wrong, it will effect 1.5 million workers.  The data for E-verify comes from 20 different databases from over a dozen different agencies so how do you get it corrected?  Maybe a better question, how do you get your new employer to hold the job open while you get the E-Verify mess fixed.
> 
> Of course most people that hire undocumented immigrants, know they are undocumented and they hire them anyway. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> E-verify is voluntary because commiecrats want it that way. And employers that hire illegals should be jailed and their businesses confiscated under RICO. Only a couple would need be arrested and that crap would stop.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I think it's voluntary because it's not accurate enough.  It's one of many things that need to be changed. Many of the big farms contract with labor supplier who supposedly check immigration status, thus letting the farmer off the hook. *
Click to expand...



How hard could it be to match a name, DOB and ethnicity to a SSN?


.


----------



## Flopper

MaryL said:


> All people get  to chime in here. They voted for Trump. some didn't, that's democracy.  They voted on legalizing marijuana  even, but not ONCE anywhere have we Americans got to VOTE on allowing the state to skirt, no, flaunt  federal immigration laws. It's shocking actually. Most of us would like to get to vote on that, being that this is still a democracy and all. So why can't we vote on that? Does that threaten somebody? We can't leave this up to a rabble after all.


*The only sanctuary states are:
California
Colorado
Illinois
Massachusetts
New Mexico
Oregon
Vermont

They are all blue states that would most likely vote to support the state government view on sanctuary.  

With the exception of California, most of these states are not going to have any problem defending there position. For example, prohibiting law enforcement officers at the state, county or municipal level from enforcing federal immigration laws that target people based on their race or ethnic origin, when those individuals are not suspected of any criminal activities.  That's a pretty safe move, telling their people not enforce immigration laws that would violate the Civil Rights Act.  Since no law enforcement officers is going to make a decision as to what immigration laws might violate the Civil Rights Act, they simply won't enforce any of them. *


----------



## Flopper

OKTexas said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pass a good work ID card and enforce it. And end this crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not enforce e-verify?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *E-Verify is mostly a volunteer program.  If it becomes mandatory, everyone who works, 150 million would have to be verified to get a job.  If only 1% of the data is wrong, it will effect 1.5 million workers.  The data for E-verify comes from 20 different databases from over a dozen different agencies so how do you get it corrected?  Maybe a better question, how do you get your new employer to hold the job open while you get the E-Verify mess fixed.
> 
> Of course most people that hire undocumented immigrants, know they are undocumented and they hire them anyway. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> E-verify is voluntary because commiecrats want it that way. And employers that hire illegals should be jailed and their businesses confiscated under RICO. Only a couple would need be arrested and that crap would stop.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I think it's voluntary because it's not accurate enough.  It's one of many things that need to be changed. Many of the big farms contract with labor supplier who supposedly check immigration status, thus letting the farmer off the hook. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How hard could it be to match a name, DOB and ethnicity to a SSN?
> .
Click to expand...

*Difficulty is not the problem. The complains are that it isn't accurate.  People with work permits less than 30 days old do not appear. Also people that left the country are still on the database.  That's why I say, the government can't require all employers use it.  

There's another problem.  If you use it and it flags some people you have to have to complete a contract and you hire them anyway, then get caught you will be in deep shit.  However, if don't use E-Verify, there are a number exceptions you can use to get out of a penalty.  The law and the regulations are poorly conceived. *


----------



## francoHFW

Natural Citizen said:


> Kind of humorous that when the courts discriminate, it's called discretion. Ha. I saw that term in the thread some place.


You have no evidence of such discrimination, just a kind of orange con man and Bs propaganda. Or give me a link...


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It's pretty hard not to notice hundreds of people marching across the country headed toward the US boarder.
> 
> You don't seem to get it.  It is not the responsibility of Mexico to protect our boarders.  Does the US stop people headed for the Mexican boarder or the Canadian border?
> 
> You're being incredible xenophobia.  You consider Honduran families fleeing from violence and seeking refuge as invaders when the problem is not of their making.  You lay the blame for gangs selling drugs on immigrants when the real problem is the US huge demand for illegal drugs.
> 
> If you're really tired of this shit, then you should be supporting a plan that will actually work regardless of who is in the white house or which party is controlling congress.  Trump can't possible come anywhere close to deporting 12 million undocumented immigrants during his term in office.  The deportations he's doing now is barely keeping up with the inflow of immigrants. Without support from both parties, nothing is going to change.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you're never going to get support from both parties--only one.  The Democrats goal is to get as many of these immigrants into this country as possible.  Why do you suppose they are fighting to keep their sanctuary cities and states?  Why do you suppose they stopped Kate's Law?  Why do you suppose they are really against the wall?  Does this sound like a group of people wanting to stop illegal immigration?
> 
> If the US allowed a band of Mexicans to cross our country into Canada, then yes, the US is responsible for not stopping them long before they hit the Canadian border.  We should have stopped them at the Mexican border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your prospective is clouded by extremist views.  All democrat do not want to get every immigrant possible into the country and every republican doesn't want to deport 12 million people.  Left leaning democrats and right leaning republican have even less stronger views and true independents tend to swing back and forth on issues. So there is plenty of middle ground.
> 
> There are several trends that indicate that the illegal immigration problem will become less of a problem in coming years.  Better jobs in Mexico, better pay for farm and factory workers, and better security on our boarder has resulted in a drop in the undocumented immigration population.  Pew Research estimated that the numbers have dropped several million.  And there no reason to think that that the number will not continue to drop.  With the right kind of legislation we can see those numbers drop even faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you going to stand by that?  Okay......one more time:
> 
> Why are Democrats fighting so hard to keep their sanctuary cities and states?
> 
> Why are Democrats fighting so hard to keep the wall from being built; so strongly to the point that they even threatened to shut down the government over it?
> 
> Why did Democrats defeat Kate's Law; a law that would imprison felons who returned back to the country after deportation?
> 
> Every action they take can only be answered one way: they want as many immigrants in this country as possible.  If they ever gain total control over the federal government again, they will grant citizenship to each and every one, and along with citizenship comes the right to vote.
> 
> The goal of the Democrat party is to make this country a single-party government forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The primary reason people, both democrats and some republicans support their sanctuary city is they believe undocumented immigrants living in their community doing no harm should not be deported.  For example, a friend of our family has had a maid, Camila who has been with them for over 10 years.  Her husband has a roofing business.  They both over stayed their visas many years ago. They came to the US with their 2 kids and had two more while in the states.  Today, they live in terror that they will be deported breaking up their family.  If deported, the guidelines required they be banned from entering the country for a minimum of 10 year to life.  And what did they do to deserve such punish?  Nothing.  They simply overstayed their visa, a civil infraction, not even a crime.  To answer your question, there are many people like Camila and her family that I would do all that I can to make sure she stays in this country.  I have no problem deporting drug dealers, gang members and felons, but not people who don't deserve such harsh punishment.*
> * I can't answer for all Democrats but for myself, I believe there is far better solution than a 2000 mile wall.  Trump has already said, he was willing to consider not putting a wall in places where there was a natural barrier such as rivers or mountains.  I think he's on the right track but it needs to be expanded.  We should supply the type security needed for the area whether it be a wall, fence, electronic surveillance, or increased border patrol.  A 2,000 mile wall across our southern border would be a lasting symbol of American fear, hatred and isolationism.  *
> *I'm not familiar with Kate's Law so, I can't comment.*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kate's Law was designed by the Republicans in remembrance of Kate Steinle who was shot by an illegal that was deported several times and repeatedly came back.  Claiming it was an accident that he "found" a stolen police officers gun, shot it accidentally, and killed this young woman, he got off scott free.
> 
> Prior to that court decision, Kate's Law would have required that any illegal felon deported that came back and caught would face the minimum of five years in prison.  Democrats stopped that law when they led the Senate.  San Francisco is a SANCTUARY CITY, and after a prior infraction, ICE asked them to hold this lowlife until they could get to him.  They refused.
> 
> So ask yourself, why would Democrats stop a law that banned criminals from coming back to this country?  Once again, the answer is simple: they don't care about Americans, they care about getting as many foreigners into this country as they can (criminal or not) so they can create a single-party government.
> 
> This has nothing to do with your friend maid, your lawn care guy, or the illegal at the car wash.  It's a smoke screen.  The Democrat party became the anti-white party who's goal is to make whites a minority in this country as soon as possible.  If and when they can do that, we will be a one party country forever.
> 
> Look for the man behind the curtain.
Click to expand...

No there are no conspiracies except the greedy lying GOP 1 with BS propaganda. They love cheap easily bullied labor and only give a crap in one of their corrupt depressions...


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull.  What law is there that states the federal government MUST provide funds to anybody?  Trump threatened to cut funds to sanctuary cities, and a commie judge forbade it.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, appeal it or shut the f******.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't tell me what to do troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be a misinformed traitor then lol... This is the Trump disgrace so far, and fox Etc making up garbage about our justice system...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL You called him a traitor.
> 
> That's funny. Because he's not. You can't call everyone who disagrees with you a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He can't help it.  That's what trolls do.
Click to expand...

So any evidence yet of conspiracy of FBI against Trump or whatever, in favor of Hillary I suppose. More ridiculous propaganda For doops only.


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not enforce e-verify?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> *E-Verify is mostly a volunteer program.  If it becomes mandatory, everyone who works, 150 million would have to be verified to get a job.  If only 1% of the data is wrong, it will effect 1.5 million workers.  The data for E-verify comes from 20 different databases from over a dozen different agencies so how do you get it corrected?  Maybe a better question, how do you get your new employer to hold the job open while you get the E-Verify mess fixed.
> 
> Of course most people that hire undocumented immigrants, know they are undocumented and they hire them anyway. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> E-verify is voluntary because commiecrats want it that way. And employers that hire illegals should be jailed and their businesses confiscated under RICO. Only a couple would need be arrested and that crap would stop.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I think it's voluntary because it's not accurate enough.  It's one of many things that need to be changed. Many of the big farms contract with labor supplier who supposedly check immigration status, thus letting the farmer off the hook. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How hard could it be to match a name, DOB and ethnicity to a SSN?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Difficulty is not the problem. The complains are that it isn't accurate.  People with work permits less than 30 days old do not appear. Also people that left the country are still on the database.  That's why I say, the government can't require all employers use it.
> 
> There's another problem.  If you use it and it flags some people you have to have to complete a contract and you hire them anyway, then get caught you will be in deep shit.  However, if don't use E-Verify, there are a number exceptions you can use to get out of a penalty.  The law and the regulations are poorly conceived. *
Click to expand...



People here on temp work permits would have the permit, I don't they would be issued a SSN. And why wouldn't people who have left the country be on the data base, if they were issued a SSN?

We also need to make E-verify mandatory and eliminate those loopholes.


.


----------



## TemplarKormac

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, appeal it or shut the f******.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't tell me what to do troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be a misinformed traitor then lol... This is the Trump disgrace so far, and fox Etc making up garbage about our justice system...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL You called him a traitor.
> 
> That's funny. Because he's not. You can't call everyone who disagrees with you a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He can't help it.  That's what trolls do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So any evidence yet of conspiracy of FBI against Trump or whatever, in favor of Hillary I suppose. More ridiculous propaganda For doops only.
Click to expand...


There must've been a moment where you just simply snapped. You rarely, if ever, have a cogent argument, only calling people dupes ("doops" in this case, _that's_ a new one) and prattling on about irrelevant topics. In lieu of any civil discourse.

Was there ever a point in time you weren't a troll, Franco?


----------



## Natural Citizen

francoHFW said:


> You have no evidence of such discrimination, just a kind of orange con man and Bs propaganda. Or give me a link...



What is it with some of you people and links? Can't you think for yourselves, or is it just that some people are limited to their own capacities and have to rely on what someone else has to say about something? Gosh. Lead once in a while instead of being a follower your whole life.

Anyway. A great example of discrimination in the name of discretion by the courts (aka the government) was that recent cake decision by the SCOTUS. The completely missed the mark with regard to property rights and went straight to the very subjective "deeply-held views" test. Who gets to decide which views are "deeply-held"? Seems discriminatory to me.

The Justice Department is extremely bigoted in what they do. Very biased and very political.

Look at what is going on with the CIA and the FBI. There's some discriminatory people right there, let me tell you.

Nixon, thee only thing anybody ever remembers is Watergate, but nobody ever remembers he used the IRS to punish his enemies.

When taxes are collected, how do they pass the money out? Discrimination. That's how.

When they print the money, who gets it? The rich people, that's who. Not us. That's discrimination. whomever or whatever they want gets it.

The government and the courts are the most discriminating entites in existence. It's the discriminatory power that the government has to control the economy, policy, and really the world, that far, far, outweighs that of anything or anyone else.

And that's a big deal. Very big.


----------



## francoHFW

TemplarKormac said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't tell me what to do troll.
> 
> 
> 
> Be a misinformed traitor then lol... This is the Trump disgrace so far, and fox Etc making up garbage about our justice system...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL You called him a traitor.
> 
> That's funny. Because he's not. You can't call everyone who disagrees with you a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He can't help it.  That's what trolls do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So any evidence yet of conspiracy of FBI against Trump or whatever, in favor of Hillary I suppose. More ridiculous propaganda For doops only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There must've been a moment where you just simply snapped. You rarely, if ever, have a cogent argument, only calling people dupes ("doops" in this case, _that's_ a new one) and prattling on about irrelevant topics. In lieu of any civil discourse.
> 
> Was there ever a point in time you weren't a troll, Franco?
Click to expand...

The production by BS propaganda of so many misinformed functional idiots is the story of our time. And no it is not a conspiracy of the F FBI or anyone else, it is just lying by your Heroes Fox and rush and on on ...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, appeal it or shut the f******.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't tell me what to do troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be a misinformed traitor then lol... This is the Trump disgrace so far, and fox Etc making up garbage about our justice system...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL You called him a traitor.
> 
> That's funny. Because he's not. You can't call everyone who disagrees with you a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He can't help it.  That's what trolls do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So any evidence yet of conspiracy of FBI against Trump or whatever, in favor of Hillary I suppose. More ridiculous propaganda For doops only.
Click to expand...


While the Dems are fighting tooth and nail to keep any evidence from getting out, this party just started.  Wait and see the results from digging into this matter.  McCabe is already asking for clemency and will sing like a canary about Comey.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> All people get  to chime in here. They voted for Trump. some didn't, that's democracy.  They voted on legalizing marijuana  even, but not ONCE anywhere have we Americans got to VOTE on allowing the state to skirt, no, flaunt  federal immigration laws. It's shocking actually. Most of us would like to get to vote on that, being that this is still a democracy and all. So why can't we vote on that? Does that threaten somebody? We can't leave this up to a rabble after all.
> 
> 
> 
> *The only sanctuary states are:
> California
> Colorado
> Illinois
> Massachusetts
> New Mexico
> Oregon
> Vermont
> 
> They are all blue states that would most likely vote to support the state government view on sanctuary.
> 
> With the exception of California, most of these states are not going to have any problem defending there position. For example, prohibiting law enforcement officers at the state, county or municipal level from enforcing federal immigration laws that target people based on their race or ethnic origin, when those individuals are not suspected of any criminal activities.  That's a pretty safe move, telling their people not enforce immigration laws that would violate the Civil Rights Act.  Since no law enforcement officers is going to make a decision as to what immigration laws might violate the Civil Rights Act, they simply won't enforce any of them. *
Click to expand...


What they are asking is simply that they notify the feds when an illegal is arrested and taken to jail.  They won't allow their officers to do that whether they want to or not.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not sure about that.  Read about Portugal after 10 years of decriminalization of all drugs.  With the illegal drug business estimated at 40 billion a year and growing rapidly, we will reach a point where we will have no choice. I'm not in favor of it but we're running out of options. The war on drugs was lost decades ago.  There is no way we can control the growing use of illegal drugs.
> Ten Years Ago Portugal Decriminalized All Drugs. What Happened Next? | The Fix *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's possibly a minor flipside to legalizing drugs.
> 
> The cartels will see their cash cow dwindle away. It is possible, likely even, that those drug wars will move across our border and we might see Americans killed in their own country if the cartels see legalization as competition.
> 
> Of course, that's conjecture. But legitimate conjecture, I think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember when they were trying to get the lottery passed in our state many years ago.  One of the claims was that it would stop illegal gambling and wipe out the mob.  Instead, the mob started to use the new lottery numbers for their own game.  They just had a better payout than the lottery and did even better.
> 
> When they pushed the issue of legalized pot in Colorado, it was claimed that it would stop the illegal sales of pot on the street.  What actually happened is that pot dealers beat the price of high taxed legal weed, and they are selling more than ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I don't think that's a problem in Washington.  The pot is legally grown mostly on local farms and in California so there couldn't be the kind of profit the mob would expect.  Biggest benefit is law enforcement can devote resources to serious crimes.  One thing I don't like about it being legalized is the pot shops can't accept credit cards because of federal law so it's a cash business which makes the shops a big target for robbers.  There also may be some zoning restrictions because they are located in rather shabby areas.  I really don't think legalizing pot has has created either the positive or negative impact that people expected.*
Click to expand...


It didn't do what they said it was going to do.  I don't care if weed is no longer illegal, I just don't like pot shops and advertising where children are around.  I don't think it's a good idea to suggest to them that smoking pot is fine and dandy, and going to a pot shop is like going to a candy store.  On the other hand I think that it's stupid to give people tickets or even arrest somebody for pot.  I didn't look into it, but I heard on the radio that teen pot smoking has increased dramatically.


----------



## kaz

TemplarKormac said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't tell me what to do troll.
> 
> 
> 
> Be a misinformed traitor then lol... This is the Trump disgrace so far, and fox Etc making up garbage about our justice system...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL You called him a traitor.
> 
> That's funny. Because he's not. You can't call everyone who disagrees with you a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He can't help it.  That's what trolls do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So any evidence yet of conspiracy of FBI against Trump or whatever, in favor of Hillary I suppose. More ridiculous propaganda For doops only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There must've been a moment where you just simply snapped. You rarely, if ever, have a cogent argument, only calling people dupes ("doops" in this case, _that's_ a new one) and prattling on about irrelevant topics. In lieu of any civil discourse.
> 
> Was there ever a point in time you weren't a troll, Franco?
Click to expand...


Franco's been on my ignore list because he attacked my mother and my sister.  The other one is RightWinger who attacked my daughter.  Have you noticed when leftists attack family, it's always the women they go after?

Yeah, the guy's a scum bag


----------



## Kondor3

> What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?


*Answer:*

As many human lives and as much human misery of *Illegal Aliens* as it takes to reestablish border integrity and sovereignty over our own soil.


----------



## TemplarKormac

francoHFW said:


> The production by BS propaganda of so many misinformed functional idiots is the story of our time.



You will NEVER inform anyone with that approach. I am not a "functional idiot". People who don't agree with you are not "functional idiots". And you are one of many reasons why the left and right don't want anything to do with each other. Too much of _this_. If all you do is insist on calling people names, you will not inform _anyone_ of_ anything_, except for how puerile and obnoxious _you_ are.

When we don't hold the same opinions or ideas of the world as you do, it doesn't mean we're "misinformed" either.


----------



## HappyJoy

Taz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually we don't.
> 
> More Unskilled Workers, Please
> 
> Unskilled Immigrants Do Not Harm Americans
> 
> The Danger From Low-Skilled Immigrants: Not Having Them
> 
> Read the articles, I could pull out quotes from them but I get the feeling I'm already wasting my time linking the articles.
> 
> Other than that treating people like cattle is inhumane no matter how you want to make excuses for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't believe in open borders. And I don't believe in filling the country with unskilled workers. I didn't say we didn't need ANY, just not a free-for-all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody believes in open borders, can we finally kill that strawman?  Like it or not, we need unskilled workers here, we don't have enough currently but you'd rather blabber about some idiotic notion that you don't believe in 'filling the country with unskilled workers', whatever that hell that means. Shit,who can argue with such a defined and well thought out position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then your concession is duly noted. Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't there a troll on this board who used to reply to posts just like that? Can't remember his name but when he ran out of  things to say he basically took credit for a concession that was never given.
> 
> What you have given is stating that you don't give a shit about families of immigrants who even come here legally to be separated and your reason for not caring which is an influx of unskilled workers isn't even a problem and in actuality we need more of them but you ignore all of that and go on your merry way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coming here illegally isn't coming here legally. Now you know.
Click to expand...


Asylum seekers who are also being separated from their children are coming here legally. It shouldn't be done with any families but especially not those that are following the rules. Please keep up.


----------



## HappyJoy

Cosmos said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A human would go the the Port of Entry and present their immigrant visa that they obtained at the US Consulate in Mexico City.
> 
> A fucking animal crosses anywhere they can get away with it.
> 
> So yeah, there's that aspect.
Click to expand...


An animal? Yep, you guys love to treat other humans as 'animals'. 

BTW, it's not illegal to arrive at the border and present yourself as an asylum seeker, putz.


----------



## HappyJoy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually we don't.
> 
> More Unskilled Workers, Please
> 
> Unskilled Immigrants Do Not Harm Americans
> 
> The Danger From Low-Skilled Immigrants: Not Having Them
> 
> Read the articles, I could pull out quotes from them but I get the feeling I'm already wasting my time linking the articles.
> 
> Other than that treating people like cattle is inhumane no matter how you want to make excuses for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't believe in open borders. And I don't believe in filling the country with unskilled workers. I didn't say we didn't need ANY, just not a free-for-all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody believes in open borders, can we finally kill that strawman?  Like it or not, we need unskilled workers here, we don't have enough currently but you'd rather blabber about some idiotic notion that you don't believe in 'filling the country with unskilled workers', whatever that hell that means. Shit,who can argue with such a defined and well thought out position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  If we need unskilled workers so bad, I guess the 3.8% unemployed in our country must be skilled workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We need unskilled workers because we don't have enough of our own and as our population ages the need is only going to be greater. I've already provided links but you chose to ignore them and instead rely on your own xenophobia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's what it is, xenophobia.  You must be desperate to use that worn out card.
Click to expand...


Why else would you be against unskilled labor that we need? I'll await your non answer.


----------



## WelfareQueen

Coyote said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally?  It's a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that.  I have no problem with a hearing and, if determined deportation.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to inact this draconian policy in the meantime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that it would be inhumane to house small children in adult detention facilities with potential pedophiles or other serious criminals.  Kind of makes sense doesn't?  Would you want your 8 year old child housed in a maximum security prison with adult male inmates?  My guess is probably not.
> 
> That is why kids are adults are separated.  Plus...it is the Law.  And we are a Nation of Laws or should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.  Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders.  Kids don’t have to be removed.  We exercised this discretion before why not now?
Click to expand...



Sorry....the law is the law.  Under US law in this circumstance kids have to be removed to protect them when their adult parents have broken the law and you do not want to house kids in adult correctional facilities. And yeah....their parents broke the law so they have to go in correctional facilities just like the rest of us when we break the law.

Kind of easy to understand in my opinion.  Slave owners exercised "discretion" in violation of US Law.  It doesn't make it right.  Either we are a Nation of Laws or we are not.  It really could not be more simple.  You cannot pick and choose the Laws you like versus the ones you do not.


----------



## WelfareQueen




----------



## koshergrl

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not sure about that.  Read about Portugal after 10 years of decriminalization of all drugs.  With the illegal drug business estimated at 40 billion a year and growing rapidly, we will reach a point where we will have no choice. I'm not in favor of it but we're running out of options. The war on drugs was lost decades ago.  There is no way we can control the growing use of illegal drugs.
> Ten Years Ago Portugal Decriminalized All Drugs. What Happened Next? | The Fix *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's possibly a minor flipside to legalizing drugs.
> 
> The cartels will see their cash cow dwindle away. It is possible, likely even, that those drug wars will move across our border and we might see Americans killed in their own country if the cartels see legalization as competition.
> 
> Of course, that's conjecture. But legitimate conjecture, I think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember when they were trying to get the lottery passed in our state many years ago.  One of the claims was that it would stop illegal gambling and wipe out the mob.  Instead, the mob started to use the new lottery numbers for their own game.  They just had a better payout than the lottery and did even better.
> 
> When they pushed the issue of legalized pot in Colorado, it was claimed that it would stop the illegal sales of pot on the street.  What actually happened is that pot dealers beat the price of high taxed legal weed, and they are selling more than ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I don't think that's a problem in Washington.  The pot is legally grown mostly on local farms and in California so there couldn't be the kind of profit the mob would expect.  Biggest benefit is law enforcement can devote resources to serious crimes.  One thing I don't like about it being legalized is the pot shops can't accept credit cards because of federal law so it's a cash business which makes the shops a big target for robbers.  There also may be some zoning restrictions because they are located in rather shabby areas.  I really don't think legalizing pot has has created either the positive or negative impact that people expected.*
Click to expand...

You just sound like a straight up criminal all around. 

I have found that is true of most commiecrats.


----------



## Taz

HappyJoy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't believe in open borders. And I don't believe in filling the country with unskilled workers. I didn't say we didn't need ANY, just not a free-for-all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody believes in open borders, can we finally kill that strawman?  Like it or not, we need unskilled workers here, we don't have enough currently but you'd rather blabber about some idiotic notion that you don't believe in 'filling the country with unskilled workers', whatever that hell that means. Shit,who can argue with such a defined and well thought out position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then your concession is duly noted. Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't there a troll on this board who used to reply to posts just like that? Can't remember his name but when he ran out of  things to say he basically took credit for a concession that was never given.
> 
> What you have given is stating that you don't give a shit about families of immigrants who even come here legally to be separated and your reason for not caring which is an influx of unskilled workers isn't even a problem and in actuality we need more of them but you ignore all of that and go on your merry way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coming here illegally isn't coming here legally. Now you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers who are also being separated from their children are coming here legally. It shouldn't be done with any families but especially not those that are following the rules. Please keep up.
Click to expand...

I don't consider all of Central America asylum seekers. Their counties are shit, that's not a legit reason.


----------



## danielpalos

JakeStarkey said:


> The fact is that the Alt Right hates any immigrant, legal as well as illegal, and those of color in particular.


They seem to prefer socialism on a national basis over capitalism, at every opportunity.


----------



## HappyJoy

Taz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody believes in open borders, can we finally kill that strawman?  Like it or not, we need unskilled workers here, we don't have enough currently but you'd rather blabber about some idiotic notion that you don't believe in 'filling the country with unskilled workers', whatever that hell that means. Shit,who can argue with such a defined and well thought out position.
> 
> 
> 
> Then your concession is duly noted. Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't there a troll on this board who used to reply to posts just like that? Can't remember his name but when he ran out of  things to say he basically took credit for a concession that was never given.
> 
> What you have given is stating that you don't give a shit about families of immigrants who even come here legally to be separated and your reason for not caring which is an influx of unskilled workers isn't even a problem and in actuality we need more of them but you ignore all of that and go on your merry way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coming here illegally isn't coming here legally. Now you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers who are also being separated from their children are coming here legally. It shouldn't be done with any families but especially not those that are following the rules. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't consider all of Central America asylum seekers. Their counties are shit, that's not a legit reason.
Click to expand...


Guess what, 'all of Central America' is not seeking asylum. Anyway, there is such a thing as economic asylum seekers, that you don't recognize that status exists means you need to read more. 

_Who is an asylum seeker, and who is a refugee?

As defined in Article 1(1)(a) of the 1951 Convention for Refugee Protection, a refugee is an individual who is fleeing his/her country of origin, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of race, nationality, ethnicity, or affiliation to a particular political group. An asylum seeker is a person who has yet to make an application to the host country, or is awaiting a decision on an application or claim that has already been made or submitted. As with refugee law, under human rights law as well, (eg., Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), every individual has a right to ask a State for asylum; however, there exists no duty on States to grant asylum, but only to consider fairly the claim for asylum made before them. While every asylum seeker might not become a refugee (if their claim is denied), every refugee at some point has been an asylum seeker (awaiting a refugee status determination)._

Distinguishing Between Asylum Seekers and Economic Migrants: An Analysis of State Practice

We are legally obliged to consider all people seeking asylum. And they are people, not animals and should be treated as human but for whatever god damned reason you want asylum seekers to pay some sort of emotional price for their decision to better their lives from where they came from and to do it legally. Kind of fucked up on your part.


----------



## koshergrl

HappyJoy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't believe in open borders. And I don't believe in filling the country with unskilled workers. I didn't say we didn't need ANY, just not a free-for-all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody believes in open borders, can we finally kill that strawman?  Like it or not, we need unskilled workers here, we don't have enough currently but you'd rather blabber about some idiotic notion that you don't believe in 'filling the country with unskilled workers', whatever that hell that means. Shit,who can argue with such a defined and well thought out position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then your concession is duly noted. Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't there a troll on this board who used to reply to posts just like that? Can't remember his name but when he ran out of  things to say he basically took credit for a concession that was never given.
> 
> What you have given is stating that you don't give a shit about families of immigrants who even come here legally to be separated and your reason for not caring which is an influx of unskilled workers isn't even a problem and in actuality we need more of them but you ignore all of that and go on your merry way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coming here illegally isn't coming here legally. Now you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers who are also being separated from their children are coming here legally. It shouldn't be done with any families but especially not those that are following the rules. Please keep up.
Click to expand...

Oh well.


----------



## HappyJoy

koshergrl said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody believes in open borders, can we finally kill that strawman?  Like it or not, we need unskilled workers here, we don't have enough currently but you'd rather blabber about some idiotic notion that you don't believe in 'filling the country with unskilled workers', whatever that hell that means. Shit,who can argue with such a defined and well thought out position.
> 
> 
> 
> Then your concession is duly noted. Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't there a troll on this board who used to reply to posts just like that? Can't remember his name but when he ran out of  things to say he basically took credit for a concession that was never given.
> 
> What you have given is stating that you don't give a shit about families of immigrants who even come here legally to be separated and your reason for not caring which is an influx of unskilled workers isn't even a problem and in actuality we need more of them but you ignore all of that and go on your merry way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coming here illegally isn't coming here legally. Now you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers who are also being separated from their children are coming here legally. It shouldn't be done with any families but especially not those that are following the rules. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh well.
Click to expand...


I'm sure Taz will be delighted to know that you and him are simpatico on this issue.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting...
> 
> How much? How much discretion is required for it to be acceptable?
> 
> You say we're a nation of laws. Are we? Are we a nation of laws when we continually look for ways to circumvent them like we do with immigration? Like states and cities do with sanctuary laws?
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders. Kids don’t have to be removed. We exercised this discretion before why not now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's like saying there should be no consequences for their coming here illegally. If they aren't going to obey our laws with one set of consequences, then another continuum of consequences must be set in place. The severity of the punishment must be enhanced.
> 
> What do you think would serve as a reliable and "humane" deterrent?
Click to expand...


How is that saying there should be no consequences?

They are detained.
They will get a hearing.
They will most likely be deported.

At a minimum, because there could also be incarceration or fines.

How are those NOT consequences?


----------



## koshergrl

HappyJoy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then your concession is duly noted. Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't there a troll on this board who used to reply to posts just like that? Can't remember his name but when he ran out of  things to say he basically took credit for a concession that was never given.
> 
> What you have given is stating that you don't give a shit about families of immigrants who even come here legally to be separated and your reason for not caring which is an influx of unskilled workers isn't even a problem and in actuality we need more of them but you ignore all of that and go on your merry way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coming here illegally isn't coming here legally. Now you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers who are also being separated from their children are coming here legally. It shouldn't be done with any families but especially not those that are following the rules. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure Taz will be delighted to know that you and him are simpatico on this issue.
Click to expand...

There's a reason for separating the kids. The people trying to smuggle them in know that is what they are facing. For the most part, these are not safe people to leave children with..they tend not to really care what happens to them. 

And the ones who are stellar wonderful parents who aren't traffickers or gang members or wanted for a crime somewhere..they will be reunited with their kids later. They knew that, they chose this route.


----------



## Coyote

WelfareQueen said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally?  It's a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that.  I have no problem with a hearing and, if determined deportation.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to inact this draconian policy in the meantime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that it would be inhumane to house small children in adult detention facilities with potential pedophiles or other serious criminals.  Kind of makes sense doesn't?  Would you want your 8 year old child housed in a maximum security prison with adult male inmates?  My guess is probably not.
> 
> That is why kids are adults are separated.  Plus...it is the Law.  And we are a Nation of Laws or should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.  Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders.  Kids don’t have to be removed.  We exercised this discretion before why not now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry....the law is the law.  Under US law in this circumstance kids have to be removed to protect them when their adult parents have broken the law and you do not want to house kids in adult correctional facilities. And yeah....their parents broke the law so they have to go in correctional facilities just like the rest of us when we break the law.
> 
> Kind of easy to understand in my opinion.  Slave owners exercised "discretion" in violation of US Law.  It doesn't make it right.  Either we are a Nation of Laws or we are not.  It really could not be more simple.  You cannot pick and choose the Laws you like versus the ones you do not.
Click to expand...


Jaywalking is against the law.  So is parking in no parking areas.  Should their kids be removed?  Should they be put into correctional institutions?  Why aren’t they?


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally?  It's a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that.  I have no problem with a hearing and, if determined deportation.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to inact this draconian policy in the meantime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that it would be inhumane to house small children in adult detention facilities with potential pedophiles or other serious criminals.  Kind of makes sense doesn't?  Would you want your 8 year old child housed in a maximum security prison with adult male inmates?  My guess is probably not.
> 
> That is why kids are adults are separated.  Plus...it is the Law.  And we are a Nation of Laws or should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.  Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders.  Kids don’t have to be removed.  We exercised this discretion before why not now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry....the law is the law.  Under US law in this circumstance kids have to be removed to protect them when their adult parents have broken the law and you do not want to house kids in adult correctional facilities. And yeah....their parents broke the law so they have to go in correctional facilities just like the rest of us when we break the law.
> 
> Kind of easy to understand in my opinion.  Slave owners exercised "discretion" in violation of US Law.  It doesn't make it right.  Either we are a Nation of Laws or we are not.  It really could not be more simple.  You cannot pick and choose the Laws you like versus the ones you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jaywalking is against the law.  So is parking in no parking areas.  Should their kids be removed?  Should they be put into correctional institutions?  Why aren’t they?
Click to expand...

If they are jaywalking with their kids in their arms, yup. If they are joyriding with children in the rig..absolutely.


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't there a troll on this board who used to reply to posts just like that? Can't remember his name but when he ran out of  things to say he basically took credit for a concession that was never given.
> 
> What you have given is stating that you don't give a shit about families of immigrants who even come here legally to be separated and your reason for not caring which is an influx of unskilled workers isn't even a problem and in actuality we need more of them but you ignore all of that and go on your merry way.
> 
> 
> 
> Coming here illegally isn't coming here legally. Now you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers who are also being separated from their children are coming here legally. It shouldn't be done with any families but especially not those that are following the rules. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure Taz will be delighted to know that you and him are simpatico on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's a reason for separating the kids. The people trying to smuggle them in know that is what they are facing. For the most part, these are not safe people to leave children with..they tend not to really care what happens to them.
> 
> And the ones who are stellar wonderful parents who aren't traffickers or gang members or wanted for a crime somewhere..they will be reunited with their kids later. They knew that, they chose this route.
Click to expand...


There are thousands of kids involved...kids do get lost in the system.  It is not designed to handle this kind of load.  I guarantee kids will get lost.


----------



## HappyJoy

koshergrl said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't there a troll on this board who used to reply to posts just like that? Can't remember his name but when he ran out of  things to say he basically took credit for a concession that was never given.
> 
> What you have given is stating that you don't give a shit about families of immigrants who even come here legally to be separated and your reason for not caring which is an influx of unskilled workers isn't even a problem and in actuality we need more of them but you ignore all of that and go on your merry way.
> 
> 
> 
> Coming here illegally isn't coming here legally. Now you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers who are also being separated from their children are coming here legally. It shouldn't be done with any families but especially not those that are following the rules. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure Taz will be delighted to know that you and him are simpatico on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's a reason for separating the kids. The people trying to smuggle them in know that is what they are facing. For the most part, these are not safe people to leave children with..they tend not to really care what happens to them.
Click to expand...


Most kids crossing the border with adults are their families, if there is reason to believe or those parents are unable to prove they are there kids than a simple DNA test will resolve that.



> And the ones who are stellar wonderful parents who aren't traffickers or gang members or wanted for a crime somewhere..they will be reunited with their kids later. They knew that, they chose this route.



Shouldn't be separated in the first place. They knew what? That they are leaving literal death traps behind wanting a better life for them and their children, it's probably still worth the risk to seek asylum and you want them to pay some sort of emotional toll for it. Pretty sick.

You're making great points for Taz though, basically '_fuck them, make 'em pay_'.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting...
> 
> How much? How much discretion is required for it to be acceptable?
> 
> You say we're a nation of laws. Are we? Are we a nation of laws when we continually look for ways to circumvent them like we do with immigration? Like states and cities do with sanctuary laws?
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders. Kids don’t have to be removed. We exercised this discretion before why not now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's like saying there should be no consequences for their coming here illegally. If they aren't going to obey our laws with one set of consequences, then another continuum of consequences must be set in place. The severity of the punishment must be enhanced.
> 
> What do you think would serve as a reliable and "humane" deterrent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that saying there should be no consequences?
> 
> They are detained.
> They will get a hearing.
> They will most likely be deported.
> 
> At a minimum, because there could also be incarceration or fines.
> 
> How are those NOT consequences?
Click to expand...

 They are. But apparently the existing set of these so-called consequences do not serve as a strong enough deterrent. Something more needs to be done.

Incarceration is insufficient because they will have gotten what they wanted from the country they came to illegally. Food and shelter. They get more than that if they flee to a sanctuary.

Fines are insufficient, what money are they going to pay them with?

Hearings serve little to no purpose when the party concerned fails to show up for it. Which also makes incarcerating and detaining them a moot point.

Detention serves little purpose when we allow them to skirt our immigration laws by fleeing to sanctuary cities.

Deporting them only means we get to see them cross our border again. Which just shows how little these people care about the existing consequences.

Despite all of this,  they keep doing it, they keep breaking our laws. No, these no longer are consequences. Just unfulfilled ultimatums. I get the feeling you want to maintain the status quo. Stay the course with consequences that these people are not afraid of.

Take their child away from them, and that will instill fear and compliance. That is a consequence they will pay attention to.


----------



## HappyJoy

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting...
> 
> How much? How much discretion is required for it to be acceptable?
> 
> You say we're a nation of laws. Are we? Are we a nation of laws when we continually look for ways to circumvent them like we do with immigration? Like states and cities do with sanctuary laws?
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders. Kids don’t have to be removed. We exercised this discretion before why not now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's like saying there should be no consequences for their coming here illegally. If they aren't going to obey our laws with one set of consequences, then another continuum of consequences must be set in place. The severity of the punishment must be enhanced.
> 
> What do you think would serve as a reliable and "humane" deterrent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that saying there should be no consequences?
> 
> They are detained.
> They will get a hearing.
> They will most likely be deported.
> 
> At a minimum, because there could also be incarceration or fines.
> 
> How are those NOT consequences?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are. But apparently the existing set of these so-called consequences do not serve as a strong enough deterrent. Something more needs to be done.
> 
> Incarceration is insufficient because they will have gotten what they wanted from the country they came to illegally. Food and shelter. They get more than that if they flee to a sanctuary.
> 
> Fines are insufficient, what money are they going to pay them with?
> 
> Hearings serve little to no purpose when the party concerned fails to show up for it. Which also makes incarcerating and detaining them a moot point.
> 
> Detention serves little purpose when we allow them to skirt our immigration laws by fleeing to sanctuary cities.
> 
> Reporting them only means we get to see them cross our border again. Which just shows how little these people care about the existing consequences.
> 
> Despite all of this,  they keep doing it, they keep breaking our laws. No, these are no longer are consequences. Just unfulfilled ultimatums. I get the feeling you want to maintain the status quo. Stay the course with consequences that these people are not afraid of.
> 
> Take their child away from them, and that will instill fear and compliance. That is a consequence they will pay attention to.
Click to expand...


Immigration is down regardless.

But removing children from families as a punishment. That's a new low.


----------



## Cosmos

HappyJoy said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A human would go the the Port of Entry and present their immigrant visa that they obtained at the US Consulate in Mexico City.
> 
> A fucking animal crosses anywhere they can get away with it.
> 
> So yeah, there's that aspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An animal? Yep, you guys love to treat other humans as 'animals'.
> 
> BTW, it's not illegal to arrive at the border and present yourself as an asylum seeker, putz.
Click to expand...


They can also do that at the US Consulate in Mexico City, dipshit.  People who cross into the US illegally are no different than wild dogs.


----------



## TemplarKormac

HappyJoy said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting...
> 
> How much? How much discretion is required for it to be acceptable?
> 
> You say we're a nation of laws. Are we? Are we a nation of laws when we continually look for ways to circumvent them like we do with immigration? Like states and cities do with sanctuary laws?
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders. Kids don’t have to be removed. We exercised this discretion before why not now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's like saying there should be no consequences for their coming here illegally. If they aren't going to obey our laws with one set of consequences, then another continuum of consequences must be set in place. The severity of the punishment must be enhanced.
> 
> What do you think would serve as a reliable and "humane" deterrent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that saying there should be no consequences?
> 
> They are detained.
> They will get a hearing.
> They will most likely be deported.
> 
> At a minimum, because there could also be incarceration or fines.
> 
> How are those NOT consequences?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are. But apparently the existing set of these so-called consequences do not serve as a strong enough deterrent. Something more needs to be done.
> 
> Incarceration is insufficient because they will have gotten what they wanted from the country they came to illegally. Food and shelter. They get more than that if they flee to a sanctuary.
> 
> Fines are insufficient, what money are they going to pay them with?
> 
> Hearings serve little to no purpose when the party concerned fails to show up for it. Which also makes incarcerating and detaining them a moot point.
> 
> Detention serves little purpose when we allow them to skirt our immigration laws by fleeing to sanctuary cities.
> 
> Reporting them only means we get to see them cross our border again. Which just shows how little these people care about the existing consequences.
> 
> Despite all of this,  they keep doing it, they keep breaking our laws. No, these are no longer are consequences. Just unfulfilled ultimatums. I get the feeling you want to maintain the status quo. Stay the course with consequences that these people are not afraid of.
> 
> Take their child away from them, and that will instill fear and compliance. That is a consequence they will pay attention to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration is down regardless.
> 
> But removing children from families as a punishment. That's a new low.
Click to expand...

Alas we have come full circle. Most of these children come alone, without their parents. Where are their families? Too cowardly to face the hells they're putting their child through with them.

That's low. If there were a place lower than hell, that's where I would categorize this behavior.

Please spare me your emotional arguments.


----------



## HappyJoy

Cosmos said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A human would go the the Port of Entry and present their immigrant visa that they obtained at the US Consulate in Mexico City.
> 
> A fucking animal crosses anywhere they can get away with it.
> 
> So yeah, there's that aspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An animal? Yep, you guys love to treat other humans as 'animals'.
> 
> BTW, it's not illegal to arrive at the border and present yourself as an asylum seeker, putz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can also do that at the US Consulate in Mexico City, dipshit.  People who cross into the US illegally are no different than wild dogs.
Click to expand...


I suppose, but why does it matter if it's legal either way? 

Dipshit, seeking asylum at the border is not crossing it illegally. 

And even those who do try to cross illegally, they aren't dogs, they are still people and should be treated as such, especially in our justice system it's what separates the United States from the likes of Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia and others.


----------



## HappyJoy

TemplarKormac said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting...
> 
> How much? How much discretion is required for it to be acceptable?
> 
> You say we're a nation of laws. Are we? Are we a nation of laws when we continually look for ways to circumvent them like we do with immigration? Like states and cities do with sanctuary laws?
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders. Kids don’t have to be removed. We exercised this discretion before why not now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's like saying there should be no consequences for their coming here illegally. If they aren't going to obey our laws with one set of consequences, then another continuum of consequences must be set in place. The severity of the punishment must be enhanced.
> 
> What do you think would serve as a reliable and "humane" deterrent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that saying there should be no consequences?
> 
> They are detained.
> They will get a hearing.
> They will most likely be deported.
> 
> At a minimum, because there could also be incarceration or fines.
> 
> How are those NOT consequences?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are. But apparently the existing set of these so-called consequences do not serve as a strong enough deterrent. Something more needs to be done.
> 
> Incarceration is insufficient because they will have gotten what they wanted from the country they came to illegally. Food and shelter. They get more than that if they flee to a sanctuary.
> 
> Fines are insufficient, what money are they going to pay them with?
> 
> Hearings serve little to no purpose when the party concerned fails to show up for it. Which also makes incarcerating and detaining them a moot point.
> 
> Detention serves little purpose when we allow them to skirt our immigration laws by fleeing to sanctuary cities.
> 
> Reporting them only means we get to see them cross our border again. Which just shows how little these people care about the existing consequences.
> 
> Despite all of this,  they keep doing it, they keep breaking our laws. No, these are no longer are consequences. Just unfulfilled ultimatums. I get the feeling you want to maintain the status quo. Stay the course with consequences that these people are not afraid of.
> 
> Take their child away from them, and that will instill fear and compliance. That is a consequence they will pay attention to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration is down regardless.
> 
> But removing children from families as a punishment. That's a new low.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alas we have come full circle. Most of these children come alone, without their parents. Where are their families? Too cowardly to face the hells they're putting their child through with them.
Click to expand...


Full circle? I think this entire conversation has been about families coming to the border together to include babies. You're literally changing the subject right now.  



> That's low. If there were a place lower than hell, that's where I would categorize this behavior.



That's not what we've been talking about at all. We can, but don't put words in my mouth that we are separating families for kids who come here independently of them.  Dishonest to say the least. 



> Please spare me your emotional arguments.



Emotional would be having a hissy fit that a 12 year old girl can't stay with her mother/father or both while their status in this country is being decided. To use separating children from families as some sort of deterrence and ignoring the inhumanity of this action to me appears to be full of vindictive childishness.


----------



## Taz

HappyJoy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then your concession is duly noted. Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't there a troll on this board who used to reply to posts just like that? Can't remember his name but when he ran out of  things to say he basically took credit for a concession that was never given.
> 
> What you have given is stating that you don't give a shit about families of immigrants who even come here legally to be separated and your reason for not caring which is an influx of unskilled workers isn't even a problem and in actuality we need more of them but you ignore all of that and go on your merry way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coming here illegally isn't coming here legally. Now you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers who are also being separated from their children are coming here legally. It shouldn't be done with any families but especially not those that are following the rules. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't consider all of Central America asylum seekers. Their counties are shit, that's not a legit reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess what, 'all of Central America' is not seeking asylum. Anyway, there is such a thing as economic asylum seekers, that you don't recognize that status exists means you need to read more.
> 
> _Who is an asylum seeker, and who is a refugee?
> 
> As defined in Article 1(1)(a) of the 1951 Convention for Refugee Protection, a refugee is an individual who is fleeing his/her country of origin, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of race, nationality, ethnicity, or affiliation to a particular political group. An asylum seeker is a person who has yet to make an application to the host country, or is awaiting a decision on an application or claim that has already been made or submitted. As with refugee law, under human rights law as well, (eg., Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), every individual has a right to ask a State for asylum; however, there exists no duty on States to grant asylum, but only to consider fairly the claim for asylum made before them. While every asylum seeker might not become a refugee (if their claim is denied), every refugee at some point has been an asylum seeker (awaiting a refugee status determination)._
> 
> Distinguishing Between Asylum Seekers and Economic Migrants: An Analysis of State Practice
> 
> We are legally obliged to consider all people seeking asylum. And they are people, not animals and should be treated as human but for whatever god damned reason you want asylum seekers to pay some sort of emotional price for their decision to better their lives from where they came from and to do it legally. Kind of fucked up on your part.
Click to expand...

Go eat another fucking taco, you sweaty beaner, because you ain't getting all your friends and relatives in. Anchor babies or not.


----------



## Taz

HappyJoy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then your concession is duly noted. Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't there a troll on this board who used to reply to posts just like that? Can't remember his name but when he ran out of  things to say he basically took credit for a concession that was never given.
> 
> What you have given is stating that you don't give a shit about families of immigrants who even come here legally to be separated and your reason for not caring which is an influx of unskilled workers isn't even a problem and in actuality we need more of them but you ignore all of that and go on your merry way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coming here illegally isn't coming here legally. Now you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers who are also being separated from their children are coming here legally. It shouldn't be done with any families but especially not those that are following the rules. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure Taz will be delighted to know that you and him are simpatico on this issue.
Click to expand...

Si, senorita.


----------



## HappyJoy

Taz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't there a troll on this board who used to reply to posts just like that? Can't remember his name but when he ran out of  things to say he basically took credit for a concession that was never given.
> 
> What you have given is stating that you don't give a shit about families of immigrants who even come here legally to be separated and your reason for not caring which is an influx of unskilled workers isn't even a problem and in actuality we need more of them but you ignore all of that and go on your merry way.
> 
> 
> 
> Coming here illegally isn't coming here legally. Now you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers who are also being separated from their children are coming here legally. It shouldn't be done with any families but especially not those that are following the rules. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't consider all of Central America asylum seekers. Their counties are shit, that's not a legit reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess what, 'all of Central America' is not seeking asylum. Anyway, there is such a thing as economic asylum seekers, that you don't recognize that status exists means you need to read more.
> 
> _Who is an asylum seeker, and who is a refugee?
> 
> As defined in Article 1(1)(a) of the 1951 Convention for Refugee Protection, a refugee is an individual who is fleeing his/her country of origin, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of race, nationality, ethnicity, or affiliation to a particular political group. An asylum seeker is a person who has yet to make an application to the host country, or is awaiting a decision on an application or claim that has already been made or submitted. As with refugee law, under human rights law as well, (eg., Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), every individual has a right to ask a State for asylum; however, there exists no duty on States to grant asylum, but only to consider fairly the claim for asylum made before them. While every asylum seeker might not become a refugee (if their claim is denied), every refugee at some point has been an asylum seeker (awaiting a refugee status determination)._
> 
> Distinguishing Between Asylum Seekers and Economic Migrants: An Analysis of State Practice
> 
> We are legally obliged to consider all people seeking asylum. And they are people, not animals and should be treated as human but for whatever god damned reason you want asylum seekers to pay some sort of emotional price for their decision to better their lives from where they came from and to do it legally. Kind of fucked up on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go eat another fucking taco, you sweaty beaner, because you ain't getting all your friends and relatives in. Anchor babies or not.
Click to expand...


There we go, don't have an argument so you go full on wingnut.


----------



## Taz

Coyote said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally?  It's a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that.  I have no problem with a hearing and, if determined deportation.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to inact this draconian policy in the meantime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that it would be inhumane to house small children in adult detention facilities with potential pedophiles or other serious criminals.  Kind of makes sense doesn't?  Would you want your 8 year old child housed in a maximum security prison with adult male inmates?  My guess is probably not.
> 
> That is why kids are adults are separated.  Plus...it is the Law.  And we are a Nation of Laws or should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.  Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders.  Kids don’t have to be removed.  We exercised this discretion before why not now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry....the law is the law.  Under US law in this circumstance kids have to be removed to protect them when their adult parents have broken the law and you do not want to house kids in adult correctional facilities. And yeah....their parents broke the law so they have to go in correctional facilities just like the rest of us when we break the law.
> 
> Kind of easy to understand in my opinion.  Slave owners exercised "discretion" in violation of US Law.  It doesn't make it right.  Either we are a Nation of Laws or we are not.  It really could not be more simple.  You cannot pick and choose the Laws you like versus the ones you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jaywalking is against the law.  So is parking in no parking areas.  Should their kids be removed?  Should they be put into correctional institutions?  Why aren’t they?
Click to expand...

If they are illegals jaywalking, then yes they would be. See how that works?


----------



## HappyJoy

Taz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't there a troll on this board who used to reply to posts just like that? Can't remember his name but when he ran out of  things to say he basically took credit for a concession that was never given.
> 
> What you have given is stating that you don't give a shit about families of immigrants who even come here legally to be separated and your reason for not caring which is an influx of unskilled workers isn't even a problem and in actuality we need more of them but you ignore all of that and go on your merry way.
> 
> 
> 
> Coming here illegally isn't coming here legally. Now you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers who are also being separated from their children are coming here legally. It shouldn't be done with any families but especially not those that are following the rules. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure Taz will be delighted to know that you and him are simpatico on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Si, senorita.
Click to expand...


I'm sure it makes you happy.


----------



## Taz

HappyJoy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coming here illegally isn't coming here legally. Now you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers who are also being separated from their children are coming here legally. It shouldn't be done with any families but especially not those that are following the rules. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't consider all of Central America asylum seekers. Their counties are shit, that's not a legit reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess what, 'all of Central America' is not seeking asylum. Anyway, there is such a thing as economic asylum seekers, that you don't recognize that status exists means you need to read more.
> 
> _Who is an asylum seeker, and who is a refugee?
> 
> As defined in Article 1(1)(a) of the 1951 Convention for Refugee Protection, a refugee is an individual who is fleeing his/her country of origin, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of race, nationality, ethnicity, or affiliation to a particular political group. An asylum seeker is a person who has yet to make an application to the host country, or is awaiting a decision on an application or claim that has already been made or submitted. As with refugee law, under human rights law as well, (eg., Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), every individual has a right to ask a State for asylum; however, there exists no duty on States to grant asylum, but only to consider fairly the claim for asylum made before them. While every asylum seeker might not become a refugee (if their claim is denied), every refugee at some point has been an asylum seeker (awaiting a refugee status determination)._
> 
> Distinguishing Between Asylum Seekers and Economic Migrants: An Analysis of State Practice
> 
> We are legally obliged to consider all people seeking asylum. And they are people, not animals and should be treated as human but for whatever god damned reason you want asylum seekers to pay some sort of emotional price for their decision to better their lives from where they came from and to do it legally. Kind of fucked up on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go eat another fucking taco, you sweaty beaner, because you ain't getting all your friends and relatives in. Anchor babies or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There we go, don't have an argument so you go full on wingnut.
Click to expand...

No, the argument against letting Central America rape us is still valid. Now go make me some tequila.


----------



## Cosmos

HappyJoy said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A human would go the the Port of Entry and present their immigrant visa that they obtained at the US Consulate in Mexico City.
> 
> A fucking animal crosses anywhere they can get away with it.
> 
> So yeah, there's that aspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An animal? Yep, you guys love to treat other humans as 'animals'.
> 
> BTW, it's not illegal to arrive at the border and present yourself as an asylum seeker, putz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can also do that at the US Consulate in Mexico City, dipshit.  People who cross into the US illegally are no different than wild dogs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose, but why does it matter if it's legal either way?
> 
> Dipshit, seeking asylum at the border is not crossing it illegally.
> 
> And even those who do try to cross illegally, they aren't dogs, they are still people and should be treated as such, especially in our justice system it's what separates the United States from the likes of Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia and others.
Click to expand...


They are not people.  They are goddamn animals.  If they were people they would respect borders and laws.  They would obtain the proper legal paperwork and go to a legal Port of Entry where they would ask for permission to enter our country.  They are fucking animals that pay no attention to such things.  I don't know what the purpose is of the radical fascist leftist in this country who are trying to undermine our borders, but it can't be good.  Maybe you can tell us.


----------



## HappyJoy

Taz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers who are also being separated from their children are coming here legally. It shouldn't be done with any families but especially not those that are following the rules. Please keep up.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't consider all of Central America asylum seekers. Their counties are shit, that's not a legit reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess what, 'all of Central America' is not seeking asylum. Anyway, there is such a thing as economic asylum seekers, that you don't recognize that status exists means you need to read more.
> 
> _Who is an asylum seeker, and who is a refugee?
> 
> As defined in Article 1(1)(a) of the 1951 Convention for Refugee Protection, a refugee is an individual who is fleeing his/her country of origin, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of race, nationality, ethnicity, or affiliation to a particular political group. An asylum seeker is a person who has yet to make an application to the host country, or is awaiting a decision on an application or claim that has already been made or submitted. As with refugee law, under human rights law as well, (eg., Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), every individual has a right to ask a State for asylum; however, there exists no duty on States to grant asylum, but only to consider fairly the claim for asylum made before them. While every asylum seeker might not become a refugee (if their claim is denied), every refugee at some point has been an asylum seeker (awaiting a refugee status determination)._
> 
> Distinguishing Between Asylum Seekers and Economic Migrants: An Analysis of State Practice
> 
> We are legally obliged to consider all people seeking asylum. And they are people, not animals and should be treated as human but for whatever god damned reason you want asylum seekers to pay some sort of emotional price for their decision to better their lives from where they came from and to do it legally. Kind of fucked up on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go eat another fucking taco, you sweaty beaner, because you ain't getting all your friends and relatives in. Anchor babies or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There we go, don't have an argument so you go full on wingnut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the argument against letting Central America rape us is still valid. Now go make me some tequila.
Click to expand...


Central America isn't raping us, not sure why you're having that fantasy. That is one of the dumbest statements I've ever heard. 

Actually, we've done our share of harm to the region to include supporting dictators and right wing death squads.


----------



## HappyJoy

Taz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers who are also being separated from their children are coming here legally. It shouldn't be done with any families but especially not those that are following the rules. Please keep up.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure Taz will be delighted to know that you and him are simpatico on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Si, senorita.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure it makes you happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better than having a Chico lover agree with me.
Click to expand...


What did you call me? Chico is boy in Spanish, you're a mod, what the fuck is wrong with you?

EDIT: You're not a mod, I had you confused with someone who uses 'Taz' in their name, I'm glad to see that he hasn't lost his god damned mind and is an entirely different person than you.


----------



## HappyJoy

Cosmos said:
			
		

> They are not people.  They are goddamn animals.



I think Taz agrees with you.


----------



## Cosmos

HappyJoy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are not people.  They are goddamn animals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz agrees with you.
Click to expand...


That's nice but I prefer when people speak for themselves.  I ask you again, why does the radical left that's taken over the Democrat party want to flood our country with illegal aliens?  Who's pulling their strings and buying off their leadership?  Why are Democrat voters being ignorant complacent accomplices in this?


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coming here illegally isn't coming here legally. Now you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers who are also being separated from their children are coming here legally. It shouldn't be done with any families but especially not those that are following the rules. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure Taz will be delighted to know that you and him are simpatico on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's a reason for separating the kids. The people trying to smuggle them in know that is what they are facing. For the most part, these are not safe people to leave children with..they tend not to really care what happens to them.
> 
> And the ones who are stellar wonderful parents who aren't traffickers or gang members or wanted for a crime somewhere..they will be reunited with their kids later. They knew that, they chose this route.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are thousands of kids involved...kids do get lost in the system.  It is not designed to handle this kind of load.  I guarantee kids will get lost.
Click to expand...

Then your messiah shouldn't have invited *this kind of load* to our border, with your fucking blessing. 

Yes there are thousands of kids involved. The ones that were lost aren't babies..those are *kids* that are the so-called *dreamers*...in reality hard eyed gang members, communists, mules, and criminals.


----------



## koshergrl

HappyJoy said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not people.  They are goddamn animals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Taz agrees with you.
Click to expand...

When did it become your job to comment "I think Taz agrees with you" every ten minutes?
wtf? 
You people really are nuts.


----------



## HappyJoy

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers who are also being separated from their children are coming here legally. It shouldn't be done with any families but especially not those that are following the rules. Please keep up.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure Taz will be delighted to know that you and him are simpatico on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's a reason for separating the kids. The people trying to smuggle them in know that is what they are facing. For the most part, these are not safe people to leave children with..they tend not to really care what happens to them.
> 
> And the ones who are stellar wonderful parents who aren't traffickers or gang members or wanted for a crime somewhere..they will be reunited with their kids later. They knew that, they chose this route.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are thousands of kids involved...kids do get lost in the system.  It is not designed to handle this kind of load.  I guarantee kids will get lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then your messiah shouldn't have invited *this kind of load* to our border, with your fucking blessing.
Click to expand...


Don't have a messiah and immigration has been down, it's also more than a year since Obama has been president.



> Yes there are thousands of kids involved. The ones that were lost aren't babies..those are *kids* that are the so-called *dreamers*...in reality hard eyed gang members, communists, mules, and criminals.



No, these aren't dreamers, these are kids with families who are either caught at the border crossing illegally or declaring themselves as asylum seekers.


----------



## HappyJoy

koshergrl said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not people.  They are goddamn animals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Taz agrees with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did it become your job to comment "I think Taz agrees with you" every ten minutes?
> wtf?
> You people really are nuts.
Click to expand...


You haven't figured it out? I'm demonstrating how ridiculous his statements are and using you as a barometer. I thought it was pretty obvious.


----------



## koshergrl

HappyJoy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Taz will be delighted to know that you and him are simpatico on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's a reason for separating the kids. The people trying to smuggle them in know that is what they are facing. For the most part, these are not safe people to leave children with..they tend not to really care what happens to them.
> 
> And the ones who are stellar wonderful parents who aren't traffickers or gang members or wanted for a crime somewhere..they will be reunited with their kids later. They knew that, they chose this route.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are thousands of kids involved...kids do get lost in the system.  It is not designed to handle this kind of load.  I guarantee kids will get lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then your messiah shouldn't have invited *this kind of load* to our border, with your fucking blessing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't have a messiah and immigration has been down, it's also more than a year since Obama has been president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there are thousands of kids involved. The ones that were lost aren't babies..those are *kids* that are the so-called *dreamers*...in reality hard eyed gang members, communists, mules, and criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, these aren't dreamers, these are kids with families who are either caught at the border crossing illegally or declaring themselves as asylum seekers.
Click to expand...


I wasn't talking to you, retard.

And yes, they're dreamers. Teens who are either criminals, or victims of traffickers. They were given a pass into the country as *unaccompanied children* then promptly disappeared because they weren't CHILDREN they were fucking drug and human traffickers, and their fucking cattle. The people you imbeciles cater to, while refusing to acknowledge the reality of who they are...thus making the world a much more dangerous place for our children. 

My theory is that you swine defend human traffickers because you somehow benefit from the sex and/or drug trade.


----------



## HappyJoy

koshergrl said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Taz will be delighted to know that you and him are simpatico on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason for separating the kids. The people trying to smuggle them in know that is what they are facing. For the most part, these are not safe people to leave children with..they tend not to really care what happens to them.
> 
> And the ones who are stellar wonderful parents who aren't traffickers or gang members or wanted for a crime somewhere..they will be reunited with their kids later. They knew that, they chose this route.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are thousands of kids involved...kids do get lost in the system.  It is not designed to handle this kind of load.  I guarantee kids will get lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then your messiah shouldn't have invited *this kind of load* to our border, with your fucking blessing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't have a messiah and immigration has been down, it's also more than a year since Obama has been president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there are thousands of kids involved. The ones that were lost aren't babies..those are *kids* that are the so-called *dreamers*...in reality hard eyed gang members, communists, mules, and criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, these aren't dreamers, these are kids with families who are either caught at the border crossing illegally or declaring themselves as asylum seekers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking to you, retard.
Click to expand...


Then you should private message Coyote. You know how forums work, right? 



> And yes, they're dreamers. Teens who are either criminals, or victims of traffickers.



Yeah, I didn't think you knew who DACA recipients were.


----------



## koshergrl

HappyJoy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Taz will be delighted to know that you and him are simpatico on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Si, senorita.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure it makes you happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better than having a Chico lover agree with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did you call me? Chico is boy in Spanish, you're a mod, what the fuck is wrong with you?
> 
> EDIT: You're not a mod, I had you confused with someone who uses 'Taz' in their name, I'm glad to see that he hasn't lost his god damned mind and is an entirely different person than you.
Click to expand...

You are a fucking retard. 

Seriously.


----------



## HappyJoy

koshergrl said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Taz will be delighted to know that you and him are simpatico on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> Si, senorita.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure it makes you happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better than having a Chico lover agree with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did you call me? Chico is boy in Spanish, you're a mod, what the fuck is wrong with you?
> 
> EDIT: You're not a mod, I had you confused with someone who uses 'Taz' in their name, I'm glad to see that he hasn't lost his god damned mind and is an entirely different person than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a fucking retard.
> 
> Seriously.
Click to expand...


You've never admitted a mistake before, have you?


----------



## Pop23

If they come to this country without documents proving who they are, and that the child is theirs, then yes they should be separated FOR THE CHILD'S PROTECTION.

PERIOD


----------



## koshergrl

HappyJoy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason for separating the kids. The people trying to smuggle them in know that is what they are facing. For the most part, these are not safe people to leave children with..they tend not to really care what happens to them.
> 
> And the ones who are stellar wonderful parents who aren't traffickers or gang members or wanted for a crime somewhere..they will be reunited with their kids later. They knew that, they chose this route.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are thousands of kids involved...kids do get lost in the system.  It is not designed to handle this kind of load.  I guarantee kids will get lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then your messiah shouldn't have invited *this kind of load* to our border, with your fucking blessing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't have a messiah and immigration has been down, it's also more than a year since Obama has been president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there are thousands of kids involved. The ones that were lost aren't babies..those are *kids* that are the so-called *dreamers*...in reality hard eyed gang members, communists, mules, and criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, these aren't dreamers, these are kids with families who are either caught at the border crossing illegally or declaring themselves as asylum seekers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking to you, retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should private message Coyote. You know how forums work, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, they're dreamers. Teens who are either criminals, or victims of traffickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I didn't think you knew who DACA recipients were.
Click to expand...


I do know who daca recipients are. 

And no, I'm not required to private message Coyote. I quoted her comment that I replied to. You know how forums work, right?

I think HJ maybe had a stroke over the weekend. 

Or maybe i just never noticed how supremely dumb she is before. 

As a matter of fact, usually I have her on ignore. I hate it when people who are a waste of time and air fall off my ignore list. Adios, loser.


----------



## HappyJoy

koshergrl said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are thousands of kids involved...kids do get lost in the system.  It is not designed to handle this kind of load.  I guarantee kids will get lost.
> 
> 
> 
> Then your messiah shouldn't have invited *this kind of load* to our border, with your fucking blessing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't have a messiah and immigration has been down, it's also more than a year since Obama has been president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there are thousands of kids involved. The ones that were lost aren't babies..those are *kids* that are the so-called *dreamers*...in reality hard eyed gang members, communists, mules, and criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, these aren't dreamers, these are kids with families who are either caught at the border crossing illegally or declaring themselves as asylum seekers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking to you, retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should private message Coyote. You know how forums work, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, they're dreamers. Teens who are either criminals, or victims of traffickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I didn't think you knew who DACA recipients were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do know who daca recipients are.
Click to expand...


Actually in your previous post you demonstrated that you didn't, feel free to correct that at any time. 



> And no, I'm not required to private message Coyote. I quoted her comment that I replied to. You know how forums work, right?



Nobody said you were required to, but when you post others are going to reply.  Because?  Yep, that's how forums work. 



> I think HJ maybe had a stroke over the weekend.
> 
> Or maybe i just never noticed how supremely dumb she is before.



Not that it matters but don't pretend you know anything about me as you didn't even get the most basic information correct. 



> As a matter of fact, usually I have her on ignore. I hate it when people who are a waste of time and air fall off my ignore list. Adios, loser.



Please, by all means put me on ignore it doesn't really matter.


----------



## Cecilie1200

francoHFW said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your suggestion is to just surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps not be a total prick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Support for protecting your borders is being a total prick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A hard and fast policy of Ripping kids from their parents is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then, perhaps LEFTISTS shouldn't have been total pricks and insisted on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


I have linked this dozens of times already in this thread.  If you didn't bother to read them then, or have some sort of short-term memory deficiency, that is not my problem, nor am I going to let you do the leftist song-and-dance of "Derail the thread by pretending it's a new world every day".

Take your lazy, ignorant ass back through the thread and find any of the other times I've referenced this and read them.  Or don't, in which case everyone will know that you don't give a shit about the truth.


----------



## Cecilie1200

francoHFW said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of this stuff would be an issue if the Latin American Socialists were not destroying their own countries and driving their populations into flight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Honduras which is where most of the asylum seekers are coming from is a democratic republic like the US but the leadership is far right.  Honduras is a great example what can happen in a poor country under far right conservative leadership.  The government, the national and local police are so corrupt it's hard to say whether the gangs or the police are worse.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The most recent numbers available actually show that 80% of refugees seeking asylum in the US come from Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


Refugees and Asylees in the United States

I shall wait eagerly for you to apply the same demands for proof from your ass-buddy, Flopper, for HIS claim . . . but I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Cecilie1200

francoHFW said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Support for protecting your borders is being a total prick?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A hard and fast policy of Ripping kids from their parents is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then, perhaps LEFTISTS shouldn't have been total pricks and insisted on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is our wonderful justice system and Constitution, NOT LEFTISTS, CONSPIRACY NUT JOBS.
Click to expand...


Except that our "wonderful justice system" was ruling on a class-action lawsuit brought by LEFTIST NUT JOBS.


----------



## Cecilie1200

OKTexas said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A hard and fast policy of Ripping kids from their parents is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, perhaps LEFTISTS shouldn't have been total pricks and insisted on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is our wonderful justice system and Constitution, NOT LEFTISTS, CONSPIRACY NUT JOBS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think filed the suit? Commiecrats always use the courts when they can't get their way. Your dear leader gave the parent a NTA, Trump isn't being so generous.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


True.  The original Flores settlement was in regards to a class-action lawsuit brought by two different leftist groups, and assisted by the ACLU, which ain't exactly right-wing.  The ruling which extended the Flores settlement to accompanied minors was ALSO in response to a suit brought by the same group of leftists.  Interestingly, one NOW has to really dig to find the names of those groups, because NOW they don't want to claim it as a "victory".  Only the ACLU will publicly claim any connection to bringing those judgements about.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally?  It's a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that.  I have no problem with a hearing and, if determined deportation.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to inact this draconian policy in the meantime?
Click to expand...


Given that it's the law, yes.  I realize that eight years of Obama gave you the impression that the law is whatever the hell the Imperial President decides it is, but that's not actually the case.

If you didn't want to obey the law and deal with the consequences, you leftists shouldn't have demanded it in the first place.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then, separating children from their parents if they parents happen to be murderers, robbers, thieves, drug dealers, et cetera, is evil and thus the children must accompany them into state and federal penitentiaries?
> To cross a border without going through customs IS ACTUALLY a crime and as a crime has been committed, the individuals who did this, must be processed accordingly and any separation they experience is both temporary and done in a safe manner, plus, all minors are treated well and are put back with the family as soon as possible...….AND....DEPORTED, as they should be.  There is a process for entering foreign nations and that process must be followed by those seeking to enter the nation.
> Further, two other related issues:
> 1.  All who seek to enter, must be thoroughly vetted to ensure that we are not getting known murderers, rapists, thieves, drug-cartel members, deadbeat dads, or terrorists.  We have enough of them as it is.
> 2.  Many of those coming over illegally, come from Central America, claiming to be leaving their own nation in fear for their lives.....it would be logical if they left a city they were in danger in and just went to another city in their own country or, if they didn't feel safe in their own nation, they can enter the very next nation to them and would thus not only be safe, but also be entering a nation which has the same language.
> Last, this open borders concept is dangerous, one only has to look at what is happening in Europe, as they let in millions of Muslims and are now paying the deadly price for doing so.  Terrorist attacks and especially rapes are commonplace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Murderers, robbers, thieves, drug dealers are dangerous and those are felonies.
> 
> Illegally entering the country is a misdeamenor in most cases.
> 
> This isn't about open borders, it's about what to do *between arrest and a hearing*.
> 
> 
> They are not necessarily treated well.  They range in age from a few months of age to teens, and the younger they are the less they understand what is happening, only that they are forceably removed from the only people they know in a country they don't know and put with strangers.  Because this wasn't the policy before, the are put into over crowded former military barracks, not with families.  The foster system can't handle the overload.  As to reunited as "soon as possible" - parents aren't even told where their children are and the numbers are so great those kids may very well get lost.
> 
> ‘They just took them?’ Frantic parents separated from their kids fill courts on the border
Click to expand...


You know what happens when you get arrested for anything which can include jail time?  "Between arrest and a hearing"?  They put your ass in a jail cell to await your hearing.  If you have a child with you when you're arrested, the appropriate child welfare authorities take custody of the kid until an appropriate guardian - preferably a family member - can be located.

EXACTLY the same as what's happening here.  Your ignorance of the legal system is astounding.


----------



## koshergrl

HappyJoy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Si, senorita.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure it makes you happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better than having a Chico lover agree with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did you call me? Chico is boy in Spanish, you're a mod, what the fuck is wrong with you?
> 
> EDIT: You're not a mod, I had you confused with someone who uses 'Taz' in their name, I'm glad to see that he hasn't lost his god damned mind and is an entirely different person than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a fucking retard.
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've never admitted a mistake before, have you?
Click to expand...


You're a retard, mistake or no mistake. The mistake is irrelevant. 

But you're still a retard.


----------



## koshergrl

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then, separating children from their parents if they parents happen to be murderers, robbers, thieves, drug dealers, et cetera, is evil and thus the children must accompany them into state and federal penitentiaries?
> To cross a border without going through customs IS ACTUALLY a crime and as a crime has been committed, the individuals who did this, must be processed accordingly and any separation they experience is both temporary and done in a safe manner, plus, all minors are treated well and are put back with the family as soon as possible...….AND....DEPORTED, as they should be.  There is a process for entering foreign nations and that process must be followed by those seeking to enter the nation.
> Further, two other related issues:
> 1.  All who seek to enter, must be thoroughly vetted to ensure that we are not getting known murderers, rapists, thieves, drug-cartel members, deadbeat dads, or terrorists.  We have enough of them as it is.
> 2.  Many of those coming over illegally, come from Central America, claiming to be leaving their own nation in fear for their lives.....it would be logical if they left a city they were in danger in and just went to another city in their own country or, if they didn't feel safe in their own nation, they can enter the very next nation to them and would thus not only be safe, but also be entering a nation which has the same language.
> Last, this open borders concept is dangerous, one only has to look at what is happening in Europe, as they let in millions of Muslims and are now paying the deadly price for doing so.  Terrorist attacks and especially rapes are commonplace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Murderers, robbers, thieves, drug dealers are dangerous and those are felonies.
> 
> Illegally entering the country is a misdeamenor in most cases.
> 
> This isn't about open borders, it's about what to do *between arrest and a hearing*.
> 
> 
> They are not necessarily treated well.  They range in age from a few months of age to teens, and the younger they are the less they understand what is happening, only that they are forceably removed from the only people they know in a country they don't know and put with strangers.  Because this wasn't the policy before, the are put into over crowded former military barracks, not with families.  The foster system can't handle the overload.  As to reunited as "soon as possible" - parents aren't even told where their children are and the numbers are so great those kids may very well get lost.
> 
> ‘They just took them?’ Frantic parents separated from their kids fill courts on the border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what happens when you get arrested for anything which can include jail time?  "Between arrest and a hearing"?  They put your ass in a jail cell to await your hearing.  If you have a child with you when you're arrested, the appropriate child welfare authorities take custody of the kid until an appropriate guardian - preferably a family member - can be located.
> 
> EXACTLY the same as what's happening here.  Your ignorance of the legal system is astounding.
Click to expand...

They aren't taught anything at all except how to mindlessly defend the state if the state says there's a victim. No matter what. 

Then nazis claimed Germans were the victims of Jews. You see how that works. 

Progressives claim MS13 and human traffickers are the *victims* of mean conservatives.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally?  It's a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that.  I have no problem with a hearing and, if determined deportation.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to inact this draconian policy in the meantime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's been proven it is in accordance with a federal court order, yet you refuse to acknowledge that FACT. You're starting to sound like the broken record Matthew.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't care who I sound like to *you*.  Agencies have ALWAYS had discretion in these matters.  You refuse to acknowledge that.
Click to expand...


The only discretion ICE has in this matter is to extend the detention of the children to up to 20 days if they have a backlog of cases.  There's a reason why people "refuse to acknowledge" your ignorant assumptions, absent any proof to back them up.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> They come anyways knowing what will happen, so not our problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are following the law, like I said there is no reason to separate families other than spite. We need immigration into this country, our economy depends on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need EDUCATED immigration, not just maids and fruit pickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually we don't.
> 
> More Unskilled Workers, Please
> 
> Unskilled Immigrants Do Not Harm Americans
> 
> The Danger From Low-Skilled Immigrants: Not Having Them
> 
> Read the articles, I could pull out quotes from them but I get the feeling I'm already wasting my time linking the articles.
> 
> Other than that treating people like cattle is inhumane no matter how you want to make excuses for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, I don't believe in open borders. And I don't believe in filling the country with unskilled workers. I didn't say we didn't need ANY, just not a free-for-all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Despite the narrative that uneducated, unskilled immigrants enter the US to dominate the job market, the data tells a different story. Foreign-born individuals in the U.S are just as likely as native born Americans to be college educated with 1/3 of immigrants holding a bachelor’s degree or higher.  America has switched from importing people who are, on average less educated than the natives to people who are better educated.  If immigration quotas and trends remain unchanged, leadership in America business is going to look a lot different in the future.
> Nearly Half of Immigrants Enter the U.S. With a College Degree*
Click to expand...


And there's that disingenuous conflation of legal immigrants and illegal immigrants.  Sorry, but you don't get to hide the illegals we're actually discussing behind the coat tails of the legal immigrants.

Go ahead, try to pretend you think 1/3 of illegal immigrants have a bachelor's degree.  I dare you.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cosmos said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A human would go the the Port of Entry and present their immigrant visa that they obtained at the US Consulate in Mexico City.
> 
> A fucking animal crosses anywhere they can get away with it.
> 
> So yeah, there's that aspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An animal? Yep, you guys love to treat other humans as 'animals'.
> 
> BTW, it's not illegal to arrive at the border and present yourself as an asylum seeker, putz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can also do that at the US Consulate in Mexico City, dipshit.  People who cross into the US illegally are no different than wild dogs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose, but why does it matter if it's legal either way?
> 
> Dipshit, seeking asylum at the border is not crossing it illegally.
> 
> And even those who do try to cross illegally, they aren't dogs, they are still people and should be treated as such, especially in our justice system it's what separates the United States from the likes of Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not people.  They are goddamn animals.  If they were people they would respect borders and laws.  They would obtain the proper legal paperwork and go to a legal Port of Entry where they would ask for permission to enter our country.  They are fucking animals that pay no attention to such things.  I don't know what the purpose is of the radical fascist leftist in this country who are trying to undermine our borders, but it can't be good.  Maybe you can tell us.
Click to expand...




Cosmos said:


> They would obtain the proper legal paperwork and go to a legal Port of Entry where they would ask for permission to enter our country. They are fucking animals that pay no attention to such things.



The Trump admin is separating even those asylum seekers who appear at a port of entry.
There is no crime in applying for asylum. It is a legal process.

ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children

A mother and her 7-year-old daughter escaping persecution and "near certain death" by fleeing the Democratic Republic of Congohave been separated for nearly four months, according to a legal complaint filed today by the ACLU.

Referred to in the case as "Ms. L" and "S.S.," the mother and daughter arrived in San Ysidro, California, Nov. 1. They told border guards they were seeking asylum, according to the court documents. Ms. L passed what's called a "credible fear interview," where an officer determined she and S.S. had a "significant possibility of ultimately receiving asylum."

Like many asylum-seekers, the two were detained while their application was processed. Under longstanding policy, families typically are kept intact at detention centers or released with a court date.

But just four days after arriving in the U.S., Ms. L was sent to Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego County while S.S. was ripped away from her and flown to another center in Chicago, according to the filing. S.S. speaks Lingala, a few words of Spanish and no English.

Contacted by ABC News about the case, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said the department does not comment on pending litigation.

The complaint claims, "When the officers separated them, Ms. L. could hear her daughter in the next room frantically screaming that she wanted to remain with her mother.” Ms. L said that no one involved in the process explained that her daughter would be taken away, to where she would be taken or when they would next see each other.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to me how a policy that confiscates 100% of the children makes that distinction?
> 
> I will wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When are you going to get through your head that the federal courts say a child can't be detained more than 9 days. The courts are dictating the removal of children, not the administration.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Removal of children to where? The streets? back home to their home countries where they belong? in 9 days. Ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I never saw the 9 day rule but I'm sure there must be one.  Children who accompany parents to detention are either held with parents in a family detention center or they're separated.  Currently the administration opts to separate the parents and their children.
> 
> The children are turned over to US Health and Human Services who keep them until they are turned over to a foster care agency for placement.  In foster care, they are often moved from family to family.  Recently it was reported that DHS was unable to determine the whereabouts of nearly 1500 kids.  This means the parents will likely be deported without their kids under the Trump zero tolerance policy. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The administration doesn't "opt" for anything.  The law says that children cannot be detained longer than 5 days, unless there's a huge backlog of cases, in which case it can be extended to 20 days, but that's it.  The administration has no choice, unless you want President Trump to act like King Trump and simply rewrite the law himself (as Obama did).
> 
> This is NOT "Trump's policy".  HIS policy is not to use this as an excuse to turn the adults loose and let them wander away and vanish.
> 
> As for "1500 missing kids", you really need to stop getting your "news" from social media.  HHS reported that it made follow-up calls to check on the kids, and about 1500 of them couldn't be reached by phone and their guardians didn't call back.  Do you usually overreact and assume someone is "missing" if they don't answer the phone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It certainly is an option.  There are over half dozen family detention centers used by ICE.  Families can be detained in family detention centers, but not un-escorted children.
> 
> Taking children away from parents is an old and rather discussing tactic used by every administration.  It goes like this. Plead no contest or not guilty and you will be united with your family.  Plead guilty and you can be detained and separated from your family for up to a year waiting for trial, and no we have no information as to what has happened to your family.  Not surprising, almost all parents plead guilty and the administration gets faster deportations.*
Click to expand...


It certainly is NOT an option, unless you're a leftist who thinks the President can ignore the law at will (except, of course, if Trump actually did that the way Obama used to, THEN you'd be screaming bloody murder like the partisan hypocritical hack that you are).

And your info on family detention centers is way off.  

The facts about family detention

_In 2009, Grassroots Leadership and our allies won a major victory when the Obama Administration announced that families would no longer be detained at the T. Don Hutto detention center, a private prison in Taylor, Texas.  The administration also announced that no new family detention centers would be opened. *Only one family detention center remained in Berks County, Pennsylvania, with less than 100 total beds.*   Since 2009, most families seeking asylum have generally not been detained while their asylum cases proceed through immigration courts.
_
This is the primary leftist group which has been behind the entire law you are so decrying and trying to blame on President Trump.  And the last line of this paragraph tells us all why:  so that you can slip open-border policy in on the sly, and use the children as human shields to let their parents wander away into the population.
_
However, in 2014, the Obama administration announced that it would renew the mass detention of immigrant families.  *A family detention center was opened in July at a law enforcement training center in Artesia, New Mexico.  The administration then announced that it would start detaining families at a GEO Group-operated facility in Karnes County, Texas* and that it would expand the *Berks County detention center*. _ 

So there are ACTUALLY only three detention centers for families.

You need to get current, fast.  Maybe start by using the Internet for something other than social media, porn, and HuffPo.  All of this information is readily available, if you ever genuinely gave a tin shit about finding out the truth.


----------



## Cecilie1200

WelfareQueen said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally?  It's a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that.  I have no problem with a hearing and, if determined deportation.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to inact this draconian policy in the meantime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that it would be inhumane to house small children in adult detention facilities with potential pedophiles or other serious criminals.  Kind of makes sense doesn't?  Would you want your 8 year old child housed in a maximum security prison with adult male inmates?  My guess is probably not.
> 
> That is why kids are adults are separated.  Plus...it is the Law.  And we are a Nation of Laws or should be.
Click to expand...


Actually, the real reason is that the left was coldbloodedly using these children as a means to back-door open border policy into practice without the messy entanglements of passing laws through the legislature and letting citizens have a say in it.

The policy we are discussing was THEIR idea, not ours, and was touted as "the only humane thing to do", and family detention was vilified as "eeeevil", for just as long as the government was willing to use it as an excuse to release the entire family and let them disappear.


----------



## koshergrl

Cecilie1200 said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally?  It's a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that.  I have no problem with a hearing and, if determined deportation.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to inact this draconian policy in the meantime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that it would be inhumane to house small children in adult detention facilities with potential pedophiles or other serious criminals.  Kind of makes sense doesn't?  Would you want your 8 year old child housed in a maximum security prison with adult male inmates?  My guess is probably not.
> 
> That is why kids are adults are separated.  Plus...it is the Law.  And we are a Nation of Laws or should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the real reason is that the left was coldbloodedly using these children as a means to back-door open border policy into practice without the messy entanglements of passing laws through the legislature and letting citizens have a say in it.
> 
> The policy we are discussing was THEIR idea, not ours, and was touted as "the only humane thing to do", and family detention was vilified as "eeeevil", for just as long as the government was willing to use it as an excuse to release the entire family and let them disappear.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Coyote whining that we aren't equipped to deal with such a huge influx...NO SHIT.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally?  It's a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that.  I have no problem with a hearing and, if determined deportation.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to inact this draconian policy in the meantime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that it would be inhumane to house small children in adult detention facilities with potential pedophiles or other serious criminals.  Kind of makes sense doesn't?  Would you want your 8 year old child housed in a maximum security prison with adult male inmates?  My guess is probably not.
> 
> That is why kids are adults are separated.  Plus...it is the Law.  And we are a Nation of Laws or should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.  Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders.  Kids don’t have to be removed.  We exercised this discretion before why not now?
Click to expand...


Sorry, but thanks to you leftists, families can't be housed, period.  In addition to demanding that kids had to be released IMMEDIATELY and couldn't be detained, leftists also insisted that family detention centers be shut down, because they were "eeeeevil".  Don't even give me "we exercised this discretion before why not now".  The reason why not is because it stopped fitting the left's ultimate, underhanded agenda.  No other reason.

You lying sacks don't believe this policy is "eeevil and inhumane" now any more than you believed the exact reverse of it was "eeeevil and inhumane" back when THAT was your stated position.  The truth is that you profess to believe whatever will get you closer to your goal of simply letting people wander across the border unimpeded, and fuck honesty, facts, the rule of law, and the rights and desires of your fellow citizens.  Your ends are so pure and noble and morally superior to everything that they justify any means, right?

Well, you hypocrites made this mess, and the rest of us are no longer even trying to follow the whiplash of your "THIS is moral NOW" course changes, and we sure as shit are not letting you get away with trying to blame President Trump for policies which 100% belong at YOUR doorstep.  We have your number now, and you get to blame no one but yourselves.


----------



## koshergrl

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally?  It's a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that.  I have no problem with a hearing and, if determined deportation.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to inact this draconian policy in the meantime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that it would be inhumane to house small children in adult detention facilities with potential pedophiles or other serious criminals.  Kind of makes sense doesn't?  Would you want your 8 year old child housed in a maximum security prison with adult male inmates?  My guess is probably not.
> 
> That is why kids are adults are separated.  Plus...it is the Law.  And we are a Nation of Laws or should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.  Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders.  Kids don’t have to be removed.  We exercised this discretion before why not now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but thanks to you leftists, families can't be housed, period.  In addition to demanding that kids had to be released IMMEDIATELY and couldn't be detained, leftists also insisted that family detention centers be shut down, because they were "eeeeevil".  Don't even give me "we exercised this discretion before why not now".  The reason why not is because it stopped fitting the left's ultimate, underhanded agenda.  No other reason.
> 
> You lying sacks don't believe this policy is "eeevil and inhumane" now any more than you believed the exact reverse of it was "eeeevil and inhumane" back when THAT was your stated position.  The truth is that you profess to believe whatever will get you closer to your goal of simply letting people wander across the border unimpeded, and fuck honesty, facts, the rule of law, and the rights and desires of your fellow citizens.  Your ends are so pure and noble and morally superior to everything that they justify any means, right?
> 
> Well, you hypocrites made this mess, and the rest of us are no longer even trying to follow the whiplash of your "THIS is moral NOW" course changes, and we sure as shit are not letting you get away with trying to blame President Trump for policies which 100% belong at YOUR doorstep.  We have your number now, and you get to blame no one but yourselves.
Click to expand...


And they continue to think that children are a suitable sacrifice to be made at the altar of globalism/communism.


----------



## Taz

HappyJoy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't consider all of Central America asylum seekers. Their counties are shit, that's not a legit reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess what, 'all of Central America' is not seeking asylum. Anyway, there is such a thing as economic asylum seekers, that you don't recognize that status exists means you need to read more.
> 
> _Who is an asylum seeker, and who is a refugee?
> 
> As defined in Article 1(1)(a) of the 1951 Convention for Refugee Protection, a refugee is an individual who is fleeing his/her country of origin, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of race, nationality, ethnicity, or affiliation to a particular political group. An asylum seeker is a person who has yet to make an application to the host country, or is awaiting a decision on an application or claim that has already been made or submitted. As with refugee law, under human rights law as well, (eg., Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), every individual has a right to ask a State for asylum; however, there exists no duty on States to grant asylum, but only to consider fairly the claim for asylum made before them. While every asylum seeker might not become a refugee (if their claim is denied), every refugee at some point has been an asylum seeker (awaiting a refugee status determination)._
> 
> Distinguishing Between Asylum Seekers and Economic Migrants: An Analysis of State Practice
> 
> We are legally obliged to consider all people seeking asylum. And they are people, not animals and should be treated as human but for whatever god damned reason you want asylum seekers to pay some sort of emotional price for their decision to better their lives from where they came from and to do it legally. Kind of fucked up on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go eat another fucking taco, you sweaty beaner, because you ain't getting all your friends and relatives in. Anchor babies or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There we go, don't have an argument so you go full on wingnut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the argument against letting Central America rape us is still valid. Now go make me some tequila.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Central America isn't raping us, not sure why you're having that fantasy. That is one of the dumbest statements I've ever heard.
> 
> Actually, we've done our share of harm to the region to include supporting dictators and right wing death squads.
Click to expand...

Sorry, your friends can't ALL come here. Some is ok, we still need some uneducated laborers, but not everyone.


----------



## koshergrl

Taz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess what, 'all of Central America' is not seeking asylum. Anyway, there is such a thing as economic asylum seekers, that you don't recognize that status exists means you need to read more.
> 
> _Who is an asylum seeker, and who is a refugee?
> 
> As defined in Article 1(1)(a) of the 1951 Convention for Refugee Protection, a refugee is an individual who is fleeing his/her country of origin, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of race, nationality, ethnicity, or affiliation to a particular political group. An asylum seeker is a person who has yet to make an application to the host country, or is awaiting a decision on an application or claim that has already been made or submitted. As with refugee law, under human rights law as well, (eg., Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), every individual has a right to ask a State for asylum; however, there exists no duty on States to grant asylum, but only to consider fairly the claim for asylum made before them. While every asylum seeker might not become a refugee (if their claim is denied), every refugee at some point has been an asylum seeker (awaiting a refugee status determination)._
> 
> Distinguishing Between Asylum Seekers and Economic Migrants: An Analysis of State Practice
> 
> We are legally obliged to consider all people seeking asylum. And they are people, not animals and should be treated as human but for whatever god damned reason you want asylum seekers to pay some sort of emotional price for their decision to better their lives from where they came from and to do it legally. Kind of fucked up on your part.
> 
> 
> 
> Go eat another fucking taco, you sweaty beaner, because you ain't getting all your friends and relatives in. Anchor babies or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There we go, don't have an argument so you go full on wingnut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the argument against letting Central America rape us is still valid. Now go make me some tequila.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Central America isn't raping us, not sure why you're having that fantasy. That is one of the dumbest statements I've ever heard.
> 
> Actually, we've done our share of harm to the region to include supporting dictators and right wing death squads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, your friends can't ALL come here. Some is ok, we still need some uneducated laborers, but not everyone.
Click to expand...

They aren't fit for physical labor either.


----------



## Taz

HappyJoy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Taz will be delighted to know that you and him are simpatico on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Si, senorita.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure it makes you happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better than having a Chico lover agree with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did you call me? Chico is boy in Spanish, you're a mod, what the fuck is wrong with you?
> 
> EDIT: You're not a mod, I had you confused with someone who uses 'Taz' in their name, I'm glad to see that he hasn't lost his god damned mind and is an entirely different person than you.
Click to expand...


----------



## Taz

HappyJoy said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not people.  They are goddamn animals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Taz agrees with you.
Click to expand...

Your avatar is a dog. So yes.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally?  It's a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that.  I have no problem with a hearing and, if determined deportation.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to inact this draconian policy in the meantime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that it would be inhumane to house small children in adult detention facilities with potential pedophiles or other serious criminals.  Kind of makes sense doesn't?  Would you want your 8 year old child housed in a maximum security prison with adult male inmates?  My guess is probably not.
> 
> That is why kids are adults are separated.  Plus...it is the Law.  And we are a Nation of Laws or should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.  Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders.  Kids don’t have to be removed.  We exercised this discretion before why not now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point.
> 
> So we exercised that discretion before, and what result do we have today?
Click to expand...


That the leftists went to court and demanded that that discretion no longer be available, and demanded the policy they are now trying to blame President Trump for, all in service of their REAL agenda, open borders.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting...
> 
> How much? How much discretion is required for it to be acceptable?
> 
> You say we're a nation of laws. Are we? Are we a nation of laws when we continually look for ways to circumvent them like we do with immigration? Like states and cities do with sanctuary laws?
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders. Kids don’t have to be removed. We exercised this discretion before why not now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's like saying there should be no consequences for their coming here illegally. If they aren't going to obey our laws with one set of consequences, then another continuum of consequences must be set in place. The severity of the punishment must be enhanced.
> 
> What do you think would serve as a reliable and "humane" deterrent?
Click to expand...


Come now.  You know perfectly well that Coyote doesn't want ANY deterrents, and considers ALL deterrents to be "inhumane".  She doesn't necessarily want to come right out and admit it, but the "discretion" she's REALLY demanding is for the government to go back to simply releasing adult illegals into the population.  Any policy that involves detaining illegals and deporting them will be screeched about - dishonestly and hypocritically - on the basis of any straw man these lying sacks can devise.

Coyote cares less for these children than most people do for stray cats in an alley.  They're just a handy tool at the moment, and her idea of what's "humane" for them has nothing to do with THEM, and everything to do with what serves her agenda.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, appeal it or shut the f******.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't tell me what to do troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be a misinformed traitor then lol... This is the Trump disgrace so far, and fox Etc making up garbage about our justice system...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL You called him a traitor.
> 
> That's funny. Because he's not. You can't call everyone who disagrees with you a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People who denigrate our esteemed institutions with no evidence are deplorable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a free country. A free country elected Trump. I'm sorry you can't handle that.
> 
> In the event you grow a spine, perhaps you will learn to deal with it.
Click to expand...


He's gonna have to grow some "little gray cells", as Hercule Poirot called them, first.


----------



## Cosmos

Hutch Starskey said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A human would go the the Port of Entry and present their immigrant visa that they obtained at the US Consulate in Mexico City.
> 
> A fucking animal crosses anywhere they can get away with it.
> 
> So yeah, there's that aspect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An animal? Yep, you guys love to treat other humans as 'animals'.
> 
> BTW, it's not illegal to arrive at the border and present yourself as an asylum seeker, putz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can also do that at the US Consulate in Mexico City, dipshit.  People who cross into the US illegally are no different than wild dogs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose, but why does it matter if it's legal either way?
> 
> Dipshit, seeking asylum at the border is not crossing it illegally.
> 
> And even those who do try to cross illegally, they aren't dogs, they are still people and should be treated as such, especially in our justice system it's what separates the United States from the likes of Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not people.  They are goddamn animals.  If they were people they would respect borders and laws.  They would obtain the proper legal paperwork and go to a legal Port of Entry where they would ask for permission to enter our country.  They are fucking animals that pay no attention to such things.  I don't know what the purpose is of the radical fascist leftist in this country who are trying to undermine our borders, but it can't be good.  Maybe you can tell us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They would obtain the proper legal paperwork and go to a legal Port of Entry where they would ask for permission to enter our country. They are fucking animals that pay no attention to such things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Trump admin is separating even those asylum seekers who appear at a port of entry.
> There is no crime in applying for asylum. It is a legal process.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
> 
> A mother and her 7-year-old daughter escaping persecution and "near certain death" by fleeing the Democratic Republic of Congohave been separated for nearly four months, according to a legal complaint filed today by the ACLU.
> 
> Referred to in the case as "Ms. L" and "S.S.," the mother and daughter arrived in San Ysidro, California, Nov. 1. They told border guards they were seeking asylum, according to the court documents. Ms. L passed what's called a "credible fear interview," where an officer determined she and S.S. had a "significant possibility of ultimately receiving asylum."
> 
> Like many asylum-seekers, the two were detained while their application was processed. Under longstanding policy, families typically are kept intact at detention centers or released with a court date.
> 
> But just four days after arriving in the U.S., Ms. L was sent to Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego County while S.S. was ripped away from her and flown to another center in Chicago, according to the filing. S.S. speaks Lingala, a few words of Spanish and no English.
> 
> Contacted by ABC News about the case, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said the department does not comment on pending litigation.
> 
> The complaint claims, "When the officers separated them, Ms. L. could hear her daughter in the next room frantically screaming that she wanted to remain with her mother.” Ms. L said that no one involved in the process explained that her daughter would be taken away, to where she would be taken or when they would next see each other.
Click to expand...


This story stinks to high heaven.  You're expecting us to believe that this woman and her daughter feared for their life in the Congo, somehow magically escaped and arrived in San Ysidro, California, the first place they came across where they could find asylum.  Bullshit.  She was brought there by human traffickers after paying a fee and she should be immediately sent straight back to Congo.


----------



## Cecilie1200

HappyJoy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't believe in open borders. And I don't believe in filling the country with unskilled workers. I didn't say we didn't need ANY, just not a free-for-all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody believes in open borders, can we finally kill that strawman?  Like it or not, we need unskilled workers here, we don't have enough currently but you'd rather blabber about some idiotic notion that you don't believe in 'filling the country with unskilled workers', whatever that hell that means. Shit,who can argue with such a defined and well thought out position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then your concession is duly noted. Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't there a troll on this board who used to reply to posts just like that? Can't remember his name but when he ran out of  things to say he basically took credit for a concession that was never given.
> 
> What you have given is stating that you don't give a shit about families of immigrants who even come here legally to be separated and your reason for not caring which is an influx of unskilled workers isn't even a problem and in actuality we need more of them but you ignore all of that and go on your merry way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coming here illegally isn't coming here legally. Now you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers who are also being separated from their children are coming here legally. It shouldn't be done with any families but especially not those that are following the rules. Please keep up.
Click to expand...


Why would anyone want to keep up with the ridiculous lies you leftists tell?  You don't even acknowledge when you're proven to be lying; you just pivot and go right to the next lie as though nothing happened, even when it directly contradicts the previous lie.

We have your number, Chuckles.  We know the best way to tell if HappyJoy, Coyote, Franco, and Flopper are lying on the message board is to check if their fingers are typing.

You want us to believe that asylum seekers who are following all the appropriate, designated procedures are being separated from their children as a matter of policy?  Spend less time telling us how "outraged" you are and how "ashamed" you mistakenly believe you have the right to demand we should be, and more time proving it.  Because as far as I'm concerned, the fact that YOU are saying it automatically makes it an utter, 100% fabricated pile of horseshit all by itself.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting...
> 
> How much? How much discretion is required for it to be acceptable?
> 
> You say we're a nation of laws. Are we? Are we a nation of laws when we continually look for ways to circumvent them like we do with immigration? Like states and cities do with sanctuary laws?
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders. Kids don’t have to be removed. We exercised this discretion before why not now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's like saying there should be no consequences for their coming here illegally. If they aren't going to obey our laws with one set of consequences, then another continuum of consequences must be set in place. The severity of the punishment must be enhanced.
> 
> What do you think would serve as a reliable and "humane" deterrent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that saying there should be no consequences?
> 
> They are detained.
> They will get a hearing.
> They will most likely be deported.
> 
> At a minimum, because there could also be incarceration or fines.
> 
> How are those NOT consequences?
Click to expand...


Mostly because what you're angling for is that none of those consequences will actually take place.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally?  It's a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that.  I have no problem with a hearing and, if determined deportation.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to inact this draconian policy in the meantime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that it would be inhumane to house small children in adult detention facilities with potential pedophiles or other serious criminals.  Kind of makes sense doesn't?  Would you want your 8 year old child housed in a maximum security prison with adult male inmates?  My guess is probably not.
> 
> That is why kids are adults are separated.  Plus...it is the Law.  And we are a Nation of Laws or should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.  Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders.  Kids don’t have to be removed.  We exercised this discretion before why not now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry....the law is the law.  Under US law in this circumstance kids have to be removed to protect them when their adult parents have broken the law and you do not want to house kids in adult correctional facilities. And yeah....their parents broke the law so they have to go in correctional facilities just like the rest of us when we break the law.
> 
> Kind of easy to understand in my opinion.  Slave owners exercised "discretion" in violation of US Law.  It doesn't make it right.  Either we are a Nation of Laws or we are not.  It really could not be more simple.  You cannot pick and choose the Laws you like versus the ones you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jaywalking is against the law.  So is parking in no parking areas.  Should their kids be removed?  Should they be put into correctional institutions?  Why aren’t they?
Click to expand...


Entering the country illegally is NOT jaywalking and parking violations.  I realize to US-hating unpatriotic traitors like YOU, it has no more importance than that, but we've gone past the point where anyone is taking your ilk and its bullshit seriously any more.  You're just going to have to learn to live with the fact that the people who actually LIKE our country and want to protect it outnumber you, and have very little patience with any presumption of moral authority on your part.

To simplify it for simpletons like you, jaywalkers and parking violators are not put in jail because the law doesn't specify that punishment for their crime.  Illegal aliens ARE put in jail because the law DOES specify that for THEIR crime.

It's almost like different crimes have different severity and different punishments, and very much like the law doesn't agree with your cavalier, dismissive view of illegals.  Wow.  What's it like to have reality itself slap you down and kick you to the curb like so much trash?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coming here illegally isn't coming here legally. Now you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers who are also being separated from their children are coming here legally. It shouldn't be done with any families but especially not those that are following the rules. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure Taz will be delighted to know that you and him are simpatico on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's a reason for separating the kids. The people trying to smuggle them in know that is what they are facing. For the most part, these are not safe people to leave children with..they tend not to really care what happens to them.
> 
> And the ones who are stellar wonderful parents who aren't traffickers or gang members or wanted for a crime somewhere..they will be reunited with their kids later. They knew that, they chose this route.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are thousands of kids involved...kids do get lost in the system.  It is not designed to handle this kind of load.  I guarantee kids will get lost.
Click to expand...


And I guarantee that your guarantee has slightly less value than a bucket of warm spit.

Try proving that "kids do get lost in the system".  Granted, I don't think the system does a stellar job of taking care of long-term foster children (but then, it wasn't conservatives who demanded those kids go INTO the foster system, was it?), but that's a far cry from claiming they simply lose them.


----------



## Cecilie1200

HappyJoy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coming here illegally isn't coming here legally. Now you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers who are also being separated from their children are coming here legally. It shouldn't be done with any families but especially not those that are following the rules. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure Taz will be delighted to know that you and him are simpatico on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's a reason for separating the kids. The people trying to smuggle them in know that is what they are facing. For the most part, these are not safe people to leave children with..they tend not to really care what happens to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most kids crossing the border with adults are their families, if there is reason to believe or those parents are unable to prove they are there kids than a simple DNA test will resolve that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the ones who are stellar wonderful parents who aren't traffickers or gang members or wanted for a crime somewhere..they will be reunited with their kids later. They knew that, they chose this route.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shouldn't be separated in the first place. They knew what? That they are leaving literal death traps behind wanting a better life for them and their children, it's probably still worth the risk to seek asylum and you want them to pay some sort of emotional toll for it. Pretty sick.
> 
> You're making great points for Taz though, basically '_fuck them, make 'em pay_'.
Click to expand...


"Shouldn't be separated in the first place."  Guess you lefties should have thought about that before you screamed for the kids to be released, then, huh?


----------



## Cecilie1200

HappyJoy said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting...
> 
> How much? How much discretion is required for it to be acceptable?
> 
> You say we're a nation of laws. Are we? Are we a nation of laws when we continually look for ways to circumvent them like we do with immigration? Like states and cities do with sanctuary laws?
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders. Kids don’t have to be removed. We exercised this discretion before why not now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's like saying there should be no consequences for their coming here illegally. If they aren't going to obey our laws with one set of consequences, then another continuum of consequences must be set in place. The severity of the punishment must be enhanced.
> 
> What do you think would serve as a reliable and "humane" deterrent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that saying there should be no consequences?
> 
> They are detained.
> They will get a hearing.
> They will most likely be deported.
> 
> At a minimum, because there could also be incarceration or fines.
> 
> How are those NOT consequences?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are. But apparently the existing set of these so-called consequences do not serve as a strong enough deterrent. Something more needs to be done.
> 
> Incarceration is insufficient because they will have gotten what they wanted from the country they came to illegally. Food and shelter. They get more than that if they flee to a sanctuary.
> 
> Fines are insufficient, what money are they going to pay them with?
> 
> Hearings serve little to no purpose when the party concerned fails to show up for it. Which also makes incarcerating and detaining them a moot point.
> 
> Detention serves little purpose when we allow them to skirt our immigration laws by fleeing to sanctuary cities.
> 
> Reporting them only means we get to see them cross our border again. Which just shows how little these people care about the existing consequences.
> 
> Despite all of this,  they keep doing it, they keep breaking our laws. No, these are no longer are consequences. Just unfulfilled ultimatums. I get the feeling you want to maintain the status quo. Stay the course with consequences that these people are not afraid of.
> 
> Take their child away from them, and that will instill fear and compliance. That is a consequence they will pay attention to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration is down regardless.
> 
> But removing children from families as a punishment. That's a new low.
Click to expand...


It's what happens when you leftists use kids as human shields to front your lies, instead of being honest about what you want up-front, so that it can be decided on in the open.


----------



## Cecilie1200

HappyJoy said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A human would go the the Port of Entry and present their immigrant visa that they obtained at the US Consulate in Mexico City.
> 
> A fucking animal crosses anywhere they can get away with it.
> 
> So yeah, there's that aspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An animal? Yep, you guys love to treat other humans as 'animals'.
> 
> BTW, it's not illegal to arrive at the border and present yourself as an asylum seeker, putz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can also do that at the US Consulate in Mexico City, dipshit.  People who cross into the US illegally are no different than wild dogs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose, but why does it matter if it's legal either way?
> 
> Dipshit, seeking asylum at the border is not crossing it illegally.
> 
> And even those who do try to cross illegally, they aren't dogs, they are still people and should be treated as such, especially in our justice system it's what separates the United States from the likes of Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia and others.
Click to expand...


Dipshit, seeking asylum at the border BY crossing it without permission is still crossing it illegally.

There are procedures to get things done.  Simply wandering in at-will isn't one of them.

"They aren't dogs".  Straw man.  This is not a binary choice between "let them in unhindered, or you think they're dogs".  No one said they WERE dogs.  If they were dogs, they wouldn't be nearly as problematic.

They ARE being treated as people; they are being treated as people who have broken the law.  And implying that they are somehow being denied due process of law - let alone somehow being treated like lawbreakers in Cuba, China, and Saudi Arabia - is nothing short of libelous.

The more you try to assume moral superiority on this subject, the more you prove you're rancid pond scum.


----------



## Cecilie1200

koshergrl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally?  It's a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that.  I have no problem with a hearing and, if determined deportation.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to inact this draconian policy in the meantime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that it would be inhumane to house small children in adult detention facilities with potential pedophiles or other serious criminals.  Kind of makes sense doesn't?  Would you want your 8 year old child housed in a maximum security prison with adult male inmates?  My guess is probably not.
> 
> That is why kids are adults are separated.  Plus...it is the Law.  And we are a Nation of Laws or should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the real reason is that the left was coldbloodedly using these children as a means to back-door open border policy into practice without the messy entanglements of passing laws through the legislature and letting citizens have a say in it.
> 
> The policy we are discussing was THEIR idea, not ours, and was touted as "the only humane thing to do", and family detention was vilified as "eeeevil", for just as long as the government was willing to use it as an excuse to release the entire family and let them disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. Coyote whining that we aren't equipped to deal with such a huge influx...NO SHIT.
Click to expand...


They deliberately MADE us unable to deal with that huge influx, precisely because they wanted to leave us no option but to simply let adult illegals disappear into our country, never to be heard from again . . . unless and until they kill someone.

NOW they're screeching about the "eeeevils" of this policy THEY insisted on, not because they actually think it's bad, but because the government found a way to adhere to it that didn't involve releasing illegals in job lots.

They don't give a rat's ass about those kids.  They're just trying to leave the Trump administration no ability to defend the border, and the kids are a handy tool to be used, yet again.


----------



## Cecilie1200

koshergrl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally?  It's a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that.  I have no problem with a hearing and, if determined deportation.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to inact this draconian policy in the meantime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that it would be inhumane to house small children in adult detention facilities with potential pedophiles or other serious criminals.  Kind of makes sense doesn't?  Would you want your 8 year old child housed in a maximum security prison with adult male inmates?  My guess is probably not.
> 
> That is why kids are adults are separated.  Plus...it is the Law.  And we are a Nation of Laws or should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.  Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders.  Kids don’t have to be removed.  We exercised this discretion before why not now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but thanks to you leftists, families can't be housed, period.  In addition to demanding that kids had to be released IMMEDIATELY and couldn't be detained, leftists also insisted that family detention centers be shut down, because they were "eeeeevil".  Don't even give me "we exercised this discretion before why not now".  The reason why not is because it stopped fitting the left's ultimate, underhanded agenda.  No other reason.
> 
> You lying sacks don't believe this policy is "eeevil and inhumane" now any more than you believed the exact reverse of it was "eeeevil and inhumane" back when THAT was your stated position.  The truth is that you profess to believe whatever will get you closer to your goal of simply letting people wander across the border unimpeded, and fuck honesty, facts, the rule of law, and the rights and desires of your fellow citizens.  Your ends are so pure and noble and morally superior to everything that they justify any means, right?
> 
> Well, you hypocrites made this mess, and the rest of us are no longer even trying to follow the whiplash of your "THIS is moral NOW" course changes, and we sure as shit are not letting you get away with trying to blame President Trump for policies which 100% belong at YOUR doorstep.  We have your number now, and you get to blame no one but yourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they continue to think that children are a suitable sacrifice to be made at the altar of globalism/communism.
Click to expand...


Hey, those kids are lucky they aren't being sacrificed in the more literal fashion that the left applies at the altar of feminism.


----------



## MisterBeale

If I crossed into Mexico illegally with my kid, how would we be treated?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

HappyJoy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coming here illegally isn't coming here legally. Now you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers who are also being separated from their children are coming here legally. It shouldn't be done with any families but especially not those that are following the rules. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure Taz will be delighted to know that you and him are simpatico on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's a reason for separating the kids. The people trying to smuggle them in know that is what they are facing. For the most part, these are not safe people to leave children with..they tend not to really care what happens to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most kids crossing the border with adults are their families, if there is reason to believe or those parents are unable to prove they are there kids than a simple DNA test will resolve that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the ones who are stellar wonderful parents who aren't traffickers or gang members or wanted for a crime somewhere..they will be reunited with their kids later. They knew that, they chose this route.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shouldn't be separated in the first place. They knew what? That they are leaving literal death traps behind wanting a better life for them and their children, it's probably still worth the risk to seek asylum and you want them to pay some sort of emotional toll for it. Pretty sick.
> 
> You're making great points for Taz though, basically '_fuck them, make 'em pay_'.
Click to expand...





HappyJoy said:


> Most kids crossing the border with adults are their families, if there is reason to believe or those parents are unable to prove they are there kids than a simple DNA test will resolve that.



Sure, DNA tests are cheap and our wallet is wide open for these invaders. 



HappyJoy said:


> Shouldn't be separated in the first place. They knew what? That they are leaving literal death traps behind wanting a better life for them and their children, it's probably still worth the risk to seek asylum and you want them to pay some sort of emotional toll for it. Pretty sick.
> 
> You're making great points for Taz though, basically '_fuck them, make 'em pay_'.



They shouldn't be separated in the first place?  Maybe it's better to say they shouldn't have come here in the first place.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

HappyJoy said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't believe in open borders. And I don't believe in filling the country with unskilled workers. I didn't say we didn't need ANY, just not a free-for-all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody believes in open borders, can we finally kill that strawman?  Like it or not, we need unskilled workers here, we don't have enough currently but you'd rather blabber about some idiotic notion that you don't believe in 'filling the country with unskilled workers', whatever that hell that means. Shit,who can argue with such a defined and well thought out position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  If we need unskilled workers so bad, I guess the 3.8% unemployed in our country must be skilled workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We need unskilled workers because we don't have enough of our own and as our population ages the need is only going to be greater. I've already provided links but you chose to ignore them and instead rely on your own xenophobia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's what it is, xenophobia.  You must be desperate to use that worn out card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why else would you be against unskilled labor that we need? I'll await your non answer.
Click to expand...


Because we don't need unskilled labor, we have plenty of our own.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Franco's been on my ignore list because he attacked my mother and my sister.



Then I'm afraid I have to inform you that you didn't miss anything.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Franco's been on my ignore list because he attacked my mother and my sister.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I'm afraid I have to inform you that you didn't miss anything.
Click to expand...


Franco would be on my ignore list, except I don't even consider him worth THAT much effort.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not sure about that.  Read about Portugal after 10 years of decriminalization of all drugs.  With the illegal drug business estimated at 40 billion a year and growing rapidly, we will reach a point where we will have no choice. I'm not in favor of it but we're running out of options. The war on drugs was lost decades ago.  There is no way we can control the growing use of illegal drugs.
> Ten Years Ago Portugal Decriminalized All Drugs. What Happened Next? | The Fix *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's possibly a minor flipside to legalizing drugs.
> 
> The cartels will see their cash cow dwindle away. It is possible, likely even, that those drug wars will move across our border and we might see Americans killed in their own country if the cartels see legalization as competition.
> 
> Of course, that's conjecture. But legitimate conjecture, I think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember when they were trying to get the lottery passed in our state many years ago.  One of the claims was that it would stop illegal gambling and wipe out the mob.  Instead, the mob started to use the new lottery numbers for their own game.  They just had a better payout than the lottery and did even better.
> 
> When they pushed the issue of legalized pot in Colorado, it was claimed that it would stop the illegal sales of pot on the street.  What actually happened is that pot dealers beat the price of high taxed legal weed, and they are selling more than ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I don't think that's a problem in Washington.  The pot is legally grown mostly on local farms and in California so there couldn't be the kind of profit the mob would expect.  Biggest benefit is law enforcement can devote resources to serious crimes.  One thing I don't like about it being legalized is the pot shops can't accept credit cards because of federal law so it's a cash business which makes the shops a big target for robbers.  There also may be some zoning restrictions because they are located in rather shabby areas.  I really don't think legalizing pot has has created either the positive or negative impact that people expected.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn't do what they said it was going to do.  I don't care if weed is no longer illegal, I just don't like pot shops and advertising where children are around.  I don't think it's a good idea to suggest to them that smoking pot is fine and dandy, and going to a pot shop is like going to a candy store.  On the other hand I think that it's stupid to give people tickets or even arrest somebody for pot.  I didn't look into it, but I heard on the radio that teen pot smoking has increased dramatically.
Click to expand...

And actually goes down when it is legalized...


----------



## francoHFW

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Franco's been on my ignore list because he attacked my mother and my sister.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course what he said is not true but I'm
> Then I'm afraid I have to inform you that you didn't miss anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Franco would be on my ignore list, except I don't even consider him worth THAT much effort.
Click to expand...

Of course what he says is ridiculous but not starting that again. I met a very nice girl from Kalamazoo in Paris in 1977 and made a silly joke trying to be friendly but you know how it is with hater dupes. Got me banned for a week for nothing.

I'm just trying to inform you of all your misinformation. Hillary is evil, Obama is evil, Benghazi non facts, the rich pay too much in taxes, your imaginary world is a disgrace.


----------



## francoHFW

TemplarKormac said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The production by BS propaganda of so many misinformed functional idiots is the story of our time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will NEVER inform anyone with that approach. I am not a "functional idiot". People who don't agree with you are not "functional idiots". And you are one of many reasons why the left and right don't want anything to do with each other. Too much of _this_. If all you do is insist on calling people names, you will not inform _anyone_ of_ anything_, except for how puerile and obnoxious _you_ are.
> 
> When we don't hold the same opinions or ideas of the world as you do, it doesn't mean we're "misinformed" either.
Click to expand...

The whole world outside the GOP bubble of BS Thinks You Are a functional moron. Problem is your opinion is based on alternative facts and Bs propaganda. Breaking for chumps... All the scandals about Democrats you believe have been investigated and found to be totally imaginary, if you count all taxes the rich pay the same as everyone else percentage-wise and they get basically all the new wealth while the middle class and the country go slowly to hell. Thanks Ronnie Raygun.


----------



## francoHFW

Kondor3 said:


> What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?
> 
> 
> 
> *Answer:*
> 
> As many human lives and as much human misery of *Illegal Aliens* as it takes to reestablish border integrity and sovereignty over our own soil.
Click to expand...

You'll find your opinion has 10% approval, all racist misinformed deplorable dupes. Keep it up you are our best pal. Try a good ID card and end this GOP scam forever.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't tell me what to do troll.
> 
> 
> 
> Be a misinformed traitor then lol... This is the Trump disgrace so far, and fox Etc making up garbage about our justice system...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL You called him a traitor.
> 
> That's funny. Because he's not. You can't call everyone who disagrees with you a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He can't help it.  That's what trolls do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So any evidence yet of conspiracy of FBI against Trump or whatever, in favor of Hillary I suppose. More ridiculous propaganda For doops only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While the Dems are fighting tooth and nail to keep any evidence from getting out, this party just started.  Wait and see the results from digging into this matter.  McCabe is already asking for clemency and will sing like a canary about Comey.
Click to expand...

You have no evidence of that. Mueller just is a great Lawman and isn't putting anything out. So you have Fox Rush making stuff up LOL for ratings and controversy. CNN and MSNBC grab on to that GOP crap for ratings 4 THEIR stupid 24/7 gabfest. Whatever happened 2 journalism, news reporting and foreign offices? A disgrace everywhere but mainly your ridiculous propaganda machine.


----------



## francoHFW

TemplarKormac said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The production by BS propaganda of so many misinformed functional idiots is the story of our time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will NEVER inform anyone with that approach. I am not a "functional idiot". People who don't agree with you are not "functional idiots". And you are one of many reasons why the left and right don't want anything to do with each other. Too much of _this_. If all you do is insist on calling people names, you will not inform _anyone_ of_ anything_, except for how puerile and obnoxious _you_ are.
> 
> When we don't hold the same opinions or ideas of the world as you do, it doesn't mean we're "misinformed" either.
Click to expand...

Saying you are misinformed with BS alternative facts is the most important story politically of the last 30 years, garbage GOP media. It is not a personal insult, like you GOP Dupes calling liberals unemployed lazy gay puerile obnoxious unAmerican... Dupes refers to your politics. Like almost all GOP voters. The rest are just short-sighted and greedy.


----------



## francoHFW

TemplarKormac said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The production by BS propaganda of so many misinformed functional idiots is the story of our time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will NEVER inform anyone with that approach. I am not a "functional idiot". People who don't agree with you are not "functional idiots". And you are one of many reasons why the left and right don't want anything to do with each other. Too much of _this_. If all you do is insist on calling people names, you will not inform _anyone_ of_ anything_, except for how puerile and obnoxious _you_ are.
> 
> When we don't hold the same opinions or ideas of the world as you do, it doesn't mean we're "misinformed" either.
Click to expand...

No, but as it turns out, your dupe information is different from Everyone in the world outside your BS GOP propaganda bubble. Thanks for 9/11 through shear incompetence, the stupidest Wars ever, the corrupt world economic meltdown, the worst propaganda in our country's history, and Wrecking the middle class and our country the last 35 years.


----------



## koshergrl

MisterBeale said:


> If I crossed into Mexico illegally with my kid, how would we be treated?


Your child would be forced into the sex trade, most likely.


----------



## candycorn

The really pathetic thing about conservatives is that back in 1988, most of these folks were all for Bush Sr. and his “kinder, gentler nation”.  And in 2000, they were for his son’s “more humble place in the world”.  Today they are sponsoring ripping kids from their parents for no reason except for wholesale cruelty.


----------



## Cecilie1200

MisterBeale said:


> If I crossed into Mexico illegally with my kid, how would we be treated?



Depends on how much cash you took with you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

koshergrl said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I crossed into Mexico illegally with my kid, how would we be treated?
> 
> 
> 
> Your child would be forced into the sex trade, most likely.
Click to expand...


Again, depends entirely on how much cash you take with you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> The really pathetic thing about conservatives is that back in 1988, most of these folks were all for Bush Sr. and his “kinder, gentler nation”.  And in 2000, they were for his son’s “more humble place in the world”.  Today they are sponsoring ripping kids from their parents for no reason except for wholesale cruelty.



The really pathetic thing about leftists - okay, wait, EVERYTHING about leftists is pathetic - is that THEY come up with these policies, THEY insist on them, they scream and wail and gnash their teeth about how "immoral" and "inhumane" everyone but them is not to already HAVE them, and then when it doesn't work out the way they wanted, they stand around with their bare faces hanging out, having the sheer effrontery to say that SOMEONE ELSE is "sponsoring" it.

Unless you can show me ANY evidence that conservatives "sponsored" the law in question, you are as you have always been:  a pusillanimous, bald-faced liar.  And you continue to prove that you don't actually give a diddly-fuck about these kids at all, except as tools of your partisan hackery.


----------



## TemplarKormac

francoHFW said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The production by BS propaganda of so many misinformed functional idiots is the story of our time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will NEVER inform anyone with that approach. I am not a "functional idiot". People who don't agree with you are not "functional idiots". And you are one of many reasons why the left and right don't want anything to do with each other. Too much of _this_. If all you do is insist on calling people names, you will not inform _anyone_ of_ anything_, except for how puerile and obnoxious _you_ are.
> 
> When we don't hold the same opinions or ideas of the world as you do, it doesn't mean we're "misinformed" either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying you are misinformed with BS alternative facts is the most important story politically of the last 30 years, garbage GOP media. It is not a personal insult, like you GOP Dupes calling liberals unemployed lazy gay puerile obnoxious unAmerican... Dupes refers to your politics. Like almost all GOP voters. The rest are just short-sighted and greedy.
Click to expand...

 Wow. Guess I had to learn the hard way.  There's really no getting through to you,  is there?  And you're calling other people short sighted?

Bwa ha!


----------



## francoHFW

koshergrl said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I crossed into Mexico illegally with my kid, how would we be treated?
> 
> 
> 
> Your child would be forced into the sex trade, most likely.
Click to expand...

They do have that gang control thing going, thanks to our GOP War on Drugs. But they also have a national ID card so they would throw you out. Republican scumbags and silly dupes block democratic efforts to have one here. Basically every country but us has one. Great job as usual.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> The really pathetic thing about conservatives is that back in 1988, most of these folks were all for Bush Sr. and his “kinder, gentler nation”.  And in 2000, they were for his son’s “more humble place in the world”.  Today they are sponsoring ripping kids from their parents for no reason except for wholesale cruelty.



See, that's the one thing about us Republicans, we learn as we go along.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Franco's been on my ignore list because he attacked my mother and my sister.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I'm afraid I have to inform you that you didn't miss anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Franco would be on my ignore list, except I don't even consider him worth THAT much effort.
Click to expand...


One thing about Franko, if you read his last two posts, you read the next 1,000 of his posts.


----------



## francoHFW

TemplarKormac said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The production by BS propaganda of so many misinformed functional idiots is the story of our time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will NEVER inform anyone with that approach. I am not a "functional idiot". People who don't agree with you are not "functional idiots". And you are one of many reasons why the left and right don't want anything to do with each other. Too much of _this_. If all you do is insist on calling people names, you will not inform _anyone_ of_ anything_, except for how puerile and obnoxious _you_ are.
> 
> When we don't hold the same opinions or ideas of the world as you do, it doesn't mean we're "misinformed" either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying you are misinformed with BS alternative facts is the most important story politically of the last 30 years, garbage GOP media. It is not a personal insult, like you GOP Dupes calling liberals unemployed lazy gay puerile obnoxious unAmerican... Dupes refers to your politics. Like almost all GOP voters. The rest are just short-sighted and greedy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow. Guess I had to learn the hard way.  There's really no getting through to you,  is there?  And you're calling other people short sighted?
> 
> Bwa ha!
Click to expand...

Everywhere in the world but imaginary doop world they know you are DUH. Change the channel.


----------



## TemplarKormac

francoHFW said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The production by BS propaganda of so many misinformed functional idiots is the story of our time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will NEVER inform anyone with that approach. I am not a "functional idiot". People who don't agree with you are not "functional idiots". And you are one of many reasons why the left and right don't want anything to do with each other. Too much of _this_. If all you do is insist on calling people names, you will not inform _anyone_ of_ anything_, except for how puerile and obnoxious _you_ are.
> 
> When we don't hold the same opinions or ideas of the world as you do, it doesn't mean we're "misinformed" either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but as it turns out, your dupe information is different from Everyone in the world outside your BS GOP propaganda bubble. Thanks for 9/11 through shear incompetence, the stupidest Wars ever, the corrupt world economic meltdown, the worst propaganda in our country's history, and Wrecking the middle class and our country the last 35 years.
Click to expand...


Funny, I had nothing to do with that.


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The really pathetic thing about conservatives is that back in 1988, most of these folks were all for Bush Sr. and his “kinder, gentler nation”.  And in 2000, they were for his son’s “more humble place in the world”.  Today they are sponsoring ripping kids from their parents for no reason except for wholesale cruelty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the one thing about us Republicans, we learn as we go along.
Click to expand...


No…

You just become meaner, forgetting why America was exceptional in the first place. Also forgetting that there is a difference between being strong and being tough.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Franco's been on my ignore list because he attacked my mother and my sister.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I'm afraid I have to inform you that you didn't miss anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Franco would be on my ignore list, except I don't even consider him worth THAT much effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One thing about Franko, if you read his last two posts, you read the next 1,000 of his posts.
Click to expand...

Truth is repetitive, super duper. Unlike your your endlessly imaginative pubcrappe.


----------



## Kondor3

HappyJoy said:


> ...BTW, it's not illegal to arrive at the border and present yourself as an asylum seeker...


True. But it's illegal to *CROSS* the border and then to plead asylum afterwards... which is what most of your Beaner Buddies do anyway.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Like I said, I'm a glutton for punishment. Overall glutton. But clearly I was misguided in trying to get through to Franco. Okay, fine. 

Talking to him doesn't work, ignoring him doesn't work. I'll take him as little more than a diversion, worth a passing comment here or there, but nothing more...


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The really pathetic thing about conservatives is that back in 1988, most of these folks were all for Bush Sr. and his “kinder, gentler nation”.  And in 2000, they were for his son’s “more humble place in the world”.  Today they are sponsoring ripping kids from their parents for no reason except for wholesale cruelty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the one thing about us Republicans, we learn as we go along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No…
> 
> You just become meaner, forgetting why America was exceptional in the first place. Also forgetting that there is a difference between being strong and being tough.
Click to expand...


If you actually thought America was exceptional, you wouldn't dismiss people invading as "jaywalkers and parking violators".  Every single thing you think you know and admire about the United States exists only in your imagination, and is completely the opposite of reality.


----------



## TemplarKormac

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Franco's been on my ignore list because he attacked my mother and my sister.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I'm afraid I have to inform you that you didn't miss anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Franco would be on my ignore list, except I don't even consider him worth THAT much effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One thing about Franko, if you read his last two posts, you read the next 1,000 of his posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Truth is repetitive, super duper. Unlike your your endlessly imaginative pubcrappe.
Click to expand...


Super Duper! How clever! 

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Wait, no. Forget I asked.


----------



## Kondor3

candycorn said:


> ...No… You just become meaner, forgetting why America was exceptional in the first place. Also forgetting that there is a difference between being strong and being tough.


Tired, shopworn word-play that is no longer effective... nobody's listening anymore, outside your own base.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> Like I said, I'm a glutton for punishment. Overall glutton. But clearly I was misguided in trying to get through to Franco. Okay, fine.
> 
> Talking to him doesn't work, ignoring him doesn't work. I'll take him as little more than a diversion, worth a passing comment here or there, but nothing more...



Well, hon, where you went wrong was when you treated him like a rational, thinking human being.


----------



## francoHFW

TemplarKormac said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The production by BS propaganda of so many misinformed functional idiots is the story of our time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will NEVER inform anyone with that approach. I am not a "functional idiot". People who don't agree with you are not "functional idiots". And you are one of many reasons why the left and right don't want anything to do with each other. Too much of _this_. If all you do is insist on calling people names, you will not inform _anyone_ of_ anything_, except for how puerile and obnoxious _you_ are.
> 
> When we don't hold the same opinions or ideas of the world as you do, it doesn't mean we're "misinformed" either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but as it turns out, your dupe information is different from Everyone in the world outside your BS GOP propaganda bubble. Thanks for 9/11 through shear incompetence, the stupidest Wars ever, the corrupt world economic meltdown, the worst propaganda in our country's history, and Wrecking the middle class and our country the last 35 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, I had nothing to do with that.
Click to expand...

You vote for the GOP, therefore you did it. Or did not vote for the Democrats, same damn thing.


----------



## candycorn

Kondor3 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The really pathetic thing about conservatives is that back in 1988, most of these folks were all for Bush Sr. and his “kinder, gentler nation”.  And in 2000, they were for his son’s “more humble place in the world”.  Today they are sponsoring ripping kids from their parents for no reason except for wholesale cruelty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the one thing about us Republicans, we learn as we go along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No…
> 
> You just become meaner, forgetting why America was exceptional in the first place. Also forgetting that there is a difference between being strong and being tough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tired, shopworn word-play that is no longer effective... nobody's listening anymore, outside your own base.
Click to expand...


ok 

One would wonder why you’re responding.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Franco's been on my ignore list because he attacked my mother and my sister.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I'm afraid I have to inform you that you didn't miss anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Franco would be on my ignore list, except I don't even consider him worth THAT much effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One thing about Franko, if you read his last two posts, you read the next 1,000 of his posts.
Click to expand...


He's not original, he's not intelligent, and he's not useful . . . but DAMN, is he consistent.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Cecilie1200 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, I'm a glutton for punishment. Overall glutton. But clearly I was misguided in trying to get through to Franco. Okay, fine.
> 
> Talking to him doesn't work, ignoring him doesn't work. I'll take him as little more than a diversion, worth a passing comment here or there, but nothing more...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, hon, where you went wrong was when you treated him like a rational, thinking human being.
Click to expand...


That is a fault of mine I do freely admit.


----------



## Kondor3

candycorn said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The really pathetic thing about conservatives is that back in 1988, most of these folks were all for Bush Sr. and his “kinder, gentler nation”.  And in 2000, they were for his son’s “more humble place in the world”.  Today they are sponsoring ripping kids from their parents for no reason except for wholesale cruelty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the one thing about us Republicans, we learn as we go along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No…
> 
> You just become meaner, forgetting why America was exceptional in the first place. Also forgetting that there is a difference between being strong and being tough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tired, shopworn word-play that is no longer effective... nobody's listening anymore, outside your own base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> One would wonder why you’re responding.
Click to expand...

Because tired, shopworn word-play still needs to be countered, lest it re-infect the less intelligent amongst you.


----------



## francoHFW

Kondor3 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...No… You just become meaner, forgetting why America was exceptional in the first place. Also forgetting that there is a difference between being strong and being tough.
> 
> 
> 
> Tired, shopworn word-play that is no longer effective... nobody's listening anymore, outside your own base.
Click to expand...

We shall see in November..
I would say between being strong and being an a****** full of BS Bluster.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, I'm a glutton for punishment. Overall glutton. But clearly I was misguided in trying to get through to Franco. Okay, fine.
> 
> Talking to him doesn't work, ignoring him doesn't work. I'll take him as little more than a diversion, worth a passing comment here or there, but nothing more...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, hon, where you went wrong was when you treated him like a rational, thinking human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a fault of mine I do freely admit.
Click to expand...


It's not usually a fault, but you have to resist the urge to anthropomorphize leftists.


----------



## candycorn

Kondor3 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The really pathetic thing about conservatives is that back in 1988, most of these folks were all for Bush Sr. and his “kinder, gentler nation”.  And in 2000, they were for his son’s “more humble place in the world”.  Today they are sponsoring ripping kids from their parents for no reason except for wholesale cruelty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the one thing about us Republicans, we learn as we go along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No…
> 
> You just become meaner, forgetting why America was exceptional in the first place. Also forgetting that there is a difference between being strong and being tough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tired, shopworn word-play that is no longer effective... nobody's listening anymore, outside your own base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> One would wonder why you’re responding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because tired, shopworn word-play still needs to be countered, lest it re-infect the less intelligent amongst you.
Click to expand...


ok

One would wonder why someone would be “re-infected” with honesty if “nobody’s listening”


----------



## TemplarKormac

francoHFW said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The production by BS propaganda of so many misinformed functional idiots is the story of our time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will NEVER inform anyone with that approach. I am not a "functional idiot". People who don't agree with you are not "functional idiots". And you are one of many reasons why the left and right don't want anything to do with each other. Too much of _this_. If all you do is insist on calling people names, you will not inform _anyone_ of_ anything_, except for how puerile and obnoxious _you_ are.
> 
> When we don't hold the same opinions or ideas of the world as you do, it doesn't mean we're "misinformed" either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but as it turns out, your dupe information is different from Everyone in the world outside your BS GOP propaganda bubble. Thanks for 9/11 through shear incompetence, the stupidest Wars ever, the corrupt world economic meltdown, the worst propaganda in our country's history, and Wrecking the middle class and our country the last 35 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, I had nothing to do with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You vote for the GOP, therefore you did it. Or did not vote for the Democrats, same damn thing.
Click to expand...


Ha, you tool. You don't know how I vote or who I vote for. Unlike you, I vote based on facts and rational decision making processes, you do so based on raw unadulterated emotions. People like you are why we have illegals streaming across our border. People like you, who are so uneducated about policy and the implications of voting for one person or another, are why this country is so fucked up right now. 

I educate myself on who I vote for. Look, I tried being nice to you. Gloves are off now.


----------



## Kondor3

candycorn said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the one thing about us Republicans, we learn as we go along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No…
> 
> You just become meaner, forgetting why America was exceptional in the first place. Also forgetting that there is a difference between being strong and being tough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tired, shopworn word-play that is no longer effective... nobody's listening anymore, outside your own base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> One would wonder why you’re responding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because tired, shopworn word-play still needs to be countered, lest it re-infect the less intelligent amongst you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> One would wonder why someone would be “re-infected” with honesty if “nobody’s listening”
Click to expand...

Noise, continuously blaring, eventually makes an impression.

Refutation of your tired, shopworn word-play serves to cancel-out that noise.

On the other hand, the more intelligent and pragmatic amongst you have come to realize that it's bad optics to stand alongside Illegal Aliens rather than your countrymen.

We need look no further than the Dems in the Senate refusing to shut down the government a second time on behalf of Dreamers, after making that mistake in early 2017.

Slowly but surely, your party is re-learning the Primary Lesson (stand with your countrymen) of November 8, 2016.


----------



## francoHFW

TemplarKormac said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, I'm a glutton for punishment. Overall glutton. But clearly I was misguided in trying to get through to Franco. Okay, fine.
> 
> Talking to him doesn't work, ignoring him doesn't work. I'll take him as little more than a diversion, worth a passing comment here or there, but nothing more...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, hon, where you went wrong was when you treated him like a rational, thinking human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a fault of mine I do freely admit.
Click to expand...

The problem in America is one-party is full of crap and it is not Democrats, super dupers. I tell you everyday the actual facts, but you are brainwashed. Last check, 94% of illegal males worked, 67% paid Taxes, and 35% owned homes. Thanks to the GOP and their silly dupes... The wall is stupid and useless, pass a good ID card like every other country  for Christ's sake.


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the one thing about us Republicans, we learn as we go along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No…
> 
> You just become meaner, forgetting why America was exceptional in the first place. Also forgetting that there is a difference between being strong and being tough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tired, shopworn word-play that is no longer effective... nobody's listening anymore, outside your own base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> One would wonder why you’re responding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because tired, shopworn word-play still needs to be countered, lest it re-infect the less intelligent amongst you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> One would wonder why someone would be “re-infected” with honesty if “nobody’s listening”
Click to expand...


I'm still busy wondering why you're trying to blame President Trump for LEFTIST laws and policies, and why you think you're fooling anyone.

 G'head, Cornball.  Tell us again how "mean" we are because of laws we had nothing to do with passing.  Tell us again how YOUR laws and YOUR court cases and YOUR smokescreens of yesterday somehow add up to a ringing indictment of OUR character.

I think we're all enjoying laughing at your increasingly threadbare pretenses.


----------



## francoHFW

Kondor3 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No…
> 
> You just become meaner, forgetting why America was exceptional in the first place. Also forgetting that there is a difference between being strong and being tough.
> 
> 
> 
> Tired, shopworn word-play that is no longer effective... nobody's listening anymore, outside your own base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> One would wonder why you’re responding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because tired, shopworn word-play still needs to be countered, lest it re-infect the less intelligent amongst you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> One would wonder why someone would be “re-infected” with honesty if “nobody’s listening”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Noise, continuously blaring, eventually makes an impression.
> 
> Refutation of your tired, shopworn word-play serves to cancel-out that noise.
> 
> On the other hand, the more intelligent and pragmatic amongst you have come to realize that it's bad optics to stand alongside Illegal Aliens rather than your countrymen.
> 
> We need look no further than the Dems in the Senate refusing to shut down the government a second time on behalf of Dreamers.
> 
> Slowly but surely, your party is re-learning the Primary Lesson (stand with your countrymen) of November 8, 2016.
Click to expand...

Pass the goddamn ID card and end this GOP scam.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wow.. I slept till 6:30 this evening, and Franco was the first thing I woke up to. 

Sigh. The sheer horror. I admit, I'm bored. If anyone wants to engage me on the topic of this thread, please, by all means. Do so. Otherwise, I am going to lurk about watching Cecilie melt hapless people into their chairs.


----------



## francoHFW

Cecilie1200 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No…
> 
> You just become meaner, forgetting why America was exceptional in the first place. Also forgetting that there is a difference between being strong and being tough.
> 
> 
> 
> Tired, shopworn word-play that is no longer effective... nobody's listening anymore, outside your own base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> One would wonder why you’re responding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because tired, shopworn word-play still needs to be countered, lest it re-infect the less intelligent amongst you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> One would wonder why someone would be “re-infected” with honesty if “nobody’s listening”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm still busy wondering why you're trying to blame President Trump for LEFTIST laws and policies, and why you think you're fooling anyone.
> 
> G'head, Cornball.  Tell us again how "mean" we are because of laws we had nothing to do with passing.  Tell us again how YOUR laws and YOUR court cases and YOUR smokescreens of yesterday somehow add up to a ringing indictment of OUR character.
> 
> I think we're all enjoying laughing at your increasingly threadbare pretenses.
Click to expand...

The typically polite racist GOP Dupe believes in being cruel 2 immigrants as a solution, along with a a useless wall. Insanity runs in their families... We've had 100 years of that BS...


----------



## Kondor3

francoHFW said:


> ...Pass the goddamn ID card and end this GOP scam.


Ya'll should have bitten on the ID Card hook while you still could... as things stand now, it seems likely that it's now off the table.

Your (collective) pi$$ing and moaning about poor ghetto trash not being able to get an ID card finally drove 'em to something more draconian.

Well done.

Next time, go for the Middle Ground while you still can.


----------



## francoHFW

TemplarKormac said:


> Wow.. I slept till 6:30 this evening, and Franco was the first thing I woke up to.
> 
> Sigh. The sheer horror. I admit, I'm bored. If anyone wants to engage me on the topic of this thread, please, by all means. Do so. Otherwise, I am going to lurk about watching Cecilie melt hapless people into their chairs.


You've got nothing, super duper. Pass the ID card like every other country.


----------



## TemplarKormac

francoHFW said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tired, shopworn word-play that is no longer effective... nobody's listening anymore, outside your own base.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> One would wonder why you’re responding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because tired, shopworn word-play still needs to be countered, lest it re-infect the less intelligent amongst you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> One would wonder why someone would be “re-infected” with honesty if “nobody’s listening”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm still busy wondering why you're trying to blame President Trump for LEFTIST laws and policies, and why you think you're fooling anyone.
> 
> G'head, Cornball.  Tell us again how "mean" we are because of laws we had nothing to do with passing.  Tell us again how YOUR laws and YOUR court cases and YOUR smokescreens of yesterday somehow add up to a ringing indictment of OUR character.
> 
> I think we're all enjoying laughing at your increasingly threadbare pretenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The typically polite racist GOP Dupe believes in being cruel 2 immigrants as a solution, along with a a useless wall. Insanity runs in their families... We've 100 years of that BS...
Click to expand...

Oh my goodness, you actually managed to address the topic!

Okay, so, not everyone who crosses our borders are "immigrants". And you have a very sordid definition of what cruelty is. Listen, sending a child along through a hellish landscape of smugglers and drug cartels, alone, is cruel. What kind of worthless parent do you have to be to do that to your children? The whole idea of being a parent is facing trials and tribulations with the child. Not subjecting their innocence to it all by their lonesome.


----------



## francoHFW

Kondor3 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Pass the goddamn ID card and end this GOP scam.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya'll should have bitten on the ID Card hook while you still could... as things stand now, it seems likely that it's now off the table.
> 
> Your (collective) pi$$ing and moaning about poor ghetto trash not being able to get an ID card finally drove 'em to something more draconian.
> 
> Well done.
> 
> Next time, go the Middle Ground while you still can.
Click to expand...

Although a voter i d is unnecessary totally, you would get one with a national ID card like everyone else has.


----------



## TemplarKormac

francoHFW said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.. I slept till 6:30 this evening, and Franco was the first thing I woke up to.
> 
> Sigh. The sheer horror. I admit, I'm bored. If anyone wants to engage me on the topic of this thread, please, by all means. Do so. Otherwise, I am going to lurk about watching Cecilie melt hapless people into their chairs.
> 
> 
> 
> You've got nothing, super duper. Pass the ID card like every other country.
Click to expand...


What's that even supposed to mean? I identify as a planetary body. Widely acknowledged by astronomers to be Earth's second moon.


----------



## francoHFW

TemplarKormac said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> One would wonder why you’re responding.
> 
> 
> 
> Because tired, shopworn word-play still needs to be countered, lest it re-infect the less intelligent amongst you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> One would wonder why someone would be “re-infected” with honesty if “nobody’s listening”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm still busy wondering why you're trying to blame President Trump for LEFTIST laws and policies, and why you think you're fooling anyone.
> 
> G'head, Cornball.  Tell us again how "mean" we are because of laws we had nothing to do with passing.  Tell us again how YOUR laws and YOUR court cases and YOUR smokescreens of yesterday somehow add up to a ringing indictment of OUR character.
> 
> I think we're all enjoying laughing at your increasingly threadbare pretenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The typically polite racist GOP Dupe believes in being cruel 2 immigrants as a solution, along with a a useless wall. Insanity runs in their families... We've 100 years of that BS...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my goodness, you actually managed to address the topic!
> 
> Okay, so, not everyone who crosses our borders are "immigrants". And you have a very sordid definition of what cruelty is. Listen, sending a child along through a hellish landscape of smugglers and drug cartels, alone, is cruel. What kind of worthless parent do you have to be to do that to your children? The whole idea of being a parent is facing trials and tribulations with the child. Not subjecting their innocence to it all by their lonesome.
Click to expand...

We're talking about fleeing a a country where GOP produced drug gangs are about to kill your kids, dumbass.


----------



## Kondor3

francoHFW said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Pass the goddamn ID card and end this GOP scam.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya'll should have bitten on the ID Card hook while you still could... as things stand now, it seems likely that it's now off the table.
> 
> Your (collective) pi$$ing and moaning about poor ghetto trash not being able to get an ID card finally drove 'em to something more draconian.
> 
> Well done.
> 
> Next time, go the Middle Ground while you still can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Although a voter i d is unnecessary totally, you would get one with a national ID card like everyone else has.
Click to expand...

Looks like they've gone beyond that now, driven there by your (collective) recalcitrance over the past couple of decades. Too little, too late.

You guys have really got to start working on your timing... it seems to be wwaaaayyy off nowadays.


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Franco's been on my ignore list because he attacked my mother and my sister.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I'm afraid I have to inform you that you didn't miss anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Franco would be on my ignore list, except I don't even consider him worth THAT much effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One thing about Franko, if you read his last two posts, you read the next 1,000 of his posts.
Click to expand...


He's an empty barrel for sure


----------



## francoHFW

TemplarKormac said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> One would wonder why you’re responding.
> 
> 
> 
> Because tired, shopworn word-play still needs to be countered, lest it re-infect the less intelligent amongst you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> One would wonder why someone would be “re-infected” with honesty if “nobody’s listening”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm still busy wondering why you're trying to blame President Trump for LEFTIST laws and policies, and why you think you're fooling anyone.
> 
> G'head, Cornball.  Tell us again how "mean" we are because of laws we had nothing to do with passing.  Tell us again how YOUR laws and YOUR court cases and YOUR smokescreens of yesterday somehow add up to a ringing indictment of OUR character.
> 
> I think we're all enjoying laughing at your increasingly threadbare pretenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The typically polite racist GOP Dupe believes in being cruel 2 immigrants as a solution, along with a a useless wall. Insanity runs in their families... We've 100 years of that BS...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my goodness, you actually managed to address the topic!
> 
> Okay, so, not everyone who crosses our borders are "immigrants". And you have a very sordid definition of what cruelty is. Listen, sending a child along through a hellish landscape of smugglers and drug cartels, alone, is cruel. What kind of worthless parent do you have to be to do that to your children? The whole idea of being a parent is facing trials and tribulations with the child. Not subjecting their innocence to it all by their lonesome.
Click to expand...

Where have you been? Thanks for finally reading my posts.


----------



## Kondor3

francoHFW said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because tired, shopworn word-play still needs to be countered, lest it re-infect the less intelligent amongst you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> One would wonder why someone would be “re-infected” with honesty if “nobody’s listening”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm still busy wondering why you're trying to blame President Trump for LEFTIST laws and policies, and why you think you're fooling anyone.
> 
> G'head, Cornball.  Tell us again how "mean" we are because of laws we had nothing to do with passing.  Tell us again how YOUR laws and YOUR court cases and YOUR smokescreens of yesterday somehow add up to a ringing indictment of OUR character.
> 
> I think we're all enjoying laughing at your increasingly threadbare pretenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The typically polite racist GOP Dupe believes in being cruel 2 immigrants as a solution, along with a a useless wall. Insanity runs in their families... We've 100 years of that BS...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my goodness, you actually managed to address the topic!
> 
> Okay, so, not everyone who crosses our borders are "immigrants". And you have a very sordid definition of what cruelty is. Listen, sending a child along through a hellish landscape of smugglers and drug cartels, alone, is cruel. What kind of worthless parent do you have to be to do that to your children? The whole idea of being a parent is facing trials and tribulations with the child. Not subjecting their innocence to it all by their lonesome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're talking about fleeing a a country where GOP produced drug gangs are about to kill your kids, dumbass.
Click to expand...

Not our circus, not our monkeys... let 'em ask Mexico for asylum... we're full-up.


----------



## TemplarKormac

francoHFW said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because tired, shopworn word-play still needs to be countered, lest it re-infect the less intelligent amongst you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> One would wonder why someone would be “re-infected” with honesty if “nobody’s listening”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm still busy wondering why you're trying to blame President Trump for LEFTIST laws and policies, and why you think you're fooling anyone.
> 
> G'head, Cornball.  Tell us again how "mean" we are because of laws we had nothing to do with passing.  Tell us again how YOUR laws and YOUR court cases and YOUR smokescreens of yesterday somehow add up to a ringing indictment of OUR character.
> 
> I think we're all enjoying laughing at your increasingly threadbare pretenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The typically polite racist GOP Dupe believes in being cruel 2 immigrants as a solution, along with a a useless wall. Insanity runs in their families... We've 100 years of that BS...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my goodness, you actually managed to address the topic!
> 
> Okay, so, not everyone who crosses our borders are "immigrants". And you have a very sordid definition of what cruelty is. Listen, sending a child along through a hellish landscape of smugglers and drug cartels, alone, is cruel. What kind of worthless parent do you have to be to do that to your children? The whole idea of being a parent is facing trials and tribulations with the child. Not subjecting their innocence to it all by their lonesome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're talking about fleeing a a country where GOP produced drug gangs are about to kill your kids, dumbass.
Click to expand...


Ha, those "drug gangs" were running rampant in Mexico, Central America and South America long before the "War on Drugs" ever became a thing.


----------



## Cecilie1200

francoHFW said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because tired, shopworn word-play still needs to be countered, lest it re-infect the less intelligent amongst you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> One would wonder why someone would be “re-infected” with honesty if “nobody’s listening”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm still busy wondering why you're trying to blame President Trump for LEFTIST laws and policies, and why you think you're fooling anyone.
> 
> G'head, Cornball.  Tell us again how "mean" we are because of laws we had nothing to do with passing.  Tell us again how YOUR laws and YOUR court cases and YOUR smokescreens of yesterday somehow add up to a ringing indictment of OUR character.
> 
> I think we're all enjoying laughing at your increasingly threadbare pretenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The typically polite racist GOP Dupe believes in being cruel 2 immigrants as a solution, along with a a useless wall. Insanity runs in their families... We've 100 years of that BS...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my goodness, you actually managed to address the topic!
> 
> Okay, so, not everyone who crosses our borders are "immigrants". And you have a very sordid definition of what cruelty is. Listen, sending a child along through a hellish landscape of smugglers and drug cartels, alone, is cruel. What kind of worthless parent do you have to be to do that to your children? The whole idea of being a parent is facing trials and tribulations with the child. Not subjecting their innocence to it all by their lonesome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're talking about fleeing a a country where GOP produced drug gangs are about to kill your kids, dumbass.
Click to expand...


Oh, what-the fuck-ever.  You're extra-delusional, even for you, which I'm pretty sure requires a rewriting of the laws of physics.


----------



## francoHFW

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Franco's been on my ignore list because he attacked my mother and my sister.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I'm afraid I have to inform you that you didn't miss anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Franco would be on my ignore list, except I don't even consider him worth THAT much effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One thing about Franko, if you read his last two posts, you read the next 1,000 of his posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's an empty barrel for sure
Click to expand...

There is only one solution, like basically every other country, a national ID card the GOP has blocked forever. You think the solution is emptiness? Laugh out loud at the brainwashed functional moron...


----------



## TemplarKormac

francoHFW said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because tired, shopworn word-play still needs to be countered, lest it re-infect the less intelligent amongst you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> One would wonder why someone would be “re-infected” with honesty if “nobody’s listening”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm still busy wondering why you're trying to blame President Trump for LEFTIST laws and policies, and why you think you're fooling anyone.
> 
> G'head, Cornball.  Tell us again how "mean" we are because of laws we had nothing to do with passing.  Tell us again how YOUR laws and YOUR court cases and YOUR smokescreens of yesterday somehow add up to a ringing indictment of OUR character.
> 
> I think we're all enjoying laughing at your increasingly threadbare pretenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The typically polite racist GOP Dupe believes in being cruel 2 immigrants as a solution, along with a a useless wall. Insanity runs in their families... We've 100 years of that BS...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my goodness, you actually managed to address the topic!
> 
> Okay, so, not everyone who crosses our borders are "immigrants". And you have a very sordid definition of what cruelty is. Listen, sending a child along through a hellish landscape of smugglers and drug cartels, alone, is cruel. What kind of worthless parent do you have to be to do that to your children? The whole idea of being a parent is facing trials and tribulations with the child. Not subjecting their innocence to it all by their lonesome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where have you been? Thanks for finally reading my posts.
Click to expand...

 I actually read posts before I respond to them, Franco. Unlike you. 

Wait, why am I even talking to you?

I'm out.


----------



## francoHFW

Cecilie1200 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> One would wonder why someone would be “re-infected” with honesty if “nobody’s listening”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still busy wondering why you're trying to blame President Trump for LEFTIST laws and policies, and why you think you're fooling anyone.
> 
> G'head, Cornball.  Tell us again how "mean" we are because of laws we had nothing to do with passing.  Tell us again how YOUR laws and YOUR court cases and YOUR smokescreens of yesterday somehow add up to a ringing indictment of OUR character.
> 
> I think we're all enjoying laughing at your increasingly threadbare pretenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The typically polite racist GOP Dupe believes in being cruel 2 immigrants as a solution, along with a a useless wall. Insanity runs in their families... We've 100 years of that BS...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my goodness, you actually managed to address the topic!
> 
> Okay, so, not everyone who crosses our borders are "immigrants". And you have a very sordid definition of what cruelty is. Listen, sending a child along through a hellish landscape of smugglers and drug cartels, alone, is cruel. What kind of worthless parent do you have to be to do that to your children? The whole idea of being a parent is facing trials and tribulations with the child. Not subjecting their innocence to it all by their lonesome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're talking about fleeing a a country where GOP produced drug gangs are about to kill your kids, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, what-the fuck-ever.  You're extra-delusional, even for you, which I'm pretty sure requires a rewriting of the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

Almost done arguing with idiots for today. Any argument at all, mealy-mouthed super duper? Do your grandchildren know you are a racist, polite is still racist...


----------



## Cosmos

Well, now that this is settled 99.95% of these asylum-seekers can just turn around and go home.
_
US rejects asylum case in landmark ruling_

_Jeff Sessions said being a victim of domestic abuse or gang violence does not necessarily qualify for US asylum.

America's top law official said the "asylum statute is not a general hardship statute" and that immigrants were exploiting the system.

Activists say the move will affect tens of thousands of asylum applications.

"Generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-governmental actors will not qualify for asylum," Mr Sessions wrote in his ruling. _

_He added: "The mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes - such as domestic violence or gang violence - or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim."_


----------



## candycorn

Kondor3 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No…
> 
> You just become meaner, forgetting why America was exceptional in the first place. Also forgetting that there is a difference between being strong and being tough.
> 
> 
> 
> Tired, shopworn word-play that is no longer effective... nobody's listening anymore, outside your own base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> One would wonder why you’re responding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because tired, shopworn word-play still needs to be countered, lest it re-infect the less intelligent amongst you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> One would wonder why someone would be “re-infected” with honesty if “nobody’s listening”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Noise, continuously blaring, eventually makes an impression.
> 
> Refutation of your tired, shopworn word-play serves to cancel-out that noise.
> 
> On the other hand, the more intelligent and pragmatic amongst you have come to realize that it's bad optics to stand alongside Illegal Aliens rather than your countrymen.
> 
> We need look no further than the Dems in the Senate refusing to shut down the government a second time on behalf of Dreamers, after making that mistake in early 2017.
> 
> Slowly but surely, your party is re-learning the Primary Lesson (stand with your countrymen) of November 8, 2016.
Click to expand...


ok

if nobody was listening...refutation would not be necessary.

Almost as unnecessary as kidnapping children under the guise of national defense.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Franco funnys everything. lol.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The really pathetic thing about conservatives is that back in 1988, most of these folks were all for Bush Sr. and his “kinder, gentler nation”.  And in 2000, they were for his son’s “more humble place in the world”.  Today they are sponsoring ripping kids from their parents for no reason except for wholesale cruelty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the one thing about us Republicans, we learn as we go along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No…
> 
> You just become meaner, forgetting why America was exceptional in the first place. Also forgetting that there is a difference between being strong and being tough.
Click to expand...


There is also a difference between being a sucker and being strong; a difference between being used and being tough.  

Now if you can show me how being "nice" has worked out, I'll be glad to debate you on that subject.  Don't get me wrong, I understand your empathy, I can relate.  It's the way I feel when I see a skinny stray cat in my yard.  I'm tempted to get some lunchmeat and let the animal have a party, but in doing so, I'd be adopting a cat because the damn thing will never leave, and likely mate or draw more stays to my property.  So it really kills me not to feed the poor animal.  

But we have a country of our own to take care of.  When all our problems are solved, then we are ready to take on world problems.


----------



## HappyJoy

Kondor3 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...BTW, it's not illegal to arrive at the border and present yourself as an asylum seeker...
> 
> 
> 
> True. But it's illegal to *CROSS* the border and then to plead asylum afterwards... which is what most of your Beaner Buddies do anyway.
Click to expand...


Both happens, it apparently doesn't matter we're ripping both apart.  We shouldn't be doing it at all ya' racist pos.


----------



## Kondor3

HappyJoy said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...BTW, it's not illegal to arrive at the border and present yourself as an asylum seeker...
> 
> 
> 
> True. But it's illegal to *CROSS* the border and then to plead asylum afterwards... which is what most of your Beaner Buddies do anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both happens, it apparently doesn't matter we're ripping both apart...
Click to expand...

Both do indeed happen. Trouble for you is, for every legitimate asylum request, another 99 are bull$hit, and now they're being viewed *OFFICIALLY* as bull$hit.

Ahhhhhh... life is good.



> ...We shouldn't be doing it at all ya' racist pos.


Says you, little LibTard Snowflake... the Hypersensitive Wigger Complaint Department is down the hall, 13th door on the Left.


----------



## HappyJoy

Kondor3 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...BTW, it's not illegal to arrive at the border and present yourself as an asylum seeker...
> 
> 
> 
> True. But it's illegal to *CROSS* the border and then to plead asylum afterwards... which is what most of your Beaner Buddies do anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both happens, it apparently doesn't matter we're ripping both apart...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both do indeed happen. Trouble for you is, for every legitimate asylum request, another 99 are bull$hit, and now they're being viewed *OFFICIALLY* as bull$hit.
Click to expand...


Recently a so called caravan of people reached our southern border in need of help. Whether we choose to help them or not is one thing, treating them like cattle is something else. Separating families, whether they seek asylum or cross the border illegally is inhumane and unnecessary. Illegal immigration right now is at a low and to be honest we actually need more immigration in this country not less as our population ages and we have fewer in our workforce.  



> Ahhhhhh... life is good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...We shouldn't be doing it at all ya' racist pos.
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, little LibTard Snowflake... the Hypersensitive Wigger Complaint Department is down the hall, 13th door on the Left.
Click to expand...


I'm not the one who is afraid of immigration, pussy.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cosmos said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> An animal? Yep, you guys love to treat other humans as 'animals'.
> 
> BTW, it's not illegal to arrive at the border and present yourself as an asylum seeker, putz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can also do that at the US Consulate in Mexico City, dipshit.  People who cross into the US illegally are no different than wild dogs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose, but why does it matter if it's legal either way?
> 
> Dipshit, seeking asylum at the border is not crossing it illegally.
> 
> And even those who do try to cross illegally, they aren't dogs, they are still people and should be treated as such, especially in our justice system it's what separates the United States from the likes of Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not people.  They are goddamn animals.  If they were people they would respect borders and laws.  They would obtain the proper legal paperwork and go to a legal Port of Entry where they would ask for permission to enter our country.  They are fucking animals that pay no attention to such things.  I don't know what the purpose is of the radical fascist leftist in this country who are trying to undermine our borders, but it can't be good.  Maybe you can tell us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They would obtain the proper legal paperwork and go to a legal Port of Entry where they would ask for permission to enter our country. They are fucking animals that pay no attention to such things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Trump admin is separating even those asylum seekers who appear at a port of entry.
> There is no crime in applying for asylum. It is a legal process.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
> 
> A mother and her 7-year-old daughter escaping persecution and "near certain death" by fleeing the Democratic Republic of Congohave been separated for nearly four months, according to a legal complaint filed today by the ACLU.
> 
> Referred to in the case as "Ms. L" and "S.S.," the mother and daughter arrived in San Ysidro, California, Nov. 1. They told border guards they were seeking asylum, according to the court documents. Ms. L passed what's called a "credible fear interview," where an officer determined she and S.S. had a "significant possibility of ultimately receiving asylum."
> 
> Like many asylum-seekers, the two were detained while their application was processed. Under longstanding policy, families typically are kept intact at detention centers or released with a court date.
> 
> But just four days after arriving in the U.S., Ms. L was sent to Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego County while S.S. was ripped away from her and flown to another center in Chicago, according to the filing. S.S. speaks Lingala, a few words of Spanish and no English.
> 
> Contacted by ABC News about the case, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said the department does not comment on pending litigation.
> 
> The complaint claims, "When the officers separated them, Ms. L. could hear her daughter in the next room frantically screaming that she wanted to remain with her mother.” Ms. L said that no one involved in the process explained that her daughter would be taken away, to where she would be taken or when they would next see each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This story stinks to high heaven.  You're expecting us to believe that this woman and her daughter feared for their life in the Congo, somehow magically escaped and arrived in San Ysidro, California, the first place they came across where they could find asylum.  Bullshit.  She was brought there by human traffickers after paying a fee and she should be immediately sent straight back to Congo.
Click to expand...


The point, dope is they arrived at a point of entry like you suggested they should. They were still separated. There is no crime in applying for asylum.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

HappyJoy said:


> Recently a so called caravan of people reached our southern border in need of help. Whether we choose to help them or not is one thing, treating them like cattle is something else. Separating families, whether they seek asylum or cross the border illegally is inhumane and unnecessary. Illegal immigration right now is at a low and to be honest we actually need more immigration in this country not less as our population ages and we have fewer in our workforce.



So let's see, what could happen if we don't have enough workers for certain jobs?  Did you say employers will have to increase their wage and benefit offers?  If that's what you were thinking, you are absolutely correct. 

Asylum is for people with nowhere else to go because of corrupt governments or extremely dangerous governments.  So they crossed Mexico and headed for the US.  If they are so desperate, why not just seek asylum in Mexico and stop right there?   After all, Mexico has some nice places over there.  I know several Americans who vacation every year in Mexico.  

I guess the reason would be that Mexico is not a country of suckers.


----------



## HappyJoy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Recently a so called caravan of people reached our southern border in need of help. Whether we choose to help them or not is one thing, treating them like cattle is something else. Separating families, whether they seek asylum or cross the border illegally is inhumane and unnecessary. Illegal immigration right now is at a low and to be honest we actually need more immigration in this country not less as our population ages and we have fewer in our workforce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let's see, what could happen if we don't have enough workers for certain jobs?  Did you say employers will have to increase their wage and benefit offers?  If that's what you were thinking, you are absolutely correct.
Click to expand...


Production goes down, the economy retracts, your pretend stock market portfolio goes in the shitter. 



> Asylum is for people with nowhere else to go because of corrupt governments or extremely dangerous governments.  So they crossed Mexico and headed for the US.  If they are so desperate, why not just seek asylum in Mexico and stop right there?   After all, Mexico has some nice places over there.  I know several Americans who vacation every year in Mexico.
> 
> I guess the reason would be that Mexico is not a country of suckers.



Mexico isn't the United States and in order to retire like an American in Mexico requires American money.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

HappyJoy said:


> Production goes down, the economy retracts, your pretend stock market portfolio goes in the shitter.



Why would production go down?  It wouldn't because there would still be production, just more expensive production.  More Americans making more money (and keeping it in our borders) would be great for the economy.  

Trump at some point will address our social program issues.  Those who are physically and mentally capable of working should be.  Kicking those people off of our programs will put more workers into the market.  



HappyJoy said:


> Mexico isn't the United States and in order to retire like an American in Mexico requires American money.



I didn't say retire, I said seek asylum.  My only point being is that Mexico is not an entirely violent country.  Those who seek refuge can find it there.


----------



## Cosmos

Hutch Starskey said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can also do that at the US Consulate in Mexico City, dipshit.  People who cross into the US illegally are no different than wild dogs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose, but why does it matter if it's legal either way?
> 
> Dipshit, seeking asylum at the border is not crossing it illegally.
> 
> And even those who do try to cross illegally, they aren't dogs, they are still people and should be treated as such, especially in our justice system it's what separates the United States from the likes of Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not people.  They are goddamn animals.  If they were people they would respect borders and laws.  They would obtain the proper legal paperwork and go to a legal Port of Entry where they would ask for permission to enter our country.  They are fucking animals that pay no attention to such things.  I don't know what the purpose is of the radical fascist leftist in this country who are trying to undermine our borders, but it can't be good.  Maybe you can tell us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They would obtain the proper legal paperwork and go to a legal Port of Entry where they would ask for permission to enter our country. They are fucking animals that pay no attention to such things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Trump admin is separating even those asylum seekers who appear at a port of entry.
> There is no crime in applying for asylum. It is a legal process.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
> 
> A mother and her 7-year-old daughter escaping persecution and "near certain death" by fleeing the Democratic Republic of Congohave been separated for nearly four months, according to a legal complaint filed today by the ACLU.
> 
> Referred to in the case as "Ms. L" and "S.S.," the mother and daughter arrived in San Ysidro, California, Nov. 1. They told border guards they were seeking asylum, according to the court documents. Ms. L passed what's called a "credible fear interview," where an officer determined she and S.S. had a "significant possibility of ultimately receiving asylum."
> 
> Like many asylum-seekers, the two were detained while their application was processed. Under longstanding policy, families typically are kept intact at detention centers or released with a court date.
> 
> But just four days after arriving in the U.S., Ms. L was sent to Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego County while S.S. was ripped away from her and flown to another center in Chicago, according to the filing. S.S. speaks Lingala, a few words of Spanish and no English.
> 
> Contacted by ABC News about the case, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said the department does not comment on pending litigation.
> 
> The complaint claims, "When the officers separated them, Ms. L. could hear her daughter in the next room frantically screaming that she wanted to remain with her mother.” Ms. L said that no one involved in the process explained that her daughter would be taken away, to where she would be taken or when they would next see each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This story stinks to high heaven.  You're expecting us to believe that this woman and her daughter feared for their life in the Congo, somehow magically escaped and arrived in San Ysidro, California, the first place they came across where they could find asylum.  Bullshit.  She was brought there by human traffickers after paying a fee and she should be immediately sent straight back to Congo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point, dope is they arrived at a point of entry like you suggested they should. They were still separated. There is no crime in applying for asylum.
Click to expand...


Homeland Security obviously didn't see it that way, dipshit.  And they're not commenting.  Can't you fucking read?  Don't you have any common sense?  You're nothing but a slobbering idiot if you think it's at all credible that this woman shows up in California legitimately seeking asylum.  More than likely they caught her with her ass packed full of drugs and the kid isn't even hers.


----------



## HappyJoy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Production goes down, the economy retracts, your pretend stock market portfolio goes in the shitter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would production go down?  It wouldn't because there would still be production, just more expensive production.  More Americans making more money (and keeping it in our borders) would be great for the economy.
Click to expand...


Sure, the cost of production would go up, but there would be literally less people to work so there would also be less productivity. Less demand as well since fewer people would be buying shit because fewer people would be in the workforce.



> Trump at some point will address our social program issues.  Those who are physically and mentally capable of working should be.  Kicking those people off of our programs will put more workers into the market.



Thanks to years of an improving economy we're pretty much at full employment. Many people if not most who receive benefits not related to medicare and social security are working right now.



> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico isn't the United States and in order to retire like an American in Mexico requires American money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say retire, I said seek asylum.  My only point being is that Mexico is not an entirely violent country.  Those who seek refuge can find it there.
Click to expand...


You're going to have to ask Mexico that but my guess is Mexico doesn't want them. Of course you're next question is going to be why should we take them if Mexico doesn't and my answer is going to be we're better than Mexico.


----------



## HappyJoy

Cosmos said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose, but why does it matter if it's legal either way?
> 
> Dipshit, seeking asylum at the border is not crossing it illegally.
> 
> And even those who do try to cross illegally, they aren't dogs, they are still people and should be treated as such, especially in our justice system it's what separates the United States from the likes of Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not people.  They are goddamn animals.  If they were people they would respect borders and laws.  They would obtain the proper legal paperwork and go to a legal Port of Entry where they would ask for permission to enter our country.  They are fucking animals that pay no attention to such things.  I don't know what the purpose is of the radical fascist leftist in this country who are trying to undermine our borders, but it can't be good.  Maybe you can tell us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They would obtain the proper legal paperwork and go to a legal Port of Entry where they would ask for permission to enter our country. They are fucking animals that pay no attention to such things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Trump admin is separating even those asylum seekers who appear at a port of entry.
> There is no crime in applying for asylum. It is a legal process.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
> 
> A mother and her 7-year-old daughter escaping persecution and "near certain death" by fleeing the Democratic Republic of Congohave been separated for nearly four months, according to a legal complaint filed today by the ACLU.
> 
> Referred to in the case as "Ms. L" and "S.S.," the mother and daughter arrived in San Ysidro, California, Nov. 1. They told border guards they were seeking asylum, according to the court documents. Ms. L passed what's called a "credible fear interview," where an officer determined she and S.S. had a "significant possibility of ultimately receiving asylum."
> 
> Like many asylum-seekers, the two were detained while their application was processed. Under longstanding policy, families typically are kept intact at detention centers or released with a court date.
> 
> But just four days after arriving in the U.S., Ms. L was sent to Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego County while S.S. was ripped away from her and flown to another center in Chicago, according to the filing. S.S. speaks Lingala, a few words of Spanish and no English.
> 
> Contacted by ABC News about the case, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said the department does not comment on pending litigation.
> 
> The complaint claims, "When the officers separated them, Ms. L. could hear her daughter in the next room frantically screaming that she wanted to remain with her mother.” Ms. L said that no one involved in the process explained that her daughter would be taken away, to where she would be taken or when they would next see each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This story stinks to high heaven.  You're expecting us to believe that this woman and her daughter feared for their life in the Congo, somehow magically escaped and arrived in San Ysidro, California, the first place they came across where they could find asylum.  Bullshit.  She was brought there by human traffickers after paying a fee and she should be immediately sent straight back to Congo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point, dope is they arrived at a point of entry like you suggested they should. They were still separated. There is no crime in applying for asylum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homeland Security obviously didn't see it that way, dipshit.  And they're not commenting.  Can't you fucking read?  Don't you have any common sense?  You're nothing but a slobbering idiot if you think it's at all credible that this woman shows up in California legitimately seeking asylum.  More than likely they caught her with her ass packed full of drugs and the kid isn't even hers.
Click to expand...


You have zero proof of this, has she been charged with smuggling drugs? That's not exactly top secret information.


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The really pathetic thing about conservatives is that back in 1988, most of these folks were all for Bush Sr. and his “kinder, gentler nation”.  And in 2000, they were for his son’s “more humble place in the world”.  Today they are sponsoring ripping kids from their parents for no reason except for wholesale cruelty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the one thing about us Republicans, we learn as we go along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No…
> 
> You just become meaner, forgetting why America was exceptional in the first place. Also forgetting that there is a difference between being strong and being tough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is also a difference between being a sucker and being strong; a difference between being used and being tough.
> 
> Now if you can show me how being "nice" has worked out, I'll be glad to debate you on that subject.  Don't get me wrong, I understand your empathy, I can relate.  It's the way I feel when I see a skinny stray cat in my yard.  I'm tempted to get some lunchmeat and let the animal have a party, but in doing so, I'd be adopting a cat because the damn thing will never leave, and likely mate or draw more stays to my property.  So it really kills me not to feed the poor animal.
> 
> But we have a country of our own to take care of.  When all our problems are solved, then we are ready to take on world problems.
Click to expand...


I would tell you to "look around" at the nation that was built being "nice"...that how long it has been sustained, that we have a state that if it were it's own nation would be the 5th in the world in terms of GDP, the nation that put a man on the moon, the nobel prize winners our educational system has spawned...hell, Freakonomics guru Steven Dubner reports that the US spends $60B a year on lawn upkeep!  

But we know you'll find some other bullshit reason for all of that.  Very few cultures rise despite it's government.  Government plays it's role, to be sure.  Research grants, patent laws, trade agreements, security, etc...  

Ok.  tear down the nation's achievements..  Your turn.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

HappyJoy said:


> Sure, the cost of production would go up, but there would be literally less people to work so there would also be less productivity. Less demand as well since fewer people would be buying shit because fewer people would be in the workforce.



No, more Americans would be in the workforce.  They wouldn't be replaced by foreigners which means more people working. 



HappyJoy said:


> Thanks to years of an improving economy we're pretty much at full employment. Many people if not most who receive benefits not related to medicare and social security are working right now.



And they aren't working enough.  Several states (Maine comes to mind) put in requirements for people without dependents to receive food stamps.  Most of those people dropped out of the program.  It seems the weren't that hungry after all. 

The users know how to play the game.  Keep your income below X, and you can still work and collect taxpayer dollars.  This needs to stop.  





HappyJoy said:


> You're going to have to ask Mexico that but my guess is Mexico doesn't want them. Of course you're next question is going to be why should we take them if Mexico doesn't and my answer is going to be we're better than Mexico.



Better or more gullible?  Yeah, if nobody else wants you, go to the US or Europe.  They'll take anybody.  And then you wonder why they come here with their children on top of thing?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The really pathetic thing about conservatives is that back in 1988, most of these folks were all for Bush Sr. and his “kinder, gentler nation”.  And in 2000, they were for his son’s “more humble place in the world”.  Today they are sponsoring ripping kids from their parents for no reason except for wholesale cruelty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the one thing about us Republicans, we learn as we go along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No…
> 
> You just become meaner, forgetting why America was exceptional in the first place. Also forgetting that there is a difference between being strong and being tough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is also a difference between being a sucker and being strong; a difference between being used and being tough.
> 
> Now if you can show me how being "nice" has worked out, I'll be glad to debate you on that subject.  Don't get me wrong, I understand your empathy, I can relate.  It's the way I feel when I see a skinny stray cat in my yard.  I'm tempted to get some lunchmeat and let the animal have a party, but in doing so, I'd be adopting a cat because the damn thing will never leave, and likely mate or draw more stays to my property.  So it really kills me not to feed the poor animal.
> 
> But we have a country of our own to take care of.  When all our problems are solved, then we are ready to take on world problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would tell you to "look around" at the nation that was built being "nice"...that how long it has been sustained, that we have a state that if it were it's own nation would be the 5th in the world in terms of GDP, the nation that put a man on the moon, the nobel prize winners our educational system has spawned...hell, Freakonomics guru Steven Dubner reports that the US spends $60B a year on lawn upkeep!
> 
> But we know you'll find some other bullshit reason for all of that.  Very few cultures rise despite it's government.  Government plays it's role, to be sure.  Research grants, patent laws, trade agreements, security, etc...
> 
> Ok.  tear down the nation's achievements..  Your turn.
Click to expand...


So are you suggesting we don't have our own problems to deal with?  Every country has problems.  Yes, we do live in the greatest country in the world, but we are also 20 trillion dollars in debt, have a drug problem, healthcare problems, violence problems, race problems.......need I continue?  

Point being is we have enough problems without accepting even more that foreigners bring us.  When we have room for more problems, then let them bring it on.


----------



## HappyJoy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> No, more Americans would be in the workforce.  They wouldn't be replaced by foreigners which means more people working.



You're really missing the point. There aren't enough of us, comprende? 



> And they aren't working enough.  Several states (Maine comes to mind) put in requirements for people without dependents to receive food stamps.  Most of those people dropped out of the program.  It seems the weren't that hungry after all.



First off, you're not dependable for information. How many of those people already had a job? Your response doesn't seem to address that. 



> The users know how to play the game.  Keep your income below X, and you can still work and collect taxpayer dollars.  This needs to stop.



Or they work at Wal Mart or something similar and they simply don't pay enough even though they make massive profits and are forced onto public assistance so the rest of us get to subsidize them on behalf of their employer.




> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to have to ask Mexico that but my guess is Mexico doesn't want them. Of course you're next question is going to be why should we take them if Mexico doesn't and my answer is going to be we're better than Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better or more gullible?  Yeah, if nobody else wants you, go to the US or Europe.  They'll take anybody.  And then you wonder why they come here with their children on top of thing?
Click to expand...


Better. We are the strongest country in the world and in order to remain so we need a strong and productive workforce, we're simply not spitting out as many offspring as we need and Mexico and South America have just the kind of workers we need.

More Unskilled Workers, Please


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The really pathetic thing about conservatives is that back in 1988, most of these folks were all for Bush Sr. and his “kinder, gentler nation”.  And in 2000, they were for his son’s “more humble place in the world”.  Today they are sponsoring ripping kids from their parents for no reason except for wholesale cruelty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the one thing about us Republicans, we learn as we go along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No…
> 
> You just become meaner, forgetting why America was exceptional in the first place. Also forgetting that there is a difference between being strong and being tough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is also a difference between being a sucker and being strong; a difference between being used and being tough.
> 
> Now if you can show me how being "nice" has worked out, I'll be glad to debate you on that subject.  Don't get me wrong, I understand your empathy, I can relate.  It's the way I feel when I see a skinny stray cat in my yard.  I'm tempted to get some lunchmeat and let the animal have a party, but in doing so, I'd be adopting a cat because the damn thing will never leave, and likely mate or draw more stays to my property.  So it really kills me not to feed the poor animal.
> 
> But we have a country of our own to take care of.  When all our problems are solved, then we are ready to take on world problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would tell you to "look around" at the nation that was built being "nice"...that how long it has been sustained, that we have a state that if it were it's own nation would be the 5th in the world in terms of GDP, the nation that put a man on the moon, the nobel prize winners our educational system has spawned...hell, Freakonomics guru Steven Dubner reports that the US spends $60B a year on lawn upkeep!
> 
> But we know you'll find some other bullshit reason for all of that.  Very few cultures rise despite it's government.  Government plays it's role, to be sure.  Research grants, patent laws, trade agreements, security, etc...
> 
> Ok.  tear down the nation's achievements..  Your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you suggesting we don't have our own problems to deal with?  Every country has problems.  Yes, we do live in the greatest country in the world, but we are also 20 trillion dollars in debt, have a drug problem, healthcare problems, violence problems, race problems.......need I continue?
> 
> Point being is we have enough problems without accepting even more that foreigners bring us.  When we have room for more problems, then let them bring it on.
Click to expand...


The immigrants have largely been beneficial on the way to our becoming "the greatest country in the world".  You see it reflected in cheaper labor, cheaper food costs, the absence of labor shortages, etc... 

We had drug problems since the 60's, healthcare problems since the 80's, not sure about the violence problems, but we've always had race problems.....suddenly it's the fault of immigrants?  One would think (if he wasn't a conservative) that our problems with drugs is because of our demand for drugs.  Healthcare problems come from our insane system of your employer paying for your insurance.  As for the debt---a trillion of which was just added by your Messiah--building a wall will do what? We're still going to pay for the border control.  People will still overstay their visas, people will still smuggle themselves in through areas where the wall is not...  Wanting to pay $25B for just the cost of the thing and yearly upkeep and then still having to pay for all of the manpower that is there now is pretty fiscally stupid; especially in light of the fact that most do not come across the border.  

All that being said..Either way, it's not the fault of the kids that come over illegally with their parents.  Is it?


----------



## Cosmos

HappyJoy said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are not people.  They are goddamn animals.  If they were people they would respect borders and laws.  They would obtain the proper legal paperwork and go to a legal Port of Entry where they would ask for permission to enter our country.  They are fucking animals that pay no attention to such things.  I don't know what the purpose is of the radical fascist leftist in this country who are trying to undermine our borders, but it can't be good.  Maybe you can tell us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They would obtain the proper legal paperwork and go to a legal Port of Entry where they would ask for permission to enter our country. They are fucking animals that pay no attention to such things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Trump admin is separating even those asylum seekers who appear at a port of entry.
> There is no crime in applying for asylum. It is a legal process.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
> 
> A mother and her 7-year-old daughter escaping persecution and "near certain death" by fleeing the Democratic Republic of Congohave been separated for nearly four months, according to a legal complaint filed today by the ACLU.
> 
> Referred to in the case as "Ms. L" and "S.S.," the mother and daughter arrived in San Ysidro, California, Nov. 1. They told border guards they were seeking asylum, according to the court documents. Ms. L passed what's called a "credible fear interview," where an officer determined she and S.S. had a "significant possibility of ultimately receiving asylum."
> 
> Like many asylum-seekers, the two were detained while their application was processed. Under longstanding policy, families typically are kept intact at detention centers or released with a court date.
> 
> But just four days after arriving in the U.S., Ms. L was sent to Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego County while S.S. was ripped away from her and flown to another center in Chicago, according to the filing. S.S. speaks Lingala, a few words of Spanish and no English.
> 
> Contacted by ABC News about the case, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said the department does not comment on pending litigation.
> 
> The complaint claims, "When the officers separated them, Ms. L. could hear her daughter in the next room frantically screaming that she wanted to remain with her mother.” Ms. L said that no one involved in the process explained that her daughter would be taken away, to where she would be taken or when they would next see each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This story stinks to high heaven.  You're expecting us to believe that this woman and her daughter feared for their life in the Congo, somehow magically escaped and arrived in San Ysidro, California, the first place they came across where they could find asylum.  Bullshit.  She was brought there by human traffickers after paying a fee and she should be immediately sent straight back to Congo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point, dope is they arrived at a point of entry like you suggested they should. They were still separated. There is no crime in applying for asylum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homeland Security obviously didn't see it that way, dipshit.  And they're not commenting.  Can't you fucking read?  Don't you have any common sense?  You're nothing but a slobbering idiot if you think it's at all credible that this woman shows up in California legitimately seeking asylum.  More than likely they caught her with her ass packed full of drugs and the kid isn't even hers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have zero proof of this, has she been charged with smuggling drugs? That's not exactly top secret information.
Click to expand...


That's mere speculation.  Can't you read, you idiot?  The link said she was put in detention and DHS isn't commenting.  That means she's got a problem and isn't on the up and up.


----------



## HappyJoy

Cosmos said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Trump admin is separating even those asylum seekers who appear at a port of entry.
> There is no crime in applying for asylum. It is a legal process.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
> 
> A mother and her 7-year-old daughter escaping persecution and "near certain death" by fleeing the Democratic Republic of Congohave been separated for nearly four months, according to a legal complaint filed today by the ACLU.
> 
> Referred to in the case as "Ms. L" and "S.S.," the mother and daughter arrived in San Ysidro, California, Nov. 1. They told border guards they were seeking asylum, according to the court documents. Ms. L passed what's called a "credible fear interview," where an officer determined she and S.S. had a "significant possibility of ultimately receiving asylum."
> 
> Like many asylum-seekers, the two were detained while their application was processed. Under longstanding policy, families typically are kept intact at detention centers or released with a court date.
> 
> But just four days after arriving in the U.S., Ms. L was sent to Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego County while S.S. was ripped away from her and flown to another center in Chicago, according to the filing. S.S. speaks Lingala, a few words of Spanish and no English.
> 
> Contacted by ABC News about the case, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said the department does not comment on pending litigation.
> 
> The complaint claims, "When the officers separated them, Ms. L. could hear her daughter in the next room frantically screaming that she wanted to remain with her mother.” Ms. L said that no one involved in the process explained that her daughter would be taken away, to where she would be taken or when they would next see each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This story stinks to high heaven.  You're expecting us to believe that this woman and her daughter feared for their life in the Congo, somehow magically escaped and arrived in San Ysidro, California, the first place they came across where they could find asylum.  Bullshit.  She was brought there by human traffickers after paying a fee and she should be immediately sent straight back to Congo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point, dope is they arrived at a point of entry like you suggested they should. They were still separated. There is no crime in applying for asylum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homeland Security obviously didn't see it that way, dipshit.  And they're not commenting.  Can't you fucking read?  Don't you have any common sense?  You're nothing but a slobbering idiot if you think it's at all credible that this woman shows up in California legitimately seeking asylum.  More than likely they caught her with her ass packed full of drugs and the kid isn't even hers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have zero proof of this, has she been charged with smuggling drugs? That's not exactly top secret information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's mere speculation.  Can't you read, you idiot?  The link said she was put in detention and DHS isn't commenting.  That means she's got a problem and isn't on the up and up.
Click to expand...


No, that doesn't mean 'she's got a problem' other than being detained. You are just making excuses for her being separated.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the one thing about us Republicans, we learn as we go along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No…
> 
> You just become meaner, forgetting why America was exceptional in the first place. Also forgetting that there is a difference between being strong and being tough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is also a difference between being a sucker and being strong; a difference between being used and being tough.
> 
> Now if you can show me how being "nice" has worked out, I'll be glad to debate you on that subject.  Don't get me wrong, I understand your empathy, I can relate.  It's the way I feel when I see a skinny stray cat in my yard.  I'm tempted to get some lunchmeat and let the animal have a party, but in doing so, I'd be adopting a cat because the damn thing will never leave, and likely mate or draw more stays to my property.  So it really kills me not to feed the poor animal.
> 
> But we have a country of our own to take care of.  When all our problems are solved, then we are ready to take on world problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would tell you to "look around" at the nation that was built being "nice"...that how long it has been sustained, that we have a state that if it were it's own nation would be the 5th in the world in terms of GDP, the nation that put a man on the moon, the nobel prize winners our educational system has spawned...hell, Freakonomics guru Steven Dubner reports that the US spends $60B a year on lawn upkeep!
> 
> But we know you'll find some other bullshit reason for all of that.  Very few cultures rise despite it's government.  Government plays it's role, to be sure.  Research grants, patent laws, trade agreements, security, etc...
> 
> Ok.  tear down the nation's achievements..  Your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you suggesting we don't have our own problems to deal with?  Every country has problems.  Yes, we do live in the greatest country in the world, but we are also 20 trillion dollars in debt, have a drug problem, healthcare problems, violence problems, race problems.......need I continue?
> 
> Point being is we have enough problems without accepting even more that foreigners bring us.  When we have room for more problems, then let them bring it on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The immigrants have largely been beneficial on the way to our becoming "the greatest country in the world".  You see it reflected in cheaper labor, cheaper food costs, the absence of labor shortages, etc...
> 
> We had drug problems since the 60's, healthcare problems since the 80's, not sure about the violence problems, but we've always had race problems.....suddenly it's the fault of immigrants?  One would think (if he wasn't a conservative) that our problems with drugs is because of our demand for drugs.  Healthcare problems come from our insane system of your employer paying for your insurance.  As for the debt---a trillion of which was just added by your Messiah--building a wall will do what? We're still going to pay for the border control.  People will still overstay their visas, people will still smuggle themselves in through areas where the wall is not...  Wanting to pay $25B for just the cost of the thing and yearly upkeep and then still having to pay for all of the manpower that is there now is pretty fiscally stupid; especially in light of the fact that most do not come across the border.
> 
> All that being said..Either way, it's not the fault of the kids that come over illegally with their parents.  Is it?
Click to expand...


I never said it was the fault of immigrants.  What I said is that we have enough of our own problems without inviting more into our country.  

At one time many years ago, we did need immigrants. We were a nation building, we were in need of labor of all kinds.  That's not the case any longer.  We don't need them here with the exception of cheaper labor.  

What Trump wants for the wall is about less than half of what we spend for food stamps every single year.  It's a one time expense with some minor maintenance as time goes on.  And don't drag Trump into this when half of that 20 trillion was spent by Ears.  

No, it's not the fault of the kids, it's the fault of the adults and not our fault.  This is how we process illegals coming into our country.  If they are so worried about the kids, stay in your own Fn country and quit placing the blame on us.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

HappyJoy said:


> You're really missing the point. There aren't enough of us, comprende?



We have just under 4% unemployment.  What are all these unemployed people doing if we need labor?  Comprende?



HappyJoy said:


> First off, you're not dependable for information. How many of those people already had a job? Your response doesn't seem to address that.



None of them.  One of the requirements is that in order to stay on food stamps, you had to be working at least 20 hours a week.  Apparently they didn't meet that requirement nor wanted to.



HappyJoy said:


> Or they work at Wal Mart or something similar and they simply don't pay enough even though they make massive profits and are forced onto public assistance so the rest of us get to subsidize them on behalf of their employer.



Then vote Republican.  If we cut out those subsidies you speak of, those people would either work more hours or find better paying work.  But as long as we reward them for working part-time, of course they won't seek higher income.

_*"Folks, if you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't."*_
Rush Limbaugh



HappyJoy said:


> Better. We are the strongest country in the world and in order to remain so we need a strong and productive workforce, we're simply not spitting out as many offspring as we need and Mexico and South America have just the kind of workers we need.



We have just the kind of workers we need.  But in order to spit them out, we need a strong social program reform and employers offering better pay and benefits which will happen if we starve the immigrant workforce.


----------



## Cosmos

HappyJoy said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> This story stinks to high heaven.  You're expecting us to believe that this woman and her daughter feared for their life in the Congo, somehow magically escaped and arrived in San Ysidro, California, the first place they came across where they could find asylum.  Bullshit.  She was brought there by human traffickers after paying a fee and she should be immediately sent straight back to Congo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point, dope is they arrived at a point of entry like you suggested they should. They were still separated. There is no crime in applying for asylum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homeland Security obviously didn't see it that way, dipshit.  And they're not commenting.  Can't you fucking read?  Don't you have any common sense?  You're nothing but a slobbering idiot if you think it's at all credible that this woman shows up in California legitimately seeking asylum.  More than likely they caught her with her ass packed full of drugs and the kid isn't even hers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have zero proof of this, has she been charged with smuggling drugs? That's not exactly top secret information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's mere speculation.  Can't you read, you idiot?  The link said she was put in detention and DHS isn't commenting.  That means she's got a problem and isn't on the up and up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that doesn't mean 'she's got a problem' other than being detained. You are just making excuses for her being separated.
Click to expand...


Oh of course.  DHS takes people into custody just for the hell of it.  They're all Trumpster racists.  And you're an incredibly stupid asshole.


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No…
> 
> You just become meaner, forgetting why America was exceptional in the first place. Also forgetting that there is a difference between being strong and being tough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is also a difference between being a sucker and being strong; a difference between being used and being tough.
> 
> Now if you can show me how being "nice" has worked out, I'll be glad to debate you on that subject.  Don't get me wrong, I understand your empathy, I can relate.  It's the way I feel when I see a skinny stray cat in my yard.  I'm tempted to get some lunchmeat and let the animal have a party, but in doing so, I'd be adopting a cat because the damn thing will never leave, and likely mate or draw more stays to my property.  So it really kills me not to feed the poor animal.
> 
> But we have a country of our own to take care of.  When all our problems are solved, then we are ready to take on world problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would tell you to "look around" at the nation that was built being "nice"...that how long it has been sustained, that we have a state that if it were it's own nation would be the 5th in the world in terms of GDP, the nation that put a man on the moon, the nobel prize winners our educational system has spawned...hell, Freakonomics guru Steven Dubner reports that the US spends $60B a year on lawn upkeep!
> 
> But we know you'll find some other bullshit reason for all of that.  Very few cultures rise despite it's government.  Government plays it's role, to be sure.  Research grants, patent laws, trade agreements, security, etc...
> 
> Ok.  tear down the nation's achievements..  Your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you suggesting we don't have our own problems to deal with?  Every country has problems.  Yes, we do live in the greatest country in the world, but we are also 20 trillion dollars in debt, have a drug problem, healthcare problems, violence problems, race problems.......need I continue?
> 
> Point being is we have enough problems without accepting even more that foreigners bring us.  When we have room for more problems, then let them bring it on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The immigrants have largely been beneficial on the way to our becoming "the greatest country in the world".  You see it reflected in cheaper labor, cheaper food costs, the absence of labor shortages, etc...
> 
> We had drug problems since the 60's, healthcare problems since the 80's, not sure about the violence problems, but we've always had race problems.....suddenly it's the fault of immigrants?  One would think (if he wasn't a conservative) that our problems with drugs is because of our demand for drugs.  Healthcare problems come from our insane system of your employer paying for your insurance.  As for the debt---a trillion of which was just added by your Messiah--building a wall will do what? We're still going to pay for the border control.  People will still overstay their visas, people will still smuggle themselves in through areas where the wall is not...  Wanting to pay $25B for just the cost of the thing and yearly upkeep and then still having to pay for all of the manpower that is there now is pretty fiscally stupid; especially in light of the fact that most do not come across the border.
> 
> All that being said..Either way, it's not the fault of the kids that come over illegally with their parents.  Is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said it was the fault of immigrants.  What I said is that we have enough of our own problems without inviting more into our country.
> 
> At one time many years ago, we did need immigrants. We were a nation building, we were in need of labor of all kinds.  That's not the case any longer.  We don't need them here with the exception of cheaper labor.
> 
> What Trump wants for the wall is about less than half of what we spend for food stamps every single year.  It's a one time expense with some minor maintenance as time goes on.  And don't drag Trump into this when half of that 20 trillion was spent by Ears.
> 
> No, it's not the fault of the kids, it's the fault of the adults and not our fault.  This is how we process illegals coming into our country.  If they are so worried about the kids, stay in your own Fn country and quit placing the blame on us.
Click to expand...


But we punish the kids anyway....now it's a policy of doing it every time no exceptions.  

We've gone from being a "shiny city on the hill" to being whatever this is.  Or do you guys now disown Reagan too and have "learned from [your] mistakes" as well where he is concerned.  

As for not needing them for anything except cheap labor...there was this from 2013:

Foreigners Hold Half of All U.S. Patents Annually

In part, it reads....

*Innovation by the Numbers*
In 2013, 51 percent of the 303,000 patents filed in the U.S. were of foreign origin, according to the USPTO. That's a decrease of one percentage point compared to 2012, but about equal to the percentage of foreign patents granted every year for the past decade. To get some perspective, in 1963, only 18 percent of patents originated from foreign sources.

The force of foreign innovation is not only felt in patent creation,  it's also in the number of startups foreigners create in the U.S. The two are frequently related, as the company usually commercializes the patented idea or product.

Additionally, more than half of startups in Silicon Valley were founded by foreign-born entrepreneurs, according to Wadhwa and the Kauffman Foundation. (Kauffman's most recent index, released on Wednesday, also indicates that immigrant entrepreneurs are currently starting businesses at a rate roughly twice that of native-born business owners.)


I'm guessing Inc Magazine was part of the "deep state" when it was not fashionable.


----------



## WelfareQueen

Coyote said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally?  It's a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that.  I have no problem with a hearing and, if determined deportation.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to inact this draconian policy in the meantime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that it would be inhumane to house small children in adult detention facilities with potential pedophiles or other serious criminals.  Kind of makes sense doesn't?  Would you want your 8 year old child housed in a maximum security prison with adult male inmates?  My guess is probably not.
> 
> That is why kids are adults are separated.  Plus...it is the Law.  And we are a Nation of Laws or should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.  Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders.  Kids don’t have to be removed.  We exercised this discretion before why not now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry....the law is the law.  Under US law in this circumstance kids have to be removed to protect them when their adult parents have broken the law and you do not want to house kids in adult correctional facilities. And yeah....their parents broke the law so they have to go in correctional facilities just like the rest of us when we break the law.
> 
> Kind of easy to understand in my opinion.  Slave owners exercised "discretion" in violation of US Law.  It doesn't make it right.  Either we are a Nation of Laws or we are not.  It really could not be more simple.  You cannot pick and choose the Laws you like versus the ones you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jaywalking is against the law.  So is parking in no parking areas.  Should their kids be removed?  Should they be put into correctional institutions?  Why aren’t they?
Click to expand...



Sorry...not equivalent...but nice try.


----------



## WelfareQueen

HappyJoy said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting...
> 
> How much? How much discretion is required for it to be acceptable?
> 
> You say we're a nation of laws. Are we? Are we a nation of laws when we continually look for ways to circumvent them like we do with immigration? Like states and cities do with sanctuary laws?
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders. Kids don’t have to be removed. We exercised this discretion before why not now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's like saying there should be no consequences for their coming here illegally. If they aren't going to obey our laws with one set of consequences, then another continuum of consequences must be set in place. The severity of the punishment must be enhanced.
> 
> What do you think would serve as a reliable and "humane" deterrent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that saying there should be no consequences?
> 
> They are detained.
> They will get a hearing.
> They will most likely be deported.
> 
> At a minimum, because there could also be incarceration or fines.
> 
> How are those NOT consequences?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are. But apparently the existing set of these so-called consequences do not serve as a strong enough deterrent. Something more needs to be done.
> 
> Incarceration is insufficient because they will have gotten what they wanted from the country they came to illegally. Food and shelter. They get more than that if they flee to a sanctuary.
> 
> Fines are insufficient, what money are they going to pay them with?
> 
> Hearings serve little to no purpose when the party concerned fails to show up for it. Which also makes incarcerating and detaining them a moot point.
> 
> Detention serves little purpose when we allow them to skirt our immigration laws by fleeing to sanctuary cities.
> 
> Reporting them only means we get to see them cross our border again. Which just shows how little these people care about the existing consequences.
> 
> Despite all of this,  they keep doing it, they keep breaking our laws. No, these are no longer are consequences. Just unfulfilled ultimatums. I get the feeling you want to maintain the status quo. Stay the course with consequences that these people are not afraid of.
> 
> Take their child away from them, and that will instill fear and compliance. That is a consequence they will pay attention to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration is down regardless.
> 
> But removing children from families as a punishment. That's a new low.
Click to expand...



Obama did it thousands of times....but I guess it was okay then.


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tired, shopworn word-play that is no longer effective... nobody's listening anymore, outside your own base.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> One would wonder why you’re responding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because tired, shopworn word-play still needs to be countered, lest it re-infect the less intelligent amongst you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> One would wonder why someone would be “re-infected” with honesty if “nobody’s listening”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Noise, continuously blaring, eventually makes an impression.
> 
> Refutation of your tired, shopworn word-play serves to cancel-out that noise.
> 
> On the other hand, the more intelligent and pragmatic amongst you have come to realize that it's bad optics to stand alongside Illegal Aliens rather than your countrymen.
> 
> We need look no further than the Dems in the Senate refusing to shut down the government a second time on behalf of Dreamers, after making that mistake in early 2017.
> 
> Slowly but surely, your party is re-learning the Primary Lesson (stand with your countrymen) of November 8, 2016.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> if nobody was listening...refutation would not be necessary.
> 
> Almost as unnecessary as kidnapping children under the guise of national defense.
Click to expand...


If you see it as "kidnapping", what the fuck did you leftists insist on it for?


----------



## Flopper

OKTexas said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *E-Verify is mostly a volunteer program.  If it becomes mandatory, everyone who works, 150 million would have to be verified to get a job.  If only 1% of the data is wrong, it will effect 1.5 million workers.  The data for E-verify comes from 20 different databases from over a dozen different agencies so how do you get it corrected?  Maybe a better question, how do you get your new employer to hold the job open while you get the E-Verify mess fixed.
> 
> Of course most people that hire undocumented immigrants, know they are undocumented and they hire them anyway. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> E-verify is voluntary because commiecrats want it that way. And employers that hire illegals should be jailed and their businesses confiscated under RICO. Only a couple would need be arrested and that crap would stop.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I think it's voluntary because it's not accurate enough.  It's one of many things that need to be changed. Many of the big farms contract with labor supplier who supposedly check immigration status, thus letting the farmer off the hook. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How hard could it be to match a name, DOB and ethnicity to a SSN?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Difficulty is not the problem. The complains are that it isn't accurate.  People with work permits less than 30 days old do not appear. Also people that left the country are still on the database.  That's why I say, the government can't require all employers use it.
> 
> There's another problem.  If you use it and it flags some people you have to have to complete a contract and you hire them anyway, then get caught you will be in deep shit.  However, if don't use E-Verify, there are a number exceptions you can use to get out of a penalty.  The law and the regulations are poorly conceived. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People here on temp work permits would have the permit, I don't they would be issued a SSN. And why wouldn't people who have left the country be on the data base, if they were issued a SSN?
> 
> We also need to make E-verify mandatory and eliminate those loopholes.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

*I agree we need to cleanup E-Verify, but I'm not sure it should be mandatory.  I think we should put more pressure on employers not to hire illegals.  However, if farmers don't get pickers, the crop rots in field.  I think farmers would opt to hire illegals rather than lose their crop.    *


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> All people get  to chime in here. They voted for Trump. some didn't, that's democracy.  They voted on legalizing marijuana  even, but not ONCE anywhere have we Americans got to VOTE on allowing the state to skirt, no, flaunt  federal immigration laws. It's shocking actually. Most of us would like to get to vote on that, being that this is still a democracy and all. So why can't we vote on that? Does that threaten somebody? We can't leave this up to a rabble after all.
> 
> 
> 
> *The only sanctuary states are:
> California
> Colorado
> Illinois
> Massachusetts
> New Mexico
> Oregon
> Vermont
> 
> They are all blue states that would most likely vote to support the state government view on sanctuary.
> 
> With the exception of California, most of these states are not going to have any problem defending there position. For example, prohibiting law enforcement officers at the state, county or municipal level from enforcing federal immigration laws that target people based on their race or ethnic origin, when those individuals are not suspected of any criminal activities.  That's a pretty safe move, telling their people not enforce immigration laws that would violate the Civil Rights Act.  Since no law enforcement officers is going to make a decision as to what immigration laws might violate the Civil Rights Act, they simply won't enforce any of them. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they are asking is simply that they notify the feds when an illegal is arrested and taken to jail.  They won't allow their officers to do that whether they want to or not.
Click to expand...

*Different states and cities approach sanctuary in different way.  My city I suppose is a sanctuary city.  The city council passed a resolution urging all citizens to use care in judging the immigration status of residents and reminding law enforcement that the city was not responsible for enforcing federal laws.  The wording is not exact but this is meaning.

Frankly, I think the city council resolution was totally unnecessary.  The vast majority of people in this area are democrats and no law enforcement officer is going to be calling ICE or assisting in an immigration raid.  If you notice the cities and states that are sanctuary cities, they are almost all blue. With or without laws and resolution, ICE is not likely to get much help in those areas.      *


----------



## Flopper

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting...
> 
> How much? How much discretion is required for it to be acceptable?
> 
> You say we're a nation of laws. Are we? Are we a nation of laws when we continually look for ways to circumvent them like we do with immigration? Like states and cities do with sanctuary laws?
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders. Kids don’t have to be removed. We exercised this discretion before why not now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's like saying there should be no consequences for their coming here illegally. If they aren't going to obey our laws with one set of consequences, then another continuum of consequences must be set in place. The severity of the punishment must be enhanced.
> 
> What do you think would serve as a reliable and "humane" deterrent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that saying there should be no consequences?
> 
> They are detained.
> They will get a hearing.
> They will most likely be deported.
> 
> At a minimum, because there could also be incarceration or fines.
> 
> How are those NOT consequences?
Click to expand...

*They can get a hearing as long as ICE does not get an order for expedited removal.  Those with families are going to plead guilty and wave their right to a hearing or trial in order to be united with their family.  That's what all the separation of parents and kids is all about.  ICE could put them in family detention centers but why do that?  Take the kids away and parents will plead guilty which speeds deportation, Trump gets better deportation stats, and the ICE Director gets to keep his job.*


----------



## Flopper

Cosmos said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A human would go the the Port of Entry and present their immigrant visa that they obtained at the US Consulate in Mexico City.
> 
> A fucking animal crosses anywhere they can get away with it.
> 
> So yeah, there's that aspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An animal? Yep, you guys love to treat other humans as 'animals'.
> 
> BTW, it's not illegal to arrive at the border and present yourself as an asylum seeker, putz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can also do that at the US Consulate in Mexico City, dipshit.  People who cross into the US illegally are no different than wild dogs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose, but why does it matter if it's legal either way?
> 
> Dipshit, seeking asylum at the border is not crossing it illegally.
> 
> And even those who do try to cross illegally, they aren't dogs, they are still people and should be treated as such, especially in our justice system it's what separates the United States from the likes of Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not people.  They are goddamn animals.  If they were people they would respect borders and laws.  They would obtain the proper legal paperwork and go to a legal Port of Entry where they would ask for permission to enter our country.  They are fucking animals that pay no attention to such things.  I don't know what the purpose is of the radical fascist leftist in this country who are trying to undermine our borders, but it can't be good.  Maybe you can tell us.
Click to expand...

*Well if they're just animals, then why don't you just shoot them and skip all the legal formalities.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A human would go the the Port of Entry and present their immigrant visa that they obtained at the US Consulate in Mexico City.
> 
> A fucking animal crosses anywhere they can get away with it.
> 
> So yeah, there's that aspect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An animal? Yep, you guys love to treat other humans as 'animals'.
> 
> BTW, it's not illegal to arrive at the border and present yourself as an asylum seeker, putz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can also do that at the US Consulate in Mexico City, dipshit.  People who cross into the US illegally are no different than wild dogs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose, but why does it matter if it's legal either way?
> 
> Dipshit, seeking asylum at the border is not crossing it illegally.
> 
> And even those who do try to cross illegally, they aren't dogs, they are still people and should be treated as such, especially in our justice system it's what separates the United States from the likes of Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not people.  They are goddamn animals.  If they were people they would respect borders and laws.  They would obtain the proper legal paperwork and go to a legal Port of Entry where they would ask for permission to enter our country.  They are fucking animals that pay no attention to such things.  I don't know what the purpose is of the radical fascist leftist in this country who are trying to undermine our borders, but it can't be good.  Maybe you can tell us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Well if they're just animals, then why don't you just shoot them and skip all the legal formalities.*
Click to expand...


Because today, you can get more time in jail for beating your animal than you can for beating your wife.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting...
> 
> How much? How much discretion is required for it to be acceptable?
> 
> You say we're a nation of laws. Are we? Are we a nation of laws when we continually look for ways to circumvent them like we do with immigration? Like states and cities do with sanctuary laws?
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders. Kids don’t have to be removed. We exercised this discretion before why not now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's like saying there should be no consequences for their coming here illegally. If they aren't going to obey our laws with one set of consequences, then another continuum of consequences must be set in place. The severity of the punishment must be enhanced.
> 
> What do you think would serve as a reliable and "humane" deterrent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that saying there should be no consequences?
> 
> They are detained.
> They will get a hearing.
> They will most likely be deported.
> 
> At a minimum, because there could also be incarceration or fines.
> 
> How are those NOT consequences?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *They can get a hearing as long as ICE does not get an order for expedited removal.  Those with families are going to plead guilty and wave their right to a hearing or trial in order to be united with their family.  That's what all the separation of parents and kids is all about.  ICE could put them in family detention centers but why do that?  Take the kids away and parents will plead guilty which speeds deportation, Trump gets better deportation stats, and the ICE Director gets to keep his job.*
Click to expand...


Wow, that is a great plan.  Good on Trump.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> All people get  to chime in here. They voted for Trump. some didn't, that's democracy.  They voted on legalizing marijuana  even, but not ONCE anywhere have we Americans got to VOTE on allowing the state to skirt, no, flaunt  federal immigration laws. It's shocking actually. Most of us would like to get to vote on that, being that this is still a democracy and all. So why can't we vote on that? Does that threaten somebody? We can't leave this up to a rabble after all.
> 
> 
> 
> *The only sanctuary states are:
> California
> Colorado
> Illinois
> Massachusetts
> New Mexico
> Oregon
> Vermont
> 
> They are all blue states that would most likely vote to support the state government view on sanctuary.
> 
> With the exception of California, most of these states are not going to have any problem defending there position. For example, prohibiting law enforcement officers at the state, county or municipal level from enforcing federal immigration laws that target people based on their race or ethnic origin, when those individuals are not suspected of any criminal activities.  That's a pretty safe move, telling their people not enforce immigration laws that would violate the Civil Rights Act.  Since no law enforcement officers is going to make a decision as to what immigration laws might violate the Civil Rights Act, they simply won't enforce any of them. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they are asking is simply that they notify the feds when an illegal is arrested and taken to jail.  They won't allow their officers to do that whether they want to or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Different states and cities approach sanctuary in different way.  My city I suppose is a sanctuary city.  The city council passed a resolution urging all citizens to use care in judging the immigration status of residents and reminding law enforcement that the city was not responsible for enforcing federal laws.  The wording is not exact but this is meaning.
> 
> Frankly, I think the city council resolution was totally unnecessary.  The vast majority of people in this area are democrats and no law enforcement officer is going to be calling ICE or assisting in an immigration raid.  If you notice the cities and states that are sanctuary cities, they are almost all blue. With or without laws and resolution, ICE is not likely to get much help in those areas.      *
Click to expand...


They would if the feds cut out their funds which Trump tried to do, but some commie activist judge stopped him.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is also a difference between being a sucker and being strong; a difference between being used and being tough.
> 
> Now if you can show me how being "nice" has worked out, I'll be glad to debate you on that subject.  Don't get me wrong, I understand your empathy, I can relate.  It's the way I feel when I see a skinny stray cat in my yard.  I'm tempted to get some lunchmeat and let the animal have a party, but in doing so, I'd be adopting a cat because the damn thing will never leave, and likely mate or draw more stays to my property.  So it really kills me not to feed the poor animal.
> 
> But we have a country of our own to take care of.  When all our problems are solved, then we are ready to take on world problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would tell you to "look around" at the nation that was built being "nice"...that how long it has been sustained, that we have a state that if it were it's own nation would be the 5th in the world in terms of GDP, the nation that put a man on the moon, the nobel prize winners our educational system has spawned...hell, Freakonomics guru Steven Dubner reports that the US spends $60B a year on lawn upkeep!
> 
> But we know you'll find some other bullshit reason for all of that.  Very few cultures rise despite it's government.  Government plays it's role, to be sure.  Research grants, patent laws, trade agreements, security, etc...
> 
> Ok.  tear down the nation's achievements..  Your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you suggesting we don't have our own problems to deal with?  Every country has problems.  Yes, we do live in the greatest country in the world, but we are also 20 trillion dollars in debt, have a drug problem, healthcare problems, violence problems, race problems.......need I continue?
> 
> Point being is we have enough problems without accepting even more that foreigners bring us.  When we have room for more problems, then let them bring it on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The immigrants have largely been beneficial on the way to our becoming "the greatest country in the world".  You see it reflected in cheaper labor, cheaper food costs, the absence of labor shortages, etc...
> 
> We had drug problems since the 60's, healthcare problems since the 80's, not sure about the violence problems, but we've always had race problems.....suddenly it's the fault of immigrants?  One would think (if he wasn't a conservative) that our problems with drugs is because of our demand for drugs.  Healthcare problems come from our insane system of your employer paying for your insurance.  As for the debt---a trillion of which was just added by your Messiah--building a wall will do what? We're still going to pay for the border control.  People will still overstay their visas, people will still smuggle themselves in through areas where the wall is not...  Wanting to pay $25B for just the cost of the thing and yearly upkeep and then still having to pay for all of the manpower that is there now is pretty fiscally stupid; especially in light of the fact that most do not come across the border.
> 
> All that being said..Either way, it's not the fault of the kids that come over illegally with their parents.  Is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said it was the fault of immigrants.  What I said is that we have enough of our own problems without inviting more into our country.
> 
> At one time many years ago, we did need immigrants. We were a nation building, we were in need of labor of all kinds.  That's not the case any longer.  We don't need them here with the exception of cheaper labor.
> 
> What Trump wants for the wall is about less than half of what we spend for food stamps every single year.  It's a one time expense with some minor maintenance as time goes on.  And don't drag Trump into this when half of that 20 trillion was spent by Ears.
> 
> No, it's not the fault of the kids, it's the fault of the adults and not our fault.  This is how we process illegals coming into our country.  If they are so worried about the kids, stay in your own Fn country and quit placing the blame on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we punish the kids anyway....now it's a policy of doing it every time no exceptions.
> 
> We've gone from being a "shiny city on the hill" to being whatever this is.  Or do you guys now disown Reagan too and have "learned from [your] mistakes" as well where he is concerned.
> 
> As for not needing them for anything except cheap labor...there was this from 2013:
> 
> Foreigners Hold Half of All U.S. Patents Annually
> 
> In part, it reads....
> 
> *Innovation by the Numbers*
> In 2013, 51 percent of the 303,000 patents filed in the U.S. were of foreign origin, according to the USPTO. That's a decrease of one percentage point compared to 2012, but about equal to the percentage of foreign patents granted every year for the past decade. To get some perspective, in 1963, only 18 percent of patents originated from foreign sources.
> 
> The force of foreign innovation is not only felt in patent creation,  it's also in the number of startups foreigners create in the U.S. The two are frequently related, as the company usually commercializes the patented idea or product.
> 
> Additionally, more than half of startups in Silicon Valley were founded by foreign-born entrepreneurs, according to Wadhwa and the Kauffman Foundation. (Kauffman's most recent index, released on Wednesday, also indicates that immigrant entrepreneurs are currently starting businesses at a rate roughly twice that of native-born business owners.)
> 
> 
> I'm guessing Inc Magazine was part of the "deep state" when it was not fashionable.
Click to expand...


So what? Some of them invented things like the Jogging Pad or some stupid device to unclog drains.  Like we can't do without that? 

Yes, we were the shining city on the hill, but now too many people are taking advantage of it.  Time to dull that shine and take the kids so future trespassers won't want to come here.


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would tell you to "look around" at the nation that was built being "nice"...that how long it has been sustained, that we have a state that if it were it's own nation would be the 5th in the world in terms of GDP, the nation that put a man on the moon, the nobel prize winners our educational system has spawned...hell, Freakonomics guru Steven Dubner reports that the US spends $60B a year on lawn upkeep!
> 
> But we know you'll find some other bullshit reason for all of that.  Very few cultures rise despite it's government.  Government plays it's role, to be sure.  Research grants, patent laws, trade agreements, security, etc...
> 
> Ok.  tear down the nation's achievements..  Your turn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you suggesting we don't have our own problems to deal with?  Every country has problems.  Yes, we do live in the greatest country in the world, but we are also 20 trillion dollars in debt, have a drug problem, healthcare problems, violence problems, race problems.......need I continue?
> 
> Point being is we have enough problems without accepting even more that foreigners bring us.  When we have room for more problems, then let them bring it on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The immigrants have largely been beneficial on the way to our becoming "the greatest country in the world".  You see it reflected in cheaper labor, cheaper food costs, the absence of labor shortages, etc...
> 
> We had drug problems since the 60's, healthcare problems since the 80's, not sure about the violence problems, but we've always had race problems.....suddenly it's the fault of immigrants?  One would think (if he wasn't a conservative) that our problems with drugs is because of our demand for drugs.  Healthcare problems come from our insane system of your employer paying for your insurance.  As for the debt---a trillion of which was just added by your Messiah--building a wall will do what? We're still going to pay for the border control.  People will still overstay their visas, people will still smuggle themselves in through areas where the wall is not...  Wanting to pay $25B for just the cost of the thing and yearly upkeep and then still having to pay for all of the manpower that is there now is pretty fiscally stupid; especially in light of the fact that most do not come across the border.
> 
> All that being said..Either way, it's not the fault of the kids that come over illegally with their parents.  Is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said it was the fault of immigrants.  What I said is that we have enough of our own problems without inviting more into our country.
> 
> At one time many years ago, we did need immigrants. We were a nation building, we were in need of labor of all kinds.  That's not the case any longer.  We don't need them here with the exception of cheaper labor.
> 
> What Trump wants for the wall is about less than half of what we spend for food stamps every single year.  It's a one time expense with some minor maintenance as time goes on.  And don't drag Trump into this when half of that 20 trillion was spent by Ears.
> 
> No, it's not the fault of the kids, it's the fault of the adults and not our fault.  This is how we process illegals coming into our country.  If they are so worried about the kids, stay in your own Fn country and quit placing the blame on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we punish the kids anyway....now it's a policy of doing it every time no exceptions.
> 
> We've gone from being a "shiny city on the hill" to being whatever this is.  Or do you guys now disown Reagan too and have "learned from [your] mistakes" as well where he is concerned.
> 
> As for not needing them for anything except cheap labor...there was this from 2013:
> 
> Foreigners Hold Half of All U.S. Patents Annually
> 
> In part, it reads....
> 
> *Innovation by the Numbers*
> In 2013, 51 percent of the 303,000 patents filed in the U.S. were of foreign origin, according to the USPTO. That's a decrease of one percentage point compared to 2012, but about equal to the percentage of foreign patents granted every year for the past decade. To get some perspective, in 1963, only 18 percent of patents originated from foreign sources.
> 
> The force of foreign innovation is not only felt in patent creation,  it's also in the number of startups foreigners create in the U.S. The two are frequently related, as the company usually commercializes the patented idea or product.
> 
> Additionally, more than half of startups in Silicon Valley were founded by foreign-born entrepreneurs, according to Wadhwa and the Kauffman Foundation. (Kauffman's most recent index, released on Wednesday, also indicates that immigrant entrepreneurs are currently starting businesses at a rate roughly twice that of native-born business owners.)
> 
> 
> I'm guessing Inc Magazine was part of the "deep state" when it was not fashionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? Some of them invented things like the Jogging Pad or some stupid device to unclog drains.  Like we can't do without that?
Click to expand...

And the jobs that go along with making and selling them???




Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes, we were the shining city on the hill, but now too many people are taking advantage of it.  Time to dull that shine and take the kids so future trespassers won't want to come here.



I guess Reagan was a RINO?  

Man...how far you guys have fallen.  As the saying goes, for Trump supporters, you used to wonder when they would hit bottom.  Now you wonder if there is a bottom for "people" like yourself.

PS:  Would you be for sterilization of those that we kidnap?  If not...why not?  Wouldn't that send a message that is more serious than merely housing and feeding them--a virtual vacation--if that is your goal; to scare the shit out of people just for the sake of doing it?


----------



## Kondor3

candycorn said:


> ...immigrant entrepreneurs are currently starting businesses at a rate roughly twice that of native-born...


Doesn't matter... there was a time we needed and wanted immigrants... that time has come and gone... we're now "Full Up"... fun time's over, kiddies.

We are no longer a "_nation of immigrants_"... we are now a "_nation of the *DESCENDANTS* of immigrants_"... this isn't 1848... this is 2018... that time is behind us now.

We are Nova Europa... not Nuevo Azteca.


----------



## kaz

Kondor3 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...immigrant entrepreneurs are currently starting businesses at a rate roughly twice that of native-born...
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter... there was a time we needed and wanted immigrants... that time has come and gone... we're now "Full Up"... fun time's over, kiddies.
Click to expand...


It's about illegal aliens, not "immigrants"


----------



## candycorn

Kondor3 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...immigrant entrepreneurs are currently starting businesses at a rate roughly twice that of native-born...
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter... there was a time we needed and wanted immigrants... that time has come and gone... we're now "Full Up"... fun time's over, kiddies.
> 
> We are no longer a "_nation of immigrants_"... we are now a "_nation of the *DESCENDANTS* of immigrants_"... this isn't 1848... this is 2018... that time is behind us now.
> 
> We are Nova Europa... not Nuevo Azteca.
Click to expand...


Again...how small.


----------



## Kondor3

candycorn said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...immigrant entrepreneurs are currently starting businesses at a rate roughly twice that of native-born...
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter... there was a time we needed and wanted immigrants... that time has come and gone... we're now "Full Up"... fun time's over, kiddies.
> 
> We are no longer a "_nation of immigrants_"... we are now a "_nation of the *DESCENDANTS* of immigrants_"... this isn't 1848... this is 2018... that time is behind us now.
> 
> We are Nova Europa... not Nuevo Azteca.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again...how small.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter... we're now turning the screws on your little Beaner Buddies and they're beginning to get the message... close enough for Gubmint work.


----------



## Coyote

WelfareQueen said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that.  I have no problem with a hearing and, if determined deportation.
> 
> Do you think it's necessary to inact this draconian policy in the meantime?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that it would be inhumane to house small children in adult detention facilities with potential pedophiles or other serious criminals.  Kind of makes sense doesn't?  Would you want your 8 year old child housed in a maximum security prison with adult male inmates?  My guess is probably not.
> 
> That is why kids are adults are separated.  Plus...it is the Law.  And we are a Nation of Laws or should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.  Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders.  Kids don’t have to be removed.  We exercised this discretion before why not now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry....the law is the law.  Under US law in this circumstance kids have to be removed to protect them when their adult parents have broken the law and you do not want to house kids in adult correctional facilities. And yeah....their parents broke the law so they have to go in correctional facilities just like the rest of us when we break the law.
> 
> Kind of easy to understand in my opinion.  Slave owners exercised "discretion" in violation of US Law.  It doesn't make it right.  Either we are a Nation of Laws or we are not.  It really could not be more simple.  You cannot pick and choose the Laws you like versus the ones you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jaywalking is against the law.  So is parking in no parking areas.  Should their kids be removed?  Should they be put into correctional institutions?  Why aren’t they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry...not equivalent...but nice try.
Click to expand...

Very equivalent.  None are crimes of violence, take any lives or steal anyone’s property.  Trespassing is what it effectively.


----------



## Kondor3

Coyote said:


> ...Trespassing is what it effectively.


Trespassing is only the opening salvo, as they sneak across the border.

Forcing US taxpayers to pay for their children's education, depressing wages in various trades, and taking American jobs, are the most obvious post-trespassing sins.

We should not even be having this conversation.

Our country... not theirs.

If newcomers ask our permission and come (or stay here) legally, then they are welcome.

If newcomers sneak in, or overstay, then they can just get-the-hell out... no further National Conversation is necessary.


----------



## Cosmos

Coyote said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that it would be inhumane to house small children in adult detention facilities with potential pedophiles or other serious criminals.  Kind of makes sense doesn't?  Would you want your 8 year old child housed in a maximum security prison with adult male inmates?  My guess is probably not.
> 
> That is why kids are adults are separated.  Plus...it is the Law.  And we are a Nation of Laws or should be.
> 
> 
> 
> We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.  Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders.  Kids don’t have to be removed.  We exercised this discretion before why not now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry....the law is the law.  Under US law in this circumstance kids have to be removed to protect them when their adult parents have broken the law and you do not want to house kids in adult correctional facilities. And yeah....their parents broke the law so they have to go in correctional facilities just like the rest of us when we break the law.
> 
> Kind of easy to understand in my opinion.  Slave owners exercised "discretion" in violation of US Law.  It doesn't make it right.  Either we are a Nation of Laws or we are not.  It really could not be more simple.  You cannot pick and choose the Laws you like versus the ones you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jaywalking is against the law.  So is parking in no parking areas.  Should their kids be removed?  Should they be put into correctional institutions?  Why aren’t they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry...not equivalent...but nice try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very equivalent.  None are crimes of violence, take any lives or steal anyone’s property.  Trespassing is what it effectively.
Click to expand...


Not to mention fraud and identity theft....


----------



## Cosmos

Flopper said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A human would go the the Port of Entry and present their immigrant visa that they obtained at the US Consulate in Mexico City.
> 
> A fucking animal crosses anywhere they can get away with it.
> 
> So yeah, there's that aspect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An animal? Yep, you guys love to treat other humans as 'animals'.
> 
> BTW, it's not illegal to arrive at the border and present yourself as an asylum seeker, putz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can also do that at the US Consulate in Mexico City, dipshit.  People who cross into the US illegally are no different than wild dogs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose, but why does it matter if it's legal either way?
> 
> Dipshit, seeking asylum at the border is not crossing it illegally.
> 
> And even those who do try to cross illegally, they aren't dogs, they are still people and should be treated as such, especially in our justice system it's what separates the United States from the likes of Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not people.  They are goddamn animals.  If they were people they would respect borders and laws.  They would obtain the proper legal paperwork and go to a legal Port of Entry where they would ask for permission to enter our country.  They are fucking animals that pay no attention to such things.  I don't know what the purpose is of the radical fascist leftist in this country who are trying to undermine our borders, but it can't be good.  Maybe you can tell us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Well if they're just animals, then why don't you just shoot them and skip all the legal formalities.*
Click to expand...


Because I'm not a rabid leftist fascist like you, I guess.  I would not advocate a shoot-on-sight policy.  Deport them.

Anyway, why not take a stab at the question I posed.  I think the Democrats are trying to build up an ever larger undocumented population in this country to undermine our democracy and destroy the USA as we know it.  Why are they doing that and who is funding them?


----------



## candycorn

Kondor3 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...immigrant entrepreneurs are currently starting businesses at a rate roughly twice that of native-born...
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter... there was a time we needed and wanted immigrants... that time has come and gone... we're now "Full Up"... fun time's over, kiddies.
> 
> We are no longer a "_nation of immigrants_"... we are now a "_nation of the *DESCENDANTS* of immigrants_"... this isn't 1848... this is 2018... that time is behind us now.
> 
> We are Nova Europa... not Nuevo Azteca.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again...how small.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't matter... we're now turning the screws on your little Beaner Buddies and they're beginning to get the message... close enough for Gubmint work.
Click to expand...


Ahhh racial slurs now.  How small...how very small


----------



## danielpalos

a simpler visa could enable more skilled labor to try their luck in our markets; and enable local labor to move up locally.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting...
> 
> How much? How much discretion is required for it to be acceptable?
> 
> You say we're a nation of laws. Are we? Are we a nation of laws when we continually look for ways to circumvent them like we do with immigration? Like states and cities do with sanctuary laws?
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders. Kids don’t have to be removed. We exercised this discretion before why not now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's like saying there should be no consequences for their coming here illegally. If they aren't going to obey our laws with one set of consequences, then another continuum of consequences must be set in place. The severity of the punishment must be enhanced.
> 
> What do you think would serve as a reliable and "humane" deterrent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that saying there should be no consequences?
> 
> They are detained.
> They will get a hearing.
> They will most likely be deported.
> 
> At a minimum, because there could also be incarceration or fines.
> 
> How are those NOT consequences?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *They can get a hearing as long as ICE does not get an order for expedited removal.  Those with families are going to plead guilty and wave their right to a hearing or trial in order to be united with their family.  That's what all the separation of parents and kids is all about.  ICE could put them in family detention centers but why do that?  Take the kids away and parents will plead guilty which speeds deportation, Trump gets better deportation stats, and the ICE Director gets to keep his job.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, that is a great plan.  Good on Trump.
Click to expand...

*And you still have not solved the problem.  Hundreds of thousands will still continue to come into the country either illegal or overstay visas and we will still have 12 million undocumented immigrants in the US.  And in a few years, the politically pendulum will swing back to the left. *


----------



## Flopper

danielpalos said:


> a simpler visa could enable more skilled labor to try their luck in our markets; and enable local labor to move up locally.


*How so?*


----------



## Cosmos

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting...
> 
> How much? How much discretion is required for it to be acceptable?
> 
> You say we're a nation of laws. Are we? Are we a nation of laws when we continually look for ways to circumvent them like we do with immigration? Like states and cities do with sanctuary laws?
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders. Kids don’t have to be removed. We exercised this discretion before why not now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's like saying there should be no consequences for their coming here illegally. If they aren't going to obey our laws with one set of consequences, then another continuum of consequences must be set in place. The severity of the punishment must be enhanced.
> 
> What do you think would serve as a reliable and "humane" deterrent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that saying there should be no consequences?
> 
> They are detained.
> They will get a hearing.
> They will most likely be deported.
> 
> At a minimum, because there could also be incarceration or fines.
> 
> How are those NOT consequences?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *They can get a hearing as long as ICE does not get an order for expedited removal.  Those with families are going to plead guilty and wave their right to a hearing or trial in order to be united with their family.  That's what all the separation of parents and kids is all about.  ICE could put them in family detention centers but why do that?  Take the kids away and parents will plead guilty which speeds deportation, Trump gets better deportation stats, and the ICE Director gets to keep his job.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, that is a great plan.  Good on Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And you still have not solved the problem.  Hundreds of thousands will still continue to come into the country either illegal or overstay visas and we will still have 12 million undocumented immigrants in the US.  And in a few years, the politically pendulum will swing back to the left. *
Click to expand...


The asshole anti-American fascist leftists are counting on it.  We can easily see their plan for our destruction and their ultimate goal of making us over in the image of Venezuela.  My question is, Why?  Why do it and who's funding it?  And why are so many dumbass leftist Americans falling for it?

Build the Wall.


----------



## Flopper

Cosmos said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting...
> 
> How much? How much discretion is required for it to be acceptable?
> 
> You say we're a nation of laws. Are we? Are we a nation of laws when we continually look for ways to circumvent them like we do with immigration? Like states and cities do with sanctuary laws?
> 
> That's like saying there should be no consequences for their coming here illegally. If they aren't going to obey our laws with one set of consequences, then another continuum of consequences must be set in place. The severity of the punishment must be enhanced.
> 
> What do you think would serve as a reliable and "humane" deterrent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that saying there should be no consequences?
> 
> They are detained.
> They will get a hearing.
> They will most likely be deported.
> 
> At a minimum, because there could also be incarceration or fines.
> 
> How are those NOT consequences?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *They can get a hearing as long as ICE does not get an order for expedited removal.  Those with families are going to plead guilty and wave their right to a hearing or trial in order to be united with their family.  That's what all the separation of parents and kids is all about.  ICE could put them in family detention centers but why do that?  Take the kids away and parents will plead guilty which speeds deportation, Trump gets better deportation stats, and the ICE Director gets to keep his job.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, that is a great plan.  Good on Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And you still have not solved the problem.  Hundreds of thousands will still continue to come into the country either illegal or overstay visas and we will still have 12 million undocumented immigrants in the US.  And in a few years, the politically pendulum will swing back to the left. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The asshole anti-American fascist leftists are counting on it.  We can easily see their plan for our destruction and their ultimate goal of making us over in the image of Venezuela.  My question is, Why?  Why do it and who's funding it?  And why are so many dumbass leftist Americans falling for it?
> 
> Build the Wall.
Click to expand...

*Anti-American fascist leftists? 
Fascism is on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.

You forgot pinko, commies*


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cosmos said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose, but why does it matter if it's legal either way?
> 
> Dipshit, seeking asylum at the border is not crossing it illegally.
> 
> And even those who do try to cross illegally, they aren't dogs, they are still people and should be treated as such, especially in our justice system it's what separates the United States from the likes of Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not people.  They are goddamn animals.  If they were people they would respect borders and laws.  They would obtain the proper legal paperwork and go to a legal Port of Entry where they would ask for permission to enter our country.  They are fucking animals that pay no attention to such things.  I don't know what the purpose is of the radical fascist leftist in this country who are trying to undermine our borders, but it can't be good.  Maybe you can tell us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They would obtain the proper legal paperwork and go to a legal Port of Entry where they would ask for permission to enter our country. They are fucking animals that pay no attention to such things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Trump admin is separating even those asylum seekers who appear at a port of entry.
> There is no crime in applying for asylum. It is a legal process.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
> 
> A mother and her 7-year-old daughter escaping persecution and "near certain death" by fleeing the Democratic Republic of Congohave been separated for nearly four months, according to a legal complaint filed today by the ACLU.
> 
> Referred to in the case as "Ms. L" and "S.S.," the mother and daughter arrived in San Ysidro, California, Nov. 1. They told border guards they were seeking asylum, according to the court documents. Ms. L passed what's called a "credible fear interview," where an officer determined she and S.S. had a "significant possibility of ultimately receiving asylum."
> 
> Like many asylum-seekers, the two were detained while their application was processed. Under longstanding policy, families typically are kept intact at detention centers or released with a court date.
> 
> But just four days after arriving in the U.S., Ms. L was sent to Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego County while S.S. was ripped away from her and flown to another center in Chicago, according to the filing. S.S. speaks Lingala, a few words of Spanish and no English.
> 
> Contacted by ABC News about the case, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said the department does not comment on pending litigation.
> 
> The complaint claims, "When the officers separated them, Ms. L. could hear her daughter in the next room frantically screaming that she wanted to remain with her mother.” Ms. L said that no one involved in the process explained that her daughter would be taken away, to where she would be taken or when they would next see each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This story stinks to high heaven.  You're expecting us to believe that this woman and her daughter feared for their life in the Congo, somehow magically escaped and arrived in San Ysidro, California, the first place they came across where they could find asylum.  Bullshit.  She was brought there by human traffickers after paying a fee and she should be immediately sent straight back to Congo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point, dope is they arrived at a point of entry like you suggested they should. They were still separated. There is no crime in applying for asylum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homeland Security obviously didn't see it that way, dipshit.  And they're not commenting.  Can't you fucking read?  Don't you have any common sense?  You're nothing but a slobbering idiot if you think it's at all credible that this woman shows up in California legitimately seeking asylum.  More than likely they caught her with her ass packed full of drugs and the kid isn't even hers.
Click to expand...


It's you who cannot read, dumbass. They arrived at the San Ysidro border crossing and applied for asylum. Their application was accepted. There was no crime, dope.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cosmos said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Trump admin is separating even those asylum seekers who appear at a port of entry.
> There is no crime in applying for asylum. It is a legal process.
> 
> ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
> 
> A mother and her 7-year-old daughter escaping persecution and "near certain death" by fleeing the Democratic Republic of Congohave been separated for nearly four months, according to a legal complaint filed today by the ACLU.
> 
> Referred to in the case as "Ms. L" and "S.S.," the mother and daughter arrived in San Ysidro, California, Nov. 1. They told border guards they were seeking asylum, according to the court documents. Ms. L passed what's called a "credible fear interview," where an officer determined she and S.S. had a "significant possibility of ultimately receiving asylum."
> 
> Like many asylum-seekers, the two were detained while their application was processed. Under longstanding policy, families typically are kept intact at detention centers or released with a court date.
> 
> But just four days after arriving in the U.S., Ms. L was sent to Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego County while S.S. was ripped away from her and flown to another center in Chicago, according to the filing. S.S. speaks Lingala, a few words of Spanish and no English.
> 
> Contacted by ABC News about the case, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said the department does not comment on pending litigation.
> 
> The complaint claims, "When the officers separated them, Ms. L. could hear her daughter in the next room frantically screaming that she wanted to remain with her mother.” Ms. L said that no one involved in the process explained that her daughter would be taken away, to where she would be taken or when they would next see each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This story stinks to high heaven.  You're expecting us to believe that this woman and her daughter feared for their life in the Congo, somehow magically escaped and arrived in San Ysidro, California, the first place they came across where they could find asylum.  Bullshit.  She was brought there by human traffickers after paying a fee and she should be immediately sent straight back to Congo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point, dope is they arrived at a point of entry like you suggested they should. They were still separated. There is no crime in applying for asylum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homeland Security obviously didn't see it that way, dipshit.  And they're not commenting.  Can't you fucking read?  Don't you have any common sense?  You're nothing but a slobbering idiot if you think it's at all credible that this woman shows up in California legitimately seeking asylum.  More than likely they caught her with her ass packed full of drugs and the kid isn't even hers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have zero proof of this, has she been charged with smuggling drugs? That's not exactly top secret information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's mere speculation.  Can't you read, you idiot?  The link said she was put in detention and DHS isn't commenting.  That means she's got a problem and isn't on the up and up.
Click to expand...




Cosmos said:


> That's mere speculation. Can't you read, you idiot? The link said she was put in detention and DHS isn't commenting. That means she's got a problem and isn't on the up and up.


That's not what it says at all, captain comprehension.

Try this.

"Like many asylum-seekers, the two were detained while their application was processed. Under longstanding policy, families typically are kept intact at detention centers or released with a court date."


Applying for asylum is not a crime.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

candycorn said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...immigrant entrepreneurs are currently starting businesses at a rate roughly twice that of native-born...
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter... there was a time we needed and wanted immigrants... that time has come and gone... we're now "Full Up"... fun time's over, kiddies.
> 
> We are no longer a "_nation of immigrants_"... we are now a "_nation of the *DESCENDANTS* of immigrants_"... this isn't 1848... this is 2018... that time is behind us now.
> 
> We are Nova Europa... not Nuevo Azteca.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again...how small.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't matter... we're now turning the screws on your little Beaner Buddies and they're beginning to get the message... close enough for Gubmint work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahhh racial slurs now.  How small...how very small
Click to expand...


That's really what this is all about. Keeping America a white majority. None of them have the balls to actually say so.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that saying there should be no consequences?
> 
> They are detained.
> They will get a hearing.
> They will most likely be deported.
> 
> At a minimum, because there could also be incarceration or fines.
> 
> How are those NOT consequences?
> 
> 
> 
> *They can get a hearing as long as ICE does not get an order for expedited removal.  Those with families are going to plead guilty and wave their right to a hearing or trial in order to be united with their family.  That's what all the separation of parents and kids is all about.  ICE could put them in family detention centers but why do that?  Take the kids away and parents will plead guilty which speeds deportation, Trump gets better deportation stats, and the ICE Director gets to keep his job.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, that is a great plan.  Good on Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And you still have not solved the problem.  Hundreds of thousands will still continue to come into the country either illegal or overstay visas and we will still have 12 million undocumented immigrants in the US.  And in a few years, the politically pendulum will swing back to the left. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The asshole anti-American fascist leftists are counting on it.  We can easily see their plan for our destruction and their ultimate goal of making us over in the image of Venezuela.  My question is, Why?  Why do it and who's funding it?  And why are so many dumbass leftist Americans falling for it?
> 
> Build the Wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Anti-American fascist leftists?
> Fascism is on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.
> 
> You forgot pinko, commies*
Click to expand...


Wrong.  Fascism is on the right within the EUROPEAN spectrum, which is quite different from the American spectrum.

Apparently, what he REALLY forgot was "idiot".


----------



## koshergrl

Flopper said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that saying there should be no consequences?
> 
> They are detained.
> They will get a hearing.
> They will most likely be deported.
> 
> At a minimum, because there could also be incarceration or fines.
> 
> How are those NOT consequences?
> 
> 
> 
> *They can get a hearing as long as ICE does not get an order for expedited removal.  Those with families are going to plead guilty and wave their right to a hearing or trial in order to be united with their family.  That's what all the separation of parents and kids is all about.  ICE could put them in family detention centers but why do that?  Take the kids away and parents will plead guilty which speeds deportation, Trump gets better deportation stats, and the ICE Director gets to keep his job.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, that is a great plan.  Good on Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And you still have not solved the problem.  Hundreds of thousands will still continue to come into the country either illegal or overstay visas and we will still have 12 million undocumented immigrants in the US.  And in a few years, the politically pendulum will swing back to the left. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The asshole anti-American fascist leftists are counting on it.  We can easily see their plan for our destruction and their ultimate goal of making us over in the image of Venezuela.  My question is, Why?  Why do it and who's funding it?  And why are so many dumbass leftist Americans falling for it?
> 
> Build the Wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Anti-American fascist leftists?
> Fascism is on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.
> 
> You forgot pinko, commies*
Click to expand...


Nonsense. You fools keep mouthing that garbage like anybody takes it seriously.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Hutch Starskey said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...immigrant entrepreneurs are currently starting businesses at a rate roughly twice that of native-born...
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter... there was a time we needed and wanted immigrants... that time has come and gone... we're now "Full Up"... fun time's over, kiddies.
> 
> We are no longer a "_nation of immigrants_"... we are now a "_nation of the *DESCENDANTS* of immigrants_"... this isn't 1848... this is 2018... that time is behind us now.
> 
> We are Nova Europa... not Nuevo Azteca.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again...how small.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't matter... we're now turning the screws on your little Beaner Buddies and they're beginning to get the message... close enough for Gubmint work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahhh racial slurs now.  How small...how very small
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's really what this is all about. Keeping America a white majority. None of them have the balls to actually say so.
Click to expand...


I will.  That is part of it.  So if you're white, what's wrong with that?  What other group of people besides white liberals would support a government trying to make them a minority in their own country?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting...
> 
> How much? How much discretion is required for it to be acceptable?
> 
> You say we're a nation of laws. Are we? Are we a nation of laws when we continually look for ways to circumvent them like we do with immigration? Like states and cities do with sanctuary laws?
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders. Kids don’t have to be removed. We exercised this discretion before why not now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's like saying there should be no consequences for their coming here illegally. If they aren't going to obey our laws with one set of consequences, then another continuum of consequences must be set in place. The severity of the punishment must be enhanced.
> 
> What do you think would serve as a reliable and "humane" deterrent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that saying there should be no consequences?
> 
> They are detained.
> They will get a hearing.
> They will most likely be deported.
> 
> At a minimum, because there could also be incarceration or fines.
> 
> How are those NOT consequences?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *They can get a hearing as long as ICE does not get an order for expedited removal.  Those with families are going to plead guilty and wave their right to a hearing or trial in order to be united with their family.  That's what all the separation of parents and kids is all about.  ICE could put them in family detention centers but why do that?  Take the kids away and parents will plead guilty which speeds deportation, Trump gets better deportation stats, and the ICE Director gets to keep his job.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, that is a great plan.  Good on Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And you still have not solved the problem.  Hundreds of thousands will still continue to come into the country either illegal or overstay visas and we will still have 12 million undocumented immigrants in the US.  And in a few years, the politically pendulum will swing back to the left. *
Click to expand...


And if they do, then don't blame us for taking their kids away.  They knew that would happen before they left the house.  

Maybe we will never solve the problem, but reducing it as much as we can would be a big help.  The stronger the deterrent, the more reduction we have.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Cosmos said:


> Anyway, why not take a stab at the question I posed. I think the Democrats are trying to build up an ever larger undocumented population in this country to undermine our democracy and destroy the USA as we know it. Why are they doing that and who is funding them?



Why are they doing it?  For power like always with Democrats.  They calculate that if they can make whites a minority in this country, that will give them the ability to have a one-party government forever.  Ever other group outside of whites votes a majority Democrat.  

So the long term plan is to get as many of these people in this country as possible: low skill workers, high skill workers, illegals, MS-13 and other criminals.  It doesn't matter.  Because if they ever regain total power in the federal government again, they will grant blanket citizenship which comes with the right to vote. 

Don't buy all this sympathy from the left about immigrants.  Trust me, if immigrants were renown to vote Republican, not only would that wall be up, but a mote stocked with alligators and snipers on top of the wall.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> I guess Reagan was a RINO?
> 
> Man...how far you guys have fallen. As the saying goes, for Trump supporters, you used to wonder when they would hit bottom. Now you wonder if there is a bottom for "people" like yourself.
> 
> PS: Would you be for sterilization of those that we kidnap? If not...why not? Wouldn't that send a message that is more serious than merely housing and feeding them--a virtual vacation--if that is your goal; to scare the shit out of people just for the sake of doing it?



Well I'm not going to play that typical liberal extremist game with you.  Why not just ask if we should put those kids in hot factories and make them work 12 hour shifts? You people do this crap all the time in discussions. 

Reagan said one of his biggest mistakes as President was granting amnesty.  





candycorn said:


> And the jobs that go along with making and selling them???



Most of that crap is made in China.  Do you know what it takes to get a patent?  It's not a lot of hard work.  Make an ink pen cleaner and you can get a patent on it; you can get a patent on anything.  That doesn't mean it's productive or was produced or sold.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Hutch Starskey said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...immigrant entrepreneurs are currently starting businesses at a rate roughly twice that of native-born...
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter... there was a time we needed and wanted immigrants... that time has come and gone... we're now "Full Up"... fun time's over, kiddies.
> 
> We are no longer a "_nation of immigrants_"... we are now a "_nation of the *DESCENDANTS* of immigrants_"... this isn't 1848... this is 2018... that time is behind us now.
> 
> We are Nova Europa... not Nuevo Azteca.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again...how small.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't matter... we're now turning the screws on your little Beaner Buddies and they're beginning to get the message... close enough for Gubmint work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahhh racial slurs now.  How small...how very small
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's really what this is all about. Keeping America a white majority. None of them have the balls to actually say so.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I'm OBVIOUSLY a white supremacist.  That's totally why I married a man whose mother was an immigrant from Taiwan, and had children with him:  because I hate minorities from other countries, and want to preserve the white race.


----------



## Cosmos

Flopper said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that saying there should be no consequences?
> 
> They are detained.
> They will get a hearing.
> They will most likely be deported.
> 
> At a minimum, because there could also be incarceration or fines.
> 
> How are those NOT consequences?
> 
> 
> 
> *They can get a hearing as long as ICE does not get an order for expedited removal.  Those with families are going to plead guilty and wave their right to a hearing or trial in order to be united with their family.  That's what all the separation of parents and kids is all about.  ICE could put them in family detention centers but why do that?  Take the kids away and parents will plead guilty which speeds deportation, Trump gets better deportation stats, and the ICE Director gets to keep his job.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, that is a great plan.  Good on Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And you still have not solved the problem.  Hundreds of thousands will still continue to come into the country either illegal or overstay visas and we will still have 12 million undocumented immigrants in the US.  And in a few years, the politically pendulum will swing back to the left. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The asshole anti-American fascist leftists are counting on it.  We can easily see their plan for our destruction and their ultimate goal of making us over in the image of Venezuela.  My question is, Why?  Why do it and who's funding it?  And why are so many dumbass leftist Americans falling for it?
> 
> Build the Wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Anti-American fascist leftists?
> Fascism is on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.
> 
> You forgot pinko, commies*
Click to expand...


Well, bless your little heart.  Fascism is just on the "far-right" eh?  I'm generally a traditional sort but I think "leftist fascist" fits you anti-free speech, anti-2nd Amendment, anti-religious freedom, pro-abortion, pro-immigrant slave labor, open-border,  cop-killing, city-burning, anarchist bastards right down to the ground.


----------



## Kondor3

Hutch Starskey said:


> ...That's really what this is all about. Keeping America a white majority. None of them have the balls to actually say so.


Sniveling Wigger Complaints Department is down the hall, 13th door on The Left...

Meanwhile, the roundup of Illegal Aliens continues... and intensifies... < snicker >...


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Reagan was a RINO?
> 
> Man...how far you guys have fallen. As the saying goes, for Trump supporters, you used to wonder when they would hit bottom. Now you wonder if there is a bottom for "people" like yourself.
> 
> PS: Would you be for sterilization of those that we kidnap? If not...why not? Wouldn't that send a message that is more serious than merely housing and feeding them--a virtual vacation--if that is your goal; to scare the shit out of people just for the sake of doing it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not going to play that typical liberal extremist game with you.  Why not just ask if we should put those kids in hot factories and make them work 12 hour shifts? You people do this crap all the time in discussions.
> 
> Reagan said one of his biggest mistakes as President was granting amnesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the jobs that go along with making and selling them???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that crap is made in China.  Do you know what it takes to get a patent?  It's not a lot of hard work.  Make an ink pen cleaner and you can get a patent on it; you can get a patent on anything.  That doesn't mean it's productive or was produced or sold.
Click to expand...


Incredible....

So 1/2 of the patents go to people of foreign origin...
That means 1/2 go to natives.

If Immigrants are not contributing anything in terms of new products, ideas, etc...neither are Americans then.  Whatever.

Good discussion.  I've learned a lot about conservatives; all of it disgusting.


----------



## candycorn

Kondor3 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...immigrant entrepreneurs are currently starting businesses at a rate roughly twice that of native-born...
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter... there was a time we needed and wanted immigrants... that time has come and gone... we're now "Full Up"... fun time's over, kiddies.
> 
> We are no longer a "_nation of immigrants_"... we are now a "_nation of the *DESCENDANTS* of immigrants_"... this isn't 1848... this is 2018... that time is behind us now.
> 
> We are Nova Europa... not Nuevo Azteca.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again...how small.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't matter... we're now turning the screws on your little Beaner Buddies and they're beginning to get the message... close enough for Gubmint work.
Click to expand...


And you wonder why people call you racist...maybe the racial slurs would be your first clue.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Reagan was a RINO?
> 
> Man...how far you guys have fallen. As the saying goes, for Trump supporters, you used to wonder when they would hit bottom. Now you wonder if there is a bottom for "people" like yourself.
> 
> PS: Would you be for sterilization of those that we kidnap? If not...why not? Wouldn't that send a message that is more serious than merely housing and feeding them--a virtual vacation--if that is your goal; to scare the shit out of people just for the sake of doing it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not going to play that typical liberal extremist game with you.  Why not just ask if we should put those kids in hot factories and make them work 12 hour shifts? You people do this crap all the time in discussions.
> 
> Reagan said one of his biggest mistakes as President was granting amnesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the jobs that go along with making and selling them???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that crap is made in China.  Do you know what it takes to get a patent?  It's not a lot of hard work.  Make an ink pen cleaner and you can get a patent on it; you can get a patent on anything.  That doesn't mean it's productive or was produced or sold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incredible....
> 
> So 1/2 of the patents go to people of foreign origin...
> That means 1/2 go to natives.
> 
> If Immigrants are not contributing anything in terms of new products, ideas, etc...neither are Americans then.  Whatever.
> 
> Good discussion.  I've learned a lot about conservatives; all of it disgusting.
Click to expand...

And conservatives have gone above and beyond the call of disgusting by prohibiting those seeking asylum from doing so.

The reprehensible right, indeed.


----------



## candycorn

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Reagan was a RINO?
> 
> Man...how far you guys have fallen. As the saying goes, for Trump supporters, you used to wonder when they would hit bottom. Now you wonder if there is a bottom for "people" like yourself.
> 
> PS: Would you be for sterilization of those that we kidnap? If not...why not? Wouldn't that send a message that is more serious than merely housing and feeding them--a virtual vacation--if that is your goal; to scare the shit out of people just for the sake of doing it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not going to play that typical liberal extremist game with you.  Why not just ask if we should put those kids in hot factories and make them work 12 hour shifts? You people do this crap all the time in discussions.
> 
> Reagan said one of his biggest mistakes as President was granting amnesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the jobs that go along with making and selling them???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that crap is made in China.  Do you know what it takes to get a patent?  It's not a lot of hard work.  Make an ink pen cleaner and you can get a patent on it; you can get a patent on anything.  That doesn't mean it's productive or was produced or sold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incredible....
> 
> So 1/2 of the patents go to people of foreign origin...
> That means 1/2 go to natives.
> 
> If Immigrants are not contributing anything in terms of new products, ideas, etc...neither are Americans then.  Whatever.
> 
> Good discussion.  I've learned a lot about conservatives; all of it disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And conservatives have gone above and beyond the call of disgusting by prohibiting those seeking asylum from doing so.
> 
> The reprehensible right, indeed.
Click to expand...


The next President will have a lot of work to do restoring America's greatness.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Reagan was a RINO?
> 
> Man...how far you guys have fallen. As the saying goes, for Trump supporters, you used to wonder when they would hit bottom. Now you wonder if there is a bottom for "people" like yourself.
> 
> PS: Would you be for sterilization of those that we kidnap? If not...why not? Wouldn't that send a message that is more serious than merely housing and feeding them--a virtual vacation--if that is your goal; to scare the shit out of people just for the sake of doing it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not going to play that typical liberal extremist game with you.  Why not just ask if we should put those kids in hot factories and make them work 12 hour shifts? You people do this crap all the time in discussions.
> 
> Reagan said one of his biggest mistakes as President was granting amnesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the jobs that go along with making and selling them???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that crap is made in China.  Do you know what it takes to get a patent?  It's not a lot of hard work.  Make an ink pen cleaner and you can get a patent on it; you can get a patent on anything.  That doesn't mean it's productive or was produced or sold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incredible....
> 
> So 1/2 of the patents go to people of foreign origin...
> That means 1/2 go to natives.
> 
> If Immigrants are not contributing anything in terms of new products, ideas, etc...neither are Americans then.  Whatever.
> 
> Good discussion.  I've learned a lot about conservatives; all of it disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And conservatives have gone above and beyond the call of disgusting by prohibiting those seeking asylum from doing so.
> 
> The reprehensible right, indeed.
Click to expand...


If we had to give asylum to everybody that had a crappy country to live in, we would have over 2 billion people here.  And again, it's not about asylum, it's about finding ways to sneak into this country without standing in line like everybody else.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Reagan was a RINO?
> 
> Man...how far you guys have fallen. As the saying goes, for Trump supporters, you used to wonder when they would hit bottom. Now you wonder if there is a bottom for "people" like yourself.
> 
> PS: Would you be for sterilization of those that we kidnap? If not...why not? Wouldn't that send a message that is more serious than merely housing and feeding them--a virtual vacation--if that is your goal; to scare the shit out of people just for the sake of doing it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not going to play that typical liberal extremist game with you.  Why not just ask if we should put those kids in hot factories and make them work 12 hour shifts? You people do this crap all the time in discussions.
> 
> Reagan said one of his biggest mistakes as President was granting amnesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the jobs that go along with making and selling them???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that crap is made in China.  Do you know what it takes to get a patent?  It's not a lot of hard work.  Make an ink pen cleaner and you can get a patent on it; you can get a patent on anything.  That doesn't mean it's productive or was produced or sold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incredible....
> 
> So 1/2 of the patents go to people of foreign origin...
> That means 1/2 go to natives.
> 
> If Immigrants are not contributing anything in terms of new products, ideas, etc...neither are Americans then.  Whatever.
> 
> Good discussion.  I've learned a lot about conservatives; all of it disgusting.
Click to expand...


Yes, Americans make a lot of crap nobody needs as well.  What you were trying to do is equate that patents mean they are greatly contributing to our society.  I'd be willing to bet that if somebody did the research, probably less than 2% of those patents are for things that people actually buy on a regular basis. 

I wrote songs that I had copyrights for.  It cost me 20 bucks each and all I did was send them a recording of the songs.  That was it.  Took me ten minutes.  They sent me back the official copyright certification.  It doesn't mean I did anything great.  Millions of musicians do the same thing every year.


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Reagan was a RINO?
> 
> Man...how far you guys have fallen. As the saying goes, for Trump supporters, you used to wonder when they would hit bottom. Now you wonder if there is a bottom for "people" like yourself.
> 
> PS: Would you be for sterilization of those that we kidnap? If not...why not? Wouldn't that send a message that is more serious than merely housing and feeding them--a virtual vacation--if that is your goal; to scare the shit out of people just for the sake of doing it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not going to play that typical liberal extremist game with you.  Why not just ask if we should put those kids in hot factories and make them work 12 hour shifts? You people do this crap all the time in discussions.
> 
> Reagan said one of his biggest mistakes as President was granting amnesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the jobs that go along with making and selling them???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that crap is made in China.  Do you know what it takes to get a patent?  It's not a lot of hard work.  Make an ink pen cleaner and you can get a patent on it; you can get a patent on anything.  That doesn't mean it's productive or was produced or sold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incredible....
> 
> So 1/2 of the patents go to people of foreign origin...
> That means 1/2 go to natives.
> 
> If Immigrants are not contributing anything in terms of new products, ideas, etc...neither are Americans then.  Whatever.
> 
> Good discussion.  I've learned a lot about conservatives; all of it disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Americans make a lot of crap nobody needs as well.  What you were trying to do is equate that patents mean they are greatly contributing to our society.  I'd be willing to bet that if somebody did the research, probably less than 2% of those patents are for things that people actually buy on a regular basis.
> 
> I wrote songs that I had copyrights for.  It cost me 20 bucks each and all I did was send them a recording of the songs.  That was it.  Took me ten minutes.  They sent me back the official copyright certification.  It doesn't mean I did anything great.  Millions of musicians do the same thing every year.
Click to expand...


Ok.


----------



## Kondor3

candycorn said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...immigrant entrepreneurs are currently starting businesses at a rate roughly twice that of native-born...
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter... there was a time we needed and wanted immigrants... that time has come and gone... we're now "Full Up"... fun time's over, kiddies.
> 
> We are no longer a "_nation of immigrants_"... we are now a "_nation of the *DESCENDANTS* of immigrants_"... this isn't 1848... this is 2018... that time is behind us now.
> 
> We are Nova Europa... not Nuevo Azteca.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again...how small.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't matter... we're now turning the screws on your little Beaner Buddies and they're beginning to get the message... close enough for Gubmint work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you wonder why people call you racist...maybe the racial slurs would be your first clue.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with the fact that the United States is now turning the screws on your little Beaner Buddies. Enjoy.


----------



## Kondor3

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ...And conservatives have gone above and beyond the call of disgusting by prohibiting those seeking asylum from doing so. The reprehensible right, indeed.


Maybe if you LibTards had not made it possible for every Beaner with a stubbed toe to claim asylum, it would not have come to this.

Too late now, little snowflake.

Long-term policies working against the interests of American Citizens have consequences.

These are yours.

Enjoy.


----------



## candycorn

Kondor3 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...immigrant entrepreneurs are currently starting businesses at a rate roughly twice that of native-born...
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter... there was a time we needed and wanted immigrants... that time has come and gone... we're now "Full Up"... fun time's over, kiddies.
> 
> We are no longer a "_nation of immigrants_"... we are now a "_nation of the *DESCENDANTS* of immigrants_"... this isn't 1848... this is 2018... that time is behind us now.
> 
> We are Nova Europa... not Nuevo Azteca.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again...how small.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't matter... we're now turning the screws on your little Beaner Buddies and they're beginning to get the message... close enough for Gubmint work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you wonder why people call you racist...maybe the racial slurs would be your first clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has nothing to do with the fact that the United States is now turning the screws on your little Beaner Buddies. Enjoy.
Click to expand...


More racial slurs.  Do you do that because you think it makes me mad or do you just enjoy exhibiting how stupid you are?


----------



## Kondor3

candycorn said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter... there was a time we needed and wanted immigrants... that time has come and gone... we're now "Full Up"... fun time's over, kiddies.
> 
> We are no longer a "_nation of immigrants_"... we are now a "_nation of the *DESCENDANTS* of immigrants_"... this isn't 1848... this is 2018... that time is behind us now.
> 
> We are Nova Europa... not Nuevo Azteca.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again...how small.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't matter... we're now turning the screws on your little Beaner Buddies and they're beginning to get the message... close enough for Gubmint work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you wonder why people call you racist...maybe the racial slurs would be your first clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has nothing to do with the fact that the United States is now turning the screws on your little Beaner Buddies. Enjoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More racial slurs.  Do you do that because you think it makes me mad or do you just enjoy exhibiting how stupid you are?
Click to expand...

Yes.

I am as dumb as a box-o-rox... but I *DO* so love pi$$ing-off you idiots who stand alongside Illegal Aliens rather than fellow Americans.

Foolish, myopic ideologues who are incapable of absorbing that primal lesson from the outcome of the November 8, 2016 election.


----------



## Cecilie1200

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Reagan was a RINO?
> 
> Man...how far you guys have fallen. As the saying goes, for Trump supporters, you used to wonder when they would hit bottom. Now you wonder if there is a bottom for "people" like yourself.
> 
> PS: Would you be for sterilization of those that we kidnap? If not...why not? Wouldn't that send a message that is more serious than merely housing and feeding them--a virtual vacation--if that is your goal; to scare the shit out of people just for the sake of doing it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not going to play that typical liberal extremist game with you.  Why not just ask if we should put those kids in hot factories and make them work 12 hour shifts? You people do this crap all the time in discussions.
> 
> Reagan said one of his biggest mistakes as President was granting amnesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the jobs that go along with making and selling them???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that crap is made in China.  Do you know what it takes to get a patent?  It's not a lot of hard work.  Make an ink pen cleaner and you can get a patent on it; you can get a patent on anything.  That doesn't mean it's productive or was produced or sold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incredible....
> 
> So 1/2 of the patents go to people of foreign origin...
> That means 1/2 go to natives.
> 
> If Immigrants are not contributing anything in terms of new products, ideas, etc...neither are Americans then.  Whatever.
> 
> Good discussion.  I've learned a lot about conservatives; all of it disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And conservatives have gone above and beyond the call of disgusting by prohibiting those seeking asylum from doing so.
> 
> The reprehensible right, indeed.
Click to expand...


Gosh, I know I'M devastated that something like you doesn't approve of me.  I'm sure my fellow conservatives are equally distraught at having not met your standards.


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Reagan was a RINO?
> 
> Man...how far you guys have fallen. As the saying goes, for Trump supporters, you used to wonder when they would hit bottom. Now you wonder if there is a bottom for "people" like yourself.
> 
> PS: Would you be for sterilization of those that we kidnap? If not...why not? Wouldn't that send a message that is more serious than merely housing and feeding them--a virtual vacation--if that is your goal; to scare the shit out of people just for the sake of doing it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not going to play that typical liberal extremist game with you.  Why not just ask if we should put those kids in hot factories and make them work 12 hour shifts? You people do this crap all the time in discussions.
> 
> Reagan said one of his biggest mistakes as President was granting amnesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the jobs that go along with making and selling them???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that crap is made in China.  Do you know what it takes to get a patent?  It's not a lot of hard work.  Make an ink pen cleaner and you can get a patent on it; you can get a patent on anything.  That doesn't mean it's productive or was produced or sold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incredible....
> 
> So 1/2 of the patents go to people of foreign origin...
> That means 1/2 go to natives.
> 
> If Immigrants are not contributing anything in terms of new products, ideas, etc...neither are Americans then.  Whatever.
> 
> Good discussion.  I've learned a lot about conservatives; all of it disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And conservatives have gone above and beyond the call of disgusting by prohibiting those seeking asylum from doing so.
> 
> The reprehensible right, indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The next President will have a lot of work to do restoring America's greatness.
Click to expand...


Unless he defines it the way a sane person would, in which case, Trump has already gotten him partway there.


----------



## AZGAL

*
 *
*Jeff Sessions just announced a massive shift in asylum protections for victims of gang and domestic violence*
  
John Haltiwanger
Jun. 11, 2018, 5:14 PM


*Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday announced broad new restrictions on who can qualify asylum in the United States that effectively blocks most victims of gang or domestic violence.*
*"Generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-governmental actors will not qualify for asylum," Sessions said in his ruling.*
*Sessions has claimed asylum seekers are ** "gaming" the US immigration system,** and this move is seemingly designed to prevent that.*
Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday announced broad new restrictions on who can obtain asylum in the United States that effectively blocks most victims of gang or domestic violence from qualifying.

The attorney general's decision could impact thousands of asylum seekers and has sweeping implications for US immigration courts.

"Generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-governmental actors will not qualify for asylum," Sessions said in a ruling.

"The mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes—such as domestic violence or gang violence—or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim," the ruling added.


----------



## talksalot

Flopper said:


> talksalot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue isn't allowing or not allowing them to stay.  Read the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the answer is to put kids in jail with their criminal parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, in a family detention center.  Throwing these kids in foster care is not only more expensive, more devastating for the kids, but you can bet the US government is going lose a bunch of them.  They've lost track of 1500.  Then you're going to have parents in the headlines being thrown out of the country without their kids.  How incredible stupid and it's all about one man's ego.*
Click to expand...

They haven't lost track of any kids....that information was very misleading.  Also, how many family detention centers actually exist?  Shall we build "family centers" to feed, house, clothe and educate illegals indefinitely? How is that saving money?  If you want to save money, we need to build a wall and keep illegals on the other side of it. 

The answer to the problem is to keep illegals out and those that are here.....send the entire family back where they came from as soon as possible.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Reagan was a RINO?
> 
> Man...how far you guys have fallen. As the saying goes, for Trump supporters, you used to wonder when they would hit bottom. Now you wonder if there is a bottom for "people" like yourself.
> 
> PS: Would you be for sterilization of those that we kidnap? If not...why not? Wouldn't that send a message that is more serious than merely housing and feeding them--a virtual vacation--if that is your goal; to scare the shit out of people just for the sake of doing it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not going to play that typical liberal extremist game with you.  Why not just ask if we should put those kids in hot factories and make them work 12 hour shifts? You people do this crap all the time in discussions.
> 
> Reagan said one of his biggest mistakes as President was granting amnesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the jobs that go along with making and selling them???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that crap is made in China.  Do you know what it takes to get a patent?  It's not a lot of hard work.  Make an ink pen cleaner and you can get a patent on it; you can get a patent on anything.  That doesn't mean it's productive or was produced or sold.
Click to expand...

*I don't think you will find a quote by Reagan to that effect.  What you will find is a state senator from Arizona in a Brietbart News interview with Trump who said Ed Rollins, a campaign director for Reagan said, "President Reagan’s biggest regret as president was granting amnesty and then trusting Congress to deliver on border security." 

The fact is the amnesty part worked fine.  Out of 3 million eligible undocumented immigrants, 2.9 million applied for amnesty.  What didn't work was the legislation to secure the boarder which never made it through congress.  In other words, Reagan signed a bill granting amnesty which didn't have the resources he said was needed to secure the boarder and increasing boarder security was the reason for the bill. 

Boarder security is magnitudes better that in 1986.  There were approximate 3200 boarder patrol agents.  Today there are over 19,000. There were 3 aerial surveillance planes.  Today there are dozens of aircraft, radar installations, and electronic sensing, none of which existed in 1986.  Fencing where it existed was mostly barbwire cattle fences.  Today there is 700 miles of reinforced fencing and over a hundred miles of electronic fencing.  There was almost no penalty for hiring illegals.  There was no E-Verify and the only way immigration found visa over stays was from informants. The results of improved security and changes in the law has dramatically reduced the number of illegal entries.  In 2016, Homeland security estimated that were 170,000 southern boarder intrusions.  In 2000 the number was estimated to be approximate 1 million.  In prior years the boarder was so lightly paroled and the census did not collect any information on undocumented immigrants, there was no way of estimating the number of intrusions.

There is no reason to believe that an immigration bill today that included some legalization would turn out as in 1986. 
Did Ronald Reagan regret 1986 immigrant 'amnesty' law?*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Reagan was a RINO?
> 
> Man...how far you guys have fallen. As the saying goes, for Trump supporters, you used to wonder when they would hit bottom. Now you wonder if there is a bottom for "people" like yourself.
> 
> PS: Would you be for sterilization of those that we kidnap? If not...why not? Wouldn't that send a message that is more serious than merely housing and feeding them--a virtual vacation--if that is your goal; to scare the shit out of people just for the sake of doing it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not going to play that typical liberal extremist game with you.  Why not just ask if we should put those kids in hot factories and make them work 12 hour shifts? You people do this crap all the time in discussions.
> 
> Reagan said one of his biggest mistakes as President was granting amnesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the jobs that go along with making and selling them???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that crap is made in China.  Do you know what it takes to get a patent?  It's not a lot of hard work.  Make an ink pen cleaner and you can get a patent on it; you can get a patent on anything.  That doesn't mean it's productive or was produced or sold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I don't think you will find a quote by Reagan to that effect.  What you will find is a state senator from Arizona in a Brietbart News interview with Trump who said Ed Rollins, a campaign director for Reagan said, "President Reagan’s biggest regret as president was granting amnesty and then trusting Congress to deliver on border security."
> 
> The fact is the amnesty part worked fine.  Out of 3 million eligible undocumented immigrants, 2.9 million applied for amnesty.  What didn't work was the legislation to secure the boarder which never made it through congress.  In other words, Reagan signed a bill granting amnesty which didn't have the resources he said was needed to secure the boarder and increasing boarder security was the reason for the bill.
> 
> Boarder security is magnitudes better that in 1986.  There were approximate 3200 boarder patrol agents.  Today there are over 19,000. There were 3 aerial surveillance planes.  Today there are dozens of aircraft, radar installations, and electronic sensing, none of which existed in 1986.  Fencing where it existed was mostly barbwire cattle fences.  Today there is 700 miles of reinforced fencing and over a hundred miles of electronic fencing.  There was almost no penalty for hiring illegals.  There was no E-Verify and the only way immigration found visa over stays was from informants. The results of improved security and changes in the law has dramatically reduced the number of illegal entries.  In 2016, Homeland security estimated that were 170,000 southern boarder intrusions.  In 2000 the number was estimated to be approximate 1 million.  In prior years the boarder was so lightly paroled and the census did not collect any information on undocumented immigrants, there was no way of estimating the number of intrusions.
> 
> There is no reason to believe that an immigration bill today that included some legalization would turn out as in 1986.
> Did Ronald Reagan regret 1986 immigrant 'amnesty' law?*
Click to expand...


So what you are saying is that advanced security measures worked, yet against the wall at the same time. 

What it also says is that Democrats cannot be trusted.  That's what Reagan found out.  Since then, more and more illegals continued to invade our country; 12 million now the estimate, but some say that's an extremely conservative figure.  

So amnesty didn't work, but stronger border protection did.  I think it's reasonable to conclude that we need more improvements on our border, and no amnesty period.


----------



## LuckyDuck

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


Border Control personnel have found Pashto to English translation pamphlets just over the border and some Pakistani's have been captured trying to cross illegally into the US via our southern border, thus they are getting into countries south of the border only to filter north across ours.  There must absolutely be good border control to ensure that those crossing over, do so, by going through customs, so that they can be adequately vetted to ensure that those coming across are NOT, drug-cartel members, fugitive murderers, thieves, rapists.....or members of sleeper terrorist-cells.
So, I challenge you to answer this...…"How many deaths of Americans at the hands of illegal migrants are an acceptable number to allow for open borders?"  Give a number please.
And, don't whine on about the children of illegal-migrants, they are still illegal and must be processed accordingly.


----------



## candycorn

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Reagan was a RINO?
> 
> Man...how far you guys have fallen. As the saying goes, for Trump supporters, you used to wonder when they would hit bottom. Now you wonder if there is a bottom for "people" like yourself.
> 
> PS: Would you be for sterilization of those that we kidnap? If not...why not? Wouldn't that send a message that is more serious than merely housing and feeding them--a virtual vacation--if that is your goal; to scare the shit out of people just for the sake of doing it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not going to play that typical liberal extremist game with you.  Why not just ask if we should put those kids in hot factories and make them work 12 hour shifts? You people do this crap all the time in discussions.
> 
> Reagan said one of his biggest mistakes as President was granting amnesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the jobs that go along with making and selling them???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that crap is made in China.  Do you know what it takes to get a patent?  It's not a lot of hard work.  Make an ink pen cleaner and you can get a patent on it; you can get a patent on anything.  That doesn't mean it's productive or was produced or sold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I don't think you will find a quote by Reagan to that effect.  What you will find is a state senator from Arizona in a Brietbart News interview with Trump who said Ed Rollins, a campaign director for Reagan said, "President Reagan’s biggest regret as president was granting amnesty and then trusting Congress to deliver on border security."
> 
> The fact is the amnesty part worked fine.  Out of 3 million eligible undocumented immigrants, 2.9 million applied for amnesty.  What didn't work was the legislation to secure the boarder which never made it through congress.  In other words, Reagan signed a bill granting amnesty which didn't have the resources he said was needed to secure the boarder and increasing boarder security was the reason for the bill.
> 
> Boarder security is magnitudes better that in 1986.  There were approximate 3200 boarder patrol agents.  Today there are over 19,000. There were 3 aerial surveillance planes.  Today there are dozens of aircraft, radar installations, and electronic sensing, none of which existed in 1986.  Fencing where it existed was mostly barbwire cattle fences.  Today there is 700 miles of reinforced fencing and over a hundred miles of electronic fencing.  There was almost no penalty for hiring illegals.  There was no E-Verify and the only way immigration found visa over stays was from informants. The results of improved security and changes in the law has dramatically reduced the number of illegal entries.  In 2016, Homeland security estimated that were 170,000 southern boarder intrusions.  In 2000 the number was estimated to be approximate 1 million.  In prior years the boarder was so lightly paroled and the census did not collect any information on undocumented immigrants, there was no way of estimating the number of intrusions.
> 
> There is no reason to believe that an immigration bill today that included some legalization would turn out as in 1986.
> Did Ronald Reagan regret 1986 immigrant 'amnesty' law?*
Click to expand...


Right you are; as per usual.  

The argument (conservatives would have you believe) is about economics and that they just love everyone unless you come here for a job illegally.  Then they are for kidnapping.  Seems like a bizarre stance but okay.

Here are the facts about income…

The average income of Americans has risen since Reagan and his amnesty and the supposed illegal immigration crisis.  We definitely have more wealthy people than we did under Reagan.  There seems to be no serious economic detriment to having immigrant populations in our midst.  



 

But wouldn’t it stand to reason that if you’re worried about an illegal/undocumented person taking your job…wouldn’t you be equally as worried about a legal/documented person taking your job.  Actually, even more so.  Presumably, your job includes some sort of skill on your part. Who is more likely to have that skill? A guy who comes across the southern border via coyote or smuggled in the bed of a pick up truck or the guy who patiently goes through the steps to get a work visa and doing what it takes to qualify for such a document?  The threat from the latter seems more potent than the threat from the former.  So the jobs/income argument makes zero sense.  

It’s more a function of not wanting “beaners” here as Kondor3 put it, I suspect.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Reagan was a RINO?
> 
> Man...how far you guys have fallen. As the saying goes, for Trump supporters, you used to wonder when they would hit bottom. Now you wonder if there is a bottom for "people" like yourself.
> 
> PS: Would you be for sterilization of those that we kidnap? If not...why not? Wouldn't that send a message that is more serious than merely housing and feeding them--a virtual vacation--if that is your goal; to scare the shit out of people just for the sake of doing it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not going to play that typical liberal extremist game with you.  Why not just ask if we should put those kids in hot factories and make them work 12 hour shifts? You people do this crap all the time in discussions.
> 
> Reagan said one of his biggest mistakes as President was granting amnesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the jobs that go along with making and selling them???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that crap is made in China.  Do you know what it takes to get a patent?  It's not a lot of hard work.  Make an ink pen cleaner and you can get a patent on it; you can get a patent on anything.  That doesn't mean it's productive or was produced or sold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incredible....
> 
> So 1/2 of the patents go to people of foreign origin...
> That means 1/2 go to natives.
> 
> If Immigrants are not contributing anything in terms of new products, ideas, etc...neither are Americans then.  Whatever.
> 
> Good discussion.  I've learned a lot about conservatives; all of it disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And conservatives have gone above and beyond the call of disgusting by prohibiting those seeking asylum from doing so.
> 
> The reprehensible right, indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we had to give asylum to everybody that had a crappy country to live in, we would have over 2 billion people here.  And again, it's not about asylum, it's about finding ways to sneak into this country without standing in line like everybody else.
Click to expand...

*Over the last 26 years we have granted asylum to 1.9 million people.  That's only .5% of the US population.  

Unlike refugees, asylum seekers must apply at a US port of entry or an asylum office within the US.  There is no special visa for them nor does the US provide any transportation or living expenses until their initial application gets approval which takes between 7 to 45 days.  During that time they must support themselves.  If they do not have a visa they are not allowed in the US.  If they are allowed in the US they can not work.

Once they get their first approval, they are allowed in the US.  Unless they have a visa they will be detained. It will normally take 6 Mons to investigate them.  Only 40% will be granted asylum.  They will then be granted a work permit and will receive help with getting a job and adjustment to life in the US.  After 1 year they can apply for permanent residence provide they have not violated any of rules which include no arrest for any felony, association with know criminals, of falsification of any information given to immigration.  They also must maintain employment.

It appears that the asylum programs is very effective.  In 2016, the crime rate for those granted asylum is lower than permanent residents and US citizen.  Over 90% were employed.

Considering what these people have gone through, their sacrifices they have made to get here, and the success of the program, it seems the hatred that people express toward them is really unwarranted.    
*
*Table 16. Individuals Granted Asylum Affirmatively Or Defensively: Fiscal Years 1990 To 2016*
*Asylum in the United States - Wikipedia*


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Reagan was a RINO?
> 
> Man...how far you guys have fallen. As the saying goes, for Trump supporters, you used to wonder when they would hit bottom. Now you wonder if there is a bottom for "people" like yourself.
> 
> PS: Would you be for sterilization of those that we kidnap? If not...why not? Wouldn't that send a message that is more serious than merely housing and feeding them--a virtual vacation--if that is your goal; to scare the shit out of people just for the sake of doing it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not going to play that typical liberal extremist game with you.  Why not just ask if we should put those kids in hot factories and make them work 12 hour shifts? You people do this crap all the time in discussions.
> 
> Reagan said one of his biggest mistakes as President was granting amnesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the jobs that go along with making and selling them???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that crap is made in China.  Do you know what it takes to get a patent?  It's not a lot of hard work.  Make an ink pen cleaner and you can get a patent on it; you can get a patent on anything.  That doesn't mean it's productive or was produced or sold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incredible....
> 
> So 1/2 of the patents go to people of foreign origin...
> That means 1/2 go to natives.
> 
> If Immigrants are not contributing anything in terms of new products, ideas, etc...neither are Americans then.  Whatever.
> 
> Good discussion.  I've learned a lot about conservatives; all of it disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And conservatives have gone above and beyond the call of disgusting by prohibiting those seeking asylum from doing so.
> 
> The reprehensible right, indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we had to give asylum to everybody that had a crappy country to live in, we would have over 2 billion people here.  And again, it's not about asylum, it's about finding ways to sneak into this country without standing in line like everybody else.
Click to expand...

*Over the last 26 years we have granted asylum to 1.9 million people.  That's only .5% of the US population.  

Unlike refugees, asylum seekers must apply at a US port of entry or an asylum office within the US.  There is no special visa for them nor does the US provide any transportation or living expenses until their initial application gets approval which takes between 7 to 45 days.  During that time they must support themselves.  If they do not have a visa they are not allowed in the US.  If they are allowed in the US they can not work.

Once they get their first approval, they are allowed in the US.  Unless they have a visa they will be detained. It will normally take 6 Mons to investigate them.  Only 40% will be granted asylum.  They will then be granted a work permit and will receive help with getting a job and adjustment to life in the US.  After 1 year they can apply for permanent residence provide they have not violated any of rules which include no arrest for any felony, association with know criminals, of falsification of any information given to immigration.  They also must maintain employment.

It appears that the asylum programs is very effective.  In 2016, the crime rate for those granted asylum is lower than permanent residents and US citizen.  Over 90% were employed.

Considering what these people have gone through, their sacrifices they have made to get here, and the success of the program, it seems the hatred that people express toward them is really unwarranted.    

Table 16. Individuals Granted Asylum Affirmatively Or Defensively: Fiscal Years 1990 To 2016
Asylum in the United States - Wikipedia*


----------



## Flopper

candycorn said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Reagan was a RINO?
> 
> Man...how far you guys have fallen. As the saying goes, for Trump supporters, you used to wonder when they would hit bottom. Now you wonder if there is a bottom for "people" like yourself.
> 
> PS: Would you be for sterilization of those that we kidnap? If not...why not? Wouldn't that send a message that is more serious than merely housing and feeding them--a virtual vacation--if that is your goal; to scare the shit out of people just for the sake of doing it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not going to play that typical liberal extremist game with you.  Why not just ask if we should put those kids in hot factories and make them work 12 hour shifts? You people do this crap all the time in discussions.
> 
> Reagan said one of his biggest mistakes as President was granting amnesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the jobs that go along with making and selling them???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that crap is made in China.  Do you know what it takes to get a patent?  It's not a lot of hard work.  Make an ink pen cleaner and you can get a patent on it; you can get a patent on anything.  That doesn't mean it's productive or was produced or sold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I don't think you will find a quote by Reagan to that effect.  What you will find is a state senator from Arizona in a Brietbart News interview with Trump who said Ed Rollins, a campaign director for Reagan said, "President Reagan’s biggest regret as president was granting amnesty and then trusting Congress to deliver on border security."
> 
> The fact is the amnesty part worked fine.  Out of 3 million eligible undocumented immigrants, 2.9 million applied for amnesty.  What didn't work was the legislation to secure the boarder which never made it through congress.  In other words, Reagan signed a bill granting amnesty which didn't have the resources he said was needed to secure the boarder and increasing boarder security was the reason for the bill.
> 
> Boarder security is magnitudes better that in 1986.  There were approximate 3200 boarder patrol agents.  Today there are over 19,000. There were 3 aerial surveillance planes.  Today there are dozens of aircraft, radar installations, and electronic sensing, none of which existed in 1986.  Fencing where it existed was mostly barbwire cattle fences.  Today there is 700 miles of reinforced fencing and over a hundred miles of electronic fencing.  There was almost no penalty for hiring illegals.  There was no E-Verify and the only way immigration found visa over stays was from informants. The results of improved security and changes in the law has dramatically reduced the number of illegal entries.  In 2016, Homeland security estimated that were 170,000 southern boarder intrusions.  In 2000 the number was estimated to be approximate 1 million.  In prior years the boarder was so lightly paroled and the census did not collect any information on undocumented immigrants, there was no way of estimating the number of intrusions.
> 
> There is no reason to believe that an immigration bill today that included some legalization would turn out as in 1986.
> Did Ronald Reagan regret 1986 immigrant 'amnesty' law?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right you are; as per usual.
> 
> The argument (conservatives would have you believe) is about economics and that they just love everyone unless you come here for a job illegally.  Then they are for kidnapping.  Seems like a bizarre stance but okay.
> 
> Here are the facts about income…
> 
> The average income of Americans has risen since Reagan and his amnesty and the supposed illegal immigration crisis.  We definitely have more wealthy people than we did under Reagan.  There seems to be no serious economic detriment to having immigrant populations in our midst.
> 
> View attachment 198436
> 
> But wouldn’t it stand to reason that if you’re worried about an illegal/undocumented person taking your job…wouldn’t you be equally as worried about a legal/documented person taking your job.  Actually, even more so.  Presumably, your job includes some sort of skill on your part. Who is more likely to have that skill? A guy who comes across the southern border via coyote or smuggled in the bed of a pick up truck or the guy who patiently goes through the steps to get a work visa and doing what it takes to qualify for such a document?  The threat from the latter seems more potent than the threat from the former.  So the jobs/income argument makes zero sense.
> 
> It’s more a function of not wanting “beaners” here as Kondor3 put it, I suspect.
Click to expand...

*What really galls me is the people on this board and elsewhere that consider themselves god's gift to American simply because they happened to be born in the good old USA. Most of them have never served this country in any manner, yet they consider themselves patriots.  They have never gone hungry a day in their life, never fought to get an education or job, never had to be concerned where their next meal was coming form.  And yet they scoff and ridicule people that have truly suffered in their lives from real oppression and have sacrificed all they had just for a chance to live in American.   

I think I should sign off tonight before I really get pissed.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Reagan was a RINO?
> 
> Man...how far you guys have fallen. As the saying goes, for Trump supporters, you used to wonder when they would hit bottom. Now you wonder if there is a bottom for "people" like yourself.
> 
> PS: Would you be for sterilization of those that we kidnap? If not...why not? Wouldn't that send a message that is more serious than merely housing and feeding them--a virtual vacation--if that is your goal; to scare the shit out of people just for the sake of doing it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not going to play that typical liberal extremist game with you.  Why not just ask if we should put those kids in hot factories and make them work 12 hour shifts? You people do this crap all the time in discussions.
> 
> Reagan said one of his biggest mistakes as President was granting amnesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the jobs that go along with making and selling them???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that crap is made in China.  Do you know what it takes to get a patent?  It's not a lot of hard work.  Make an ink pen cleaner and you can get a patent on it; you can get a patent on anything.  That doesn't mean it's productive or was produced or sold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I don't think you will find a quote by Reagan to that effect.  What you will find is a state senator from Arizona in a Brietbart News interview with Trump who said Ed Rollins, a campaign director for Reagan said, "President Reagan’s biggest regret as president was granting amnesty and then trusting Congress to deliver on border security."
> 
> The fact is the amnesty part worked fine.  Out of 3 million eligible undocumented immigrants, 2.9 million applied for amnesty.  What didn't work was the legislation to secure the boarder which never made it through congress.  In other words, Reagan signed a bill granting amnesty which didn't have the resources he said was needed to secure the boarder and increasing boarder security was the reason for the bill.
> 
> Boarder security is magnitudes better that in 1986.  There were approximate 3200 boarder patrol agents.  Today there are over 19,000. There were 3 aerial surveillance planes.  Today there are dozens of aircraft, radar installations, and electronic sensing, none of which existed in 1986.  Fencing where it existed was mostly barbwire cattle fences.  Today there is 700 miles of reinforced fencing and over a hundred miles of electronic fencing.  There was almost no penalty for hiring illegals.  There was no E-Verify and the only way immigration found visa over stays was from informants. The results of improved security and changes in the law has dramatically reduced the number of illegal entries.  In 2016, Homeland security estimated that were 170,000 southern boarder intrusions.  In 2000 the number was estimated to be approximate 1 million.  In prior years the boarder was so lightly paroled and the census did not collect any information on undocumented immigrants, there was no way of estimating the number of intrusions.
> 
> There is no reason to believe that an immigration bill today that included some legalization would turn out as in 1986.
> Did Ronald Reagan regret 1986 immigrant 'amnesty' law?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right you are; as per usual.
> 
> The argument (conservatives would have you believe) is about economics and that they just love everyone unless you come here for a job illegally.  Then they are for kidnapping.  Seems like a bizarre stance but okay.
> 
> Here are the facts about income…
> 
> The average income of Americans has risen since Reagan and his amnesty and the supposed illegal immigration crisis.  We definitely have more wealthy people than we did under Reagan.  There seems to be no serious economic detriment to having immigrant populations in our midst.
> 
> View attachment 198436
> 
> But wouldn’t it stand to reason that if you’re worried about an illegal/undocumented person taking your job…wouldn’t you be equally as worried about a legal/documented person taking your job.  Actually, even more so.  Presumably, your job includes some sort of skill on your part. Who is more likely to have that skill? A guy who comes across the southern border via coyote or smuggled in the bed of a pick up truck or the guy who patiently goes through the steps to get a work visa and doing what it takes to qualify for such a document?  The threat from the latter seems more potent than the threat from the former.  So the jobs/income argument makes zero sense.
> 
> It’s more a function of not wanting “beaners” here as Kondor3 put it, I suspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What really galls me is the people on this board and elsewhere that consider themselves god's gift to American simply because they happened to be born in the good old USA. Most of them have never served this country in any manner, yet they consider themselves patriots.  They have never gone hungry a day in their life, never fought to get an education or job, never had to be concerned where their next meal was coming form.  And yet they scoff and ridicule people that have truly suffered in their lives from real oppression and have sacrificed all they had just for a chance to live in American.
> 
> I think I should sign off tonight before I really get pissed.*
Click to expand...


The United States accepts a million people a year into this country.  There are not many countries that are so generous.  We are a world of 7.5 billion people, and many of them wish they had our good fortunes; and we are willing to help some of them out.  But we can't open this country to everybody that has a problem in their country.  We don't have the room, don't have the resources, and we are are 20 trillion in debt.   

We have asylum and it's pretty well described.  We have a system to get asylum in this country.  We have rules and regulations on how to get permits, Visa's, green cards, and citizenship in this country.  Sorry if we on the right insist that everybody play by the same rules.


----------



## candycorn

Flopper said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Reagan was a RINO?
> 
> Man...how far you guys have fallen. As the saying goes, for Trump supporters, you used to wonder when they would hit bottom. Now you wonder if there is a bottom for "people" like yourself.
> 
> PS: Would you be for sterilization of those that we kidnap? If not...why not? Wouldn't that send a message that is more serious than merely housing and feeding them--a virtual vacation--if that is your goal; to scare the shit out of people just for the sake of doing it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not going to play that typical liberal extremist game with you.  Why not just ask if we should put those kids in hot factories and make them work 12 hour shifts? You people do this crap all the time in discussions.
> 
> Reagan said one of his biggest mistakes as President was granting amnesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the jobs that go along with making and selling them???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that crap is made in China.  Do you know what it takes to get a patent?  It's not a lot of hard work.  Make an ink pen cleaner and you can get a patent on it; you can get a patent on anything.  That doesn't mean it's productive or was produced or sold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I don't think you will find a quote by Reagan to that effect.  What you will find is a state senator from Arizona in a Brietbart News interview with Trump who said Ed Rollins, a campaign director for Reagan said, "President Reagan’s biggest regret as president was granting amnesty and then trusting Congress to deliver on border security."
> 
> The fact is the amnesty part worked fine.  Out of 3 million eligible undocumented immigrants, 2.9 million applied for amnesty.  What didn't work was the legislation to secure the boarder which never made it through congress.  In other words, Reagan signed a bill granting amnesty which didn't have the resources he said was needed to secure the boarder and increasing boarder security was the reason for the bill.
> 
> Boarder security is magnitudes better that in 1986.  There were approximate 3200 boarder patrol agents.  Today there are over 19,000. There were 3 aerial surveillance planes.  Today there are dozens of aircraft, radar installations, and electronic sensing, none of which existed in 1986.  Fencing where it existed was mostly barbwire cattle fences.  Today there is 700 miles of reinforced fencing and over a hundred miles of electronic fencing.  There was almost no penalty for hiring illegals.  There was no E-Verify and the only way immigration found visa over stays was from informants. The results of improved security and changes in the law has dramatically reduced the number of illegal entries.  In 2016, Homeland security estimated that were 170,000 southern boarder intrusions.  In 2000 the number was estimated to be approximate 1 million.  In prior years the boarder was so lightly paroled and the census did not collect any information on undocumented immigrants, there was no way of estimating the number of intrusions.
> 
> There is no reason to believe that an immigration bill today that included some legalization would turn out as in 1986.
> Did Ronald Reagan regret 1986 immigrant 'amnesty' law?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right you are; as per usual.
> 
> The argument (conservatives would have you believe) is about economics and that they just love everyone unless you come here for a job illegally.  Then they are for kidnapping.  Seems like a bizarre stance but okay.
> 
> Here are the facts about income…
> 
> The average income of Americans has risen since Reagan and his amnesty and the supposed illegal immigration crisis.  We definitely have more wealthy people than we did under Reagan.  There seems to be no serious economic detriment to having immigrant populations in our midst.
> 
> View attachment 198436
> 
> But wouldn’t it stand to reason that if you’re worried about an illegal/undocumented person taking your job…wouldn’t you be equally as worried about a legal/documented person taking your job.  Actually, even more so.  Presumably, your job includes some sort of skill on your part. Who is more likely to have that skill? A guy who comes across the southern border via coyote or smuggled in the bed of a pick up truck or the guy who patiently goes through the steps to get a work visa and doing what it takes to qualify for such a document?  The threat from the latter seems more potent than the threat from the former.  So the jobs/income argument makes zero sense.
> 
> It’s more a function of not wanting “beaners” here as Kondor3 put it, I suspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What really galls me is the people on this board and elsewhere that consider themselves god's gift to American simply because they happened to be born in the good old USA. Most of them have never served this country in any manner, yet they consider themselves patriots.  They have never gone hungry a day in their life, never fought to get an education or job, never had to be concerned where their next meal was coming form.  And yet they scoff and ridicule people that have truly suffered in their lives from real oppression and have sacrificed all they had just for a chance to live in American.
> 
> I think I should sign off tonight before I really get pissed.*
Click to expand...


The way I put it is this; everyone born here is born on 2nd base.  The difference is that some people believe they hit a double and others recognize the head start.


----------



## Snouter

Flopper said:


> I think I should sign off tonight before I really get pissed.



Do go away mad brah!    Your suffering masses somehow had the energy to fuck each other like animals.  And then deliver the low IQ, inbred savages in my country to steal benefits from citizens who actually are responsible, law abiding, and tax paying.


----------



## Snouter

candycorn said:


> The way I put it is this; everyone born here is born on 2nd base.  The difference is that some people believe they hit a double and others recognize the head start.



Yes, evolution is an amazing yet cruel thing.  Baseball is not the difference, DNA is the difference.  Sorry!


----------



## Mousterian

Snots, you should be the last one to deride 'low IQ, inbred savages'.
Have a look in a mirror.


----------



## Kondor3

candycorn said:


> ...It’s more a function of not wanting “beaners” here as Kondor3 put it, I suspect.


Oh, there's that alright... this is Nova Europa, not Nuevo Azteca... but it's also (and predominantly, for many) economics.

Ask any native-born American Citizen roofer or plumber-helper or landscaper or other worker-bee whose trade no longer offers a Living Wage, thanks to Illegal Beaners.

But that's merely a viable defense articulating why we don't want them here.

November 8, 2016 taught us that Middle America has had a bellyful of Liberal-Progressive cultural suicide, illegals-accommodation and vote-whoring for Latinos.

In practice, at present, it is enough to say that none of that $hit matters; it's our country, our rules, our laws, and we can do whatever-the-hell we want in that regard.

We are not obliged to defend an Anti-Illegals stance while in a position of political strength and while pursuing an aggressive remedy to this infestation of Illegal Aliens.

They are here illegally.

They go.


----------



## Snouter

Mousterian said:


> Snots, you should be the last one to deride 'low IQ, inbred savages'.
> Have a look in a mirror.



Mouse, please address the facts of the topic.  For the record, I have several college degrees.  Did you graduate from high school by any chance?  If so, where, and did you sue for reparations!


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter... there was a time we needed and wanted immigrants... that time has come and gone... we're now "Full Up"... fun time's over, kiddies.
> 
> We are no longer a "_nation of immigrants_"... we are now a "_nation of the *DESCENDANTS* of immigrants_"... this isn't 1848... this is 2018... that time is behind us now.
> 
> We are Nova Europa... not Nuevo Azteca.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again...how small.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't matter... we're now turning the screws on your little Beaner Buddies and they're beginning to get the message... close enough for Gubmint work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahhh racial slurs now.  How small...how very small
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's really what this is all about. Keeping America a white majority. None of them have the balls to actually say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will.  That is part of it.  So if you're white, what's wrong with that?  What other group of people besides white liberals would support a government trying to make them a minority in their own country?
Click to expand...


That's all of it and like I said, you won't admit it.

White folks are already the minority on the planet, dope. As people migrate around the world, populations will increasingly reflect that fact. I'm not afraid of that.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Kondor3 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...That's really what this is all about. Keeping America a white majority. None of them have the balls to actually say so.
> 
> 
> 
> Sniveling Wigger Complaints Department is down the hall, 13th door on The Left...
> 
> Meanwhile, the roundup of Illegal Aliens continues... and intensifies... < snicker >...
Click to expand...


Like I said, no balls.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Ray From Cleveland said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Reagan was a RINO?
> 
> Man...how far you guys have fallen. As the saying goes, for Trump supporters, you used to wonder when they would hit bottom. Now you wonder if there is a bottom for "people" like yourself.
> 
> PS: Would you be for sterilization of those that we kidnap? If not...why not? Wouldn't that send a message that is more serious than merely housing and feeding them--a virtual vacation--if that is your goal; to scare the shit out of people just for the sake of doing it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not going to play that typical liberal extremist game with you.  Why not just ask if we should put those kids in hot factories and make them work 12 hour shifts? You people do this crap all the time in discussions.
> 
> Reagan said one of his biggest mistakes as President was granting amnesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the jobs that go along with making and selling them???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that crap is made in China.  Do you know what it takes to get a patent?  It's not a lot of hard work.  Make an ink pen cleaner and you can get a patent on it; you can get a patent on anything.  That doesn't mean it's productive or was produced or sold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incredible....
> 
> So 1/2 of the patents go to people of foreign origin...
> That means 1/2 go to natives.
> 
> If Immigrants are not contributing anything in terms of new products, ideas, etc...neither are Americans then.  Whatever.
> 
> Good discussion.  I've learned a lot about conservatives; all of it disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And conservatives have gone above and beyond the call of disgusting by prohibiting those seeking asylum from doing so.
> 
> The reprehensible right, indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we had to give asylum to everybody that had a crappy country to live in, we would have over 2 billion people here.  And again, it's not about asylum, it's about finding ways to sneak into this country without standing in line like everybody else.
Click to expand...


That's just it, dope. We don't let in everyone who applies for asylum. There is a process in place to make the determination on their "standing". Asylum applicants are not criminals and have a right to due process under the law.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Kondor3 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...And conservatives have gone above and beyond the call of disgusting by prohibiting those seeking asylum from doing so. The reprehensible right, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if you LibTards had not made it possible for every Beaner with a stubbed toe to claim asylum, it would not have come to this.
> 
> Too late now, little snowflake.
> 
> Long-term policies working against the interests of American Citizens have consequences.
> 
> These are yours.
> 
> Enjoy.
Click to expand...


Claiming asylum and being granted asylum are two different things, loser.


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Reagan was a RINO?
> 
> Man...how far you guys have fallen. As the saying goes, for Trump supporters, you used to wonder when they would hit bottom. Now you wonder if there is a bottom for "people" like yourself.
> 
> PS: Would you be for sterilization of those that we kidnap? If not...why not? Wouldn't that send a message that is more serious than merely housing and feeding them--a virtual vacation--if that is your goal; to scare the shit out of people just for the sake of doing it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not going to play that typical liberal extremist game with you.  Why not just ask if we should put those kids in hot factories and make them work 12 hour shifts? You people do this crap all the time in discussions.
> 
> Reagan said one of his biggest mistakes as President was granting amnesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the jobs that go along with making and selling them???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that crap is made in China.  Do you know what it takes to get a patent?  It's not a lot of hard work.  Make an ink pen cleaner and you can get a patent on it; you can get a patent on anything.  That doesn't mean it's productive or was produced or sold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I don't think you will find a quote by Reagan to that effect.  What you will find is a state senator from Arizona in a Brietbart News interview with Trump who said Ed Rollins, a campaign director for Reagan said, "President Reagan’s biggest regret as president was granting amnesty and then trusting Congress to deliver on border security."
> 
> The fact is the amnesty part worked fine.  Out of 3 million eligible undocumented immigrants, 2.9 million applied for amnesty.  What didn't work was the legislation to secure the boarder which never made it through congress.  In other words, Reagan signed a bill granting amnesty which didn't have the resources he said was needed to secure the boarder and increasing boarder security was the reason for the bill.
> 
> Boarder security is magnitudes better that in 1986.  There were approximate 3200 boarder patrol agents.  Today there are over 19,000. There were 3 aerial surveillance planes.  Today there are dozens of aircraft, radar installations, and electronic sensing, none of which existed in 1986.  Fencing where it existed was mostly barbwire cattle fences.  Today there is 700 miles of reinforced fencing and over a hundred miles of electronic fencing.  There was almost no penalty for hiring illegals.  There was no E-Verify and the only way immigration found visa over stays was from informants. The results of improved security and changes in the law has dramatically reduced the number of illegal entries.  In 2016, Homeland security estimated that were 170,000 southern boarder intrusions.  In 2000 the number was estimated to be approximate 1 million.  In prior years the boarder was so lightly paroled and the census did not collect any information on undocumented immigrants, there was no way of estimating the number of intrusions.
> 
> There is no reason to believe that an immigration bill today that included some legalization would turn out as in 1986.
> Did Ronald Reagan regret 1986 immigrant 'amnesty' law?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right you are; as per usual.
> 
> The argument (conservatives would have you believe) is about economics and that they just love everyone unless you come here for a job illegally.  Then they are for kidnapping.  Seems like a bizarre stance but okay.
> 
> Here are the facts about income…
> 
> The average income of Americans has risen since Reagan and his amnesty and the supposed illegal immigration crisis.  We definitely have more wealthy people than we did under Reagan.  There seems to be no serious economic detriment to having immigrant populations in our midst.
> 
> View attachment 198436
> 
> But wouldn’t it stand to reason that if you’re worried about an illegal/undocumented person taking your job…wouldn’t you be equally as worried about a legal/documented person taking your job.  Actually, even more so.  Presumably, your job includes some sort of skill on your part. Who is more likely to have that skill? A guy who comes across the southern border via coyote or smuggled in the bed of a pick up truck or the guy who patiently goes through the steps to get a work visa and doing what it takes to qualify for such a document?  The threat from the latter seems more potent than the threat from the former.  So the jobs/income argument makes zero sense.
> 
> It’s more a function of not wanting “beaners” here as Kondor3 put it, I suspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What really galls me is the people on this board and elsewhere that consider themselves god's gift to American simply because they happened to be born in the good old USA. Most of them have never served this country in any manner, yet they consider themselves patriots.  They have never gone hungry a day in their life, never fought to get an education or job, never had to be concerned where their next meal was coming form.  And yet they scoff and ridicule people that have truly suffered in their lives from real oppression and have sacrificed all they had just for a chance to live in American.
> 
> I think I should sign off tonight before I really get pissed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The way I put it is this; everyone born here is born on 2nd base.  The difference is that some people believe they hit a double and others recognize the head start.
Click to expand...


And some seem to think that requires them to let people wander in off the street and start running the bases as though they're part of the team.


----------



## Kondor3

Hutch Starskey said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...And conservatives have gone above and beyond the call of disgusting by prohibiting those seeking asylum from doing so. The reprehensible right, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if you LibTards had not made it possible for every Beaner with a stubbed toe to claim asylum, it would not have come to this.
> 
> Too late now, little snowflake.
> 
> Long-term policies working against the interests of American Citizens have consequences.
> 
> These are yours.
> 
> Enjoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Claiming asylum and being granted asylum are two different things, loser.
Click to expand...

None of that $hit matters at the moment...

In politics, perception is everything...

You and yours are now perceived as standing alongside Illegal Aliens rather than your own fellow countrymen...

Terrible Optics...

Optics which resulted in the outcome of the November 8, 2016 election...

In light of that outcome... if you're looking for a "loser", I suggest you look in the mirror.

*Liberals-Progressives-Democrats* are responsible for the Imperial Cheeto, because ya'll are too dense to understand those Optics.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Hutch Starskey said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Reagan was a RINO?
> 
> Man...how far you guys have fallen. As the saying goes, for Trump supporters, you used to wonder when they would hit bottom. Now you wonder if there is a bottom for "people" like yourself.
> 
> PS: Would you be for sterilization of those that we kidnap? If not...why not? Wouldn't that send a message that is more serious than merely housing and feeding them--a virtual vacation--if that is your goal; to scare the shit out of people just for the sake of doing it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not going to play that typical liberal extremist game with you.  Why not just ask if we should put those kids in hot factories and make them work 12 hour shifts? You people do this crap all the time in discussions.
> 
> Reagan said one of his biggest mistakes as President was granting amnesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the jobs that go along with making and selling them???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that crap is made in China.  Do you know what it takes to get a patent?  It's not a lot of hard work.  Make an ink pen cleaner and you can get a patent on it; you can get a patent on anything.  That doesn't mean it's productive or was produced or sold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incredible....
> 
> So 1/2 of the patents go to people of foreign origin...
> That means 1/2 go to natives.
> 
> If Immigrants are not contributing anything in terms of new products, ideas, etc...neither are Americans then.  Whatever.
> 
> Good discussion.  I've learned a lot about conservatives; all of it disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And conservatives have gone above and beyond the call of disgusting by prohibiting those seeking asylum from doing so.
> 
> The reprehensible right, indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we had to give asylum to everybody that had a crappy country to live in, we would have over 2 billion people here.  And again, it's not about asylum, it's about finding ways to sneak into this country without standing in line like everybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just it, dope. We don't let in everyone who applies for asylum. There is a process in place to make the determination on their "standing". Asylum applicants are not criminals and have a right to due process under the law.
Click to expand...


Yep, and with the time and money spent, we could be doing better things for our country instead.  They come here knowing they don't have the qualifications to be granted asylum you dope.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Hutch Starskey said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again...how small.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter... we're now turning the screws on your little Beaner Buddies and they're beginning to get the message... close enough for Gubmint work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahhh racial slurs now.  How small...how very small
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's really what this is all about. Keeping America a white majority. None of them have the balls to actually say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will.  That is part of it.  So if you're white, what's wrong with that?  What other group of people besides white liberals would support a government trying to make them a minority in their own country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all of it and like I said, you won't admit it.
> 
> White folks are already the minority on the planet, dope. As people migrate around the world, populations will increasingly reflect that fact. I'm not afraid of that.
Click to expand...


Then you're probably a minority or a Surrender First white.   If you're a minority, then of course you don't care.   If you are a surrender first white, then I ask that you move to an all minority community to see how you're treated there first.  

Yes, whites are a minority in the world.  Did you ever ask why most of the world always want to be where the whites are?  Think about that for a few days.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Reagan was a RINO?
> 
> Man...how far you guys have fallen. As the saying goes, for Trump supporters, you used to wonder when they would hit bottom. Now you wonder if there is a bottom for "people" like yourself.
> 
> PS: Would you be for sterilization of those that we kidnap? If not...why not? Wouldn't that send a message that is more serious than merely housing and feeding them--a virtual vacation--if that is your goal; to scare the shit out of people just for the sake of doing it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not going to play that typical liberal extremist game with you.  Why not just ask if we should put those kids in hot factories and make them work 12 hour shifts? You people do this crap all the time in discussions.
> 
> Reagan said one of his biggest mistakes as President was granting amnesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the jobs that go along with making and selling them???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that crap is made in China.  Do you know what it takes to get a patent?  It's not a lot of hard work.  Make an ink pen cleaner and you can get a patent on it; you can get a patent on anything.  That doesn't mean it's productive or was produced or sold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I don't think you will find a quote by Reagan to that effect.  What you will find is a state senator from Arizona in a Brietbart News interview with Trump who said Ed Rollins, a campaign director for Reagan said, "President Reagan’s biggest regret as president was granting amnesty and then trusting Congress to deliver on border security."
> 
> The fact is the amnesty part worked fine.  Out of 3 million eligible undocumented immigrants, 2.9 million applied for amnesty.  What didn't work was the legislation to secure the boarder which never made it through congress.  In other words, Reagan signed a bill granting amnesty which didn't have the resources he said was needed to secure the boarder and increasing boarder security was the reason for the bill.
> 
> Boarder security is magnitudes better that in 1986.  There were approximate 3200 boarder patrol agents.  Today there are over 19,000. There were 3 aerial surveillance planes.  Today there are dozens of aircraft, radar installations, and electronic sensing, none of which existed in 1986.  Fencing where it existed was mostly barbwire cattle fences.  Today there is 700 miles of reinforced fencing and over a hundred miles of electronic fencing.  There was almost no penalty for hiring illegals.  There was no E-Verify and the only way immigration found visa over stays was from informants. The results of improved security and changes in the law has dramatically reduced the number of illegal entries.  In 2016, Homeland security estimated that were 170,000 southern boarder intrusions.  In 2000 the number was estimated to be approximate 1 million.  In prior years the boarder was so lightly paroled and the census did not collect any information on undocumented immigrants, there was no way of estimating the number of intrusions.
> 
> There is no reason to believe that an immigration bill today that included some legalization would turn out as in 1986.
> Did Ronald Reagan regret 1986 immigrant 'amnesty' law?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right you are; as per usual.
> 
> The argument (conservatives would have you believe) is about economics and that they just love everyone unless you come here for a job illegally.  Then they are for kidnapping.  Seems like a bizarre stance but okay.
> 
> Here are the facts about income…
> 
> The average income of Americans has risen since Reagan and his amnesty and the supposed illegal immigration crisis.  We definitely have more wealthy people than we did under Reagan.  There seems to be no serious economic detriment to having immigrant populations in our midst.
> 
> View attachment 198436
> 
> But wouldn’t it stand to reason that if you’re worried about an illegal/undocumented person taking your job…wouldn’t you be equally as worried about a legal/documented person taking your job.  Actually, even more so.  Presumably, your job includes some sort of skill on your part. Who is more likely to have that skill? A guy who comes across the southern border via coyote or smuggled in the bed of a pick up truck or the guy who patiently goes through the steps to get a work visa and doing what it takes to qualify for such a document?  The threat from the latter seems more potent than the threat from the former.  So the jobs/income argument makes zero sense.
> 
> It’s more a function of not wanting “beaners” here as Kondor3 put it, I suspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What really galls me is the people on this board and elsewhere that consider themselves god's gift to American simply because they happened to be born in the good old USA. Most of them have never served this country in any manner, yet they consider themselves patriots.  They have never gone hungry a day in their life, never fought to get an education or job, never had to be concerned where their next meal was coming form.  And yet they scoff and ridicule people that have truly suffered in their lives from real oppression and have sacrificed all they had just for a chance to live in American.
> 
> I think I should sign off tonight before I really get pissed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The way I put it is this; everyone born here is born on 2nd base.  The difference is that some people believe they hit a double and others recognize the head start.
Click to expand...


Really?  That's the exact came analogy many on the  left use when discussing wealth in our country.  

If you are born on 2nd base, everybody should start off on 2nd base.  

_*"People say it's wrong to get ahead because getting ahead leaves others behind.  Well if we all moved ahead the same distance at the same time, then nobody gets ahead." *_
Brian Kilmeade


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter... we're now turning the screws on your little Beaner Buddies and they're beginning to get the message... close enough for Gubmint work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh racial slurs now.  How small...how very small
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's really what this is all about. Keeping America a white majority. None of them have the balls to actually say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will.  That is part of it.  So if you're white, what's wrong with that?  What other group of people besides white liberals would support a government trying to make them a minority in their own country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all of it and like I said, you won't admit it.
> 
> White folks are already the minority on the planet, dope. As people migrate around the world, populations will increasingly reflect that fact. I'm not afraid of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're probably a minority or a Surrender First white.   If you're a minority, then of course you don't care.   If you are a surrender first white, then I ask that you move to an all minority community to see how you're treated there first.
> 
> Yes, whites are a minority in the world.  Did you ever ask why most of the world always want to be where the whites are?  Think about that for a few days.
Click to expand...


As I suspected; it has nothing to do with illegal immigrants taking jobs.  Because if you have any skill at all, the illegal alien isn’t taking your job, a skilled person will.  

Its about ethnic cleansing…  

So much for the shining city on the hill.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter... we're now turning the screws on your little Beaner Buddies and they're beginning to get the message... close enough for Gubmint work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh racial slurs now.  How small...how very small
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's really what this is all about. Keeping America a white majority. None of them have the balls to actually say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will.  That is part of it.  So if you're white, what's wrong with that?  What other group of people besides white liberals would support a government trying to make them a minority in their own country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all of it and like I said, you won't admit it.
> 
> White folks are already the minority on the planet, dope. As people migrate around the world, populations will increasingly reflect that fact. I'm not afraid of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're probably a minority or a Surrender First white.   If you're a minority, then of course you don't care.   If you are a surrender first white, then I ask that you move to an all minority community to see how you're treated there first.
> 
> Yes, whites are a minority in the world.  Did you ever ask why most of the world always want to be where the whites are?  Think about that for a few days.
Click to expand...


No. I don't care because race is meaningless.
Only a racist draws distinctions.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh racial slurs now.  How small...how very small
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's really what this is all about. Keeping America a white majority. None of them have the balls to actually say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will.  That is part of it.  So if you're white, what's wrong with that?  What other group of people besides white liberals would support a government trying to make them a minority in their own country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all of it and like I said, you won't admit it.
> 
> White folks are already the minority on the planet, dope. As people migrate around the world, populations will increasingly reflect that fact. I'm not afraid of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're probably a minority or a Surrender First white.   If you're a minority, then of course you don't care.   If you are a surrender first white, then I ask that you move to an all minority community to see how you're treated there first.
> 
> Yes, whites are a minority in the world.  Did you ever ask why most of the world always want to be where the whites are?  Think about that for a few days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I suspected; it has nothing to do with illegal immigrants taking jobs.  Because if you have any skill at all, the illegal alien isn’t taking your job, a skilled person will.
> 
> Its about ethnic cleansing…
> 
> So much for the shining city on the hill.
Click to expand...


Actually it's more about preservation.  You see, we whites came here and made claim to this land.  We took this wilderness and built it into the strongest and most prosperous nation on earth in just a few hundred years.  We surpassed societies that have been around since the dinosaur.  

Now that we created the greatest place around, everybody else wants to share in this success.  But the left wants to eliminate the very race of people who created this wonderful wealthy country.  

Yes, jobs are only part of it.  But tell me one other country in the world where the natives would welcome a political party wanting to make them a minority outside of Surrender First whites such as here and Europe?  And look what's happening to Europe! 

But surrender first whites never learn a thing.  They refuse to look around and see what's happening here and abroad, and instead, insist that it will work out better this time.  

After I made my first pickup downtown this morning, I was stopped by a guy trying to back a trailer into a fairly easy dock.  I was puzzled by his lack of experience.  Then out came the driver, a foreigner in sandals (a dead giveaway) and he continued to stop traffic to open his Fn doors which he should have done before he started to back in.  

It took him ten minutes to hit that dock; something I could have done in under 60 seconds.  But the reason he's here is because he's working for crap money keeping the rest of our wages down.  I know you're fine with this, but God forbid, when one of these Fn foreigners are driving a 75,000 lbs vehicle next to your minivan with your family, and he swerves across three lanes because he can't read the signs on the highway, let's hope you're not right next to him.  Because if he takes you and your family out, all he has to do is move back to his country.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Kondor3 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...And conservatives have gone above and beyond the call of disgusting by prohibiting those seeking asylum from doing so. The reprehensible right, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if you LibTards had not made it possible for every Beaner with a stubbed toe to claim asylum, it would not have come to this.
> 
> Too late now, little snowflake.
> 
> Long-term policies working against the interests of American Citizens have consequences.
> 
> These are yours.
> 
> Enjoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Claiming asylum and being granted asylum are two different things, loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of that $hit matters at the moment...
> 
> In politics, perception is everything...
> 
> You and yours are now perceived as standing alongside Illegal Aliens rather than your own fellow countrymen...
> 
> Terrible Optics...
> 
> Optics which resulted in the outcome of the November 8, 2016 election...
> 
> In light of that outcome... if you're looking for a "loser", I suggest you look in the mirror.
> 
> *Liberals-Progressives-Democrats* are responsible for the Imperial Cheeto, because ya'll are too dense to understand those Optics.
Click to expand...


Truth is all that matters, dope. 

Only the losers need to exploit, demean and vilify people to further their cause.


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's really what this is all about. Keeping America a white majority. None of them have the balls to actually say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will.  That is part of it.  So if you're white, what's wrong with that?  What other group of people besides white liberals would support a government trying to make them a minority in their own country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all of it and like I said, you won't admit it.
> 
> White folks are already the minority on the planet, dope. As people migrate around the world, populations will increasingly reflect that fact. I'm not afraid of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're probably a minority or a Surrender First white.   If you're a minority, then of course you don't care.   If you are a surrender first white, then I ask that you move to an all minority community to see how you're treated there first.
> 
> Yes, whites are a minority in the world.  Did you ever ask why most of the world always want to be where the whites are?  Think about that for a few days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I suspected; it has nothing to do with illegal immigrants taking jobs.  Because if you have any skill at all, the illegal alien isn’t taking your job, a skilled person will.
> 
> Its about ethnic cleansing…
> 
> So much for the shining city on the hill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it's more about preservation.  You see, we whites came here and made claim to this land.  We took this wilderness and built it into the strongest and most prosperous nation on earth in just a few hundred years.  We surpassed societies that have been around since the dinosaur.
> 
> Now that we created the greatest place around, everybody else wants to share in this success.  But the left wants to eliminate the very race of people who created this wonderful wealthy country.
> 
> Yes, jobs are only part of it.  But tell me one other country in the world where the natives would welcome a political party wanting to make them a minority outside of Surrender First whites such as here and Europe?  And look what's happening to Europe!
> 
> But surrender first whites never learn a thing.  They refuse to look around and see what's happening here and abroad, and instead, insist that it will work out better this time.
> 
> After I made my first pickup downtown this morning, I was stopped by a guy trying to back a trailer into a fairly easy dock.  I was puzzled by his lack of experience.  Then out came the driver, a foreigner in sandals (a dead giveaway) and he continued to stop traffic to open his Fn doors which he should have done before he started to back in.
> 
> It took him ten minutes to hit that dock; something I could have done in under 60 seconds.  But the reason he's here is because he's working for crap money keeping the rest of our wages down.  I know you're fine with this, but God forbid, when one of these Fn foreigners are driving a 75,000 lbs vehicle next to your minivan with your family, and he swerves across three lanes because he can't read the signs on the highway, let's hope you're not right next to him.  Because if he takes you and your family out, all he has to do is move back to his country.
Click to expand...



I pity you…

You remind me of this guy:


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not going to play that typical liberal extremist game with you.  Why not just ask if we should put those kids in hot factories and make them work 12 hour shifts? You people do this crap all the time in discussions.
> 
> Reagan said one of his biggest mistakes as President was granting amnesty.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of that crap is made in China.  Do you know what it takes to get a patent?  It's not a lot of hard work.  Make an ink pen cleaner and you can get a patent on it; you can get a patent on anything.  That doesn't mean it's productive or was produced or sold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incredible....
> 
> So 1/2 of the patents go to people of foreign origin...
> That means 1/2 go to natives.
> 
> If Immigrants are not contributing anything in terms of new products, ideas, etc...neither are Americans then.  Whatever.
> 
> Good discussion.  I've learned a lot about conservatives; all of it disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And conservatives have gone above and beyond the call of disgusting by prohibiting those seeking asylum from doing so.
> 
> The reprehensible right, indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we had to give asylum to everybody that had a crappy country to live in, we would have over 2 billion people here.  And again, it's not about asylum, it's about finding ways to sneak into this country without standing in line like everybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just it, dope. We don't let in everyone who applies for asylum. There is a process in place to make the determination on their "standing". Asylum applicants are not criminals and have a right to due process under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, and with the time and money spent, we could be doing better things for our country instead.  They come here knowing they don't have the qualifications to be granted asylum you dope.
Click to expand...


It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.  

Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
What the approval process is?
What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
Is that number trending up or down over time?


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's really what this is all about. Keeping America a white majority. None of them have the balls to actually say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will.  That is part of it.  So if you're white, what's wrong with that?  What other group of people besides white liberals would support a government trying to make them a minority in their own country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all of it and like I said, you won't admit it.
> 
> White folks are already the minority on the planet, dope. As people migrate around the world, populations will increasingly reflect that fact. I'm not afraid of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're probably a minority or a Surrender First white.   If you're a minority, then of course you don't care.   If you are a surrender first white, then I ask that you move to an all minority community to see how you're treated there first.
> 
> Yes, whites are a minority in the world.  Did you ever ask why most of the world always want to be where the whites are?  Think about that for a few days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I suspected; it has nothing to do with illegal immigrants taking jobs.  Because if you have any skill at all, the illegal alien isn’t taking your job, a skilled person will.
> 
> Its about ethnic cleansing…
> 
> So much for the shining city on the hill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it's more about preservation.  You see, we whites came here and made claim to this land.  We took this wilderness and built it into the strongest and most prosperous nation on earth in just a few hundred years.  We surpassed societies that have been around since the dinosaur.
> 
> Now that we created the greatest place around, everybody else wants to share in this success.  But the left wants to eliminate the very race of people who created this wonderful wealthy country.
> 
> Yes, jobs are only part of it.  But tell me one other country in the world where the natives would welcome a political party wanting to make them a minority outside of Surrender First whites such as here and Europe?  And look what's happening to Europe!
> 
> But surrender first whites never learn a thing.  They refuse to look around and see what's happening here and abroad, and instead, insist that it will work out better this time.
> 
> After I made my first pickup downtown this morning, I was stopped by a guy trying to back a trailer into a fairly easy dock.  I was puzzled by his lack of experience.  Then out came the driver, a foreigner in sandals (a dead giveaway) and he continued to stop traffic to open his Fn doors which he should have done before he started to back in.
> 
> It took him ten minutes to hit that dock; something I could have done in under 60 seconds.  But the reason he's here is because he's working for crap money keeping the rest of our wages down.  I know you're fine with this, but God forbid, when one of these Fn foreigners are driving a 75,000 lbs vehicle next to your minivan with your family, and he swerves across three lanes because he can't read the signs on the highway, let's hope you're not right next to him.  Because if he takes you and your family out, all he has to do is move back to his country.
Click to expand...


Nice supremacist screed, loser.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Hutch Starskey said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will.  That is part of it.  So if you're white, what's wrong with that?  What other group of people besides white liberals would support a government trying to make them a minority in their own country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all of it and like I said, you won't admit it.
> 
> White folks are already the minority on the planet, dope. As people migrate around the world, populations will increasingly reflect that fact. I'm not afraid of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're probably a minority or a Surrender First white.   If you're a minority, then of course you don't care.   If you are a surrender first white, then I ask that you move to an all minority community to see how you're treated there first.
> 
> Yes, whites are a minority in the world.  Did you ever ask why most of the world always want to be where the whites are?  Think about that for a few days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I suspected; it has nothing to do with illegal immigrants taking jobs.  Because if you have any skill at all, the illegal alien isn’t taking your job, a skilled person will.
> 
> Its about ethnic cleansing…
> 
> So much for the shining city on the hill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it's more about preservation.  You see, we whites came here and made claim to this land.  We took this wilderness and built it into the strongest and most prosperous nation on earth in just a few hundred years.  We surpassed societies that have been around since the dinosaur.
> 
> Now that we created the greatest place around, everybody else wants to share in this success.  But the left wants to eliminate the very race of people who created this wonderful wealthy country.
> 
> Yes, jobs are only part of it.  But tell me one other country in the world where the natives would welcome a political party wanting to make them a minority outside of Surrender First whites such as here and Europe?  And look what's happening to Europe!
> 
> But surrender first whites never learn a thing.  They refuse to look around and see what's happening here and abroad, and instead, insist that it will work out better this time.
> 
> After I made my first pickup downtown this morning, I was stopped by a guy trying to back a trailer into a fairly easy dock.  I was puzzled by his lack of experience.  Then out came the driver, a foreigner in sandals (a dead giveaway) and he continued to stop traffic to open his Fn doors which he should have done before he started to back in.
> 
> It took him ten minutes to hit that dock; something I could have done in under 60 seconds.  But the reason he's here is because he's working for crap money keeping the rest of our wages down.  I know you're fine with this, but God forbid, when one of these Fn foreigners are driving a 75,000 lbs vehicle next to your minivan with your family, and he swerves across three lanes because he can't read the signs on the highway, let's hope you're not right next to him.  Because if he takes you and your family out, all he has to do is move back to his country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice supremacist screed, loser.
Click to expand...


Truth to a leftist is like a cross to Dracula.


----------



## candycorn

Hutch Starskey said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will.  That is part of it.  So if you're white, what's wrong with that?  What other group of people besides white liberals would support a government trying to make them a minority in their own country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all of it and like I said, you won't admit it.
> 
> White folks are already the minority on the planet, dope. As people migrate around the world, populations will increasingly reflect that fact. I'm not afraid of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're probably a minority or a Surrender First white.   If you're a minority, then of course you don't care.   If you are a surrender first white, then I ask that you move to an all minority community to see how you're treated there first.
> 
> Yes, whites are a minority in the world.  Did you ever ask why most of the world always want to be where the whites are?  Think about that for a few days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I suspected; it has nothing to do with illegal immigrants taking jobs.  Because if you have any skill at all, the illegal alien isn’t taking your job, a skilled person will.
> 
> Its about ethnic cleansing…
> 
> So much for the shining city on the hill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it's more about preservation.  You see, we whites came here and made claim to this land.  We took this wilderness and built it into the strongest and most prosperous nation on earth in just a few hundred years.  We surpassed societies that have been around since the dinosaur.
> 
> Now that we created the greatest place around, everybody else wants to share in this success.  But the left wants to eliminate the very race of people who created this wonderful wealthy country.
> 
> Yes, jobs are only part of it.  But tell me one other country in the world where the natives would welcome a political party wanting to make them a minority outside of Surrender First whites such as here and Europe?  And look what's happening to Europe!
> 
> But surrender first whites never learn a thing.  They refuse to look around and see what's happening here and abroad, and instead, insist that it will work out better this time.
> 
> After I made my first pickup downtown this morning, I was stopped by a guy trying to back a trailer into a fairly easy dock.  I was puzzled by his lack of experience.  Then out came the driver, a foreigner in sandals (a dead giveaway) and he continued to stop traffic to open his Fn doors which he should have done before he started to back in.
> 
> It took him ten minutes to hit that dock; something I could have done in under 60 seconds.  But the reason he's here is because he's working for crap money keeping the rest of our wages down.  I know you're fine with this, but God forbid, when one of these Fn foreigners are driving a 75,000 lbs vehicle next to your minivan with your family, and he swerves across three lanes because he can't read the signs on the highway, let's hope you're not right next to him.  Because if he takes you and your family out, all he has to do is move back to his country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice supremacist screed, loser.
Click to expand...


And they wonder why they get called racist….


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Hutch Starskey said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incredible....
> 
> So 1/2 of the patents go to people of foreign origin...
> That means 1/2 go to natives.
> 
> If Immigrants are not contributing anything in terms of new products, ideas, etc...neither are Americans then.  Whatever.
> 
> Good discussion.  I've learned a lot about conservatives; all of it disgusting.
> 
> 
> 
> And conservatives have gone above and beyond the call of disgusting by prohibiting those seeking asylum from doing so.
> 
> The reprehensible right, indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we had to give asylum to everybody that had a crappy country to live in, we would have over 2 billion people here.  And again, it's not about asylum, it's about finding ways to sneak into this country without standing in line like everybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just it, dope. We don't let in everyone who applies for asylum. There is a process in place to make the determination on their "standing". Asylum applicants are not criminals and have a right to due process under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, and with the time and money spent, we could be doing better things for our country instead.  They come here knowing they don't have the qualifications to be granted asylum you dope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
> What the approval process is?
> What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
> Is that number trending up or down over time?
Click to expand...


What difference does any of that make?  We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.  

However they come here anyway, why?  Because of people like you.  If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.  

Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders?  They would quit coming here.  This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And conservatives have gone above and beyond the call of disgusting by prohibiting those seeking asylum from doing so.
> 
> The reprehensible right, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we had to give asylum to everybody that had a crappy country to live in, we would have over 2 billion people here.  And again, it's not about asylum, it's about finding ways to sneak into this country without standing in line like everybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just it, dope. We don't let in everyone who applies for asylum. There is a process in place to make the determination on their "standing". Asylum applicants are not criminals and have a right to due process under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, and with the time and money spent, we could be doing better things for our country instead.  They come here knowing they don't have the qualifications to be granted asylum you dope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
> What the approval process is?
> What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
> Is that number trending up or down over time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What difference does any of that make?  We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.
> 
> However they come here anyway, why?  Because of people like you.  If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.
> 
> Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders?  They would quit coming here.  This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.
Click to expand...


Asylum is a "right way", dope.

Applying for asylum is not a crime.


----------



## BrokeLoser

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will.  That is part of it.  So if you're white, what's wrong with that?  What other group of people besides white liberals would support a government trying to make them a minority in their own country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all of it and like I said, you won't admit it.
> 
> White folks are already the minority on the planet, dope. As people migrate around the world, populations will increasingly reflect that fact. I'm not afraid of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're probably a minority or a Surrender First white.   If you're a minority, then of course you don't care.   If you are a surrender first white, then I ask that you move to an all minority community to see how you're treated there first.
> 
> Yes, whites are a minority in the world.  Did you ever ask why most of the world always want to be where the whites are?  Think about that for a few days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I suspected; it has nothing to do with illegal immigrants taking jobs.  Because if you have any skill at all, the illegal alien isn’t taking your job, a skilled person will.
> 
> Its about ethnic cleansing…
> 
> So much for the shining city on the hill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it's more about preservation.  You see, we whites came here and made claim to this land.  We took this wilderness and built it into the strongest and most prosperous nation on earth in just a few hundred years.  We surpassed societies that have been around since the dinosaur.
> 
> Now that we created the greatest place around, everybody else wants to share in this success.  But the left wants to eliminate the very race of people who created this wonderful wealthy country.
> 
> Yes, jobs are only part of it.  But tell me one other country in the world where the natives would welcome a political party wanting to make them a minority outside of Surrender First whites such as here and Europe?  And look what's happening to Europe!
> 
> But surrender first whites never learn a thing.  They refuse to look around and see what's happening here and abroad, and instead, insist that it will work out better this time.
> 
> After I made my first pickup downtown this morning, I was stopped by a guy trying to back a trailer into a fairly easy dock.  I was puzzled by his lack of experience.  Then out came the driver, a foreigner in sandals (a dead giveaway) and he continued to stop traffic to open his Fn doors which he should have done before he started to back in.
> 
> It took him ten minutes to hit that dock; something I could have done in under 60 seconds.  But the reason he's here is because he's working for crap money keeping the rest of our wages down.  I know you're fine with this, but God forbid, when one of these Fn foreigners are driving a 75,000 lbs vehicle next to your minivan with your family, and he swerves across three lanes because he can't read the signs on the highway, let's hope you're not right next to him.  Because if he takes you and your family out, all he has to do is move back to his country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I pity you…
> 
> You remind me of this guy:
Click to expand...


That’s funny...I use that self manipulating tactic as well. When somebody makes too much sense and I don’t like their candid truth. I just say “I pity you...”
It allows me to keep my head in the sand and stay stupid....It works every time without fail.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Hutch Starskey said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we had to give asylum to everybody that had a crappy country to live in, we would have over 2 billion people here.  And again, it's not about asylum, it's about finding ways to sneak into this country without standing in line like everybody else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just it, dope. We don't let in everyone who applies for asylum. There is a process in place to make the determination on their "standing". Asylum applicants are not criminals and have a right to due process under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, and with the time and money spent, we could be doing better things for our country instead.  They come here knowing they don't have the qualifications to be granted asylum you dope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
> What the approval process is?
> What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
> Is that number trending up or down over time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What difference does any of that make?  We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.
> 
> However they come here anyway, why?  Because of people like you.  If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.
> 
> Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders?  They would quit coming here.  This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
Click to expand...


Why do you ignorant fools take such pride in being suckered?
My guess is, when you get suckered it cost others because you’re a liability yourself?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Hutch Starskey said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we had to give asylum to everybody that had a crappy country to live in, we would have over 2 billion people here.  And again, it's not about asylum, it's about finding ways to sneak into this country without standing in line like everybody else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just it, dope. We don't let in everyone who applies for asylum. There is a process in place to make the determination on their "standing". Asylum applicants are not criminals and have a right to due process under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, and with the time and money spent, we could be doing better things for our country instead.  They come here knowing they don't have the qualifications to be granted asylum you dope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
> What the approval process is?
> What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
> Is that number trending up or down over time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What difference does any of that make?  We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.
> 
> However they come here anyway, why?  Because of people like you.  If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.
> 
> Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders?  They would quit coming here.  This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
Click to expand...


And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.


----------



## Kondor3

candycorn said:


> As I suspected; it has nothing to do with illegal immigrants taking jobs.  Because if you have any skill at all, the illegal alien isn’t taking your job, a skilled person will. ..


Doesn't matter. They do not belong here. They go back.



> ...Its about ethnic cleansing…


Incorrect. It's about *halting* the insidious _death-by-a-thousand-cuts_ style of ethnic cleansing by LibProgs flooding the country with Central Americans.

You stand alongside Illegal Aliens rather than your own fellow countrymen.

Your countrymen finally rebelled on November 8, 2016, and kicked you-and-yours to the curb.

Just as the rank-and-file of Europe are finally beginning to rebel against their Open Borders masters... following the new American lead in this matter.

Insane LibProg immigration policies have consequences.

These are yours.

Enjoy.



> ....So much for the shining city on the hill.


Oh, the Shining City on the Hill is still very much alive and going strong, no thanks to you-and-yours... and your countrymen are now intent on keeping it that way.


----------



## Kondor3

Hutch Starskey said:


> ...Only a racist draws distinctions.


Doesn't matter... there are a thousand-and-one reasons why Americans are now openly opposed to insane LibProg immigration policies.

Economics... race... labor... culture... tax burden... job markets... crime... depressed wages... and on and on and on.

What signifies here is that it's *OUR* country, not theirs... our home, our rules, our laws, our borders, our sovereignty... we can do what we want.


----------



## Dragonlady

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's just it, dope. We don't let in everyone who applies for asylum. There is a process in place to make the determination on their "standing". Asylum applicants are not criminals and have a right to due process under the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and with the time and money spent, we could be doing better things for our country instead.  They come here knowing they don't have the qualifications to be granted asylum you dope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
> What the approval process is?
> What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
> Is that number trending up or down over time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What difference does any of that make?  We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.
> 
> However they come here anyway, why?  Because of people like you.  If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.
> 
> Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders?  They would quit coming here.  This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
Click to expand...


Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations. 

This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents. 

Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?


----------



## candycorn

Dragonlady said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and with the time and money spent, we could be doing better things for our country instead.  They come here knowing they don't have the qualifications to be granted asylum you dope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
> What the approval process is?
> What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
> Is that number trending up or down over time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What difference does any of that make?  We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.
> 
> However they come here anyway, why?  Because of people like you.  If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.
> 
> Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders?  They would quit coming here.  This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
Click to expand...



It’s unimaginable that there are people in favor of ripping 1y/o babies from their parents by policy.  

Makes you wonder about their upbringing


----------



## candycorn

Deuteronomy 10:18-19 – “For the Lord your God...loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.  You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

From my twitter feed


----------



## basquebromance

liberals say that the "Vast majority" of illegal immigrants are decent people.

Yes, and the vast majority of boa constrictors stay out of trouble too. Let's put them in our schools! In fact, far fewer boa constrictors kill Americans each year than Latin American immigrants do. Less than one a year. And boa constrictors don't undercut you at the construction site. 

We never hear that "vast majority" argument about the policies that liberals like. The "vast majority" of gun owners never shoot up a school. The "vast majority" of smokers will never get lung cancer. The "vast majority" of Americans do not benefit from Wall Street profits.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Dragonlady said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and with the time and money spent, we could be doing better things for our country instead.  They come here knowing they don't have the qualifications to be granted asylum you dope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
> What the approval process is?
> What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
> Is that number trending up or down over time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What difference does any of that make?  We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.
> 
> However they come here anyway, why?  Because of people like you.  If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.
> 
> Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders?  They would quit coming here.  This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
Click to expand...




candycorn said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
> What the approval process is?
> What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
> Is that number trending up or down over time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does any of that make?  We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.
> 
> However they come here anyway, why?  Because of people like you.  If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.
> 
> Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders?  They would quit coming here.  This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It’s unimaginable that there are people in favor of ripping 1y/o babies from their parents by policy.
> 
> Makes you wonder about their upbringing
Click to expand...


Your “tolerant based” cries are just plain comical.
You fools realize that ALL detained criminals are separated from their children....RIGHT?
And you realize they’re seperated as a result of their own actions...RIGHT?
Were none of you fools ever taught cause and effect?


----------



## Dragonlady

BrokeLoser said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
> What the approval process is?
> What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
> Is that number trending up or down over time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does any of that make?  We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.
> 
> However they come here anyway, why?  Because of people like you.  If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.
> 
> Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders?  They would quit coming here.  This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does any of that make?  We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.
> 
> However they come here anyway, why?  Because of people like you.  If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.
> 
> Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders?  They would quit coming here.  This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It’s unimaginable that there are people in favor of ripping 1y/o babies from their parents by policy.
> 
> Makes you wonder about their upbringing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your “tolerant based” cries are just plain comical.
> You fools realize that ALL detained criminals are separated from their children....RIGHT?
> And you realize they’re seperated as a result of their own actions...RIGHT?
> Were none of you fools ever taught cause and effect?
Click to expand...


Are you being willfully blind or are you really this stupid. 

These children have broken no laws, nor have their parents. It’s not illegal to ask for asylum. In fact, it’s their legal RIGHT under US law and the Charter of rights and freedoms of the UN. 

What Trump is doing is illegal, immoral and just plain wrong. This may be the issue to get evangelicals to turn on him.


----------



## bendog

candycorn said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
> What the approval process is?
> What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
> Is that number trending up or down over time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does any of that make?  We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.
> 
> However they come here anyway, why?  Because of people like you.  If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.
> 
> Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders?  They would quit coming here.  This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It’s unimaginable that there are people in favor of ripping 1y/o babies from their parents by policy.
> 
> Makes you wonder about their upbringing
Click to expand...

That's my main question.  At what age are children separated.  I can't imagine that under age 6 it is possibly legal to separate children unless their parents are a danger to them?

Separating asylum seekers is also legally and morally problematical.  First as has been pointed out IT ISN'T ILLEGAL TO SEEK ASYLUM.  Sessions has changed policy to require these people be detained while their claims for asylum are considered.


----------



## candycorn

bendog said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does any of that make?  We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.
> 
> However they come here anyway, why?  Because of people like you.  If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.
> 
> Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders?  They would quit coming here.  This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It’s unimaginable that there are people in favor of ripping 1y/o babies from their parents by policy.
> 
> Makes you wonder about their upbringing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's my main question.  At what age are children separated.  I can't imagine that under age 6 it is possibly legal to separate children unless their parents are a danger to them?
> 
> Separating asylum seekers is also legally and morally problematical.  First as has been pointed out IT ISN'T ILLEGAL TO SEEK ASYLUM.  Sessions has changed policy to require these people be detained while their claims for asylum are considered.
Click to expand...


As I understand it, Obama did the same thing but it was on the basis of only doing it when it was impossible to keep the family unit together.  The hard and fast policy of ripping kids away from their parents as just an enhanced form of deterrence is, frankly, sickening.  It say much more about how far we have sunk as a society than what it says to those who break our immigration laws.


----------



## bendog

candycorn said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It’s unimaginable that there are people in favor of ripping 1y/o babies from their parents by policy.
> 
> Makes you wonder about their upbringing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's my main question.  At what age are children separated.  I can't imagine that under age 6 it is possibly legal to separate children unless their parents are a danger to them?
> 
> Separating asylum seekers is also legally and morally problematical.  First as has been pointed out IT ISN'T ILLEGAL TO SEEK ASYLUM.  Sessions has changed policy to require these people be detained while their claims for asylum are considered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I understand it, Obama did the same thing but it was on the basis of only doing it when it was impossible to keep the family unit together.  The hard and fast policy of ripping kids away from their parents as just an enhanced form of deterrence is, frankly, sickening.  It say much more about how far we have sunk as a society than what it says to those who break our immigration laws.
Click to expand...


The difference is that Obama did not hold the people until trial.  It was called "catch and release."  They were literally dumped across the border if they were arrested in some vicinity to it.  If they made it to Utah or Kansas, they were detained until a deportation hearing.  One can argue that Obama was not humane, but either we try to enforce borders of just give up.

Trump doesn't like the numbers of catch and release because it highlites that we have an uptick in border crossings.  So Sessions is imprisoning folks until they get a court deportation. 
 I probably posted this, and if so I apologize for spamming.

Analysis | Why separate immigrant children from parents? The politics of fear — just indirectly.

There are federal guidelines on when children can be separated at what age, and how children are not to be housed with adults.  Even mothers in prison for felonies don't have kids separated at birth.  The reasons should be obvious for both.

but when a kid even of age 6-12 is separated from a parent that has a bond with a child, the child's development is hurt.  Doing that for the sole reason of making it more punitive for breaking a law is morally and legally wrong.  We cannot punish children with criminal justice.  It's unconstitutional and wrong - although the Trump administration has not been taken to court ... yet, but it will be. And the separation can cause damage to children's development. 

*School-Age Children Development & Parenting Tips (6 – 12 Years Old)*

Learn More about How To Parent Your School-Age Child
Raising school-age children can be awesome.  Watching them try new activities, cheering them on at athletic events and applauding their accomplishments at recitals are usually some of the high points for most parents.  However, achieving success is often preceded by frustration and sometimes learning to accept one’s weaknesses as well as celebrating and building on strengths.  When will equipped parents can be excellent coaches for their child no matter what the endeavor.

While toddlers and preschoolers need constant supervision, school-age children become gradually ready for more independence.  However, learning to make good choices and exercise self-discipline does not come easily for many.  Parents need to impart a moral code that the child gradually internalizes.  As children struggle with these important tasks parents must be able to provide praise and encouragement for achievement but parents must also be able to allow them to sometimes experience the natural consequences for their behavior or provide logical consequences to help them learn from mistakes.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

BrokeLoser said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's just it, dope. We don't let in everyone who applies for asylum. There is a process in place to make the determination on their "standing". Asylum applicants are not criminals and have a right to due process under the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and with the time and money spent, we could be doing better things for our country instead.  They come here knowing they don't have the qualifications to be granted asylum you dope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
> What the approval process is?
> What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
> Is that number trending up or down over time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What difference does any of that make?  We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.
> 
> However they come here anyway, why?  Because of people like you.  If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.
> 
> Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders?  They would quit coming here.  This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you ignorant fools take such pride in being suckered?
> My guess is, when you get suckered it cost others because you’re a liability yourself?
Click to expand...


Suckered?
Explain.


----------



## candycorn

bendog said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It’s unimaginable that there are people in favor of ripping 1y/o babies from their parents by policy.
> 
> Makes you wonder about their upbringing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's my main question.  At what age are children separated.  I can't imagine that under age 6 it is possibly legal to separate children unless their parents are a danger to them?
> 
> Separating asylum seekers is also legally and morally problematical.  First as has been pointed out IT ISN'T ILLEGAL TO SEEK ASYLUM.  Sessions has changed policy to require these people be detained while their claims for asylum are considered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I understand it, Obama did the same thing but it was on the basis of only doing it when it was impossible to keep the family unit together.  The hard and fast policy of ripping kids away from their parents as just an enhanced form of deterrence is, frankly, sickening.  It say much more about how far we have sunk as a society than what it says to those who break our immigration laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is that Obama did not hold the people until trial.  It was called "catch and release."  They were literally dumped across the border if they were arrested in some vicinity to it.  If they made it to Utah or Kansas, they were detained until a deportation hearing.  One can argue that Obama was not humane, but either we try to enforce borders of just give up.
> 
> Trump doesn't like the numbers of catch and release because it highlites that we have an uptick in border crossings.  So Sessions is imprisoning folks until they get a court deportation.
> I probably posted this, and if so I apologize for spamming.
> 
> Analysis | Why separate immigrant children from parents? The politics of fear — just indirectly.
> 
> There are federal guidelines on when children can be separated at what age, and how children are not to be housed with adults.  Even mothers in prison for felonies don't have kids separated at birth.  The reasons should be obvious for both.
> 
> but when a kid even of age 6-12 is separated from a parent that has a bond with a child, the child's development is hurt.  Doing that for the sole reason of making it more punitive for breaking a law is morally and legally wrong.  We cannot punish children with criminal justice.  It's unconstitutional and wrong - although the Trump administration has not been taken to court ... yet, but it will be. And the separation can cause damage to children's development.
> 
> *School-Age Children Development & Parenting Tips (6 – 12 Years Old)*
> 
> Learn More about How To Parent Your School-Age Child
> Raising school-age children can be awesome.  Watching them try new activities, cheering them on at athletic events and applauding their accomplishments at recitals are usually some of the high points for most parents.  However, achieving success is often preceded by frustration and sometimes learning to accept one’s weaknesses as well as celebrating and building on strengths.  When will equipped parents can be excellent coaches for their child no matter what the endeavor.
> 
> While toddlers and preschoolers need constant supervision, school-age children become gradually ready for more independence.  However, learning to make good choices and exercise self-discipline does not come easily for many.  Parents need to impart a moral code that the child gradually internalizes.  As children struggle with these important tasks parents must be able to provide praise and encouragement for achievement but parents must also be able to allow them to sometimes experience the natural consequences for their behavior or provide logical consequences to help them learn from mistakes.
Click to expand...


Right you are.  Under the best of circumstances, it’s terrifying.  Can you imagine if the kid has separation anxiety, Autism, or some other special needs situation?  Correctional officers are great folks but they are not exactly nannies.  

That we’re having this conversation and having to explain why it is unimaginably bad policy is probably the most vivid sign that underscores just what a cancerous effect Trump is having on our nation.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's just it, dope. We don't let in everyone who applies for asylum. There is a process in place to make the determination on their "standing". Asylum applicants are not criminals and have a right to due process under the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and with the time and money spent, we could be doing better things for our country instead.  They come here knowing they don't have the qualifications to be granted asylum you dope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
> What the approval process is?
> What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
> Is that number trending up or down over time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What difference does any of that make?  We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.
> 
> However they come here anyway, why?  Because of people like you.  If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.
> 
> Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders?  They would quit coming here.  This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
Click to expand...


What is the point in doing so?
Why separate families while going through a legal process?


----------



## Hutch Starskey

BrokeLoser said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
> What the approval process is?
> What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
> Is that number trending up or down over time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does any of that make?  We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.
> 
> However they come here anyway, why?  Because of people like you.  If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.
> 
> Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders?  They would quit coming here.  This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does any of that make?  We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.
> 
> However they come here anyway, why?  Because of people like you.  If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.
> 
> Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders?  They would quit coming here.  This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It’s unimaginable that there are people in favor of ripping 1y/o babies from their parents by policy.
> 
> Makes you wonder about their upbringing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your “tolerant based” cries are just plain comical.
> You fools realize that ALL detained criminals are separated from their children....RIGHT?
> And you realize they’re seperated as a result of their own actions...RIGHT?
> Were none of you fools ever taught cause and effect?
Click to expand...


Applying for asylum is not a crime.


----------



## candycorn




----------



## bendog

Hutch Starskey said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and with the time and money spent, we could be doing better things for our country instead.  They come here knowing they don't have the qualifications to be granted asylum you dope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
> What the approval process is?
> What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
> Is that number trending up or down over time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What difference does any of that make?  We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.
> 
> However they come here anyway, why?  Because of people like you.  If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.
> 
> Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders?  They would quit coming here.  This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the point in doing so?
> Why separate families while going through a legal process?
Click to expand...

That's the thing - the legal process.  What Trump is doing is prolonging the legal process of deporting.  Rather than catch and a relatively quick over the border you go, Trump is making it more punitive by making it take longer to actually go to court.

I'm all for trying to stop illegal immigration, although I think a wall is more symbol than anything.  People come here with kids hoping their kids will be raised to become Dreamers.  I'm not all in favor of the Dreamers staying.  We should try to remove any incentive, or reason why people illegally come here.  But punishing children is not legally ok under the US Constitution.  To say nothing about basic humanity


----------



## BrokeLoser

Hutch Starskey said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does any of that make?  We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.
> 
> However they come here anyway, why?  Because of people like you.  If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.
> 
> Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders?  They would quit coming here.  This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It’s unimaginable that there are people in favor of ripping 1y/o babies from their parents by policy.
> 
> Makes you wonder about their upbringing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your “tolerant based” cries are just plain comical.
> You fools realize that ALL detained criminals are separated from their children....RIGHT?
> And you realize they’re seperated as a result of their own actions...RIGHT?
> Were none of you fools ever taught cause and effect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
Click to expand...


Knowing you can’t qualify for a asylum…And trying anyway knowing you’ll be separated from your children…Should be a crime though...right?


----------



## Dragonlady

BrokeLoser said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It’s unimaginable that there are people in favor of ripping 1y/o babies from their parents by policy.
> 
> Makes you wonder about their upbringing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your “tolerant based” cries are just plain comical.
> You fools realize that ALL detained criminals are separated from their children....RIGHT?
> And you realize they’re seperated as a result of their own actions...RIGHT?
> Were none of you fools ever taught cause and effect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Knowing you can’t qualify for a asylum…And trying anyway knowing you’ll be separated from your children…Should be a crime though...right?
Click to expand...


No. Seeking asylum should NEVER be a crime. 

Taking children away from their parents in order to frighten and terrorize the parents should be, though.


----------



## bendog

Dragonlady said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It’s unimaginable that there are people in favor of ripping 1y/o babies from their parents by policy.
> 
> Makes you wonder about their upbringing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your “tolerant based” cries are just plain comical.
> You fools realize that ALL detained criminals are separated from their children....RIGHT?
> And you realize they’re seperated as a result of their own actions...RIGHT?
> Were none of you fools ever taught cause and effect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Knowing you can’t qualify for a asylum…And trying anyway knowing you’ll be separated from your children…Should be a crime though...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Seeking asylum should NEVER be a crime.
> 
> Taking children away from their parents in order to frighten and terrorize the parents should be, though.
Click to expand...


Two different things here.  1)  if people come here illegally without any claim of asylum, they and their children should be sent back as quickly as possible.  It may be necessary to separate children from adults, because children are not legally jailed with adults.  But intentionally making the period of detention longer should not be OK.

2)  Just because someone applies for asylum does not entitle them to just run free in the country.  If someone thinks they really need asylum, having their kids in a safe place with proper food, medical care and education should not be a problem. As I understand it, it's not a really quick thing to have an asylum claim investigated and get a hearing.   But I'm sure it beats being murdered.

And if people can't get jobs here, and if it's a crime for a person legally here to hide or give support to people illegally here .... I think that's really the way to get at the illegal immigration problem.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> Right you are. Under the best of circumstances, it’s terrifying. Can you imagine if the kid has separation anxiety, Autism, or some other special needs situation?



If a kid has a special needs problem, then WTF is the mother dragging the kid across Mexico for?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dragonlady said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and with the time and money spent, we could be doing better things for our country instead.  They come here knowing they don't have the qualifications to be granted asylum you dope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
> What the approval process is?
> What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
> Is that number trending up or down over time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What difference does any of that make?  We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.
> 
> However they come here anyway, why?  Because of people like you.  If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.
> 
> Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders?  They would quit coming here.  This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
Click to expand...


Why yes it is the image we want to project to the world, especially south of our border.  

The UN doesn't run our country--we run our country.  We can make or repeal any law we desire.  If you don't like our laws or policies, don't come to the US.  That's the way we want it anyhow.


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's all of it and like I said, you won't admit it.
> 
> White folks are already the minority on the planet, dope. As people migrate around the world, populations will increasingly reflect that fact. I'm not afraid of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're probably a minority or a Surrender First white.   If you're a minority, then of course you don't care.   If you are a surrender first white, then I ask that you move to an all minority community to see how you're treated there first.
> 
> Yes, whites are a minority in the world.  Did you ever ask why most of the world always want to be where the whites are?  Think about that for a few days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I suspected; it has nothing to do with illegal immigrants taking jobs.  Because if you have any skill at all, the illegal alien isn’t taking your job, a skilled person will.
> 
> Its about ethnic cleansing…
> 
> So much for the shining city on the hill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it's more about preservation.  You see, we whites came here and made claim to this land.  We took this wilderness and built it into the strongest and most prosperous nation on earth in just a few hundred years.  We surpassed societies that have been around since the dinosaur.
> 
> Now that we created the greatest place around, everybody else wants to share in this success.  But the left wants to eliminate the very race of people who created this wonderful wealthy country.
> 
> Yes, jobs are only part of it.  But tell me one other country in the world where the natives would welcome a political party wanting to make them a minority outside of Surrender First whites such as here and Europe?  And look what's happening to Europe!
> 
> But surrender first whites never learn a thing.  They refuse to look around and see what's happening here and abroad, and instead, insist that it will work out better this time.
> 
> After I made my first pickup downtown this morning, I was stopped by a guy trying to back a trailer into a fairly easy dock.  I was puzzled by his lack of experience.  Then out came the driver, a foreigner in sandals (a dead giveaway) and he continued to stop traffic to open his Fn doors which he should have done before he started to back in.
> 
> It took him ten minutes to hit that dock; something I could have done in under 60 seconds.  But the reason he's here is because he's working for crap money keeping the rest of our wages down.  I know you're fine with this, but God forbid, when one of these Fn foreigners are driving a 75,000 lbs vehicle next to your minivan with your family, and he swerves across three lanes because he can't read the signs on the highway, let's hope you're not right next to him.  Because if he takes you and your family out, all he has to do is move back to his country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice supremacist screed, loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they wonder why they get called racist….
Click to expand...


We don't wonder at all.  We know it's because leftists are hypocritical dimwits.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and with the time and money spent, we could be doing better things for our country instead.  They come here knowing they don't have the qualifications to be granted asylum you dope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
> What the approval process is?
> What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
> Is that number trending up or down over time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What difference does any of that make?  We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.
> 
> However they come here anyway, why?  Because of people like you.  If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.
> 
> Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders?  They would quit coming here.  This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
Click to expand...


You really have no idea how much I'm laughing every time you parrot "ripping out of the arms of their parents".  At the point where it became literally impossible for you to use any phrase BUT that, it became farce.

You leftists are 100% responsible for this happening.  It was YOUR law; YOU insisted on it.  YOU screamed and hollered that it was "the only humane thing to do".  Now you flip on a dime and the complete opposite is "the only humane thing to do".  And you really, genuinely expect us all to gasp in horror on cue, because you're too piss-stupid to realize how obviously you've overplayed your hand.

Traumatize this, twerp.    No one gives a shit about your melodramatic hyperbole any more.

The parents are criminals, they're in jail pending hearing, and they're staying in jail pending hearing.  Period.  You can clutch your pearls and screech and wail to your heart's content; no one cares.


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
> What the approval process is?
> What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
> Is that number trending up or down over time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does any of that make?  We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.
> 
> However they come here anyway, why?  Because of people like you.  If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.
> 
> Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders?  They would quit coming here.  This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It’s unimaginable that there are people in favor of ripping 1y/o babies from their parents by policy.
> 
> Makes you wonder about their upbringing
Click to expand...


Why is it "unimaginable"?  It was perfectly imaginable a couple of years ago when YOU LEFTISTS insisted on it.

Perhaps your limited imagination is linked with your abysmal memory and non-existent truth-telling.


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> Deuteronomy 10:18-19 – “For the Lord your God...loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.  You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
> 
> From my twitter feed



Thanks for sharing, Reverend Cornball, but "loving the strangers" doesn't require letting them invade and destroy our home.

I need no lessons in charity and compassion from asshats who think they both involve voting money out of other people's pockets.


----------



## Kondor3

Dragonlady said:


> ...Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations...


Incorrect.

Any adult charged with a crime and in possession of children at the time of their arrest is going to have their children placed into protective care.

If their parents do not want this to happen to their children, then they should not cross over onto sovereign United States soil without our express prior consent.



> ...This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents...


If their parents do not want this to happen to their children, then they should not cross over onto sovereign United States soil without our express prior consent.



> ...Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?


No. It is our intent to send the message that coming (or overstaying) here without our permission will no longer be tolerated, regardless of the cost.


----------



## Kondor3

Dragonlady said:


> ...No. Seeking asylum should NEVER be a crime...


True. Stepping onto (or overstaying on) sovereign United States soil without our express prior consent should be, however, and it *IS*.



> ...Taking children away from their parents in order to frighten and terrorize the parents should be, though.


Good thing for us, then, that that is not what is happening.

What *IS* happening is that criminal trespassers are being arrested and separated from their dependents, just like any other crime.

The fix is to plead "guilty" and cross back over onto Mexican soil, at which point they get their _Never-Gonna-Be-Dreamers_ back again.

The New Message is:

"_You are no longer welcome here without asking our permission first. If you bring your kids, they will be housed elsewhere while you undergo criminal processing._"

To make omelettes ya gotta break a few eggs... if they don't like it, they can eat $hit and die...

Or, more humanely, don't bother coming here; if you must leave your home, go South... the North is now closed to you... you waited too long... too bad... so sad... buh-bye.

This has been a llloooonnnnnnggg time coming... decades of LibTard policy favoring Illegal Aliens rather than their fellow Americans...

It finally caught up with them on November 8, 2016...

The problem for them is, they don't have the capacity to grasp the real reason why they got their a$$e$ kicked outside their enclaves...

So they go on deluding themselves into thinking it's everybody else's fault but their own...

The Dems really do need to have a Come-to-Jesus Moment when they take a good, long, hard look in the mirror, until the light bulb finally goes "on" over their heads.


----------



## Flopper

Hutch Starskey said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incredible....
> 
> So 1/2 of the patents go to people of foreign origin...
> That means 1/2 go to natives.
> 
> If Immigrants are not contributing anything in terms of new products, ideas, etc...neither are Americans then.  Whatever.
> 
> Good discussion.  I've learned a lot about conservatives; all of it disgusting.
> 
> 
> 
> And conservatives have gone above and beyond the call of disgusting by prohibiting those seeking asylum from doing so.
> 
> The reprehensible right, indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we had to give asylum to everybody that had a crappy country to live in, we would have over 2 billion people here.  And again, it's not about asylum, it's about finding ways to sneak into this country without standing in line like everybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just it, dope. We don't let in everyone who applies for asylum. There is a process in place to make the determination on their "standing". Asylum applicants are not criminals and have a right to due process under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, and with the time and money spent, we could be doing better things for our country instead.  They come here knowing they don't have the qualifications to be granted asylum you dope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
> What the approval process is?
> What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
> Is that number trending up or down over time?
Click to expand...

*Over the last 26 years we have granted asylum to 1.9 million people. That's only .5% of the US population.  The average is about 20,000/yr. 40% of those that apply and pass pre-screening are granted asylum after 3 to 6 mos of interviews and investigation. I seriously doubt that Trump would allow that many in the country.  In fact, I don't see any reason he would allow any.  There's nothing political or financial in it for him.*


----------



## Flopper

candycorn said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It’s unimaginable that there are people in favor of ripping 1y/o babies from their parents by policy.
> 
> Makes you wonder about their upbringing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's my main question.  At what age are children separated.  I can't imagine that under age 6 it is possibly legal to separate children unless their parents are a danger to them?
> 
> Separating asylum seekers is also legally and morally problematical.  First as has been pointed out IT ISN'T ILLEGAL TO SEEK ASYLUM.  Sessions has changed policy to require these people be detained while their claims for asylum are considered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I understand it, Obama did the same thing but it was on the basis of only doing it when it was impossible to keep the family unit together.  The hard and fast policy of ripping kids away from their parents as just an enhanced form of deterrence is, frankly, sickening.  It say much more about how far we have sunk as a society than what it says to those who break our immigration laws.
Click to expand...

*Any ICE agent could tell you the real reason for separating parents from their kids.  Recently in Texas immigration court, 57 parents appeared before an immigration judge and all but one plead guilty after being told that if they plead guilty, they will be united with their kids and deported.  If they ask for a trial, they will be detained till the trial.  Detention can be as long as one year.  It's just a legal form of extortion.  

And the Orange Clown appears on TV and says, "I really care about these kids."*


----------



## candycorn

Flopper said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It’s unimaginable that there are people in favor of ripping 1y/o babies from their parents by policy.
> 
> Makes you wonder about their upbringing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's my main question.  At what age are children separated.  I can't imagine that under age 6 it is possibly legal to separate children unless their parents are a danger to them?
> 
> Separating asylum seekers is also legally and morally problematical.  First as has been pointed out IT ISN'T ILLEGAL TO SEEK ASYLUM.  Sessions has changed policy to require these people be detained while their claims for asylum are considered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I understand it, Obama did the same thing but it was on the basis of only doing it when it was impossible to keep the family unit together.  The hard and fast policy of ripping kids away from their parents as just an enhanced form of deterrence is, frankly, sickening.  It say much more about how far we have sunk as a society than what it says to those who break our immigration laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Any ICE agent could tell you the real reason for separating parents from their kids.  Recently in Texas immigration court, 57 parents appeared before an immigration judge and all but one plead guilty after being told that if they plead guilty, they will be united with their kids and deported.  If they ask for a trial, they will be detained till the trial.  Detention can be as long as one year.  It's just a legal form of extortion.
> 
> And the Orange Clown appears on TV and says, "I really care about these kids."*
Click to expand...


Sooner or later karma catches up to everyone.


----------



## Flopper

candycorn said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s unimaginable that there are people in favor of ripping 1y/o babies from their parents by policy.
> 
> Makes you wonder about their upbringing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's my main question.  At what age are children separated.  I can't imagine that under age 6 it is possibly legal to separate children unless their parents are a danger to them?
> 
> Separating asylum seekers is also legally and morally problematical.  First as has been pointed out IT ISN'T ILLEGAL TO SEEK ASYLUM.  Sessions has changed policy to require these people be detained while their claims for asylum are considered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I understand it, Obama did the same thing but it was on the basis of only doing it when it was impossible to keep the family unit together.  The hard and fast policy of ripping kids away from their parents as just an enhanced form of deterrence is, frankly, sickening.  It say much more about how far we have sunk as a society than what it says to those who break our immigration laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Any ICE agent could tell you the real reason for separating parents from their kids.  Recently in Texas immigration court, 57 parents appeared before an immigration judge and all but one plead guilty after being told that if they plead guilty, they will be united with their kids and deported.  If they ask for a trial, they will be detained till the trial.  Detention can be as long as one year.  It's just a legal form of extortion.
> 
> And the Orange Clown appears on TV and says, "I really care about these kids."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sooner or later karma catches up to everyone.
Click to expand...

*It will certain catch up with Trump.  The question is how much damage will be done to the nation before that happens.*


----------



## BrokeLoser

Flopper said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It’s unimaginable that there are people in favor of ripping 1y/o babies from their parents by policy.
> 
> Makes you wonder about their upbringing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's my main question.  At what age are children separated.  I can't imagine that under age 6 it is possibly legal to separate children unless their parents are a danger to them?
> 
> Separating asylum seekers is also legally and morally problematical.  First as has been pointed out IT ISN'T ILLEGAL TO SEEK ASYLUM.  Sessions has changed policy to require these people be detained while their claims for asylum are considered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I understand it, Obama did the same thing but it was on the basis of only doing it when it was impossible to keep the family unit together.  The hard and fast policy of ripping kids away from their parents as just an enhanced form of deterrence is, frankly, sickening.  It say much more about how far we have sunk as a society than what it says to those who break our immigration laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Any ICE agent could tell you the real reason for separating parents from their kids.  Recently in Texas immigration court, 57 parents appeared before an immigration judge and all but one plead guilty after being told that if they plead guilty, they will be united with their kids and deported.  If they ask for a trial, they will be detained till the trial.  Detention can be as long as one year.  It's just a legal form of extortion.
> 
> And the Orange Clown appears on TV and says, "I really care about these kids."*
Click to expand...


Awesome tactic...good job DONNY T!
Nobody but other wetbacks, weirdos, filth and bottom feeders want even one more illegal wetback here. Sorry....the good people of this nation have spoken.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s unimaginable that there are people in favor of ripping 1y/o babies from their parents by policy.
> 
> Makes you wonder about their upbringing
> 
> 
> 
> That's my main question.  At what age are children separated.  I can't imagine that under age 6 it is possibly legal to separate children unless their parents are a danger to them?
> 
> Separating asylum seekers is also legally and morally problematical.  First as has been pointed out IT ISN'T ILLEGAL TO SEEK ASYLUM.  Sessions has changed policy to require these people be detained while their claims for asylum are considered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I understand it, Obama did the same thing but it was on the basis of only doing it when it was impossible to keep the family unit together.  The hard and fast policy of ripping kids away from their parents as just an enhanced form of deterrence is, frankly, sickening.  It say much more about how far we have sunk as a society than what it says to those who break our immigration laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Any ICE agent could tell you the real reason for separating parents from their kids.  Recently in Texas immigration court, 57 parents appeared before an immigration judge and all but one plead guilty after being told that if they plead guilty, they will be united with their kids and deported.  If they ask for a trial, they will be detained till the trial.  Detention can be as long as one year.  It's just a legal form of extortion.
> 
> And the Orange Clown appears on TV and says, "I really care about these kids."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sooner or later karma catches up to everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It will certain catch up with Trump.  The question is how much damage will be done to the nation before that happens.*
Click to expand...


I would be willing to bet that most Americans don't even know what's going on at the border, and the ones that do, many don't care either. 

Trump won because of the border and immigration issues.  People like me who are sick of pressing 1 to speak to an English speaking person, those who live where a lot of illegals live, those who are battling crime; some brought to us by illegals, those who watch as foreigners are taking our jobs for less money, we are all fed up with it, especially when our representatives tell us we need "immigration reform" instead of telling us what we really want to hear which is shut down the border, or at least get as close as we can to it. 

So what damage to the nation do you speak of?  I see no damage.  If anything, I see taking a tougher stance on illegals which is what many of us want in the first place.


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's my main question.  At what age are children separated.  I can't imagine that under age 6 it is possibly legal to separate children unless their parents are a danger to them?
> 
> Separating asylum seekers is also legally and morally problematical.  First as has been pointed out IT ISN'T ILLEGAL TO SEEK ASYLUM.  Sessions has changed policy to require these people be detained while their claims for asylum are considered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it, Obama did the same thing but it was on the basis of only doing it when it was impossible to keep the family unit together.  The hard and fast policy of ripping kids away from their parents as just an enhanced form of deterrence is, frankly, sickening.  It say much more about how far we have sunk as a society than what it says to those who break our immigration laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Any ICE agent could tell you the real reason for separating parents from their kids.  Recently in Texas immigration court, 57 parents appeared before an immigration judge and all but one plead guilty after being told that if they plead guilty, they will be united with their kids and deported.  If they ask for a trial, they will be detained till the trial.  Detention can be as long as one year.  It's just a legal form of extortion.
> 
> And the Orange Clown appears on TV and says, "I really care about these kids."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sooner or later karma catches up to everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It will certain catch up with Trump.  The question is how much damage will be done to the nation before that happens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would be willing to bet that most Americans don't even know what's going on at the border, and the ones that do, many don't care either.
> 
> Trump won because of the border and immigration issues.  People like me who are sick of pressing 1 to speak to an English speaking person, those who live where a lot of illegals live, those who are battling crime; some brought to us by illegals, those who watch as foreigners are taking our jobs for less money, we are all fed up with it, especially when our representatives tell us we need "immigration reform" instead of telling us what we really want to hear which is shut down the border, or at least get as close as we can to it.
> 
> So what damage to the nation do you speak of?  I see no damage.  If anything, I see taking a tougher stance on illegals which is what many of us want in the first place.
Click to expand...


Would you feel better pressing #2..seems like you already are a piece of  #2


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's my main question.  At what age are children separated.  I can't imagine that under age 6 it is possibly legal to separate children unless their parents are a danger to them?
> 
> Separating asylum seekers is also legally and morally problematical.  First as has been pointed out IT ISN'T ILLEGAL TO SEEK ASYLUM.  Sessions has changed policy to require these people be detained while their claims for asylum are considered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it, Obama did the same thing but it was on the basis of only doing it when it was impossible to keep the family unit together.  The hard and fast policy of ripping kids away from their parents as just an enhanced form of deterrence is, frankly, sickening.  It say much more about how far we have sunk as a society than what it says to those who break our immigration laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Any ICE agent could tell you the real reason for separating parents from their kids.  Recently in Texas immigration court, 57 parents appeared before an immigration judge and all but one plead guilty after being told that if they plead guilty, they will be united with their kids and deported.  If they ask for a trial, they will be detained till the trial.  Detention can be as long as one year.  It's just a legal form of extortion.
> 
> And the Orange Clown appears on TV and says, "I really care about these kids."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sooner or later karma catches up to everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It will certain catch up with Trump.  The question is how much damage will be done to the nation before that happens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would be willing to bet that most Americans don't even know what's going on at the border, and the ones that do, many don't care either.
> 
> Trump won because of the border and immigration issues.  People like me who are sick of pressing 1 to speak to an English speaking person, those who live where a lot of illegals live, those who are battling crime; some brought to us by illegals, those who watch as foreigners are taking our jobs for less money, we are all fed up with it, especially when our representatives tell us we need "immigration reform" instead of telling us what we really want to hear which is shut down the border, or at least get as close as we can to it.
> 
> So what damage to the nation do you speak of?  I see no damage.  If anything, I see taking a tougher stance on illegals which is what many of us want in the first place.
Click to expand...

*What damage? trade wars, broken alliances with our most supportive allies, handing the Pacific Rim trade to China, actions that will do irreparably damage to the environment, and leadership by a man that has the morals of a tomcat in heat who praises mass murders like Kim Jon Un and Putin.

What planet are you from?  Do really think Trump is going to stop globalization and the flow of people and ideas into this country.  You dial 1 for English because 1/4 of all Americans speak languages other than English and that's not going to change.  Also the call centers you dial into are international and serve other countries as well as the US.  Even Trump's highly publicized efforts to turn American into an Aryan/Anglo nation isolated from the world will fail.

Trump isn't going to change any of this but he is going to create more division and hatred.  I know conservatives thrive on hatred and division but it's going bite you guys in ass eventually.    *


----------



## Unkotare

Anyone whose chief complaint in life is pressing one on the phone really needs to shut the fuck up and find some bigger problems.


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it, Obama did the same thing but it was on the basis of only doing it when it was impossible to keep the family unit together.  The hard and fast policy of ripping kids away from their parents as just an enhanced form of deterrence is, frankly, sickening.  It say much more about how far we have sunk as a society than what it says to those who break our immigration laws.
> 
> 
> 
> *Any ICE agent could tell you the real reason for separating parents from their kids.  Recently in Texas immigration court, 57 parents appeared before an immigration judge and all but one plead guilty after being told that if they plead guilty, they will be united with their kids and deported.  If they ask for a trial, they will be detained till the trial.  Detention can be as long as one year.  It's just a legal form of extortion.
> 
> And the Orange Clown appears on TV and says, "I really care about these kids."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sooner or later karma catches up to everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It will certain catch up with Trump.  The question is how much damage will be done to the nation before that happens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would be willing to bet that most Americans don't even know what's going on at the border, and the ones that do, many don't care either.
> 
> Trump won because of the border and immigration issues.  People like me who are sick of pressing 1 to speak to an English speaking person, those who live where a lot of illegals live, those who are battling crime; some brought to us by illegals, those who watch as foreigners are taking our jobs for less money, we are all fed up with it, especially when our representatives tell us we need "immigration reform" instead of telling us what we really want to hear which is shut down the border, or at least get as close as we can to it.
> 
> So what damage to the nation do you speak of?  I see no damage.  If anything, I see taking a tougher stance on illegals which is what many of us want in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What damage? trade wars, broken alliances with our most supportive allies, handing the Pacific Rim trade to China, actions that will do irreparably damage the environment, and leadership by a man that has the morals of a tomcat in heat who praises mass murders like Kim Jon Un and Putin.
> 
> What planet are you from?  Do really think Trump is going to stop globalization and the flow of people and ideas into this country.  You dial 1 for English because 1/4 of all Americans speak languages other than English and that's not going to change.  Also the call centers you dial into are international and serve other countries as well as the US.  Even Trump's highly publicized efforts to turn American into Aryan/Anglo nation isolated from the world will fail.
> 
> Trump isn't going to change any of this but he is going to create more division and hatred.  I know conservatives thrive on hatred and division but it's going bite you guys in ass eventually.    *
Click to expand...


That you can blame the pacific rim on Trump over Obama shows the useless partisan hack that you are


----------



## Flopper

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Any ICE agent could tell you the real reason for separating parents from their kids.  Recently in Texas immigration court, 57 parents appeared before an immigration judge and all but one plead guilty after being told that if they plead guilty, they will be united with their kids and deported.  If they ask for a trial, they will be detained till the trial.  Detention can be as long as one year.  It's just a legal form of extortion.
> 
> And the Orange Clown appears on TV and says, "I really care about these kids."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sooner or later karma catches up to everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It will certain catch up with Trump.  The question is how much damage will be done to the nation before that happens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would be willing to bet that most Americans don't even know what's going on at the border, and the ones that do, many don't care either.
> 
> Trump won because of the border and immigration issues.  People like me who are sick of pressing 1 to speak to an English speaking person, those who live where a lot of illegals live, those who are battling crime; some brought to us by illegals, those who watch as foreigners are taking our jobs for less money, we are all fed up with it, especially when our representatives tell us we need "immigration reform" instead of telling us what we really want to hear which is shut down the border, or at least get as close as we can to it.
> 
> So what damage to the nation do you speak of?  I see no damage.  If anything, I see taking a tougher stance on illegals which is what many of us want in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What damage? trade wars, broken alliances with our most supportive allies, handing the Pacific Rim trade to China, actions that will do irreparably damage the environment, and leadership by a man that has the morals of a tomcat in heat who praises mass murders like Kim Jon Un and Putin.
> 
> What planet are you from?  Do really think Trump is going to stop globalization and the flow of people and ideas into this country.  You dial 1 for English because 1/4 of all Americans speak languages other than English and that's not going to change.  Also the call centers you dial into are international and serve other countries as well as the US.  Even Trump's highly publicized efforts to turn American into Aryan/Anglo nation isolated from the world will fail.
> 
> Trump isn't going to change any of this but he is going to create more division and hatred.  I know conservatives thrive on hatred and division but it's going bite you guys in ass eventually.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you can blame the pacific rim on Trump over Obama shows the useless partisan hack that you are
Click to expand...

*Obama had positioned the US as the central nation in the Trans Pacific Partnership which represents roughly 40% of the world's economic output. 

When Trump took the US out of the TPP, he and his
advisers were confident that it was doomed and would fall apart and the US would pickup the pieces.   However, the organization has arisen with a new plan to carry forward without the US implementing the agreement which will amount to 350 billion in free trade. And guess who is looking at opening negotiations with the TPP.  Yep, China.  Trump's promise to negotiate bilateral trade agreements with each of these countries is as dead as a door nail now.
In April 2018, Trump said he was considering putting us back in the TPP, however it looks like that boat has sailed thanks to his trade war with China.
Another brilliant move by the Orange Clown.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it, Obama did the same thing but it was on the basis of only doing it when it was impossible to keep the family unit together.  The hard and fast policy of ripping kids away from their parents as just an enhanced form of deterrence is, frankly, sickening.  It say much more about how far we have sunk as a society than what it says to those who break our immigration laws.
> 
> 
> 
> *Any ICE agent could tell you the real reason for separating parents from their kids.  Recently in Texas immigration court, 57 parents appeared before an immigration judge and all but one plead guilty after being told that if they plead guilty, they will be united with their kids and deported.  If they ask for a trial, they will be detained till the trial.  Detention can be as long as one year.  It's just a legal form of extortion.
> 
> And the Orange Clown appears on TV and says, "I really care about these kids."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sooner or later karma catches up to everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It will certain catch up with Trump.  The question is how much damage will be done to the nation before that happens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would be willing to bet that most Americans don't even know what's going on at the border, and the ones that do, many don't care either.
> 
> Trump won because of the border and immigration issues.  People like me who are sick of pressing 1 to speak to an English speaking person, those who live where a lot of illegals live, those who are battling crime; some brought to us by illegals, those who watch as foreigners are taking our jobs for less money, we are all fed up with it, especially when our representatives tell us we need "immigration reform" instead of telling us what we really want to hear which is shut down the border, or at least get as close as we can to it.
> 
> So what damage to the nation do you speak of?  I see no damage.  If anything, I see taking a tougher stance on illegals which is what many of us want in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What damage? trade wars, broken alliances with our most supportive allies, handing the Pacific Rim trade to China, actions that will do irreparably damage to the environment, and leadership by a man that has the morals of a tomcat in heat who praises mass murders like Kim Jon Un and Putin.
> 
> What planet are you from?  Do really think Trump is going to stop globalization and the flow of people and ideas into this country.  You dial 1 for English because 1/4 of all Americans speak languages other than English and that's not going to change.  Also the call centers you dial into are international and serve other countries as well as the US.  Even Trump's highly publicized efforts to turn American into an Aryan/Anglo nation isolated from the world will fail.
> 
> Trump isn't going to change any of this but he is going to create more division and hatred.  I know conservatives thrive on hatred and division but it's going bite you guys in ass eventually.    *
Click to expand...


I seem to remember a time not long ago when everybody spoke the same language and things were fine...if not better.  

You people one the left complain when Republicans are in charge because you believe they are war mongers.  Yet when we have a President trying to get along with enemies, you say they are praising our foes. 

But you hit the nail on the head: a quarter of our people speak other languages.  Yes, that is a problem because you have a bunch of lazy good for nothings coming here that won't even take the time or effort to learn our language.  They expect us to learn theirs.  In other words, they are not assimilating.  

Trump may not stop the decay of our country, but he can certainly slow it down.  That's why we voted him in.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Unkotare said:


> Anyone whose chief complaint in life is pressing one on the phone really needs to shut the fuck up and find some bigger problems.



Who says that was a chief complaint?


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sooner or later karma catches up to everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> *It will certain catch up with Trump.  The question is how much damage will be done to the nation before that happens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would be willing to bet that most Americans don't even know what's going on at the border, and the ones that do, many don't care either.
> 
> Trump won because of the border and immigration issues.  People like me who are sick of pressing 1 to speak to an English speaking person, those who live where a lot of illegals live, those who are battling crime; some brought to us by illegals, those who watch as foreigners are taking our jobs for less money, we are all fed up with it, especially when our representatives tell us we need "immigration reform" instead of telling us what we really want to hear which is shut down the border, or at least get as close as we can to it.
> 
> So what damage to the nation do you speak of?  I see no damage.  If anything, I see taking a tougher stance on illegals which is what many of us want in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What damage? trade wars, broken alliances with our most supportive allies, handing the Pacific Rim trade to China, actions that will do irreparably damage the environment, and leadership by a man that has the morals of a tomcat in heat who praises mass murders like Kim Jon Un and Putin.
> 
> What planet are you from?  Do really think Trump is going to stop globalization and the flow of people and ideas into this country.  You dial 1 for English because 1/4 of all Americans speak languages other than English and that's not going to change.  Also the call centers you dial into are international and serve other countries as well as the US.  Even Trump's highly publicized efforts to turn American into Aryan/Anglo nation isolated from the world will fail.
> 
> Trump isn't going to change any of this but he is going to create more division and hatred.  I know conservatives thrive on hatred and division but it's going bite you guys in ass eventually.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you can blame the pacific rim on Trump over Obama shows the useless partisan hack that you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Obama had positioned the US as the central nation in the Trans Pacific Partnership which represents roughly 40% of the world's economic output.
> 
> When Trump took the US out of the TPP, he and his
> advisers were confident that it was doomed and would fall apart and the US would pickup the pieces.   However, the organization has arisen with a new plan to carry forward without the US implementing the agreement which will amount to 350 billion in free trade. And guess who is looking at opening negotiations with the TPP.  Yep, China.  Trump's promise to negotiate bilateral trade agreements with each of these countries is as dead as a door nail now.
> In April 2018, Trump said he was considering putting us back in the TPP, however it looks like that boat has sailed thanks to his trade war with China.
> Another brilliant move by the Orange Clown.*
Click to expand...


I like anti-free trade leftists lecturing me about tariffs.  You're a complete joke.  I didn't vote for Trump, but I'm open to his ideas.  I agree with some (immigration, business tax cuts) but disagree with others (ME, tariffs).

But you're just a butt hurt leftist who has no intellectual integrity and even flips sides on issues just to attack Trump.  You're a pathetic human being who's fundamentally dishonest.  This is just a team sport to you.  I left the Republican party almost 30 years ago because politics is not a team sport to me.  These are real issues with real consequences.  You just bend your brain to believe any word that comes out of the Democrat party's ass and you make sure you believe it


----------



## Cellblock2429

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


/——-/ Illegals use children to play on the emotions of saps to gain entry to the US. We’re not talking about an isolated case, we’re talking about a flood.


----------



## Clementine

Listen to Hillary in 2014.    Wants secure borders and send message that it doesn't pay to cross the border.   Just because you or your children enter doesn't mean you get to stay.    Where are other countries, particularly Mexico, with solutions?     The U.S. can't always be the one to handle everything.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s unimaginable that there are people in favor of ripping 1y/o babies from their parents by policy.
> 
> Makes you wonder about their upbringing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's my main question.  At what age are children separated.  I can't imagine that under age 6 it is possibly legal to separate children unless their parents are a danger to them?
> 
> Separating asylum seekers is also legally and morally problematical.  First as has been pointed out IT ISN'T ILLEGAL TO SEEK ASYLUM.  Sessions has changed policy to require these people be detained while their claims for asylum are considered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I understand it, Obama did the same thing but it was on the basis of only doing it when it was impossible to keep the family unit together.  The hard and fast policy of ripping kids away from their parents as just an enhanced form of deterrence is, frankly, sickening.  It say much more about how far we have sunk as a society than what it says to those who break our immigration laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Any ICE agent could tell you the real reason for separating parents from their kids.  Recently in Texas immigration court, 57 parents appeared before an immigration judge and all but one plead guilty after being told that if they plead guilty, they will be united with their kids and deported.  If they ask for a trial, they will be detained till the trial.  Detention can be as long as one year.  It's just a legal form of extortion.
> 
> And the Orange Clown appears on TV and says, "I really care about these kids."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sooner or later karma catches up to everyone.
Click to expand...


You better hope to God that isn't true


----------



## pismoe

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Any ICE agent could tell you the real reason for separating parents from their kids.  Recently in Texas immigration court, 57 parents appeared before an immigration judge and all but one plead guilty after being told that if they plead guilty, they will be united with their kids and deported.  If they ask for a trial, they will be detained till the trial.  Detention can be as long as one year.  It's just a legal form of extortion.
> 
> And the Orange Clown appears on TV and says, "I really care about these kids."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sooner or later karma catches up to everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It will certain catch up with Trump.  The question is how much damage will be done to the nation before that happens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would be willing to bet that most Americans don't even know what's going on at the border, and the ones that do, many don't care either.
> 
> Trump won because of the border and immigration issues.  People like me who are sick of pressing 1 to speak to an English speaking person, those who live where a lot of illegals live, those who are battling crime; some brought to us by illegals, those who watch as foreigners are taking our jobs for less money, we are all fed up with it, especially when our representatives tell us we need "immigration reform" instead of telling us what we really want to hear which is shut down the border, or at least get as close as we can to it.
> 
> So what damage to the nation do you speak of?  I see no damage.  If anything, I see taking a tougher stance on illegals which is what many of us want in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What damage? trade wars, broken alliances with our most supportive allies, handing the Pacific Rim trade to China, actions that will do irreparably damage to the environment, and leadership by a man that has the morals of a tomcat in heat who praises mass murders like Kim Jon Un and Putin.
> 
> What planet are you from?  Do really think Trump is going to stop globalization and the flow of people and ideas into this country.  You dial 1 for English because 1/4 of all Americans speak languages other than English and that's not going to change.  Also the call centers you dial into are international and serve other countries as well as the US.  Even Trump's highly publicized efforts to turn American into an Aryan/Anglo nation isolated from the world will fail.
> 
> Trump isn't going to change any of this but he is going to create more division and hatred.  I know conservatives thrive on hatred and division but it's going bite you guys in ass eventually.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I seem to remember a time not long ago when everybody spoke the same language and things were fine...if not better.
> 
> You people one the left complain when Republicans are in charge because you believe they are war mongers.  Yet when we have a President trying to get along with enemies, you say they are praising our foes.
> 
> But you hit the nail on the head: a quarter of our people speak other languages.  Yes, that is a problem because you have a bunch of lazy good for nothings coming here that won't even take the time or effort to learn our language.  They expect us to learn theirs.  In other words, they are not assimilating.
> 
> Trump may not stop the decay of our country, but he can certainly slow it down.  That's why we voted him in.
Click to expand...

-----------------------------------------------yeah Ray , thats the goal , stop the decay or slow it down at least for my lifetime .


----------



## pismoe

Clementine said:


> Listen to Hillary in 2014.    Wants secure borders and send message that it doesn't pay to cross the border.   Just because you or your children enter doesn't mean you get to stay.    Where are other countries, particularly Mexico, with solutions?     The U.S. can't always be the one to handle everything.


---------------------------------------------   looking for ' mexico' to help anything along in the USA is a mistake .    mexico is an enemy and think that they need to reconquer the USA because they say that they once owned parts of the USA and at this time they might as well take or get as much as they can get .   Its human nature and 'mexico' wants it ALL and will just keep doing as they have been doing  and families like the 'bush's' will help the mexicans Clementine .


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sooner or later karma catches up to everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> *It will certain catch up with Trump.  The question is how much damage will be done to the nation before that happens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would be willing to bet that most Americans don't even know what's going on at the border, and the ones that do, many don't care either.
> 
> Trump won because of the border and immigration issues.  People like me who are sick of pressing 1 to speak to an English speaking person, those who live where a lot of illegals live, those who are battling crime; some brought to us by illegals, those who watch as foreigners are taking our jobs for less money, we are all fed up with it, especially when our representatives tell us we need "immigration reform" instead of telling us what we really want to hear which is shut down the border, or at least get as close as we can to it.
> 
> So what damage to the nation do you speak of?  I see no damage.  If anything, I see taking a tougher stance on illegals which is what many of us want in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What damage? trade wars, broken alliances with our most supportive allies, handing the Pacific Rim trade to China, actions that will do irreparably damage the environment, and leadership by a man that has the morals of a tomcat in heat who praises mass murders like Kim Jon Un and Putin.
> 
> What planet are you from?  Do really think Trump is going to stop globalization and the flow of people and ideas into this country.  You dial 1 for English because 1/4 of all Americans speak languages other than English and that's not going to change.  Also the call centers you dial into are international and serve other countries as well as the US.  Even Trump's highly publicized efforts to turn American into Aryan/Anglo nation isolated from the world will fail.
> 
> Trump isn't going to change any of this but he is going to create more division and hatred.  I know conservatives thrive on hatred and division but it's going bite you guys in ass eventually.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you can blame the pacific rim on Trump over Obama shows the useless partisan hack that you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Obama had positioned the US as the central nation in the Trans Pacific Partnership which represents roughly 40% of the world's economic output.
> 
> When Trump took the US out of the TPP, he and his
> advisers were confident that it was doomed and would fall apart and the US would pickup the pieces.   However, the organization has arisen with a new plan to carry forward without the US implementing the agreement which will amount to 350 billion in free trade. And guess who is looking at opening negotiations with the TPP.  Yep, China.  Trump's promise to negotiate bilateral trade agreements with each of these countries is as dead as a door nail now.
> In April 2018, Trump said he was considering putting us back in the TPP, however it looks like that boat has sailed thanks to his trade war with China.
> Another brilliant move by the Orange Clown.*
Click to expand...


I'm 55 and all my life until Trump Democrats argued against free trade.  This is an issue that Democrats even ate their own on despite that you're lemmings.  You attacked Bill for NAFTA.  You attacked Hillary for NAFTA and made her disavow it.  That's even the one thing you attacked Obama for.  Even though it was secretly negotiated by a leftist, you attacked him for TPP.  Now with Trump, suddenly leftists are all against tariffs.  Including attacking people like me who opposed tariffs all my life and still do.

So a challenge.  Show two things:

1)  Any post where you opposed tariffs before November 8, 2016

2)  Any post where you said to an actual Democrat you oppose tariffs ever

Flopper, where'd you go?  Flopper?


----------



## pismoe

because everything is good for mexico .   They get rid of their poor and the poor make money in the USA that they send back to mexico .  There is no reason for mexico to help anything for anyone but themselves   Clementine .


----------



## Clementine

Remember this?    After the mother gave her life to get her son to the U.S., Clinton administration took the child at gunpoint and returned him to a hellhole.     Such compassion.


----------



## Ame®icano

The claim: "immigrant children are separated from parents".

The truth: Anyone crossing border illegally is not an immigrant. Immigrants are those who have a legal status in the US. These are illegals, so stop calling them immigrants.

It's time put an end to liberal shills posting bullshit claims.

Here is a good article that explains this current situation with children of illegals.

*The Truth about Separating Kids*


> For the longest time, illegal immigration was driven by single males from Mexico. Over the last decade, the flow has shifted to women, children, and family units from Central America. This poses challenges we haven’t confronted before and has made what once were relatively minor wrinkles in the law loom very large.





> The past practice had been to give a free pass to an adult who is part of a family unit. The new Trump policy is to prosecute all adults. The idea is to send a signal that we are serious about our laws and to create a deterrent against re-entry. (Illegal entry is a misdemeanor, illegal re-entry a felony.)





> The Trump administration isn’t changing the rules that pertain to separating an adult from the child. Those remain the same. *Separation happens only if officials find that the adult is falsely claiming to be the child’s parent, or is a threat to the child, or is put into criminal proceedings.*



And where were you lefties crying about "concentration camps" and calling for uprising, like Pelosi did, when Obama was doing the same thing, just on larger scale?

*Obama held more than double of number of children in shelters compared to Trump White House*


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Any ICE agent could tell you the real reason for separating parents from their kids.  Recently in Texas immigration court, 57 parents appeared before an immigration judge and all but one plead guilty after being told that if they plead guilty, they will be united with their kids and deported.  If they ask for a trial, they will be detained till the trial.  Detention can be as long as one year.  It's just a legal form of extortion.
> 
> And the Orange Clown appears on TV and says, "I really care about these kids."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sooner or later karma catches up to everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It will certain catch up with Trump.  The question is how much damage will be done to the nation before that happens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would be willing to bet that most Americans don't even know what's going on at the border, and the ones that do, many don't care either.
> 
> Trump won because of the border and immigration issues.  People like me who are sick of pressing 1 to speak to an English speaking person, those who live where a lot of illegals live, those who are battling crime; some brought to us by illegals, those who watch as foreigners are taking our jobs for less money, we are all fed up with it, especially when our representatives tell us we need "immigration reform" instead of telling us what we really want to hear which is shut down the border, or at least get as close as we can to it.
> 
> So what damage to the nation do you speak of?  I see no damage.  If anything, I see taking a tougher stance on illegals which is what many of us want in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What damage? trade wars, broken alliances with our most supportive allies, handing the Pacific Rim trade to China, actions that will do irreparably damage to the environment, and leadership by a man that has the morals of a tomcat in heat who praises mass murders like Kim Jon Un and Putin.
> 
> What planet are you from?  Do really think Trump is going to stop globalization and the flow of people and ideas into this country.  You dial 1 for English because 1/4 of all Americans speak languages other than English and that's not going to change.  Also the call centers you dial into are international and serve other countries as well as the US.  Even Trump's highly publicized efforts to turn American into an Aryan/Anglo nation isolated from the world will fail.
> 
> Trump isn't going to change any of this but he is going to create more division and hatred.  I know conservatives thrive on hatred and division but it's going bite you guys in ass eventually.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I seem to remember a time not long ago when everybody spoke the same language and things were fine...if not better.
> 
> You people one the left complain when Republicans are in charge because you believe they are war mongers.  Yet when we have a President trying to get along with enemies, you say they are praising our foes.
> 
> But you hit the nail on the head: a quarter of our people speak other languages.  Yes, that is a problem because you have a bunch of lazy good for nothings coming here that won't even take the time or effort to learn our language.  They expect us to learn theirs.  In other words, they are not assimilating.
> 
> Trump may not stop the decay of our country, but he can certainly slow it down.  That's why we voted him in.
Click to expand...

*Those lazy good for nothings, *

*Start 30% of all new businesses *
*Employ an estimated 4.7 million people  *
*Despite making up only 16 percent of the resident population holding a bachelor’s degree or higher, immigrants represent 33 percent of engineers, 27 percent of mathematicians, statisticians, and computer scientist, and 24 percent of physical scientists*
*Purchasing power of Latinos and Asians, many of whom are immigrants, alone reached $1.5 trillion and $775 billion in 2016*
*Comprehensive immigration reform could support and create up to 900,000 new jobs within three years of reform from the increase in consumer spending, according to the Center for American Progress.*
*I didn't say 1/4 of Americans did not speak English. I said they spoke other languages.  Most legal immigrants to the US speak English.  Like Americans living in other countries, they speak the language but they are more comfortable speaking their native tongue.

Like it or not, the future of America rides on our ability to bring fresh blood and new idea into the country.   We can not grow and prosper in isolationism.   We have to use American know how and technology to make American workers the most productive in the world.  We can't rely on tariffs to protect American workers.  They have to compete with rest of the world.

BTW I was around in the days when "everybody" spoke English and life was just great.  Memory is kind.  We tend to forget the smog that blocked out the sun in many cities, rivers that caught fire, owners of coal mimes denying the existence of black lung disease, huge fish kills in most of our rivers from pollution, newspaper articles listing the new cases of Polio daily, the American eagle heading for extinction, bomb shelters, duck and cover, a survey of high students that believed they would not survive to see their children grown, church burnings, back alley abortions, black hangings, doctors promoting cigarette smoking, farmers in the southwest importing workers & paying 25 cents/hr, black men shot for looking at white women, hotels and restaurants turning away Blacks and Jews, women making half the wages of men working in the same job, men beating their wives legal in 25 states, and half the US Mexican boarder unmarked and un-fenced.             *


----------



## Ame®icano

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sooner or later karma catches up to everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> *It will certain catch up with Trump.  The question is how much damage will be done to the nation before that happens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would be willing to bet that most Americans don't even know what's going on at the border, and the ones that do, many don't care either.
> 
> Trump won because of the border and immigration issues.  People like me who are sick of pressing 1 to speak to an English speaking person, those who live where a lot of illegals live, those who are battling crime; some brought to us by illegals, those who watch as foreigners are taking our jobs for less money, we are all fed up with it, especially when our representatives tell us we need "immigration reform" instead of telling us what we really want to hear which is shut down the border, or at least get as close as we can to it.
> 
> So what damage to the nation do you speak of?  I see no damage.  If anything, I see taking a tougher stance on illegals which is what many of us want in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What damage? trade wars, broken alliances with our most supportive allies, handing the Pacific Rim trade to China, actions that will do irreparably damage to the environment, and leadership by a man that has the morals of a tomcat in heat who praises mass murders like Kim Jon Un and Putin.
> 
> What planet are you from?  Do really think Trump is going to stop globalization and the flow of people and ideas into this country.  You dial 1 for English because 1/4 of all Americans speak languages other than English and that's not going to change.  Also the call centers you dial into are international and serve other countries as well as the US.  Even Trump's highly publicized efforts to turn American into an Aryan/Anglo nation isolated from the world will fail.
> 
> Trump isn't going to change any of this but he is going to create more division and hatred.  I know conservatives thrive on hatred and division but it's going bite you guys in ass eventually.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I seem to remember a time not long ago when everybody spoke the same language and things were fine...if not better.
> 
> You people one the left complain when Republicans are in charge because you believe they are war mongers.  Yet when we have a President trying to get along with enemies, you say they are praising our foes.
> 
> But you hit the nail on the head: a quarter of our people speak other languages.  Yes, that is a problem because you have a bunch of lazy good for nothings coming here that won't even take the time or effort to learn our language.  They expect us to learn theirs.  In other words, they are not assimilating.
> 
> Trump may not stop the decay of our country, but he can certainly slow it down.  That's why we voted him in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Those lazy good for nothings, *
> 
> *Start 30% of all new businesses *
> *Employ an estimated 4.7 million people  *
> *Despite making up only 16 percent of the resident population holding a bachelor’s degree or higher, immigrants represent 33 percent of engineers, 27 percent of mathematicians, statisticians, and computer scientist, and 24 percent of physical scientists*
> *Purchasing power of Latinos and Asians, many of whom are immigrants, alone reached $1.5 trillion and $775 billion in 2016*
> *Comprehensive immigration reform could support and create up to 900,000 new jobs within three years of reform from the increase in consumer spending, according to the Center for American Progress.*
> *I didn't say 1/4 of Americans did not speak English. I said they spoke other languages.  Most legal immigrants to the US speak English.  Like Americans living in other countries, they speak the language but they are more comfortable speaking their native tongue.
> 
> Like it or not, the future of America rides on our ability to bring fresh blood and new idea into the country.   We not can grow and prosper in isolationism.   We have to use American know how and technology to make American workers the most  productive in the world.  We can't rely on tarries to protect American workers.
> 
> BTW I was around in the days when "everybody" spoke English and life was not so great.  Memory is kind.  We tend to forget the smog that blocked out the sun in many cities, rivers that caught fire, owners of coal mimes denying the existence of black lung disease, huge fish kills most of rivers from pollution, newspaper articles listing the new cases of Polio daily, the American eagle heading for extinction, bomb shelters, duck and cover, a survey of high students that believed they would not survive to see their children grown, church burnings, back alley abortions, black hangings, doctors promoting cigarette smoking, farmers in the southwest importing workers and paying 25 cents/hr, black men shot for looking at white women, hotels and restaurants turning away Blacks and Jews, women making half the wages of men working in the same job, and half the US Mexican boarder unmarked and un-fenced.             *
Click to expand...


You equating immigrants and illegals.


----------



## candycorn

Ame®icano said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It will certain catch up with Trump.  The question is how much damage will be done to the nation before that happens.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be willing to bet that most Americans don't even know what's going on at the border, and the ones that do, many don't care either.
> 
> Trump won because of the border and immigration issues.  People like me who are sick of pressing 1 to speak to an English speaking person, those who live where a lot of illegals live, those who are battling crime; some brought to us by illegals, those who watch as foreigners are taking our jobs for less money, we are all fed up with it, especially when our representatives tell us we need "immigration reform" instead of telling us what we really want to hear which is shut down the border, or at least get as close as we can to it.
> 
> So what damage to the nation do you speak of?  I see no damage.  If anything, I see taking a tougher stance on illegals which is what many of us want in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What damage? trade wars, broken alliances with our most supportive allies, handing the Pacific Rim trade to China, actions that will do irreparably damage to the environment, and leadership by a man that has the morals of a tomcat in heat who praises mass murders like Kim Jon Un and Putin.
> 
> What planet are you from?  Do really think Trump is going to stop globalization and the flow of people and ideas into this country.  You dial 1 for English because 1/4 of all Americans speak languages other than English and that's not going to change.  Also the call centers you dial into are international and serve other countries as well as the US.  Even Trump's highly publicized efforts to turn American into an Aryan/Anglo nation isolated from the world will fail.
> 
> Trump isn't going to change any of this but he is going to create more division and hatred.  I know conservatives thrive on hatred and division but it's going bite you guys in ass eventually.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I seem to remember a time not long ago when everybody spoke the same language and things were fine...if not better.
> 
> You people one the left complain when Republicans are in charge because you believe they are war mongers.  Yet when we have a President trying to get along with enemies, you say they are praising our foes.
> 
> But you hit the nail on the head: a quarter of our people speak other languages.  Yes, that is a problem because you have a bunch of lazy good for nothings coming here that won't even take the time or effort to learn our language.  They expect us to learn theirs.  In other words, they are not assimilating.
> 
> Trump may not stop the decay of our country, but he can certainly slow it down.  That's why we voted him in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Those lazy good for nothings, *
> 
> *Start 30% of all new businesses *
> *Employ an estimated 4.7 million people  *
> *Despite making up only 16 percent of the resident population holding a bachelor’s degree or higher, immigrants represent 33 percent of engineers, 27 percent of mathematicians, statisticians, and computer scientist, and 24 percent of physical scientists*
> *Purchasing power of Latinos and Asians, many of whom are immigrants, alone reached $1.5 trillion and $775 billion in 2016*
> *Comprehensive immigration reform could support and create up to 900,000 new jobs within three years of reform from the increase in consumer spending, according to the Center for American Progress.*
> *I didn't say 1/4 of Americans did not speak English. I said they spoke other languages.  Most legal immigrants to the US speak English.  Like Americans living in other countries, they speak the language but they are more comfortable speaking their native tongue.
> 
> Like it or not, the future of America rides on our ability to bring fresh blood and new idea into the country.   We not can grow and prosper in isolationism.   We have to use American know how and technology to make American workers the most  productive in the world.  We can't rely on tarries to protect American workers.
> 
> BTW I was around in the days when "everybody" spoke English and life was not so great.  Memory is kind.  We tend to forget the smog that blocked out the sun in many cities, rivers that caught fire, owners of coal mimes denying the existence of black lung disease, huge fish kills most of rivers from pollution, newspaper articles listing the new cases of Polio daily, the American eagle heading for extinction, bomb shelters, duck and cover, a survey of high students that believed they would not survive to see their children grown, church burnings, back alley abortions, black hangings, doctors promoting cigarette smoking, farmers in the southwest importing workers and paying 25 cents/hr, black men shot for looking at white women, hotels and restaurants turning away Blacks and Jews, women making half the wages of men working in the same job, and half the US Mexican boarder unmarked and un-fenced.             *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You equating immigrants and illegals.
Click to expand...


Not sure about Flopper's motives but earlier in this thread, Trump ass kissers  referred to Mexicans as "beaners" and spoke about "preserving" the country.  They didn't differentiate between illegals and immigrants...


----------



## kaz

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It will certain catch up with Trump.  The question is how much damage will be done to the nation before that happens.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be willing to bet that most Americans don't even know what's going on at the border, and the ones that do, many don't care either.
> 
> Trump won because of the border and immigration issues.  People like me who are sick of pressing 1 to speak to an English speaking person, those who live where a lot of illegals live, those who are battling crime; some brought to us by illegals, those who watch as foreigners are taking our jobs for less money, we are all fed up with it, especially when our representatives tell us we need "immigration reform" instead of telling us what we really want to hear which is shut down the border, or at least get as close as we can to it.
> 
> So what damage to the nation do you speak of?  I see no damage.  If anything, I see taking a tougher stance on illegals which is what many of us want in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What damage? trade wars, broken alliances with our most supportive allies, handing the Pacific Rim trade to China, actions that will do irreparably damage the environment, and leadership by a man that has the morals of a tomcat in heat who praises mass murders like Kim Jon Un and Putin.
> 
> What planet are you from?  Do really think Trump is going to stop globalization and the flow of people and ideas into this country.  You dial 1 for English because 1/4 of all Americans speak languages other than English and that's not going to change.  Also the call centers you dial into are international and serve other countries as well as the US.  Even Trump's highly publicized efforts to turn American into Aryan/Anglo nation isolated from the world will fail.
> 
> Trump isn't going to change any of this but he is going to create more division and hatred.  I know conservatives thrive on hatred and division but it's going bite you guys in ass eventually.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you can blame the pacific rim on Trump over Obama shows the useless partisan hack that you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Obama had positioned the US as the central nation in the Trans Pacific Partnership which represents roughly 40% of the world's economic output.
> 
> When Trump took the US out of the TPP, he and his
> advisers were confident that it was doomed and would fall apart and the US would pickup the pieces.   However, the organization has arisen with a new plan to carry forward without the US implementing the agreement which will amount to 350 billion in free trade. And guess who is looking at opening negotiations with the TPP.  Yep, China.  Trump's promise to negotiate bilateral trade agreements with each of these countries is as dead as a door nail now.
> In April 2018, Trump said he was considering putting us back in the TPP, however it looks like that boat has sailed thanks to his trade war with China.
> Another brilliant move by the Orange Clown.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm 55 and all my life until Trump Democrats argued against free trade.  This is an issue that Democrats even ate their own on despite that you're lemmings.  You attacked Bill for NAFTA.  You attacked Hillary for NAFTA and made her disavow it.  That's even the one thing you attacked Obama for.  Even though it was secretly negotiated by a leftist, you attacked him for TPP.  Now with Trump, suddenly leftists are all against tariffs.  Including attacking people like me who opposed tariffs all my life and still do.
> 
> So a challenge.  Show two things:
> 
> 1)  Any post where you opposed tariffs before November 8, 2016
> 
> 2)  Any post where you said to an actual Democrat you oppose tariffs ever
> 
> Flopper, where'd you go?  Flopper?
Click to expand...


Um ... Flopper?


----------



## pismoe

you will change the country to third world no matter if legal or illegal plus if a person has a job he doesn't need a newly created  job Americano .


----------



## Flopper

Ame®icano said:


> The claim: "immigrant children are separated from parents".
> 
> The truth: Anyone crossing border illegally is not an immigrant. Immigrants are those who have a legal status in the US. These are illegals, so stop calling them immigrants.
> 
> It's time put an end to liberal shills posting bullshit claims.
> 
> Here is a good article that explains this current situation with children of illegals.
> 
> *The Truth about Separating Kids*
> 
> 
> 
> For the longest time, illegal immigration was driven by single males from Mexico. Over the last decade, the flow has shifted to women, children, and family units from Central America. This poses challenges we haven’t confronted before and has made what once were relatively minor wrinkles in the law loom very large.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The past practice had been to give a free pass to an adult who is part of a family unit. The new Trump policy is to prosecute all adults. The idea is to send a signal that we are serious about our laws and to create a deterrent against re-entry. (Illegal entry is a misdemeanor, illegal re-entry a felony.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Trump administration isn’t changing the rules that pertain to separating an adult from the child. Those remain the same. *Separation happens only if officials find that the adult is falsely claiming to be the child’s parent, or is a threat to the child, or is put into criminal proceedings.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where were you lefties crying about "concentration camps" and calling for uprising, like Pelosi did, when Obama was doing the same thing, just on larger scale?
> 
> *Obama held more than double of number of children in shelters compared to Trump White House*
Click to expand...

*The only way Trump can deport 12 million people is with a ton of detention camps.  You have to have a place to put them till you deport them.  At the rate he is deporting it would take 53 years to deport them all.  Of course he could try the Nazis final solution. His supporters would probably approve.*


----------



## pismoe

candycorn said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be willing to bet that most Americans don't even know what's going on at the border, and the ones that do, many don't care either.
> 
> Trump won because of the border and immigration issues.  People like me who are sick of pressing 1 to speak to an English speaking person, those who live where a lot of illegals live, those who are battling crime; some brought to us by illegals, those who watch as foreigners are taking our jobs for less money, we are all fed up with it, especially when our representatives tell us we need "immigration reform" instead of telling us what we really want to hear which is shut down the border, or at least get as close as we can to it.
> 
> So what damage to the nation do you speak of?  I see no damage.  If anything, I see taking a tougher stance on illegals which is what many of us want in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> *What damage? trade wars, broken alliances with our most supportive allies, handing the Pacific Rim trade to China, actions that will do irreparably damage to the environment, and leadership by a man that has the morals of a tomcat in heat who praises mass murders like Kim Jon Un and Putin.
> 
> What planet are you from?  Do really think Trump is going to stop globalization and the flow of people and ideas into this country.  You dial 1 for English because 1/4 of all Americans speak languages other than English and that's not going to change.  Also the call centers you dial into are international and serve other countries as well as the US.  Even Trump's highly publicized efforts to turn American into an Aryan/Anglo nation isolated from the world will fail.
> 
> Trump isn't going to change any of this but he is going to create more division and hatred.  I know conservatives thrive on hatred and division but it's going bite you guys in ass eventually.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I seem to remember a time not long ago when everybody spoke the same language and things were fine...if not better.
> 
> You people one the left complain when Republicans are in charge because you believe they are war mongers.  Yet when we have a President trying to get along with enemies, you say they are praising our foes.
> 
> But you hit the nail on the head: a quarter of our people speak other languages.  Yes, that is a problem because you have a bunch of lazy good for nothings coming here that won't even take the time or effort to learn our language.  They expect us to learn theirs.  In other words, they are not assimilating.
> 
> Trump may not stop the decay of our country, but he can certainly slow it down.  That's why we voted him in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Those lazy good for nothings, *
> 
> *Start 30% of all new businesses *
> *Employ an estimated 4.7 million people  *
> *Despite making up only 16 percent of the resident population holding a bachelor’s degree or higher, immigrants represent 33 percent of engineers, 27 percent of mathematicians, statisticians, and computer scientist, and 24 percent of physical scientists*
> *Purchasing power of Latinos and Asians, many of whom are immigrants, alone reached $1.5 trillion and $775 billion in 2016*
> *Comprehensive immigration reform could support and create up to 900,000 new jobs within three years of reform from the increase in consumer spending, according to the Center for American Progress.*
> *I didn't say 1/4 of Americans did not speak English. I said they spoke other languages.  Most legal immigrants to the US speak English.  Like Americans living in other countries, they speak the language but they are more comfortable speaking their native tongue.
> 
> Like it or not, the future of America rides on our ability to bring fresh blood and new idea into the country.   We not can grow and prosper in isolationism.   We have to use American know how and technology to make American workers the most  productive in the world.  We can't rely on tarries to protect American workers.
> 
> BTW I was around in the days when "everybody" spoke English and life was not so great.  Memory is kind.  We tend to forget the smog that blocked out the sun in many cities, rivers that caught fire, owners of coal mimes denying the existence of black lung disease, huge fish kills most of rivers from pollution, newspaper articles listing the new cases of Polio daily, the American eagle heading for extinction, bomb shelters, duck and cover, a survey of high students that believed they would not survive to see their children grown, church burnings, back alley abortions, black hangings, doctors promoting cigarette smoking, farmers in the southwest importing workers and paying 25 cents/hr, black men shot for looking at white women, hotels and restaurants turning away Blacks and Jews, women making half the wages of men working in the same job, and half the US Mexican boarder unmarked and un-fenced.             *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You equating immigrants and illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure about Flopper's motives but earlier in this thread, Trump ass kissers  referred to Mexicans as "beaners" and spoke about "preserving" the country.  They didn't differentiate between illegals and immigrants...
Click to expand...

--------------------------------------------   yeah , legal or illegal , there is NO difference .    Heck , its the government that makes the decision and the only difference is a word change  Candy .


----------



## pismoe

and PRESERVE the country . Heck , enough third worlders and they will want their ways followed and many are peasants and 'subjects' with no RIGHTS in their homelands so with the vote they will vote for changes that are not Western or American .  ---------------   MORDIDA as one example will become the norm in the USA  Candy .


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sooner or later karma catches up to everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> *It will certain catch up with Trump.  The question is how much damage will be done to the nation before that happens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would be willing to bet that most Americans don't even know what's going on at the border, and the ones that do, many don't care either.
> 
> Trump won because of the border and immigration issues.  People like me who are sick of pressing 1 to speak to an English speaking person, those who live where a lot of illegals live, those who are battling crime; some brought to us by illegals, those who watch as foreigners are taking our jobs for less money, we are all fed up with it, especially when our representatives tell us we need "immigration reform" instead of telling us what we really want to hear which is shut down the border, or at least get as close as we can to it.
> 
> So what damage to the nation do you speak of?  I see no damage.  If anything, I see taking a tougher stance on illegals which is what many of us want in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What damage? trade wars, broken alliances with our most supportive allies, handing the Pacific Rim trade to China, actions that will do irreparably damage to the environment, and leadership by a man that has the morals of a tomcat in heat who praises mass murders like Kim Jon Un and Putin.
> 
> What planet are you from?  Do really think Trump is going to stop globalization and the flow of people and ideas into this country.  You dial 1 for English because 1/4 of all Americans speak languages other than English and that's not going to change.  Also the call centers you dial into are international and serve other countries as well as the US.  Even Trump's highly publicized efforts to turn American into an Aryan/Anglo nation isolated from the world will fail.
> 
> Trump isn't going to change any of this but he is going to create more division and hatred.  I know conservatives thrive on hatred and division but it's going bite you guys in ass eventually.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I seem to remember a time not long ago when everybody spoke the same language and things were fine...if not better.
> 
> You people one the left complain when Republicans are in charge because you believe they are war mongers.  Yet when we have a President trying to get along with enemies, you say they are praising our foes.
> 
> But you hit the nail on the head: a quarter of our people speak other languages.  Yes, that is a problem because you have a bunch of lazy good for nothings coming here that won't even take the time or effort to learn our language.  They expect us to learn theirs.  In other words, they are not assimilating.
> 
> Trump may not stop the decay of our country, but he can certainly slow it down.  That's why we voted him in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Those lazy good for nothings, *
> 
> *Start 30% of all new businesses *
> *Employ an estimated 4.7 million people  *
> *Despite making up only 16 percent of the resident population holding a bachelor’s degree or higher, immigrants represent 33 percent of engineers, 27 percent of mathematicians, statisticians, and computer scientist, and 24 percent of physical scientists*
> *Purchasing power of Latinos and Asians, many of whom are immigrants, alone reached $1.5 trillion and $775 billion in 2016*
> *Comprehensive immigration reform could support and create up to 900,000 new jobs within three years of reform from the increase in consumer spending, according to the Center for American Progress.*
> *I didn't say 1/4 of Americans did not speak English. I said they spoke other languages.  Most legal immigrants to the US speak English.  Like Americans living in other countries, they speak the language but they are more comfortable speaking their native tongue.
> 
> Like it or not, the future of America rides on our ability to bring fresh blood and new idea into the country.   We can not grow and prosper in isolationism.   We have to use American know how and technology to make American workers the most productive in the world.  We can't rely on tariffs to protect American workers.  They have to compete with rest of the world.
> 
> BTW I was around in the days when "everybody" spoke English and life was just great.  Memory is kind.  We tend to forget the smog that blocked out the sun in many cities, rivers that caught fire, owners of coal mimes denying the existence of black lung disease, huge fish kills in most of our rivers from pollution, newspaper articles listing the new cases of Polio daily, the American eagle heading for extinction, bomb shelters, duck and cover, a survey of high students that believed they would not survive to see their children grown, church burnings, back alley abortions, black hangings, doctors promoting cigarette smoking, farmers in the southwest importing workers & paying 25 cents/hr, black men shot for looking at white women, hotels and restaurants turning away Blacks and Jews, women making half the wages of men working in the same job, men beating their wives legal in 25 states, and half the US Mexican boarder unmarked and un-fenced.             *
Click to expand...


How are we isolationists when we bring in a million people a year to live her LEGALLY plus all the Visa's and work permits?  I would say a million a year is fresh blood.  

And if these people are bilingual, WTF do we have ballots in their language, signs in their language, and yes, phone communications in their language?  If they speak English just fine, then we wouldn't need any of that, now would we?  

But of course as you know, they don't speak English; or at least enough of them don't where we believe we have to make accommodations.


----------



## Ame®icano

candycorn said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be willing to bet that most Americans don't even know what's going on at the border, and the ones that do, many don't care either.
> 
> Trump won because of the border and immigration issues.  People like me who are sick of pressing 1 to speak to an English speaking person, those who live where a lot of illegals live, those who are battling crime; some brought to us by illegals, those who watch as foreigners are taking our jobs for less money, we are all fed up with it, especially when our representatives tell us we need "immigration reform" instead of telling us what we really want to hear which is shut down the border, or at least get as close as we can to it.
> 
> So what damage to the nation do you speak of?  I see no damage.  If anything, I see taking a tougher stance on illegals which is what many of us want in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> *What damage? trade wars, broken alliances with our most supportive allies, handing the Pacific Rim trade to China, actions that will do irreparably damage to the environment, and leadership by a man that has the morals of a tomcat in heat who praises mass murders like Kim Jon Un and Putin.
> 
> What planet are you from?  Do really think Trump is going to stop globalization and the flow of people and ideas into this country.  You dial 1 for English because 1/4 of all Americans speak languages other than English and that's not going to change.  Also the call centers you dial into are international and serve other countries as well as the US.  Even Trump's highly publicized efforts to turn American into an Aryan/Anglo nation isolated from the world will fail.
> 
> Trump isn't going to change any of this but he is going to create more division and hatred.  I know conservatives thrive on hatred and division but it's going bite you guys in ass eventually.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I seem to remember a time not long ago when everybody spoke the same language and things were fine...if not better.
> 
> You people one the left complain when Republicans are in charge because you believe they are war mongers.  Yet when we have a President trying to get along with enemies, you say they are praising our foes.
> 
> But you hit the nail on the head: a quarter of our people speak other languages.  Yes, that is a problem because you have a bunch of lazy good for nothings coming here that won't even take the time or effort to learn our language.  They expect us to learn theirs.  In other words, they are not assimilating.
> 
> Trump may not stop the decay of our country, but he can certainly slow it down.  That's why we voted him in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Those lazy good for nothings, *
> 
> *Start 30% of all new businesses *
> *Employ an estimated 4.7 million people  *
> *Despite making up only 16 percent of the resident population holding a bachelor’s degree or higher, immigrants represent 33 percent of engineers, 27 percent of mathematicians, statisticians, and computer scientist, and 24 percent of physical scientists*
> *Purchasing power of Latinos and Asians, many of whom are immigrants, alone reached $1.5 trillion and $775 billion in 2016*
> *Comprehensive immigration reform could support and create up to 900,000 new jobs within three years of reform from the increase in consumer spending, according to the Center for American Progress.*
> *I didn't say 1/4 of Americans did not speak English. I said they spoke other languages.  Most legal immigrants to the US speak English.  Like Americans living in other countries, they speak the language but they are more comfortable speaking their native tongue.
> 
> Like it or not, the future of America rides on our ability to bring fresh blood and new idea into the country.   We not can grow and prosper in isolationism.   We have to use American know how and technology to make American workers the most  productive in the world.  We can't rely on tarries to protect American workers.
> 
> BTW I was around in the days when "everybody" spoke English and life was not so great.  Memory is kind.  We tend to forget the smog that blocked out the sun in many cities, rivers that caught fire, owners of coal mimes denying the existence of black lung disease, huge fish kills most of rivers from pollution, newspaper articles listing the new cases of Polio daily, the American eagle heading for extinction, bomb shelters, duck and cover, a survey of high students that believed they would not survive to see their children grown, church burnings, back alley abortions, black hangings, doctors promoting cigarette smoking, farmers in the southwest importing workers and paying 25 cents/hr, black men shot for looking at white women, hotels and restaurants turning away Blacks and Jews, women making half the wages of men working in the same job, and half the US Mexican boarder unmarked and un-fenced.             *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You equating immigrants and illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure about Flopper's motives but earlier in this thread, Trump ass kissers  referred to Mexicans as "beaners" and spoke about "preserving" the country.  They didn't differentiate between illegals and immigrants...
Click to expand...


Unless you clarify difference between immigrant beaners and illegal beaners, we can all assume that being beaner has nothing to do with immigration status.


----------



## Ame®icano

Flopper said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> The claim: "immigrant children are separated from parents".
> 
> The truth: Anyone crossing border illegally is not an immigrant. Immigrants are those who have a legal status in the US. These are illegals, so stop calling them immigrants.
> 
> It's time put an end to liberal shills posting bullshit claims.
> 
> Here is a good article that explains this current situation with children of illegals.
> 
> *The Truth about Separating Kids*
> 
> 
> 
> For the longest time, illegal immigration was driven by single males from Mexico. Over the last decade, the flow has shifted to women, children, and family units from Central America. This poses challenges we haven’t confronted before and has made what once were relatively minor wrinkles in the law loom very large.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The past practice had been to give a free pass to an adult who is part of a family unit. The new Trump policy is to prosecute all adults. The idea is to send a signal that we are serious about our laws and to create a deterrent against re-entry. (Illegal entry is a misdemeanor, illegal re-entry a felony.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Trump administration isn’t changing the rules that pertain to separating an adult from the child. Those remain the same. *Separation happens only if officials find that the adult is falsely claiming to be the child’s parent, or is a threat to the child, or is put into criminal proceedings.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where were you lefties crying about "concentration camps" and calling for uprising, like Pelosi did, when Obama was doing the same thing, just on larger scale?
> 
> *Obama held more than double of number of children in shelters compared to Trump White House*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The only way Trump can deport 12 million people is with a ton of detention camps.  You have to have a place to put them till you deport them.  At the rate he is deporting it would take 53 years to deport them all.  Of course he could try the Nazis final solution. His supporters would probably approve.*
Click to expand...


i believe there is no need to deport anyone. Just deny all illegals jobs, healthcare, housing or any government service. 

The final solution was national socialist thing, just as gulag was communist thing, or Japanese internment camps were progressive thing... you lefties should stop pretending we support any of it and start apologizing.


----------



## Ame®icano

Check the narrative: "undocumented immigrants".


----------



## Ame®icano

More false narrative. I don't think that immigrants have a reason to flee from the police. On the other hand, illegals...


----------



## candycorn

Ame®icano said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What damage? trade wars, broken alliances with our most supportive allies, handing the Pacific Rim trade to China, actions that will do irreparably damage to the environment, and leadership by a man that has the morals of a tomcat in heat who praises mass murders like Kim Jon Un and Putin.
> 
> What planet are you from?  Do really think Trump is going to stop globalization and the flow of people and ideas into this country.  You dial 1 for English because 1/4 of all Americans speak languages other than English and that's not going to change.  Also the call centers you dial into are international and serve other countries as well as the US.  Even Trump's highly publicized efforts to turn American into an Aryan/Anglo nation isolated from the world will fail.
> 
> Trump isn't going to change any of this but he is going to create more division and hatred.  I know conservatives thrive on hatred and division but it's going bite you guys in ass eventually.    *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to remember a time not long ago when everybody spoke the same language and things were fine...if not better.
> 
> You people one the left complain when Republicans are in charge because you believe they are war mongers.  Yet when we have a President trying to get along with enemies, you say they are praising our foes.
> 
> But you hit the nail on the head: a quarter of our people speak other languages.  Yes, that is a problem because you have a bunch of lazy good for nothings coming here that won't even take the time or effort to learn our language.  They expect us to learn theirs.  In other words, they are not assimilating.
> 
> Trump may not stop the decay of our country, but he can certainly slow it down.  That's why we voted him in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Those lazy good for nothings, *
> 
> *Start 30% of all new businesses *
> *Employ an estimated 4.7 million people  *
> *Despite making up only 16 percent of the resident population holding a bachelor’s degree or higher, immigrants represent 33 percent of engineers, 27 percent of mathematicians, statisticians, and computer scientist, and 24 percent of physical scientists*
> *Purchasing power of Latinos and Asians, many of whom are immigrants, alone reached $1.5 trillion and $775 billion in 2016*
> *Comprehensive immigration reform could support and create up to 900,000 new jobs within three years of reform from the increase in consumer spending, according to the Center for American Progress.*
> *I didn't say 1/4 of Americans did not speak English. I said they spoke other languages.  Most legal immigrants to the US speak English.  Like Americans living in other countries, they speak the language but they are more comfortable speaking their native tongue.
> 
> Like it or not, the future of America rides on our ability to bring fresh blood and new idea into the country.   We not can grow and prosper in isolationism.   We have to use American know how and technology to make American workers the most  productive in the world.  We can't rely on tarries to protect American workers.
> 
> BTW I was around in the days when "everybody" spoke English and life was not so great.  Memory is kind.  We tend to forget the smog that blocked out the sun in many cities, rivers that caught fire, owners of coal mimes denying the existence of black lung disease, huge fish kills most of rivers from pollution, newspaper articles listing the new cases of Polio daily, the American eagle heading for extinction, bomb shelters, duck and cover, a survey of high students that believed they would not survive to see their children grown, church burnings, back alley abortions, black hangings, doctors promoting cigarette smoking, farmers in the southwest importing workers and paying 25 cents/hr, black men shot for looking at white women, hotels and restaurants turning away Blacks and Jews, women making half the wages of men working in the same job, and half the US Mexican boarder unmarked and un-fenced.             *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You equating immigrants and illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure about Flopper's motives but earlier in this thread, Trump ass kissers  referred to Mexicans as "beaners" and spoke about "preserving" the country.  They didn't differentiate between illegals and immigrants...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you clarify difference between immigrant beaners and illegal beaners, we can all assume that being beaner has nothing to do with immigration status.
Click to expand...


But it has everything to do with how conservatives see people of brown skin. PS: Kondor3 didn't differentiate


----------



## Ame®icano

candycorn said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to remember a time not long ago when everybody spoke the same language and things were fine...if not better.
> 
> You people one the left complain when Republicans are in charge because you believe they are war mongers.  Yet when we have a President trying to get along with enemies, you say they are praising our foes.
> 
> But you hit the nail on the head: a quarter of our people speak other languages.  Yes, that is a problem because you have a bunch of lazy good for nothings coming here that won't even take the time or effort to learn our language.  They expect us to learn theirs.  In other words, they are not assimilating.
> 
> Trump may not stop the decay of our country, but he can certainly slow it down.  That's why we voted him in.
> 
> 
> 
> *Those lazy good for nothings, *
> 
> *Start 30% of all new businesses *
> *Employ an estimated 4.7 million people  *
> *Despite making up only 16 percent of the resident population holding a bachelor’s degree or higher, immigrants represent 33 percent of engineers, 27 percent of mathematicians, statisticians, and computer scientist, and 24 percent of physical scientists*
> *Purchasing power of Latinos and Asians, many of whom are immigrants, alone reached $1.5 trillion and $775 billion in 2016*
> *Comprehensive immigration reform could support and create up to 900,000 new jobs within three years of reform from the increase in consumer spending, according to the Center for American Progress.*
> *I didn't say 1/4 of Americans did not speak English. I said they spoke other languages.  Most legal immigrants to the US speak English.  Like Americans living in other countries, they speak the language but they are more comfortable speaking their native tongue.
> 
> Like it or not, the future of America rides on our ability to bring fresh blood and new idea into the country.   We not can grow and prosper in isolationism.   We have to use American know how and technology to make American workers the most  productive in the world.  We can't rely on tarries to protect American workers.
> 
> BTW I was around in the days when "everybody" spoke English and life was not so great.  Memory is kind.  We tend to forget the smog that blocked out the sun in many cities, rivers that caught fire, owners of coal mimes denying the existence of black lung disease, huge fish kills most of rivers from pollution, newspaper articles listing the new cases of Polio daily, the American eagle heading for extinction, bomb shelters, duck and cover, a survey of high students that believed they would not survive to see their children grown, church burnings, back alley abortions, black hangings, doctors promoting cigarette smoking, farmers in the southwest importing workers and paying 25 cents/hr, black men shot for looking at white women, hotels and restaurants turning away Blacks and Jews, women making half the wages of men working in the same job, and half the US Mexican boarder unmarked and un-fenced.             *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You equating immigrants and illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure about Flopper's motives but earlier in this thread, Trump ass kissers  referred to Mexicans as "beaners" and spoke about "preserving" the country.  They didn't differentiate between illegals and immigrants...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you clarify difference between immigrant beaners and illegal beaners, we can all assume that being beaner has nothing to do with immigration status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it has everything to do with how conservatives see people of brown skin. PS: Kondor3 didn't differentiate
Click to expand...


So you complain for someone saying all Mexicans are beaners, but it's completely OK to for you to say all conservatives are doing it, no hypocrisy there, eh?

By the way, I'd like to know where slur "beaner" came from.


----------



## candycorn

Ame®icano said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Those lazy good for nothings, *
> 
> *Start 30% of all new businesses *
> *Employ an estimated 4.7 million people  *
> *Despite making up only 16 percent of the resident population holding a bachelor’s degree or higher, immigrants represent 33 percent of engineers, 27 percent of mathematicians, statisticians, and computer scientist, and 24 percent of physical scientists*
> *Purchasing power of Latinos and Asians, many of whom are immigrants, alone reached $1.5 trillion and $775 billion in 2016*
> *Comprehensive immigration reform could support and create up to 900,000 new jobs within three years of reform from the increase in consumer spending, according to the Center for American Progress.*
> *I didn't say 1/4 of Americans did not speak English. I said they spoke other languages.  Most legal immigrants to the US speak English.  Like Americans living in other countries, they speak the language but they are more comfortable speaking their native tongue.
> 
> Like it or not, the future of America rides on our ability to bring fresh blood and new idea into the country.   We not can grow and prosper in isolationism.   We have to use American know how and technology to make American workers the most  productive in the world.  We can't rely on tarries to protect American workers.
> 
> BTW I was around in the days when "everybody" spoke English and life was not so great.  Memory is kind.  We tend to forget the smog that blocked out the sun in many cities, rivers that caught fire, owners of coal mimes denying the existence of black lung disease, huge fish kills most of rivers from pollution, newspaper articles listing the new cases of Polio daily, the American eagle heading for extinction, bomb shelters, duck and cover, a survey of high students that believed they would not survive to see their children grown, church burnings, back alley abortions, black hangings, doctors promoting cigarette smoking, farmers in the southwest importing workers and paying 25 cents/hr, black men shot for looking at white women, hotels and restaurants turning away Blacks and Jews, women making half the wages of men working in the same job, and half the US Mexican boarder unmarked and un-fenced.             *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You equating immigrants and illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure about Flopper's motives but earlier in this thread, Trump ass kissers  referred to Mexicans as "beaners" and spoke about "preserving" the country.  They didn't differentiate between illegals and immigrants...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you clarify difference between immigrant beaners and illegal beaners, we can all assume that being beaner has nothing to do with immigration status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it has everything to do with how conservatives see people of brown skin. PS: Kondor3 didn't differentiate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you complain for someone saying all Mexicans are beaners, but it's completely OK to for you to say all conservatives are doing it, no hypocrisy there, eh?
Click to expand...


Well, here you are using the word freely.  Prove me wrong.  Call them out right now and tell them how disappointed you are in them for using racial slurs.  Right now, in your next post on this thread.

I'll wait and watch. 

Bet you don't.


----------



## Ame®icano

candycorn said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> You equating immigrants and illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure about Flopper's motives but earlier in this thread, Trump ass kissers  referred to Mexicans as "beaners" and spoke about "preserving" the country.  They didn't differentiate between illegals and immigrants...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you clarify difference between immigrant beaners and illegal beaners, we can all assume that being beaner has nothing to do with immigration status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it has everything to do with how conservatives see people of brown skin. PS: Kondor3 didn't differentiate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you complain for someone saying all Mexicans are beaners, but it's completely OK to for you to say all conservatives are doing it, no hypocrisy there, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, here you are using the word freely.  Prove me wrong.  Call them out right now and tell them how disappointed you are in them for using racial slurs.  Right now, in your next post on this thread.
> 
> I'll wait and watch.
> 
> Bet you don't.
Click to expand...


I'll rather prove you wrong.

Beaner is not a racial slur. It's as much racial as gringo, redneck or hillbilly. Got it?


----------



## candycorn

Ame®icano said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure about Flopper's motives but earlier in this thread, Trump ass kissers  referred to Mexicans as "beaners" and spoke about "preserving" the country.  They didn't differentiate between illegals and immigrants...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you clarify difference between immigrant beaners and illegal beaners, we can all assume that being beaner has nothing to do with immigration status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it has everything to do with how conservatives see people of brown skin. PS: Kondor3 didn't differentiate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you complain for someone saying all Mexicans are beaners, but it's completely OK to for you to say all conservatives are doing it, no hypocrisy there, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, here you are using the word freely.  Prove me wrong.  Call them out right now and tell them how disappointed you are in them for using racial slurs.  Right now, in your next post on this thread.
> 
> I'll wait and watch.
> 
> Bet you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll rather prove you wrong.
> 
> Beaner is not a racial slur. It's as much racial as gringo, redneck or hillbilly. Got it?
Click to expand...


he he he....I didn't think you objected too much to the racial slur.  As is the case with Trump ass kissers.  Pucker up butter cup.  Mueller is going to get your boy.


----------



## Flopper

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It will certain catch up with Trump.  The question is how much damage will be done to the nation before that happens.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be willing to bet that most Americans don't even know what's going on at the border, and the ones that do, many don't care either.
> 
> Trump won because of the border and immigration issues.  People like me who are sick of pressing 1 to speak to an English speaking person, those who live where a lot of illegals live, those who are battling crime; some brought to us by illegals, those who watch as foreigners are taking our jobs for less money, we are all fed up with it, especially when our representatives tell us we need "immigration reform" instead of telling us what we really want to hear which is shut down the border, or at least get as close as we can to it.
> 
> So what damage to the nation do you speak of?  I see no damage.  If anything, I see taking a tougher stance on illegals which is what many of us want in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What damage? trade wars, broken alliances with our most supportive allies, handing the Pacific Rim trade to China, actions that will do irreparably damage the environment, and leadership by a man that has the morals of a tomcat in heat who praises mass murders like Kim Jon Un and Putin.
> 
> What planet are you from?  Do really think Trump is going to stop globalization and the flow of people and ideas into this country.  You dial 1 for English because 1/4 of all Americans speak languages other than English and that's not going to change.  Also the call centers you dial into are international and serve other countries as well as the US.  Even Trump's highly publicized efforts to turn American into Aryan/Anglo nation isolated from the world will fail.
> 
> Trump isn't going to change any of this but he is going to create more division and hatred.  I know conservatives thrive on hatred and division but it's going bite you guys in ass eventually.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you can blame the pacific rim on Trump over Obama shows the useless partisan hack that you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Obama had positioned the US as the central nation in the Trans Pacific Partnership which represents roughly 40% of the world's economic output.
> 
> When Trump took the US out of the TPP, he and his
> advisers were confident that it was doomed and would fall apart and the US would pickup the pieces.   However, the organization has arisen with a new plan to carry forward without the US implementing the agreement which will amount to 350 billion in free trade. And guess who is looking at opening negotiations with the TPP.  Yep, China.  Trump's promise to negotiate bilateral trade agreements with each of these countries is as dead as a door nail now.
> In April 2018, Trump said he was considering putting us back in the TPP, however it looks like that boat has sailed thanks to his trade war with China.
> Another brilliant move by the Orange Clown.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm 55 and all my life until Trump Democrats argued against free trade.  This is an issue that Democrats even ate their own on despite that you're lemmings.  You attacked Bill for NAFTA.  You attacked Hillary for NAFTA and made her disavow it.  That's even the one thing you attacked Obama for.  Even though it was secretly negotiated by a leftist, you attacked him for TPP.  Now with Trump, suddenly leftists are all against tariffs.  Including attacking people like me who opposed tariffs all my life and still do.
> 
> So a challenge.  Show two things:
> 
> 1)  Any post where you opposed tariffs before November 8, 2016
> 
> 2)  Any post where you said to an actual Democrat you oppose tariffs ever
> 
> Flopper, where'd you go?  Flopper?
Click to expand...

*I'm a democrat and I have always supported free trade. To my knowledge no one was proposing any tariffs back in 2016 except Trump.  Free trade is one of the few issues that I agree with Republicans on.  Ross Perot's opposition to NAFTA and Bill Clinton support was one of the reasons I voted for him.

Free trade makes sense.  Tariffs do not.  Free trade allows each country to produce what it produces best.  Tariffs interfere with the free market, protecting inefficient producers while punishing efficient producers.  In general, the consumer pays more and get's less.*


----------



## Ame®icano

candycorn said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you clarify difference between immigrant beaners and illegal beaners, we can all assume that being beaner has nothing to do with immigration status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it has everything to do with how conservatives see people of brown skin. PS: Kondor3 didn't differentiate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you complain for someone saying all Mexicans are beaners, but it's completely OK to for you to say all conservatives are doing it, no hypocrisy there, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, here you are using the word freely.  Prove me wrong.  Call them out right now and tell them how disappointed you are in them for using racial slurs.  Right now, in your next post on this thread.
> 
> I'll wait and watch.
> 
> Bet you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll rather prove you wrong.
> 
> Beaner is not a racial slur. It's as much racial as gringo, redneck or hillbilly. Got it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he he he....I didn't think you objected too much to the racial slur.  As is the case with Trump ass kissers.  Pucker up butter cup.  Mueller is going to get your boy.
Click to expand...


Again, it's not racial slur.

Mexican is not race, it's nationality.


----------



## Ame®icano

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be willing to bet that most Americans don't even know what's going on at the border, and the ones that do, many don't care either.
> 
> Trump won because of the border and immigration issues.  People like me who are sick of pressing 1 to speak to an English speaking person, those who live where a lot of illegals live, those who are battling crime; some brought to us by illegals, those who watch as foreigners are taking our jobs for less money, we are all fed up with it, especially when our representatives tell us we need "immigration reform" instead of telling us what we really want to hear which is shut down the border, or at least get as close as we can to it.
> 
> So what damage to the nation do you speak of?  I see no damage.  If anything, I see taking a tougher stance on illegals which is what many of us want in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> *What damage? trade wars, broken alliances with our most supportive allies, handing the Pacific Rim trade to China, actions that will do irreparably damage the environment, and leadership by a man that has the morals of a tomcat in heat who praises mass murders like Kim Jon Un and Putin.
> 
> What planet are you from?  Do really think Trump is going to stop globalization and the flow of people and ideas into this country.  You dial 1 for English because 1/4 of all Americans speak languages other than English and that's not going to change.  Also the call centers you dial into are international and serve other countries as well as the US.  Even Trump's highly publicized efforts to turn American into Aryan/Anglo nation isolated from the world will fail.
> 
> Trump isn't going to change any of this but he is going to create more division and hatred.  I know conservatives thrive on hatred and division but it's going bite you guys in ass eventually.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you can blame the pacific rim on Trump over Obama shows the useless partisan hack that you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Obama had positioned the US as the central nation in the Trans Pacific Partnership which represents roughly 40% of the world's economic output.
> 
> When Trump took the US out of the TPP, he and his
> advisers were confident that it was doomed and would fall apart and the US would pickup the pieces.   However, the organization has arisen with a new plan to carry forward without the US implementing the agreement which will amount to 350 billion in free trade. And guess who is looking at opening negotiations with the TPP.  Yep, China.  Trump's promise to negotiate bilateral trade agreements with each of these countries is as dead as a door nail now.
> In April 2018, Trump said he was considering putting us back in the TPP, however it looks like that boat has sailed thanks to his trade war with China.
> Another brilliant move by the Orange Clown.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm 55 and all my life until Trump Democrats argued against free trade.  This is an issue that Democrats even ate their own on despite that you're lemmings.  You attacked Bill for NAFTA.  You attacked Hillary for NAFTA and made her disavow it.  That's even the one thing you attacked Obama for.  Even though it was secretly negotiated by a leftist, you attacked him for TPP.  Now with Trump, suddenly leftists are all against tariffs.  Including attacking people like me who opposed tariffs all my life and still do.
> 
> So a challenge.  Show two things:
> 
> 1)  Any post where you opposed tariffs before November 8, 2016
> 
> 2)  Any post where you said to an actual Democrat you oppose tariffs ever
> 
> Flopper, where'd you go?  Flopper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I'm a democrat and I have always supported free trade. To my knowledge no one was proposing any tariffs back in 2016 except Trump.  Free trade is one of the few issues that I agree with Republicans on.  Ross Perot's opposition to NAFTA and Bill Clinton support was one of the reasons I voted for him.
> 
> Free trade makes sense.  Tariffs do not.  Free trade allows each country to produce what it produces best.  Tariffs interfere with the free market, protecting inefficient producers while punishing efficient producers.  In general, the consumer pays more and get's less.*
Click to expand...


Than why Canada doesn't support completely free trade with no tariffs at all from either side?

Are you going to answer, or you need me to help you with that?


----------



## Ame®icano

Ame®icano said:


> More false narrative. I don't think that immigrants have a reason to flee from the police. On the other hand, illegals...



The "undocumented immigrants" narrative continues....






I hope they have a video.


----------



## candycorn

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be willing to bet that most Americans don't even know what's going on at the border, and the ones that do, many don't care either.
> 
> Trump won because of the border and immigration issues.  People like me who are sick of pressing 1 to speak to an English speaking person, those who live where a lot of illegals live, those who are battling crime; some brought to us by illegals, those who watch as foreigners are taking our jobs for less money, we are all fed up with it, especially when our representatives tell us we need "immigration reform" instead of telling us what we really want to hear which is shut down the border, or at least get as close as we can to it.
> 
> So what damage to the nation do you speak of?  I see no damage.  If anything, I see taking a tougher stance on illegals which is what many of us want in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> *What damage? trade wars, broken alliances with our most supportive allies, handing the Pacific Rim trade to China, actions that will do irreparably damage the environment, and leadership by a man that has the morals of a tomcat in heat who praises mass murders like Kim Jon Un and Putin.
> 
> What planet are you from?  Do really think Trump is going to stop globalization and the flow of people and ideas into this country.  You dial 1 for English because 1/4 of all Americans speak languages other than English and that's not going to change.  Also the call centers you dial into are international and serve other countries as well as the US.  Even Trump's highly publicized efforts to turn American into Aryan/Anglo nation isolated from the world will fail.
> 
> Trump isn't going to change any of this but he is going to create more division and hatred.  I know conservatives thrive on hatred and division but it's going bite you guys in ass eventually.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you can blame the pacific rim on Trump over Obama shows the useless partisan hack that you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Obama had positioned the US as the central nation in the Trans Pacific Partnership which represents roughly 40% of the world's economic output.
> 
> When Trump took the US out of the TPP, he and his
> advisers were confident that it was doomed and would fall apart and the US would pickup the pieces.   However, the organization has arisen with a new plan to carry forward without the US implementing the agreement which will amount to 350 billion in free trade. And guess who is looking at opening negotiations with the TPP.  Yep, China.  Trump's promise to negotiate bilateral trade agreements with each of these countries is as dead as a door nail now.
> In April 2018, Trump said he was considering putting us back in the TPP, however it looks like that boat has sailed thanks to his trade war with China.
> Another brilliant move by the Orange Clown.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm 55 and all my life until Trump Democrats argued against free trade.  This is an issue that Democrats even ate their own on despite that you're lemmings.  You attacked Bill for NAFTA.  You attacked Hillary for NAFTA and made her disavow it.  That's even the one thing you attacked Obama for.  Even though it was secretly negotiated by a leftist, you attacked him for TPP.  Now with Trump, suddenly leftists are all against tariffs.  Including attacking people like me who opposed tariffs all my life and still do.
> 
> So a challenge.  Show two things:
> 
> 1)  Any post where you opposed tariffs before November 8, 2016
> 
> 2)  Any post where you said to an actual Democrat you oppose tariffs ever
> 
> Flopper, where'd you go?  Flopper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I'm a democrat and I have always supported free trade. To my knowledge no one was proposing any tariffs back in 2016 except Trump.  Free trade is one of the few issues that I agree with Republicans on.  Ross Perot's opposition to NAFTA and Bill Clinton support was one of the reasons I voted for him.
> 
> Free trade makes sense.  Tariffs do not.  Free trade allows each country to produce what it produces best.  Tariffs interfere with the free market, protecting inefficient producers while punishing efficient producers.  In general, the consumer pays more and get's less.*
Click to expand...


It also stops wars.


----------



## candycorn

Ame®icano said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it has everything to do with how conservatives see people of brown skin. PS: Kondor3 didn't differentiate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you complain for someone saying all Mexicans are beaners, but it's completely OK to for you to say all conservatives are doing it, no hypocrisy there, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, here you are using the word freely.  Prove me wrong.  Call them out right now and tell them how disappointed you are in them for using racial slurs.  Right now, in your next post on this thread.
> 
> I'll wait and watch.
> 
> Bet you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll rather prove you wrong.
> 
> Beaner is not a racial slur. It's as much racial as gringo, redneck or hillbilly. Got it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he he he....I didn't think you objected too much to the racial slur.  As is the case with Trump ass kissers.  Pucker up butter cup.  Mueller is going to get your boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, it's not racial slur.
> 
> Mexican is not race, it's nationality.
Click to expand...


Even you're not dumb enough to believe that shit, are you?


----------



## Ame®icano

candycorn said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you complain for someone saying all Mexicans are beaners, but it's completely OK to for you to say all conservatives are doing it, no hypocrisy there, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, here you are using the word freely.  Prove me wrong.  Call them out right now and tell them how disappointed you are in them for using racial slurs.  Right now, in your next post on this thread.
> 
> I'll wait and watch.
> 
> Bet you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll rather prove you wrong.
> 
> Beaner is not a racial slur. It's as much racial as gringo, redneck or hillbilly. Got it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he he he....I didn't think you objected too much to the racial slur.  As is the case with Trump ass kissers.  Pucker up butter cup.  Mueller is going to get your boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, it's not racial slur.
> 
> Mexican is not race, it's nationality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even you're not dumb enough to believe that shit, are you?
Click to expand...


What race are Mexicans?


----------



## candycorn

Ame®icano said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, here you are using the word freely.  Prove me wrong.  Call them out right now and tell them how disappointed you are in them for using racial slurs.  Right now, in your next post on this thread.
> 
> I'll wait and watch.
> 
> Bet you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll rather prove you wrong.
> 
> Beaner is not a racial slur. It's as much racial as gringo, redneck or hillbilly. Got it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he he he....I didn't think you objected too much to the racial slur.  As is the case with Trump ass kissers.  Pucker up butter cup.  Mueller is going to get your boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, it's not racial slur.
> 
> Mexican is not race, it's nationality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even you're not dumb enough to believe that shit, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What race are Mexicans?
Click to expand...


Like all Trump ass kissers, you may not be racist but (as you have proven just now), you have zero problem rubbing elbows with them.


----------



## Flopper

pismoe said:


> because everything is good for mexico .   They get rid of their poor and the poor make money in the USA that they send back to mexico .  There is no reason for mexico to help anything for anyone but themselves   Clementine .


*Actually few Mexican are sending money back home any more. They bring it home.  In the last 7 years the population of Mexican undocumented immigrants has declined by 1.1 million.  During that time the number of legal Mexican workers has also declined.  This is why farmers are hurting.  Nationwide, there are two jobs available in agriculture for every new job seeker and 4 in California.
What we know about illegal immigration from Mexico*


----------



## Ame®icano

candycorn said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll rather prove you wrong.
> 
> Beaner is not a racial slur. It's as much racial as gringo, redneck or hillbilly. Got it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he he he....I didn't think you objected too much to the racial slur.  As is the case with Trump ass kissers.  Pucker up butter cup.  Mueller is going to get your boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, it's not racial slur.
> 
> Mexican is not race, it's nationality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even you're not dumb enough to believe that shit, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What race are Mexicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like all Trump ass kissers, you may not be racist but (as you have proven just now), you have zero problem rubbing elbows with them.
Click to expand...


Again, what race are Mexicans? 

Or at least, tell me what race are Americans?


----------



## candycorn

Ame®icano said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> he he he....I didn't think you objected too much to the racial slur.  As is the case with Trump ass kissers.  Pucker up butter cup.  Mueller is going to get your boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it's not racial slur.
> 
> Mexican is not race, it's nationality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even you're not dumb enough to believe that shit, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What race are Mexicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like all Trump ass kissers, you may not be racist but (as you have proven just now), you have zero problem rubbing elbows with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, what race are Mexicans?
> 
> Or at least, tell me what race are Americans?
Click to expand...


What race are "beaners" as you put it?


----------



## Ame®icano

candycorn said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it's not racial slur.
> 
> Mexican is not race, it's nationality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even you're not dumb enough to believe that shit, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What race are Mexicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like all Trump ass kissers, you may not be racist but (as you have proven just now), you have zero problem rubbing elbows with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, what race are Mexicans?
> 
> Or at least, tell me what race are Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What race are "beaners" as you put it?
Click to expand...


I didn't put it into race category, you did.

Aha, dodging again.

I already explained it to you, beaner is not a racial slur.


----------



## Flopper

Ame®icano said:


> The claim: "immigrant children are separated from parents".
> 
> The truth: Anyone crossing border illegally is not an immigrant. Immigrants are those who have a legal status in the US. These are illegals, so stop calling them immigrants.
> 
> It's time put an end to liberal shills posting bullshit claims.
> 
> Here is a good article that explains this current situation with children of illegals.
> 
> *The Truth about Separating Kids*
> 
> 
> 
> For the longest time, illegal immigration was driven by single males from Mexico. Over the last decade, the flow has shifted to women, children, and family units from Central America. This poses challenges we haven’t confronted before and has made what once were relatively minor wrinkles in the law loom very large.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The past practice had been to give a free pass to an adult who is part of a family unit. The new Trump policy is to prosecute all adults. The idea is to send a signal that we are serious about our laws and to create a deterrent against re-entry. (Illegal entry is a misdemeanor, illegal re-entry a felony.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Trump administration isn’t changing the rules that pertain to separating an adult from the child. Those remain the same. *Separation happens only if officials find that the adult is falsely claiming to be the child’s parent, or is a threat to the child, or is put into criminal proceedings.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where were you lefties crying about "concentration camps" and calling for uprising, like Pelosi did, when Obama was doing the same thing, just on larger scale?
> 
> *Obama held more than double of number of children in shelters compared to Trump White House*
Click to expand...


*Not so.
 The definition of an immigrant is a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.   A century ago we had very few people entering the country illegal so when someone was refereed to as an immigrant people naturally assumed they were legal.  However the meaning of the word has no connotation of legality.  

There is no law that mandates separating children from their parents. Trump’s own administration devised a policy to that effect.  An administration can separate children or allow them to stay with parents. It is policy not a law.  Trump just plain lied, but what's new.  
The question is why is he trying to hide behind a nonexistent law and then claim he really cares about these kids.  His supporters think it's just fine to punish the children and they certainly don't care what he does with the kids.

Obama did hold many children in shelters but most were children unaccompanied by an adult.  Again it's all policy, not law.

Definition of IMMIGRANT
Trump blames Democrats for own policy separating families*


----------



## Flopper

Ame®icano said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even you're not dumb enough to believe that shit, are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What race are Mexicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like all Trump ass kissers, you may not be racist but (as you have proven just now), you have zero problem rubbing elbows with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, what race are Mexicans?
> 
> Or at least, tell me what race are Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What race are "beaners" as you put it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't put it into race category, you did.
> 
> Aha, dodging again.
> 
> I already explained it to you, beaner is not a racial slur.
Click to expand...

*Beaner is a derogatory slang for Mexicans or people of Mexican descent. It's an ethnic slur.*


----------



## candycorn

Ame®icano said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even you're not dumb enough to believe that shit, are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What race are Mexicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like all Trump ass kissers, you may not be racist but (as you have proven just now), you have zero problem rubbing elbows with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, what race are Mexicans?
> 
> Or at least, tell me what race are Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What race are "beaners" as you put it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't put it into race category, you did.
> 
> Aha, dodging again.
> 
> I already explained it to you, beaner is not a racial slur.
Click to expand...


No Kondor3 did when he put racial slurs into it.  Please walk into a chicano bar and start calling people "beaner"....I'd love to be there when you do it.


----------



## candycorn

Flopper said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> What race are Mexicans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like all Trump ass kissers, you may not be racist but (as you have proven just now), you have zero problem rubbing elbows with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, what race are Mexicans?
> 
> Or at least, tell me what race are Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What race are "beaners" as you put it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't put it into race category, you did.
> 
> Aha, dodging again.
> 
> I already explained it to you, beaner is not a racial slur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Beaner is a derogatory slang for Mexicans or people of Mexican descent. It's an ethnic slur.*
Click to expand...


It's shocking the depths you have to sink to when you engage a Trumpian in a debate; is it not?


----------



## pismoe

candycorn said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll rather prove you wrong.
> 
> Beaner is not a racial slur. It's as much racial as gringo, redneck or hillbilly. Got it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he he he....I didn't think you objected too much to the racial slur.  As is the case with Trump ass kissers.  Pucker up butter cup.  Mueller is going to get your boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, it's not racial slur.
> 
> Mexican is not race, it's nationality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even you're not dumb enough to believe that shit, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What race are Mexicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like all Trump ass kissers, you may not be racist but (as you have proven just now), you have zero problem rubbing elbows with them.
Click to expand...

----------------------------------   racist is simply an opinion .   And hopefully its a supposed insult that is losing its power  Candy .


----------



## Ame®icano

Flopper said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> The claim: "immigrant children are separated from parents".
> 
> The truth: Anyone crossing border illegally is not an immigrant. Immigrants are those who have a legal status in the US. These are illegals, so stop calling them immigrants.
> 
> It's time put an end to liberal shills posting bullshit claims.
> 
> Here is a good article that explains this current situation with children of illegals.
> 
> *The Truth about Separating Kids*
> 
> 
> 
> For the longest time, illegal immigration was driven by single males from Mexico. Over the last decade, the flow has shifted to women, children, and family units from Central America. This poses challenges we haven’t confronted before and has made what once were relatively minor wrinkles in the law loom very large.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The past practice had been to give a free pass to an adult who is part of a family unit. The new Trump policy is to prosecute all adults. The idea is to send a signal that we are serious about our laws and to create a deterrent against re-entry. (Illegal entry is a misdemeanor, illegal re-entry a felony.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Trump administration isn’t changing the rules that pertain to separating an adult from the child. Those remain the same. *Separation happens only if officials find that the adult is falsely claiming to be the child’s parent, or is a threat to the child, or is put into criminal proceedings.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where were you lefties crying about "concentration camps" and calling for uprising, like Pelosi did, when Obama was doing the same thing, just on larger scale?
> 
> *Obama held more than double of number of children in shelters compared to Trump White House*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Not so.
> The definition of an immigrant is a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.   A century ago we had very few people entering the country illegal so when someone was refereed to as an immigrant people naturally assumed they were legal.  However the meaning of the word has no connotation of legality.
> 
> There is no law that mandates separating children from their parents. Trump’s own administration devised a policy to that effect.  An administration can separate children or allow them to stay with parents. It is policy not a law.  Trump just plain lied, but what's new.
> The question is why is he trying to hide behind a nonexistent law and then claim he really cares about these kids.  His supporters think it's just fine to punish the children and they certainly don't care what he does with the kids.
> 
> Obama did hold many children in shelters but most were children unaccompanied by an adult.  Again it's all policy, not law.
> 
> Definition of IMMIGRANT
> Trump blames Democrats for own policy separating families*
Click to expand...


Dictionaries are changing definitions based on political correctness. But that's not an issue here.

If is up to you lefties, immigrant is everyone who move here for any reason, legally or illegally.

However, I am not talking about English definitions, I am talking about legal definition of "immigrant" as defined by DHS.

Immigrant - an alien admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident.

There is another definition called in Immigration and Nationality Act of 1953, that was too broad and later clarified. According to the same Act, only lawful immigrants (permanent residents) are legally accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States.


----------



## Flopper

Ame®icano said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What damage? trade wars, broken alliances with our most supportive allies, handing the Pacific Rim trade to China, actions that will do irreparably damage the environment, and leadership by a man that has the morals of a tomcat in heat who praises mass murders like Kim Jon Un and Putin.
> 
> What planet are you from?  Do really think Trump is going to stop globalization and the flow of people and ideas into this country.  You dial 1 for English because 1/4 of all Americans speak languages other than English and that's not going to change.  Also the call centers you dial into are international and serve other countries as well as the US.  Even Trump's highly publicized efforts to turn American into Aryan/Anglo nation isolated from the world will fail.
> 
> Trump isn't going to change any of this but he is going to create more division and hatred.  I know conservatives thrive on hatred and division but it's going bite you guys in ass eventually.    *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you can blame the pacific rim on Trump over Obama shows the useless partisan hack that you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Obama had positioned the US as the central nation in the Trans Pacific Partnership which represents roughly 40% of the world's economic output.
> 
> When Trump took the US out of the TPP, he and his
> advisers were confident that it was doomed and would fall apart and the US would pickup the pieces.   However, the organization has arisen with a new plan to carry forward without the US implementing the agreement which will amount to 350 billion in free trade. And guess who is looking at opening negotiations with the TPP.  Yep, China.  Trump's promise to negotiate bilateral trade agreements with each of these countries is as dead as a door nail now.
> In April 2018, Trump said he was considering putting us back in the TPP, however it looks like that boat has sailed thanks to his trade war with China.
> Another brilliant move by the Orange Clown.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm 55 and all my life until Trump Democrats argued against free trade.  This is an issue that Democrats even ate their own on despite that you're lemmings.  You attacked Bill for NAFTA.  You attacked Hillary for NAFTA and made her disavow it.  That's even the one thing you attacked Obama for.  Even though it was secretly negotiated by a leftist, you attacked him for TPP.  Now with Trump, suddenly leftists are all against tariffs.  Including attacking people like me who opposed tariffs all my life and still do.
> 
> So a challenge.  Show two things:
> 
> 1)  Any post where you opposed tariffs before November 8, 2016
> 
> 2)  Any post where you said to an actual Democrat you oppose tariffs ever
> 
> Flopper, where'd you go?  Flopper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I'm a democrat and I have always supported free trade. To my knowledge no one was proposing any tariffs back in 2016 except Trump.  Free trade is one of the few issues that I agree with Republicans on.  Ross Perot's opposition to NAFTA and Bill Clinton support was one of the reasons I voted for him.
> 
> Free trade makes sense.  Tariffs do not.  Free trade allows each country to produce what it produces best.  Tariffs interfere with the free market, protecting inefficient producers while punishing efficient producers.  In general, the consumer pays more and get's less.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Than why Canada doesn't support completely free trade with no tariffs at all from either side?
> 
> Are you going to answer, or you need me to help you with that?
Click to expand...

*Canada is a signer of NAFTA which eliminated nearly all trade barriers, however there are still some tariffs that negotiators have been unable to remove.  Just because you support free trade does not mean you can trade all goods tariff free.  It takes agreement from both sides to eliminate trade barriers.  After NAFTA was signed negotiators continued to eliminate trade barriers and have eliminate many  

The TPP which is probably the trade agreement that comes closest to totally free trade still has a few tariffs.  The few that remain have been reduced, typically to 1% to 10%. *


----------



## MaryL

Well, apparently the human cost is a paltry concern. Apparently, it a superficial concern. Lets balance out the equation : The well being of Americans in general  VS the profit of the ambiguous  wealthy  puppet overlords . Is there any question whos needs come first?


----------



## Ame®icano

candycorn said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> What race are Mexicans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like all Trump ass kissers, you may not be racist but (as you have proven just now), you have zero problem rubbing elbows with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, what race are Mexicans?
> 
> Or at least, tell me what race are Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What race are "beaners" as you put it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't put it into race category, you did.
> 
> Aha, dodging again.
> 
> I already explained it to you, beaner is not a racial slur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Kondor3 did when he put racial slurs into it.  Please walk into a chicano bar and start calling people "beaner"....I'd love to be there when you do it.
Click to expand...


It's not a racial slur, dunce.

You could call it derisive, but derisive has nothing to do with race.

If is up to your standards, "deplorable" is racist term. Is it?

The thing with you lefties (now that's derisive) is that you demand we prove that our views are valid to your criteria and working within arbitrary frame that you set up that a priori rule out our viewpoint.

You "feel" that something is "racist". Since we don't give a fuck about your "feelings", it's not.


----------



## candycorn

Ame®icano said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like all Trump ass kissers, you may not be racist but (as you have proven just now), you have zero problem rubbing elbows with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what race are Mexicans?
> 
> Or at least, tell me what race are Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What race are "beaners" as you put it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't put it into race category, you did.
> 
> Aha, dodging again.
> 
> I already explained it to you, beaner is not a racial slur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Kondor3 did when he put racial slurs into it.  Please walk into a chicano bar and start calling people "beaner"....I'd love to be there when you do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a racial slur, dunce.
> 
> You could call it derisive, but derisive has nothing to do with race.
> 
> If is up to your standards, "deplorable" is racist term. Is it?
> 
> The thing with you lefties (now that's derisive) is that you demand we prove that our views are valid to your criteria and working within arbitrary frame that you set up that a priori rule out our viewpoint.
> 
> You "feel" that something is "racist". Since we don't give a fuck about your "feelings", it's not.
Click to expand...


No...deplorable doesn't indict people based on the color of their skin.


----------



## Ame®icano

Flopper said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you can blame the pacific rim on Trump over Obama shows the useless partisan hack that you are
> 
> 
> 
> *Obama had positioned the US as the central nation in the Trans Pacific Partnership which represents roughly 40% of the world's economic output.
> 
> When Trump took the US out of the TPP, he and his
> advisers were confident that it was doomed and would fall apart and the US would pickup the pieces.   However, the organization has arisen with a new plan to carry forward without the US implementing the agreement which will amount to 350 billion in free trade. And guess who is looking at opening negotiations with the TPP.  Yep, China.  Trump's promise to negotiate bilateral trade agreements with each of these countries is as dead as a door nail now.
> In April 2018, Trump said he was considering putting us back in the TPP, however it looks like that boat has sailed thanks to his trade war with China.
> Another brilliant move by the Orange Clown.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm 55 and all my life until Trump Democrats argued against free trade.  This is an issue that Democrats even ate their own on despite that you're lemmings.  You attacked Bill for NAFTA.  You attacked Hillary for NAFTA and made her disavow it.  That's even the one thing you attacked Obama for.  Even though it was secretly negotiated by a leftist, you attacked him for TPP.  Now with Trump, suddenly leftists are all against tariffs.  Including attacking people like me who opposed tariffs all my life and still do.
> 
> So a challenge.  Show two things:
> 
> 1)  Any post where you opposed tariffs before November 8, 2016
> 
> 2)  Any post where you said to an actual Democrat you oppose tariffs ever
> 
> Flopper, where'd you go?  Flopper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I'm a democrat and I have always supported free trade. To my knowledge no one was proposing any tariffs back in 2016 except Trump.  Free trade is one of the few issues that I agree with Republicans on.  Ross Perot's opposition to NAFTA and Bill Clinton support was one of the reasons I voted for him.
> 
> Free trade makes sense.  Tariffs do not.  Free trade allows each country to produce what it produces best.  Tariffs interfere with the free market, protecting inefficient producers while punishing efficient producers.  In general, the consumer pays more and get's less.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Than why Canada doesn't support completely free trade with no tariffs at all from either side?
> 
> Are you going to answer, or you need me to help you with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Canada is a signer of NAFTA which eliminated nearly all trade barriers, however there are still some tariffs that negotiators have been unable to remove.  Just because you support free trade does not mean you can trade all goods tariff free.  It takes agreement from both sides to eliminate trade barriers.  After NAFTA was signed negotiators continued to eliminate trade barriers and have eliminate many
> 
> The TPP which is probably the trade agreement that comes closest to totally free trade still has a few tariffs.  The few that remain have been reduced, typically to 1% to 10%. *
Click to expand...


NAFTA eliminated "nearly all barriers" of Mexico and Canada selling their products in the US without tariffs, and allowing them to tariff our products at will and that's what they've been doing. Trump tariffs are message to them that it's time to level the playing field in one of the two goals: a) putting tariffs on their products until they lower theirs, b) eliminating all tariffs.Quite smart plan, offering them something they hate, and something he wants. 

Why do you think they don't agree to neither one? 

Because they like their deal under NAFTA, that is favoring them, not us.


----------



## Ame®icano

candycorn said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what race are Mexicans?
> 
> Or at least, tell me what race are Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What race are "beaners" as you put it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't put it into race category, you did.
> 
> Aha, dodging again.
> 
> I already explained it to you, beaner is not a racial slur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Kondor3 did when he put racial slurs into it.  Please walk into a chicano bar and start calling people "beaner"....I'd love to be there when you do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a racial slur, dunce.
> 
> You could call it derisive, but derisive has nothing to do with race.
> 
> If is up to your standards, "deplorable" is racist term. Is it?
> 
> The thing with you lefties (now that's derisive) is that you demand we prove that our views are valid to your criteria and working within arbitrary frame that you set up that a priori rule out our viewpoint.
> 
> You "feel" that something is "racist". Since we don't give a fuck about your "feelings", it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...deplorable doesn't indict people based on the color of their skin.
Click to expand...


Neither is beaner. It's a slur for a Mexican.

Again, what race is Mexican?


----------



## Ame®icano

Flopper said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> What race are Mexicans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like all Trump ass kissers, you may not be racist but (as you have proven just now), you have zero problem rubbing elbows with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, what race are Mexicans?
> 
> Or at least, tell me what race are Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What race are "beaners" as you put it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't put it into race category, you did.
> 
> Aha, dodging again.
> 
> I already explained it to you, beaner is not a racial slur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Beaner is a derogatory slang for Mexicans or people of Mexican descent. It's an ethnic slur.*
Click to expand...


Ethnic, not racial. Just as they call us gringo. 

Now, if you call them pinto beaner, that would be like a declaration of war.


----------



## koshergrl

Flopper said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> The claim: "immigrant children are separated from parents".
> 
> The truth: Anyone crossing border illegally is not an immigrant. Immigrants are those who have a legal status in the US. These are illegals, so stop calling them immigrants.
> 
> It's time put an end to liberal shills posting bullshit claims.
> 
> Here is a good article that explains this current situation with children of illegals.
> 
> *The Truth about Separating Kids*
> 
> 
> 
> For the longest time, illegal immigration was driven by single males from Mexico. Over the last decade, the flow has shifted to women, children, and family units from Central America. This poses challenges we haven’t confronted before and has made what once were relatively minor wrinkles in the law loom very large.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The past practice had been to give a free pass to an adult who is part of a family unit. The new Trump policy is to prosecute all adults. The idea is to send a signal that we are serious about our laws and to create a deterrent against re-entry. (Illegal entry is a misdemeanor, illegal re-entry a felony.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Trump administration isn’t changing the rules that pertain to separating an adult from the child. Those remain the same. *Separation happens only if officials find that the adult is falsely claiming to be the child’s parent, or is a threat to the child, or is put into criminal proceedings.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where were you lefties crying about "concentration camps" and calling for uprising, like Pelosi did, when Obama was doing the same thing, just on larger scale?
> 
> *Obama held more than double of number of children in shelters compared to Trump White House*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Not so.
> The definition of an immigrant is a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.   A century ago we had very few people entering the country illegal so when someone was refereed to as an immigrant people naturally assumed they were legal.  However the meaning of the word has no connotation of legality.
> 
> There is no law that mandates separating children from their parents. Trump’s own administration devised a policy to that effect.  An administration can separate children or allow them to stay with parents. It is policy not a law.  Trump just plain lied, but what's new.
> The question is why is he trying to hide behind a nonexistent law and then claim he really cares about these kids.  His supporters think it's just fine to punish the children and they certainly don't care what he does with the kids.
> 
> Obama did hold many children in shelters but most were children unaccompanied by an adult.  Again it's all policy, not law.
> 
> Definition of IMMIGRANT
> Trump blames Democrats for own policy separating families*
Click to expand...


Yes, Obama allowed traffickers to keep their cargo with them...when it just couldn't be done, he placed the victims with human traffickers on the American side. 

That's stopped now, and the left is flipping. They're flipping because the border agents are stopping traffickers and taking their victims from them. Victims that people on the American side very much want to exploit and abuse. Those people are the ones who object to any sort of interference with the trafficking going on.


----------



## candycorn

Ame®icano said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like all Trump ass kissers, you may not be racist but (as you have proven just now), you have zero problem rubbing elbows with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what race are Mexicans?
> 
> Or at least, tell me what race are Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What race are "beaners" as you put it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't put it into race category, you did.
> 
> Aha, dodging again.
> 
> I already explained it to you, beaner is not a racial slur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Beaner is a derogatory slang for Mexicans or people of Mexican descent. It's an ethnic slur.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ethnic, not racial. Just as they call us gringo.
> 
> Now, if you call them pinto beaner, that would be like a declaration of war.
Click to expand...


"Gringo" is a racial slur as well.  

Not sure why you're denying a clearly defined racial slur.


----------



## candycorn

Ame®icano said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What race are "beaners" as you put it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't put it into race category, you did.
> 
> Aha, dodging again.
> 
> I already explained it to you, beaner is not a racial slur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Kondor3 did when he put racial slurs into it.  Please walk into a chicano bar and start calling people "beaner"....I'd love to be there when you do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a racial slur, dunce.
> 
> You could call it derisive, but derisive has nothing to do with race.
> 
> If is up to your standards, "deplorable" is racist term. Is it?
> 
> The thing with you lefties (now that's derisive) is that you demand we prove that our views are valid to your criteria and working within arbitrary frame that you set up that a priori rule out our viewpoint.
> 
> You "feel" that something is "racist". Since we don't give a fuck about your "feelings", it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...deplorable doesn't indict people based on the color of their skin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is beaner. It's a slur for a Mexican.
> 
> Again, what race is Mexican?
Click to expand...


You do know Mexico is a country.  Mexcian isn't a race.  
Are you high?


----------



## hunarcy

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> If I rob a bank and get caught, the State will have no problem separating me from my children and the means to support them.
> 
> Why is this any different?
Click to expand...


The Trump administration’s separation of families at the border, explained


----------



## Flopper

MaryL said:


> Well, apparently the human cost is a paltry concern. Apparently, it a superficial concern. Lets balance out the equation : The well being of Americans in general  VS the profit of the ambiguous  wealthy  puppet overlords . Is there any question whos needs come first?


*To many people the human cost is a concern, a major concern.  Not just the 12 million at risk of being deported but their families, their friends, their neighbors, their employer, and their employees.  I saw an article somewhere where that estimated the number of people effected by potential deportations.  It was something like 75 million people.  That's a lot of people concerned about the human cost. They don't see the cost to the nation.  They see the cost as a loss of a father, a son, a friend, a neighbor, their boss, a fellow worker, an employee.  You can't really express those cost in dollars and cents.   *


----------



## Snouter

Yes, Flopper illegal aliens criminals are really great and a model for the Western World to learn from.  They really care about humanity and stuff.


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be willing to bet that most Americans don't even know what's going on at the border, and the ones that do, many don't care either.
> 
> Trump won because of the border and immigration issues.  People like me who are sick of pressing 1 to speak to an English speaking person, those who live where a lot of illegals live, those who are battling crime; some brought to us by illegals, those who watch as foreigners are taking our jobs for less money, we are all fed up with it, especially when our representatives tell us we need "immigration reform" instead of telling us what we really want to hear which is shut down the border, or at least get as close as we can to it.
> 
> So what damage to the nation do you speak of?  I see no damage.  If anything, I see taking a tougher stance on illegals which is what many of us want in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> *What damage? trade wars, broken alliances with our most supportive allies, handing the Pacific Rim trade to China, actions that will do irreparably damage the environment, and leadership by a man that has the morals of a tomcat in heat who praises mass murders like Kim Jon Un and Putin.
> 
> What planet are you from?  Do really think Trump is going to stop globalization and the flow of people and ideas into this country.  You dial 1 for English because 1/4 of all Americans speak languages other than English and that's not going to change.  Also the call centers you dial into are international and serve other countries as well as the US.  Even Trump's highly publicized efforts to turn American into Aryan/Anglo nation isolated from the world will fail.
> 
> Trump isn't going to change any of this but he is going to create more division and hatred.  I know conservatives thrive on hatred and division but it's going bite you guys in ass eventually.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you can blame the pacific rim on Trump over Obama shows the useless partisan hack that you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Obama had positioned the US as the central nation in the Trans Pacific Partnership which represents roughly 40% of the world's economic output.
> 
> When Trump took the US out of the TPP, he and his
> advisers were confident that it was doomed and would fall apart and the US would pickup the pieces.   However, the organization has arisen with a new plan to carry forward without the US implementing the agreement which will amount to 350 billion in free trade. And guess who is looking at opening negotiations with the TPP.  Yep, China.  Trump's promise to negotiate bilateral trade agreements with each of these countries is as dead as a door nail now.
> In April 2018, Trump said he was considering putting us back in the TPP, however it looks like that boat has sailed thanks to his trade war with China.
> Another brilliant move by the Orange Clown.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm 55 and all my life until Trump Democrats argued against free trade.  This is an issue that Democrats even ate their own on despite that you're lemmings.  You attacked Bill for NAFTA.  You attacked Hillary for NAFTA and made her disavow it.  That's even the one thing you attacked Obama for.  Even though it was secretly negotiated by a leftist, you attacked him for TPP.  Now with Trump, suddenly leftists are all against tariffs.  Including attacking people like me who opposed tariffs all my life and still do.
> 
> So a challenge.  Show two things:
> 
> 1)  Any post where you opposed tariffs before November 8, 2016
> 
> 2)  Any post where you said to an actual Democrat you oppose tariffs ever
> 
> Flopper, where'd you go?  Flopper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I'm a democrat and I have always supported free trade. To my knowledge no one was proposing any tariffs back in 2016 except Trump.  Free trade is one of the few issues that I agree with Republicans on.  Ross Perot's opposition to NAFTA and Bill Clinton support was one of the reasons I voted for him.
> 
> Free trade makes sense.  Tariffs do not.  Free trade allows each country to produce what it produces best.  Tariffs interfere with the free market, protecting inefficient producers while punishing efficient producers.  In general, the consumer pays more and get's less.*
Click to expand...


I've never seen you disagree with the Democrat party on anything and I've never seen you in a free trade debate on this site advocating free trade until you got the chance to bash Trump.

I'm for free trade and against tariffs.  Trump's approach makes me nervous.  But it's clear he's trying to remove barriers from free trade with the threat of tariffs, and you don't notice that.

So why didn't you ever bash your party over attacking Hillary for supporting NAFTA or for attacking Obama over TPP if this was such a standard to you?  It's lame when you have complete silence to Democrats then you just lose it and have a total meltdown over Trump who's goal is to open markets and you don't like how he's trying to do it


----------



## kaz

Ame®icano said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What damage? trade wars, broken alliances with our most supportive allies, handing the Pacific Rim trade to China, actions that will do irreparably damage the environment, and leadership by a man that has the morals of a tomcat in heat who praises mass murders like Kim Jon Un and Putin.
> 
> What planet are you from?  Do really think Trump is going to stop globalization and the flow of people and ideas into this country.  You dial 1 for English because 1/4 of all Americans speak languages other than English and that's not going to change.  Also the call centers you dial into are international and serve other countries as well as the US.  Even Trump's highly publicized efforts to turn American into Aryan/Anglo nation isolated from the world will fail.
> 
> Trump isn't going to change any of this but he is going to create more division and hatred.  I know conservatives thrive on hatred and division but it's going bite you guys in ass eventually.    *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you can blame the pacific rim on Trump over Obama shows the useless partisan hack that you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Obama had positioned the US as the central nation in the Trans Pacific Partnership which represents roughly 40% of the world's economic output.
> 
> When Trump took the US out of the TPP, he and his
> advisers were confident that it was doomed and would fall apart and the US would pickup the pieces.   However, the organization has arisen with a new plan to carry forward without the US implementing the agreement which will amount to 350 billion in free trade. And guess who is looking at opening negotiations with the TPP.  Yep, China.  Trump's promise to negotiate bilateral trade agreements with each of these countries is as dead as a door nail now.
> In April 2018, Trump said he was considering putting us back in the TPP, however it looks like that boat has sailed thanks to his trade war with China.
> Another brilliant move by the Orange Clown.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm 55 and all my life until Trump Democrats argued against free trade.  This is an issue that Democrats even ate their own on despite that you're lemmings.  You attacked Bill for NAFTA.  You attacked Hillary for NAFTA and made her disavow it.  That's even the one thing you attacked Obama for.  Even though it was secretly negotiated by a leftist, you attacked him for TPP.  Now with Trump, suddenly leftists are all against tariffs.  Including attacking people like me who opposed tariffs all my life and still do.
> 
> So a challenge.  Show two things:
> 
> 1)  Any post where you opposed tariffs before November 8, 2016
> 
> 2)  Any post where you said to an actual Democrat you oppose tariffs ever
> 
> Flopper, where'd you go?  Flopper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I'm a democrat and I have always supported free trade. To my knowledge no one was proposing any tariffs back in 2016 except Trump.  Free trade is one of the few issues that I agree with Republicans on.  Ross Perot's opposition to NAFTA and Bill Clinton support was one of the reasons I voted for him.
> 
> Free trade makes sense.  Tariffs do not.  Free trade allows each country to produce what it produces best.  Tariffs interfere with the free market, protecting inefficient producers while punishing efficient producers.  In general, the consumer pays more and get's less.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Than why Canada doesn't support completely free trade with no tariffs at all from either side?
> 
> Are you going to answer, or you need me to help you with that?
Click to expand...


Yep.  Trump offered Canada and most everyone else that deal and they passed.

Flopper's not really free trade.  He's just anti-Trump.  Another bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.  He'll flip sides on any issue where Trump takes the position he used to agree with


----------



## kaz

Ame®icano said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Obama had positioned the US as the central nation in the Trans Pacific Partnership which represents roughly 40% of the world's economic output.
> 
> When Trump took the US out of the TPP, he and his
> advisers were confident that it was doomed and would fall apart and the US would pickup the pieces.   However, the organization has arisen with a new plan to carry forward without the US implementing the agreement which will amount to 350 billion in free trade. And guess who is looking at opening negotiations with the TPP.  Yep, China.  Trump's promise to negotiate bilateral trade agreements with each of these countries is as dead as a door nail now.
> In April 2018, Trump said he was considering putting us back in the TPP, however it looks like that boat has sailed thanks to his trade war with China.
> Another brilliant move by the Orange Clown.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm 55 and all my life until Trump Democrats argued against free trade.  This is an issue that Democrats even ate their own on despite that you're lemmings.  You attacked Bill for NAFTA.  You attacked Hillary for NAFTA and made her disavow it.  That's even the one thing you attacked Obama for.  Even though it was secretly negotiated by a leftist, you attacked him for TPP.  Now with Trump, suddenly leftists are all against tariffs.  Including attacking people like me who opposed tariffs all my life and still do.
> 
> So a challenge.  Show two things:
> 
> 1)  Any post where you opposed tariffs before November 8, 2016
> 
> 2)  Any post where you said to an actual Democrat you oppose tariffs ever
> 
> Flopper, where'd you go?  Flopper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I'm a democrat and I have always supported free trade. To my knowledge no one was proposing any tariffs back in 2016 except Trump.  Free trade is one of the few issues that I agree with Republicans on.  Ross Perot's opposition to NAFTA and Bill Clinton support was one of the reasons I voted for him.
> 
> Free trade makes sense.  Tariffs do not.  Free trade allows each country to produce what it produces best.  Tariffs interfere with the free market, protecting inefficient producers while punishing efficient producers.  In general, the consumer pays more and get's less.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Than why Canada doesn't support completely free trade with no tariffs at all from either side?
> 
> Are you going to answer, or you need me to help you with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Canada is a signer of NAFTA which eliminated nearly all trade barriers, however there are still some tariffs that negotiators have been unable to remove.  Just because you support free trade does not mean you can trade all goods tariff free.  It takes agreement from both sides to eliminate trade barriers.  After NAFTA was signed negotiators continued to eliminate trade barriers and have eliminate many
> 
> The TPP which is probably the trade agreement that comes closest to totally free trade still has a few tariffs.  The few that remain have been reduced, typically to 1% to 10%. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NAFTA eliminated "nearly all barriers" of Mexico and Canada selling their products in the US without tariffs, and allowing them to tariff our products at will and that's what they've been doing. Trump tariffs are message to them that it's time to level the playing field in one of the two goals: a) putting tariffs on their products until they lower theirs, b) eliminating all tariffs.Quite smart plan, offering them something they hate, and something he wants.
> 
> Why do you think they don't agree to neither one?
> 
> Because they like their deal under NAFTA, that is favoring them, not us.
Click to expand...


Bingo, that's exactly why the Euroweenies, Canda, et al are having a conniption, why would they want to give up the deals they have?  It is ridiculous that we are the world's largest economy and we've negotated bad deals with everyone.  We should have the best deals


----------



## pismoe

candycorn said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what race are Mexicans?
> 
> Or at least, tell me what race are Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What race are "beaners" as you put it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't put it into race category, you did.
> 
> Aha, dodging again.
> 
> I already explained it to you, beaner is not a racial slur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Kondor3 did when he put racial slurs into it.  Please walk into a chicano bar and start calling people "beaner"....I'd love to be there when you do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a racial slur, dunce.
> 
> You could call it derisive, but derisive has nothing to do with race.
> 
> If is up to your standards, "deplorable" is racist term. Is it?
> 
> The thing with you lefties (now that's derisive) is that you demand we prove that our views are valid to your criteria and working within arbitrary frame that you set up that a priori rule out our viewpoint.
> 
> You "feel" that something is "racist". Since we don't give a fuck about your "feelings", it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...deplorable doesn't indict people based on the color of their skin.
Click to expand...

---------------------------------   neither does 'mexican'  , guat , beaner or third worlder .    I prefer third worlder .


----------



## pismoe

and yeah .  USA should Always have the best deals KAZ .


----------



## Cecilie1200

Unkotare said:


> Anyone whose chief complaint in life is pressing one on the phone really needs to shut the fuck up and find some bigger problems.



Okay.  How about the huge sums of tax money illegal immigration costs my state every year?  How about a crime rate well in excess of what our population should indicate, simply because of our proximity to a porous border?  How about entire counties of my state that are practically lawless because they're part of the border-crossing corridor, and the local law enforcement is simply overwhelmed?

Are THOSE problems big enough to worry about?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sooner or later karma catches up to everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> *It will certain catch up with Trump.  The question is how much damage will be done to the nation before that happens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would be willing to bet that most Americans don't even know what's going on at the border, and the ones that do, many don't care either.
> 
> Trump won because of the border and immigration issues.  People like me who are sick of pressing 1 to speak to an English speaking person, those who live where a lot of illegals live, those who are battling crime; some brought to us by illegals, those who watch as foreigners are taking our jobs for less money, we are all fed up with it, especially when our representatives tell us we need "immigration reform" instead of telling us what we really want to hear which is shut down the border, or at least get as close as we can to it.
> 
> So what damage to the nation do you speak of?  I see no damage.  If anything, I see taking a tougher stance on illegals which is what many of us want in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What damage? trade wars, broken alliances with our most supportive allies, handing the Pacific Rim trade to China, actions that will do irreparably damage to the environment, and leadership by a man that has the morals of a tomcat in heat who praises mass murders like Kim Jon Un and Putin.
> 
> What planet are you from?  Do really think Trump is going to stop globalization and the flow of people and ideas into this country.  You dial 1 for English because 1/4 of all Americans speak languages other than English and that's not going to change.  Also the call centers you dial into are international and serve other countries as well as the US.  Even Trump's highly publicized efforts to turn American into an Aryan/Anglo nation isolated from the world will fail.
> 
> Trump isn't going to change any of this but he is going to create more division and hatred.  I know conservatives thrive on hatred and division but it's going bite you guys in ass eventually.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I seem to remember a time not long ago when everybody spoke the same language and things were fine...if not better.
> 
> You people one the left complain when Republicans are in charge because you believe they are war mongers.  Yet when we have a President trying to get along with enemies, you say they are praising our foes.
> 
> But you hit the nail on the head: a quarter of our people speak other languages.  Yes, that is a problem because you have a bunch of lazy good for nothings coming here that won't even take the time or effort to learn our language.  They expect us to learn theirs.  In other words, they are not assimilating.
> 
> Trump may not stop the decay of our country, but he can certainly slow it down.  That's why we voted him in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Those lazy good for nothings, *
> 
> *Start 30% of all new businesses *
> *Employ an estimated 4.7 million people  *
> *Despite making up only 16 percent of the resident population holding a bachelor’s degree or higher, immigrants represent 33 percent of engineers, 27 percent of mathematicians, statisticians, and computer scientist, and 24 percent of physical scientists*
> *Purchasing power of Latinos and Asians, many of whom are immigrants, alone reached $1.5 trillion and $775 billion in 2016*
> *Comprehensive immigration reform could support and create up to 900,000 new jobs within three years of reform from the increase in consumer spending, according to the Center for American Progress.*
> *I didn't say 1/4 of Americans did not speak English. I said they spoke other languages.  Most legal immigrants to the US speak English.  Like Americans living in other countries, they speak the language but they are more comfortable speaking their native tongue.
> 
> Like it or not, the future of America rides on our ability to bring fresh blood and new idea into the country.   We can not grow and prosper in isolationism.   We have to use American know how and technology to make American workers the most productive in the world.  We can't rely on tariffs to protect American workers.  They have to compete with rest of the world.
> 
> BTW I was around in the days when "everybody" spoke English and life was just great.  Memory is kind.  We tend to forget the smog that blocked out the sun in many cities, rivers that caught fire, owners of coal mimes denying the existence of black lung disease, huge fish kills in most of our rivers from pollution, newspaper articles listing the new cases of Polio daily, the American eagle heading for extinction, bomb shelters, duck and cover, a survey of high students that believed they would not survive to see their children grown, church burnings, back alley abortions, black hangings, doctors promoting cigarette smoking, farmers in the southwest importing workers & paying 25 cents/hr, black men shot for looking at white women, hotels and restaurants turning away Blacks and Jews, women making half the wages of men working in the same job, men beating their wives legal in 25 states, and half the US Mexican boarder unmarked and un-fenced.             *
Click to expand...


And it's not at ALL insulting and bigoted to conflate legal immigrants with illegals, simply because all those little brown guys are basically the same to you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be willing to bet that most Americans don't even know what's going on at the border, and the ones that do, many don't care either.
> 
> Trump won because of the border and immigration issues.  People like me who are sick of pressing 1 to speak to an English speaking person, those who live where a lot of illegals live, those who are battling crime; some brought to us by illegals, those who watch as foreigners are taking our jobs for less money, we are all fed up with it, especially when our representatives tell us we need "immigration reform" instead of telling us what we really want to hear which is shut down the border, or at least get as close as we can to it.
> 
> So what damage to the nation do you speak of?  I see no damage.  If anything, I see taking a tougher stance on illegals which is what many of us want in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> *What damage? trade wars, broken alliances with our most supportive allies, handing the Pacific Rim trade to China, actions that will do irreparably damage to the environment, and leadership by a man that has the morals of a tomcat in heat who praises mass murders like Kim Jon Un and Putin.
> 
> What planet are you from?  Do really think Trump is going to stop globalization and the flow of people and ideas into this country.  You dial 1 for English because 1/4 of all Americans speak languages other than English and that's not going to change.  Also the call centers you dial into are international and serve other countries as well as the US.  Even Trump's highly publicized efforts to turn American into an Aryan/Anglo nation isolated from the world will fail.
> 
> Trump isn't going to change any of this but he is going to create more division and hatred.  I know conservatives thrive on hatred and division but it's going bite you guys in ass eventually.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I seem to remember a time not long ago when everybody spoke the same language and things were fine...if not better.
> 
> You people one the left complain when Republicans are in charge because you believe they are war mongers.  Yet when we have a President trying to get along with enemies, you say they are praising our foes.
> 
> But you hit the nail on the head: a quarter of our people speak other languages.  Yes, that is a problem because you have a bunch of lazy good for nothings coming here that won't even take the time or effort to learn our language.  They expect us to learn theirs.  In other words, they are not assimilating.
> 
> Trump may not stop the decay of our country, but he can certainly slow it down.  That's why we voted him in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Those lazy good for nothings, *
> 
> *Start 30% of all new businesses *
> *Employ an estimated 4.7 million people  *
> *Despite making up only 16 percent of the resident population holding a bachelor’s degree or higher, immigrants represent 33 percent of engineers, 27 percent of mathematicians, statisticians, and computer scientist, and 24 percent of physical scientists*
> *Purchasing power of Latinos and Asians, many of whom are immigrants, alone reached $1.5 trillion and $775 billion in 2016*
> *Comprehensive immigration reform could support and create up to 900,000 new jobs within three years of reform from the increase in consumer spending, according to the Center for American Progress.*
> *I didn't say 1/4 of Americans did not speak English. I said they spoke other languages.  Most legal immigrants to the US speak English.  Like Americans living in other countries, they speak the language but they are more comfortable speaking their native tongue.
> 
> Like it or not, the future of America rides on our ability to bring fresh blood and new idea into the country.   We not can grow and prosper in isolationism.   We have to use American know how and technology to make American workers the most  productive in the world.  We can't rely on tarries to protect American workers.
> 
> BTW I was around in the days when "everybody" spoke English and life was not so great.  Memory is kind.  We tend to forget the smog that blocked out the sun in many cities, rivers that caught fire, owners of coal mimes denying the existence of black lung disease, huge fish kills most of rivers from pollution, newspaper articles listing the new cases of Polio daily, the American eagle heading for extinction, bomb shelters, duck and cover, a survey of high students that believed they would not survive to see their children grown, church burnings, back alley abortions, black hangings, doctors promoting cigarette smoking, farmers in the southwest importing workers and paying 25 cents/hr, black men shot for looking at white women, hotels and restaurants turning away Blacks and Jews, women making half the wages of men working in the same job, and half the US Mexican boarder unmarked and un-fenced.             *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You equating immigrants and illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure about Flopper's motives but earlier in this thread, Trump ass kissers  referred to Mexicans as "beaners" and spoke about "preserving" the country.  They didn't differentiate between illegals and immigrants...
Click to expand...


Actually, they were.  They clearly overestimated your intelligence by expecting you to realize that they were referring ONLY to illegals.


----------



## pismoe

many don't concern them selves with expenditure of taxpayer money .  Quite often taxpayer money gets into the hands of the pro immigration teachers , helpers and agencies that cater to the imorted 'bantus' somalis ' muslims and berbers .    Taxpayer money is the helpers , teachers and helpers Bread and Butter  Cecille


----------



## Hutch Starskey

bendog said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
> What the approval process is?
> What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
> Is that number trending up or down over time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does any of that make?  We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.
> 
> However they come here anyway, why?  Because of people like you.  If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.
> 
> Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders?  They would quit coming here.  This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the point in doing so?
> Why separate families while going through a legal process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the thing - the legal process.  What Trump is doing is prolonging the legal process of deporting.  Rather than catch and a relatively quick over the border you go, Trump is making it more punitive by making it take longer to actually go to court.
> 
> I'm all for trying to stop illegal immigration, although I think a wall is more symbol than anything.  People come here with kids hoping their kids will be raised to become Dreamers.  I'm not all in favor of the Dreamers staying.  We should try to remove any incentive, or reason why people illegally come here.  But punishing children is not legally ok under the US Constitution.  To say nothing about basic humanity
Click to expand...


There is a legal process in place that determines the validity of asylum claims. Ony 40% of applicants are approved. Those who aren't are deported. There is no need for these measures at all.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

BrokeLoser said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It’s unimaginable that there are people in favor of ripping 1y/o babies from their parents by policy.
> 
> Makes you wonder about their upbringing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your “tolerant based” cries are just plain comical.
> You fools realize that ALL detained criminals are separated from their children....RIGHT?
> And you realize they’re seperated as a result of their own actions...RIGHT?
> Were none of you fools ever taught cause and effect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Knowing you can’t qualify for a asylum…And trying anyway knowing you’ll be separated from your children…Should be a crime though...right?
Click to expand...


Neither applying for asylum nor being denied asylum is a crime. Children should not be separated in either case.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Flopper said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And conservatives have gone above and beyond the call of disgusting by prohibiting those seeking asylum from doing so.
> 
> The reprehensible right, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we had to give asylum to everybody that had a crappy country to live in, we would have over 2 billion people here.  And again, it's not about asylum, it's about finding ways to sneak into this country without standing in line like everybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just it, dope. We don't let in everyone who applies for asylum. There is a process in place to make the determination on their "standing". Asylum applicants are not criminals and have a right to due process under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, and with the time and money spent, we could be doing better things for our country instead.  They come here knowing they don't have the qualifications to be granted asylum you dope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
> What the approval process is?
> What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
> Is that number trending up or down over time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Over the last 26 years we have granted asylum to 1.9 million people. That's only .5% of the US population.  The average is about 20,000/yr. 40% of those that apply and pass pre-screening are granted asylum after 3 to 6 mos of interviews and investigation. I seriously doubt that Trump would allow that many in the country.  In fact, I don't see any reason he would allow any.  There's nothing political or financial in it for him.*
Click to expand...


Exactly right and the rates of those granted asylum have been dropping for decades.

The truth is, they don't want any immigrants at all from the south. It's  more about keeping a white majority nation than anything else. None of them will admit that though.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Clementine said:


> Remember this?    After the mother gave her life to get her son to the U.S., Clinton administration took the child at gunpoint and returned him to a hellhole.     Such compassion.



The supreme court ordered it, dope.


----------



## Dragonlady

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
> What the approval process is?
> What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
> Is that number trending up or down over time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does any of that make?  We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.
> 
> However they come here anyway, why?  Because of people like you.  If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.
> 
> Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders?  They would quit coming here.  This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really have no idea how much I'm laughing every time you parrot "ripping out of the arms of their parents".  At the point where it became literally impossible for you to use any phrase BUT that, it became farce.
> 
> You leftists are 100% responsible for this happening.  It was YOUR law; YOU insisted on it.  YOU screamed and hollered that it was "the only humane thing to do".  Now you flip on a dime and the complete opposite is "the only humane thing to do".  And you really, genuinely expect us all to gasp in horror on cue, because you're too piss-stupid to realize how obviously you've overplayed your hand.
> 
> Traumatize this, twerp.    No one gives a shit about your melodramatic hyperbole any more.
> 
> The parents are criminals, they're in jail pending hearing, and they're staying in jail pending hearing.  Period.  You can
> clutch your pearls and screech and wail to your heart's content; no one cares.
Click to expand...


Really??  No one??  Not Franklin Graham who said this policy is wrong?

Clergy Condemns AG Justifying Family Separation With Bible

Religious Rights Of Border Detainees Under Scrutiny As Black Ministers Condemn Trump’s Baby Snatcher Immigration Policy

Faith Leaders Oppose Trump's Immigration Policy Of Separating Children From Parents

8 Clergy Arrested to Stop Immigration Policies That Tear Families Apart:  Supporters Escalate Protests Demanding Release of Immigrant Rights Leader

Phoenix church hosts Father's Day rally to protest immigration policy separating migrant families


Maybe no one cares but it looks like a whole lot of faith leaders do, as do their parishioners. 

Trump is coldly, calculating that by causing lifetime, irreversible harm to toddlers, he can bully people to get get what he wants. This is leadership?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does any of that make?  We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.
> 
> However they come here anyway, why?  Because of people like you.  If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.
> 
> Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders?  They would quit coming here.  This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really have no idea how much I'm laughing every time you parrot "ripping out of the arms of their parents".  At the point where it became literally impossible for you to use any phrase BUT that, it became farce.
> 
> You leftists are 100% responsible for this happening.  It was YOUR law; YOU insisted on it.  YOU screamed and hollered that it was "the only humane thing to do".  Now you flip on a dime and the complete opposite is "the only humane thing to do".  And you really, genuinely expect us all to gasp in horror on cue, because you're too piss-stupid to realize how obviously you've overplayed your hand.
> 
> Traumatize this, twerp.    No one gives a shit about your melodramatic hyperbole any more.
> 
> The parents are criminals, they're in jail pending hearing, and they're staying in jail pending hearing.  Period.  You can
> clutch your pearls and screech and wail to your heart's content; no one cares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really??  No one??  Not Franklin Graham who said this policy is wrong?
> 
> Clergy Condemns AG Justifying Family Separation With Bible
> 
> Religious Rights Of Border Detainees Under Scrutiny As Black Ministers Condemn Trump’s Baby Snatcher Immigration Policy
> 
> Faith Leaders Oppose Trump's Immigration Policy Of Separating Children From Parents
> 
> 8 Clergy Arrested to Stop Immigration Policies That Tear Families Apart:  Supporters Escalate Protests Demanding Release of Immigrant Rights Leader
> 
> Phoenix church hosts Father's Day rally to protest immigration policy separating migrant families
> 
> 
> Maybe no one cares but it looks like a whole lot of faith leaders do, as do their parishioners.
> 
> Trump is coldly, calculating that by causing lifetime, irreversible harm to toddlers, he can bully people to get get what he wants. This is leadership?
Click to expand...


Well, goody for you.  You found a bunch of gloryhounds who are willing to suck up to leftists for media time.  I'll get right on treating them as "faith leaders" simply because YOU decided they were spokesmen for something.

LEFTISTS demanded that law.  You can parrot, "Trump's fault!  Trump's fault!" while cravenly ignoring this fact until your face turns blue, and I frankly hope you do.  But it's not going to make your posts any less ignorant and disgustingly false and it's not going to make anyone the slightest bit interested in being "shamed" because trash like you demands it.

You want to talk cold and calculating?  Let's start with the way you leftists demanded a law you had no desire or intention to see enforced, strictly to give yourselves cover to release illegal aliens into the population in job lots.  And then we'll move on to the way you're trying to shove the blame for your shit law onto anyone but yourselves, now that you can't use it any more.

No one here believes a word of your "ripping away!  *sob sob*" melodrama.  It's nothing but _faux_-rage.  And it's falling on deaf ears.  Next time, don't be such a bunch of disingenuous pusbags.


----------



## Dragonlady

Cecilie1200 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deuteronomy 10:18-19 – “For the Lord your God...loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.  You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
> 
> From my twitter feed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing, Reverend Cornball, but "loving the strangers" doesn't require letting them invade and destroy our home.
> 
> I need no lessons in charity and compassion from asshats who think they both involve voting money out of other people's pockets.
Click to expand...


You need lessons in basic humanity. But most You need to be exposed as a Russian troll who only masquerades as an American who opposes immigration. This encourages American citizens to violate their beliefs and their Constitution and to inflict harm on little children. 

Deplorable doesn’t even begin to cover it.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really have no idea how much I'm laughing every time you parrot "ripping out of the arms of their parents".  At the point where it became literally impossible for you to use any phrase BUT that, it became farce.
> 
> You leftists are 100% responsible for this happening.  It was YOUR law; YOU insisted on it.  YOU screamed and hollered that it was "the only humane thing to do".  Now you flip on a dime and the complete opposite is "the only humane thing to do".  And you really, genuinely expect us all to gasp in horror on cue, because you're too piss-stupid to realize how obviously you've overplayed your hand.
> 
> Traumatize this, twerp.    No one gives a shit about your melodramatic hyperbole any more.
> 
> The parents are criminals, they're in jail pending hearing, and they're staying in jail pending hearing.  Period.  You can
> clutch your pearls and screech and wail to your heart's content; no one cares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really??  No one??  Not Franklin Graham who said this policy is wrong?
> 
> Clergy Condemns AG Justifying Family Separation With Bible
> 
> Religious Rights Of Border Detainees Under Scrutiny As Black Ministers Condemn Trump’s Baby Snatcher Immigration Policy
> 
> Faith Leaders Oppose Trump's Immigration Policy Of Separating Children From Parents
> 
> 8 Clergy Arrested to Stop Immigration Policies That Tear Families Apart:  Supporters Escalate Protests Demanding Release of Immigrant Rights Leader
> 
> Phoenix church hosts Father's Day rally to protest immigration policy separating migrant families
> 
> 
> Maybe no one cares but it looks like a whole lot of faith leaders do, as do their parishioners.
> 
> Trump is coldly, calculating that by causing lifetime, irreversible harm to toddlers, he can bully people to get get what he wants. This is leadership?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, goody for you.  You found a bunch of gloryhounds who are willing to suck up to leftists for media time.  I'll get right on treating them as "faith leaders" simply because YOU decided they were spokesmen for something.
> 
> LEFTISTS demanded that law.  You can parrot, "Trump's fault!  Trump's fault!" while cravenly ignoring this fact until your face turns blue, and I frankly hope you do.  But it's not going to make your posts any less ignorant and disgustingly false and it's not going to make anyone the slightest bit interested in being "shamed" because trash like you demands it.
> 
> You want to talk cold and calculating?  Let's start with the way you leftists demanded a law you had no desire or intention to see enforced, strictly to give yourselves cover to release illegal aliens into the population in job lots.  And then we'll move on to the way you're trying to shove the blame for your shit law onto anyone but yourselves, now that you can't use it any more.
> 
> No one here believes a word of your "ripping away!  *sob sob*" melodrama.  It's nothing but _faux_-rage.  And it's falling on deaf ears.  Next time, don't be such a bunch of disingenuous pusbags.
Click to expand...


Trump could stop the separations of families with a phone call.

No amount of spin can change that fact.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deuteronomy 10:18-19 – “For the Lord your God...loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.  You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
> 
> From my twitter feed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing, Reverend Cornball, but "loving the strangers" doesn't require letting them invade and destroy our home.
> 
> I need no lessons in charity and compassion from asshats who think they both involve voting money out of other people's pockets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need lessons in basic humanity. But most You need to be exposed as a Russian troll who only masquerades as an American who opposes immigration. This encourages American citizens to violate their beliefs and their Constitution and to inflict harm on little children.
> 
> Deplorable doesn’t even begin to cover it.
Click to expand...


I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.

I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.

Case closed.  You're dismissed, puswad.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Hutch Starskey said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really have no idea how much I'm laughing every time you parrot "ripping out of the arms of their parents".  At the point where it became literally impossible for you to use any phrase BUT that, it became farce.
> 
> You leftists are 100% responsible for this happening.  It was YOUR law; YOU insisted on it.  YOU screamed and hollered that it was "the only humane thing to do".  Now you flip on a dime and the complete opposite is "the only humane thing to do".  And you really, genuinely expect us all to gasp in horror on cue, because you're too piss-stupid to realize how obviously you've overplayed your hand.
> 
> Traumatize this, twerp.    No one gives a shit about your melodramatic hyperbole any more.
> 
> The parents are criminals, they're in jail pending hearing, and they're staying in jail pending hearing.  Period.  You can
> clutch your pearls and screech and wail to your heart's content; no one cares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really??  No one??  Not Franklin Graham who said this policy is wrong?
> 
> Clergy Condemns AG Justifying Family Separation With Bible
> 
> Religious Rights Of Border Detainees Under Scrutiny As Black Ministers Condemn Trump’s Baby Snatcher Immigration Policy
> 
> Faith Leaders Oppose Trump's Immigration Policy Of Separating Children From Parents
> 
> 8 Clergy Arrested to Stop Immigration Policies That Tear Families Apart:  Supporters Escalate Protests Demanding Release of Immigrant Rights Leader
> 
> Phoenix church hosts Father's Day rally to protest immigration policy separating migrant families
> 
> 
> Maybe no one cares but it looks like a whole lot of faith leaders do, as do their parishioners.
> 
> Trump is coldly, calculating that by causing lifetime, irreversible harm to toddlers, he can bully people to get get what he wants. This is leadership?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, goody for you.  You found a bunch of gloryhounds who are willing to suck up to leftists for media time.  I'll get right on treating them as "faith leaders" simply because YOU decided they were spokesmen for something.
> 
> LEFTISTS demanded that law.  You can parrot, "Trump's fault!  Trump's fault!" while cravenly ignoring this fact until your face turns blue, and I frankly hope you do.  But it's not going to make your posts any less ignorant and disgustingly false and it's not going to make anyone the slightest bit interested in being "shamed" because trash like you demands it.
> 
> You want to talk cold and calculating?  Let's start with the way you leftists demanded a law you had no desire or intention to see enforced, strictly to give yourselves cover to release illegal aliens into the population in job lots.  And then we'll move on to the way you're trying to shove the blame for your shit law onto anyone but yourselves, now that you can't use it any more.
> 
> No one here believes a word of your "ripping away!  *sob sob*" melodrama.  It's nothing but _faux_-rage.  And it's falling on deaf ears.  Next time, don't be such a bunch of disingenuous pusbags.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump could stop the separations of families with a phone call.
> 
> No amount of spin can change that fact.
Click to expand...


No, OBAMA would have thought he could change the law with a phone call, because HE thought he was God-Emperor of the Universe.  You need to catch the fuck up and realize that the President doesn't make the law, and isn't above the law, and if President Trump TRIED to act the way you're currently demanding, you'd be screaming bloody murder about him violating the law.

No amount of spin can change the fact that the only thing you're REALLY outraged about is the fact that Trump is President, and you can't make it stop being true.


----------



## Flopper

Snouter said:


> Yes, Flopper illegal aliens criminals are really great and a model for the Western World to learn from.  They really care about humanity and stuff.


*Desperate people do desperate things. Refugees risk everything to crowd onto an unseaworthy boat for a 50/50 chance of making it to Europe.  

Hondurans and Guatemalans cross two borders illegally and a thousands miles, mostly on foot to enter the US with less than a 40% chance of being granted asylum.  Why? Because the odds are even worse if they stay home.  Some people will consider them just criminals, mud people, the scum of the earth and others will see them as people that are willing to sacrifice everything for just a chance to become an American.    *


----------



## pismoe

Dragonlady said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does any of that make?  We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.
> 
> However they come here anyway, why?  Because of people like you.  If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.
> 
> Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders?  They would quit coming here.  This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really have no idea how much I'm laughing every time you parrot "ripping out of the arms of their parents".  At the point where it became literally impossible for you to use any phrase BUT that, it became farce.
> 
> You leftists are 100% responsible for this happening.  It was YOUR law; YOU insisted on it.  YOU screamed and hollered that it was "the only humane thing to do".  Now you flip on a dime and the complete opposite is "the only humane thing to do".  And you really, genuinely expect us all to gasp in horror on cue, because you're too piss-stupid to realize how obviously you've overplayed your hand.
> 
> Traumatize this, twerp.    No one gives a shit about your melodramatic hyperbole any more.
> 
> The parents are criminals, they're in jail pending hearing, and they're staying in jail pending hearing.  Period.  You can
> clutch your pearls and screech and wail to your heart's content; no one cares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really??  No one??  Not Franklin Graham who said this policy is wrong?
> 
> Clergy Condemns AG Justifying Family Separation With Bible
> 
> Religious Rights Of Border Detainees Under Scrutiny As Black Ministers Condemn Trump’s Baby Snatcher Immigration Policy
> 
> Faith Leaders Oppose Trump's Immigration Policy Of Separating Children From Parents
> 
> 8 Clergy Arrested to Stop Immigration Policies That Tear Families Apart:  Supporters Escalate Protests Demanding Release of Immigrant Rights Leader
> 
> Phoenix church hosts Father's Day rally to protest immigration policy separating migrant families
> 
> 
> Maybe no one cares but it looks like a whole lot of faith leaders do, as do their parishioners.
> 
> Trump is coldly, calculating that by causing lifetime, irreversible harm to toddlers, he can bully people to get get what he wants. This is leadership?
Click to expand...

-------------------------------------------   so what , i liked Billy but his son seems to be a 'liberal' of the church of progressive politics .    In fact 'frank' didn't straighten up until a few years ago from what i hear .  Anyway , 'frank' should be NO PART of this world if he follows Biblical Teaching DLady .


----------



## TahoeHorn

I'm interested in hearing proposals from people who support the objective of preventing illegal immigration, and want a more humane treatment of children (all people really) but still retains the objective of preventing all illegal immigration.  I'm unclear when this concern for children is merely an excuse to oppose aggressive efforts to stop illegal immigration.  If we fix the problem with children does that get their support for the measure, or will they just come up with a new complaint.

I am not suggesting that the problem should not be addressed because many of the proponents of fixing it are disingenuous. But I am curious to know which complaints are from supporters of Trump's overall objective.


----------



## TahoeHorn

Flopper said:


> Snouter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Flopper illegal aliens criminals are really great and a model for the Western World to learn from.  They really care about humanity and stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> *Desperate people do desperate things. Refugees risk everything to crowd onto an unseaworthy boat for a 50/50 chance of making it to Europe.
> 
> Hondurans and Guatemalans cross two borders illegally and a thousands miles, mostly on foot to enter the US with less than a 40% chance of being granted asylum.  Why? Because the odds are even worse if they stay home.  Some people will consider them just criminals, mud people, the scum of the earth and others will see them as people that are willing to sacrifice everything for just a chance to become an American.    *
Click to expand...

We need to find some countries which will take them.  I'll bet we could cut a deal with some places like Burkina Faso or Bangladesh to accept $1,000 plus a year's room and board in an optional refugee camp to admit them as refugees.  If Guatemala is dangerous they'll want to go to Burkina Faso.  If they're looking for economic improvement maybe not.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TahoeHorn said:


> I'm interested in hearing proposals from people who support the objective of preventing illegal immigration, and want a more humane treatment of children (all people really) but still retains the objective of preventing all illegal immigration.  I'm unclear when this concern for children is merely an excuse to oppose aggressive efforts to stop illegal immigration.  If we fix the problem with children does that get their support for the measure, or will they just come up with a new complaint.
> 
> I am not suggesting that the problem should not be addressed because many of the proponents of fixing it are disingenuous. But I am curious to know which complaints are from supporters of Trump's overall objective.



We are not treating children "inhumanely" by putting them in foster care.  We do that to American children all the time when their parents are locked up.  It sucks to have to do it, but I don't see that we have a responsibility to make life not suck.


----------



## pismoe

TahoeHorn said:


> I'm interested in hearing proposals from people who support the objective of preventing illegal immigration, and want a more humane treatment of children (all people really) but still retains the objective of preventing all illegal immigration.  I'm unclear when this concern for children is merely an excuse to oppose aggressive efforts to stop illegal immigration.  If we fix the problem with children does that get their support for the measure, or will they just come up with a new complaint.
> 
> I am not suggesting that the problem should not be addressed because many of the proponents of fixing it are disingenuous. But I am curious to know which complaints are from supporters of Trump's overall objective.


-----------------------------------------------  stop ALL immigration .   Why the heck do you want more third world imported people in the USA which already has 310 million people and thats not counting 20 to 40 million illegals in the USA  THorn .


----------



## TahoeHorn

pismoe said:


> -----------------------------------------------  stop ALL immigration .   Why the heck do you want more third world imported people in the USA which already has 310 million people and thats not counting 20 to 40 million illegals in the USA  THorn .


I support immigration of very high talent individuals from wherever.  I oppose immigration of low talent individuals.

Where do you get that stat of 20MM- 40MM illegals?


----------



## pismoe

well its 10 - 20 years ago they were touting 11 million .  So use 11 million but with pourous borders its far more than 11 million .   And by the way , the majority of importeds are low skilled third worlders .  Doen't really matter as i OPPOSE all immigration and there can be no agrument over my USA Census numbers which show that USA population was about 310 million in 2010 THorn .     Whats the PURPOSE of more imported people into the USA THorn ??


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Meanwhile, in the real world, Trump’s brutal, unwarranted policy of separating children from their families has failed to act as a ‘deterrent’ to immigration:

“…a month after the administration started generating headlines about family separation, the Homeland Security Department's own data showed the policy did not yet have the desired and predicted effect on the number of people trying to cross the border illegally or the number who show up at a legal crossing without paperwork, but may be claiming asylum.”

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/18/politics/family-separation-deterrence-dhs/index.html

At least Trump and his supporters are consistent at being wrong.


----------



## pismoe

yeah , whats the PURPOSE .  Already the USA is number one in War and Military , food production , medical care [before obamacare] , space travel and exploration .   And the few problems the USA has isn't going to be solved by imported people  THorn .


----------



## pismoe

so , whats the purpose of wanting MORE imported foreign people into the USA  ??   See the problems that somali 'bantus' are causing in Lewiston Maine USA  THorn .


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote

If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.

Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.

So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.

How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, _separates_, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?

Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred? 

Why all the emotion and no solution?


----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## Dragonlady

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deuteronomy 10:18-19 – “For the Lord your God...loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.  You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
> 
> From my twitter feed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing, Reverend Cornball, but "loving the strangers" doesn't require letting them invade and destroy our home.
> 
> I need no lessons in charity and compassion from asshats who think they both involve voting money out of other people's pockets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need lessons in basic humanity. But most You need to be exposed as a Russian troll who only masquerades as an American who opposes immigration. This encourages American citizens to violate their beliefs and their Constitution and to inflict harm on little children.
> 
> Deplorable doesn’t even begin to cover it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.
> 
> I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.
> 
> Case closed.  You're dismissed, puswad.
Click to expand...


This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse. 

This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Dragonlady said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deuteronomy 10:18-19 – “For the Lord your God...loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.  You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
> 
> From my twitter feed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing, Reverend Cornball, but "loving the strangers" doesn't require letting them invade and destroy our home.
> 
> I need no lessons in charity and compassion from asshats who think they both involve voting money out of other people's pockets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need lessons in basic humanity. But most You need to be exposed as a Russian troll who only masquerades as an American who opposes immigration. This encourages American citizens to violate their beliefs and their Constitution and to inflict harm on little children.
> 
> Deplorable doesn’t even begin to cover it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.
> 
> I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.
> 
> Case closed.  You're dismissed, puswad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse.
> 
> This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse.
Click to expand...

Well isn't that the most bullshit thing I've heard today? Not to mention that it was an incredible low blow. 

Accusing someone of torturing children and then accusing someone else of cheering while it happens? Nobody is cheering this. But you are cheering the abuse of our laws. Yes, yes you are. There are consequences to every action. Coming here illegally automatically qualifies you as a criminal. 

You are also claiming that someone is being immoral for supposedly cheering for the torture and abuse of children while ignoring the fact that that in most cases, the torture and abuse has already occurred, perpetrated by the parents who remain behind while they send a helpless child alone on a perilous journey to our southern border.

Don't bother.

I'm developing a knack for calling people out on their bullshit on this board, and I therefore rate your post:

TOTAL, COMPLETE, AND UTTER BULLSHIT.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Hutch Starskey said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It’s unimaginable that there are people in favor of ripping 1y/o babies from their parents by policy.
> 
> Makes you wonder about their upbringing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your “tolerant based” cries are just plain comical.
> You fools realize that ALL detained criminals are separated from their children....RIGHT?
> And you realize they’re seperated as a result of their own actions...RIGHT?
> Were none of you fools ever taught cause and effect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Knowing you can’t qualify for a asylum…And trying anyway knowing you’ll be separated from your children…Should be a crime though...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither applying for asylum nor being denied asylum is a crime. Children should not be separated in either case.
Click to expand...


Haha...oh I get it now. You want to believe the cockroaches from Mexico, Central and South America can quality for asylum?
You realize that whether applying for asylum or not,  an illegal alien standing on American soil is a federal criminal...right?


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

*Why does the Democratic Party want to help human traffickers illegally cross our border?*


----------



## Kondor3

Dragonlady said:


> ...This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse...


What a load of LibProg hor$e$hit.

The President of the United States is charged with faithful execution of the laws of the United States... and that goes for agencies under his control, as well.

In all fairness, it is not the Imperial Cheeto's fault that Presidents before him were too chicken$hit to execute their duties.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

*Why do the Dirty Democrats want to help the Mexican drug cartels poison our youth?

According to the US Centers for Disease Control, in 2016, there were 63,632 drug overdose deaths in the United States.*


----------



## EvilCat Breath

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> *Why does the Democratic Party want to help human traffickers illegally cross our border?*


Why?  Because they might kill a white Christian.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deuteronomy 10:18-19 – “For the Lord your God...loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.  You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
> 
> From my twitter feed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing, Reverend Cornball, but "loving the strangers" doesn't require letting them invade and destroy our home.
> 
> I need no lessons in charity and compassion from asshats who think they both involve voting money out of other people's pockets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need lessons in basic humanity. But most You need to be exposed as a Russian troll who only masquerades as an American who opposes immigration. This encourages American citizens to violate their beliefs and their Constitution and to inflict harm on little children.
> 
> Deplorable doesn’t even begin to cover it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.
> 
> I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.
> 
> Case closed.  You're dismissed, puswad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse.
> 
> This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse.
Click to expand...


WRONG.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/07/06/15-56434.pdf

https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/immigrants/flores_v_meese_agreement.pdf

Let me know if you need help with the big words.

This is who you are:  an ignorant, two-faced liar who uses children as political tools.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

*Putting innocent children in jail with adults is a really bad idea, are Democrats dumb or something?*


----------



## Dragonlady

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deuteronomy 10:18-19 – “For the Lord your God...loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.  You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
> 
> From my twitter feed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing, Reverend Cornball, but "loving the strangers" doesn't require letting them invade and destroy our home.
> 
> I need no lessons in charity and compassion from asshats who think they both involve voting money out of other people's pockets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need lessons in basic humanity. But most You need to be exposed as a Russian troll who only masquerades as an American who opposes immigration. This encourages American citizens to violate their beliefs and their Constitution and to inflict harm on little children.
> 
> Deplorable doesn’t even begin to cover it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.
> 
> I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.
> 
> Case closed.  You're dismissed, puswad.
Click to expand...


This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse. 

This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse


----------



## TemplarKormac

Dragonlady said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deuteronomy 10:18-19 – “For the Lord your God...loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.  You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
> 
> From my twitter feed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing, Reverend Cornball, but "loving the strangers" doesn't require letting them invade and destroy our home.
> 
> I need no lessons in charity and compassion from asshats who think they both involve voting money out of other people's pockets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need lessons in basic humanity. But most You need to be exposed as a Russian troll who only masquerades as an American who opposes immigration. This encourages American citizens to violate their beliefs and their Constitution and to inflict harm on little children.
> 
> Deplorable doesn’t even begin to cover it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.
> 
> I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.
> 
> Case closed.  You're dismissed, puswad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse.
> 
> This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse
Click to expand...


Repeating yourself isn't going to make this post any less bullshit than it was before. You're too full of emotion to make a reasonable argument.


----------



## Rustic

Dragonlady said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deuteronomy 10:18-19 – “For the Lord your God...loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.  You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
> 
> From my twitter feed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing, Reverend Cornball, but "loving the strangers" doesn't require letting them invade and destroy our home.
> 
> I need no lessons in charity and compassion from asshats who think they both involve voting money out of other people's pockets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need lessons in basic humanity. But most You need to be exposed as a Russian troll who only masquerades as an American who opposes immigration. This encourages American citizens to violate their beliefs and their Constitution and to inflict harm on little children.
> 
> Deplorable doesn’t even begin to cover it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.
> 
> I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.
> 
> Case closed.  You're dismissed, puswad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse.
> 
> This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse
Click to expand...

They are illegal aliens, they have no constitutional rights. Who gives a fucking shit about them


----------



## Dragonlady

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deuteronomy 10:18-19 – “For the Lord your God...loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.  You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
> 
> From my twitter feed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing, Reverend Cornball, but "loving the strangers" doesn't require letting them invade and destroy our home.
> 
> I need no lessons in charity and compassion from asshats who think they both involve voting money out of other people's pockets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need lessons in basic humanity. But most You need to be exposed as a Russian troll who only masquerades as an American who opposes immigration. This encourages American citizens to violate their beliefs and their Constitution and to inflict harm on little children.
> 
> Deplorable doesn’t even begin to cover it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.
> 
> I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.
> 
> Case closed.  You're dismissed, puswad.
Click to expand...


This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse. 

This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse


----------



## Dragonlady

Rustic said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deuteronomy 10:18-19 – “For the Lord your God...loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.  You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
> 
> From my twitter feed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing, Reverend Cornball, but "loving the strangers" doesn't require letting them invade and destroy our home.
> 
> I need no lessons in charity and compassion from asshats who think they both involve voting money out of other people's pockets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need lessons in basic humanity. But most You need to be exposed as a Russian troll who only masquerades as an American who opposes immigration. This encourages American citizens to violate their beliefs and their Constitution and to inflict harm on little children.
> 
> Deplorable doesn’t even begin to cover it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.
> 
> I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.
> 
> Case closed.  You're dismissed, puswad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse.
> 
> This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are illegal aliens, they have no constitutional rights. Who gives a fucking shit about them
Click to expand...


Another proven Russian troll weighs in against children seeking asylum. 

Yes they do have the legal right to seek asylum, under US law and under agreements the United States has signed with the United Nations. These laws have been upheld by US Courts.


----------



## pismoe

yeah , looks like she is repeating herself .  [chuckle]


----------



## Hutch Starskey

BrokeLoser said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s unimaginable that there are people in favor of ripping 1y/o babies from their parents by policy.
> 
> Makes you wonder about their upbringing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your “tolerant based” cries are just plain comical.
> You fools realize that ALL detained criminals are separated from their children....RIGHT?
> And you realize they’re seperated as a result of their own actions...RIGHT?
> Were none of you fools ever taught cause and effect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Knowing you can’t qualify for a asylum…And trying anyway knowing you’ll be separated from your children…Should be a crime though...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither applying for asylum nor being denied asylum is a crime. Children should not be separated in either case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha...oh I get it now. You want to believe the cockroaches from Mexico, Central and South America can quality for asylum?
> You realize that whether applying for asylum or not,  an illegal alien standing on American soil is a federal criminal...right?
Click to expand...


Anyone can apply and 40% of applicants are granted asylum. Prosecuting them is not required. It is done as a matter of policy.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Dragonlady said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deuteronomy 10:18-19 – “For the Lord your God...loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.  You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
> 
> From my twitter feed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing, Reverend Cornball, but "loving the strangers" doesn't require letting them invade and destroy our home.
> 
> I need no lessons in charity and compassion from asshats who think they both involve voting money out of other people's pockets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need lessons in basic humanity. But most You need to be exposed as a Russian troll who only masquerades as an American who opposes immigration. This encourages American citizens to violate their beliefs and their Constitution and to inflict harm on little children.
> 
> Deplorable doesn’t even begin to cover it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.
> 
> I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.
> 
> Case closed.  You're dismissed, puswad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse.
> 
> This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse
Click to expand...


Is this all you can say? Are you so wrapped up in emotion you're willing to claim someone supports child abuse purely because they disagree with you politically?


----------



## BrokeLoser

Hutch Starskey said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your “tolerant based” cries are just plain comical.
> You fools realize that ALL detained criminals are separated from their children....RIGHT?
> And you realize they’re seperated as a result of their own actions...RIGHT?
> Were none of you fools ever taught cause and effect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Knowing you can’t qualify for a asylum…And trying anyway knowing you’ll be separated from your children…Should be a crime though...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither applying for asylum nor being denied asylum is a crime. Children should not be separated in either case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha...oh I get it now. You want to believe the cockroaches from Mexico, Central and South America can quality for asylum?
> You realize that whether applying for asylum or not,  an illegal alien standing on American soil is a federal criminal...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone can apply and 40% of applicants are granted asylum. Prosecuting them is not required. It is done as a matter of policy.
Click to expand...


Link us to the data which proves that 40% of Mexicans, Central and South Americans are granted asylum. 
Thanks in advance.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> *Why does the Democratic Party want to help human traffickers illegally cross our border?*



Look, dope. There are only three things that will happen. Those crossers, if not applying or qualifying for asylum are deported. For those whose applications are accepted, they go through the process and are either granted asylum and stay or are denied and are deported. In the end, only those who are cleared are able to remain.


Why is that a problem for you?


----------



## Dragonlady

TemplarKormac said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deuteronomy 10:18-19 – “For the Lord your God...loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.  You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
> 
> From my twitter feed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing, Reverend Cornball, but "loving the strangers" doesn't require letting them invade and destroy our home.
> 
> I need no lessons in charity and compassion from asshats who think they both involve voting money out of other people's pockets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need lessons in basic humanity. But most You need to be exposed as a Russian troll who only masquerades as an American who opposes immigration. This encourages American citizens to violate their beliefs and their Constitution and to inflict harm on little children.
> 
> Deplorable doesn’t even begin to cover it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.
> 
> I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.
> 
> Case closed.  You're dismissed, puswad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse.
> 
> This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well isn't that the most bullshit thing I've heard today? Not to mention that it was an incredible low blow.
> 
> Accusing someone of torturing children and then accusing someone else of cheering while it happens? Nobody is cheering this. But you are cheering the abuse of our laws. Yes, yes you are. There are consequences to every action. Coming here illegally automatically qualifies you as a criminal.
> 
> You are also claiming that someone is being immoral for supposedly cheering for the torture and abuse of children while ignoring the fact that that in most cases, the torture and abuse has already occurred, perpetrated by the parents who remain behind while they send a helpless child alone on a perilous journey to our southern border.
> 
> Don't bother.
> 
> I'm developing a knack for calling people out on their bullshit on this board, and I therefore rate your post:
> 
> TOTAL, COMPLETE, AND UTTER BULLSHIT.
Click to expand...


You are cheering for it to happen. This is one of those things that is so morally heinous and wrong that simply doing nothing is just as wrong as the crime. You’re allowing it to happen. 

This isn’t bullshit. This is a moral crisis. Children are being harmed. Deliberately and with malice aforethought. Trump could stop it with a phone call. Why aren’t you demanding that he do so?


----------



## Hutch Starskey

BrokeLoser said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing you can’t qualify for a asylum…And trying anyway knowing you’ll be separated from your children…Should be a crime though...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither applying for asylum nor being denied asylum is a crime. Children should not be separated in either case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha...oh I get it now. You want to believe the cockroaches from Mexico, Central and South America can quality for asylum?
> You realize that whether applying for asylum or not,  an illegal alien standing on American soil is a federal criminal...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone can apply and 40% of applicants are granted asylum. Prosecuting them is not required. It is done as a matter of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link us to the data which proves that 40% of Mexicans, Central and South Americans are granted asylum.
> Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...


I didn't claim that, dope. I said 40% of applicants. Anyone can apply. As I'm sure they do apply, then logically some percentage of them are granted asylum.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Dragonlady said:


> You are cheering for it to happen.



No, I'm not.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

TemplarKormac said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deuteronomy 10:18-19 – “For the Lord your God...loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.  You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
> 
> From my twitter feed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing, Reverend Cornball, but "loving the strangers" doesn't require letting them invade and destroy our home.
> 
> I need no lessons in charity and compassion from asshats who think they both involve voting money out of other people's pockets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need lessons in basic humanity. But most You need to be exposed as a Russian troll who only masquerades as an American who opposes immigration. This encourages American citizens to violate their beliefs and their Constitution and to inflict harm on little children.
> 
> Deplorable doesn’t even begin to cover it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.
> 
> I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.
> 
> Case closed.  You're dismissed, puswad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse.
> 
> This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this all you can say? Are you so wrapped up in emotion you're willing to claim someone supports child abuse purely because they disagree with you politically?
Click to expand...


You certainly aren't  in opposition in this case.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> *Putting innocent children in jail with adults is a really bad idea, are Democrats dumb or something?*


 
Don't put the adults in jail then. Duh.


----------



## Dragonlady

TemplarKormac said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are cheering for it to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
Click to expand...


Have you said one word against this policy?  Have you called your Congressman or Senator?  Emailed or written the WH?

Have you said or done ANYTHING to stop your President from torturing and abusing children, some as young as 2, as a political ploy. If not, you are cheering him on.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Rustic said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deuteronomy 10:18-19 – “For the Lord your God...loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.  You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
> 
> From my twitter feed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing, Reverend Cornball, but "loving the strangers" doesn't require letting them invade and destroy our home.
> 
> I need no lessons in charity and compassion from asshats who think they both involve voting money out of other people's pockets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need lessons in basic humanity. But most You need to be exposed as a Russian troll who only masquerades as an American who opposes immigration. This encourages American citizens to violate their beliefs and their Constitution and to inflict harm on little children.
> 
> Deplorable doesn’t even begin to cover it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.
> 
> I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.
> 
> Case closed.  You're dismissed, puswad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse.
> 
> This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are illegal aliens, they have no constitutional rights. Who gives a fucking shit about them
Click to expand...


Wrong. 
Asylum seekers have a constitutional right to due process of their claim. Making that process criminal is decidedly unconstitutional.


----------



## Dragonlady

Dragonlady said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are cheering for it to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you said one word against this policy?  Have you called your Congressman or Senator?  Emailed or written the WH?
> 
> Have you said or done ANYTHING to stop your President from torturing and abusing children, some as young as 2, as a political ploy. If not, you are cheering him on.
Click to expand...


Even Melania Trump has publically condemned her husband’s policy.


----------



## Rustic

Dragonlady said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing, Reverend Cornball, but "loving the strangers" doesn't require letting them invade and destroy our home.
> 
> I need no lessons in charity and compassion from asshats who think they both involve voting money out of other people's pockets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need lessons in basic humanity. But most You need to be exposed as a Russian troll who only masquerades as an American who opposes immigration. This encourages American citizens to violate their beliefs and their Constitution and to inflict harm on little children.
> 
> Deplorable doesn’t even begin to cover it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.
> 
> I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.
> 
> Case closed.  You're dismissed, puswad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse.
> 
> This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are illegal aliens, they have no constitutional rights. Who gives a fucking shit about them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another proven Russian troll weighs in against children seeking asylum.
> 
> Yes they do have the legal right to seek asylum, under US law and under agreements the United States has signed with the United Nations. These laws have been upheld by US Courts.
Click to expand...

Fuck the UN


----------



## TemplarKormac

Dragonlady said:


> This is one of those things that is so morally heinous and wrong that simply doing nothing is just as wrong as the crime. You’re allowing it to happen.



No.

What you fail to realize is that the separation has already happened in a majority of cases. They are called "unaccompanied minors". Where are the fucking parents??

Oh, yeah, those parents are the ones who chose to initiate the process of separation, not our government. They essentially abandoned them to the rigors of the unknown, and exposing them to extreme peril. They were sent on a one way journey _on their own_. And you're lecturing me about what is morally heinous? Please.




Dragonlady said:


> This isn’t bullshit. This is a moral crisis. Children are being harmed.



I agree, but they aren't being harmed in the way you think they are. Why are you not angry at the parents for sending them here alone? Hmm? Spare me your misplaced outrage.




Dragonlady said:


> Trump could stop it with a phone call. Why aren’t you demanding that he do so?



No, he couldn't. That is a job intended for congress. But you are letting this "moral crisis" perpetuate by insisting that Democrats resist the President and Republicans in every form and function. You don't solve a "moral crisis" by perpetuating it.

Stop whining. If you really want something done, urge your elected officials to work in a bipartisan manner with the other side to solve this issue. Otherwise, just sit down and be quiet. You are bent on not helping solve the problem.


----------



## Rustic

TemplarKormac said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of those things that is so morally heinous and wrong that simply doing nothing is just as wrong as the crime. You’re allowing it to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> What you fail to realize is that the separation has already happened in a majority of cases. They are called "unaccompanied minors". Where are the fucking parents??
> 
> Oh, yeah, those parents are the ones who chose to initiate the process of separation, not our government. They essentially abandoned them to the rigors of the unknown, and exposing them to extreme peril. Sending them on a one way journey. On their own. And you're lecturing me about what is morally heinous? Please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn’t bullshit. This is a moral crisis. Children are being harmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, but they aren't being harmed in the way you think they are. Why are you not angry at the parents for sending them here alone? Hmm? Spare me your misplaced outrage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump could stop it with a phone call. Why aren’t you demanding that he do so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he couldn't. That is a job intended for congress. But you are letting this "moral crisis" perpetuate by insisting that Democrats resist the President and Republicans in every form and function. You don't solve a "moral crisis" by perpetuating it.
> 
> Stop whining. If you really want something done, urge your elected officials to work in a bipartisan manner with the other side to solve this issue. Otherwise, just sit down and be quiet. You are bent on not helping solve the problem.
Click to expand...

...yep Don’t want to get separated from your parents don’t cross the border illegally


----------



## TemplarKormac

Dragonlady said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are cheering for it to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you said one word against this policy?  Have you called your Congressman or Senator?  Emailed or written the WH?
> 
> Have you said or done ANYTHING to stop your President from torturing and abusing children, some as young as 2, as a political ploy. If not, you are cheering him on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even Melania Trump has publically condemned her husband’s policy.
Click to expand...


I really don't care what Melania says. Suddenly she has credence to you when she says something you agree with. Funny, you lefties sure were hating on her before she made that statement.


----------



## Ame®icano

candycorn said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what race are Mexicans?
> 
> Or at least, tell me what race are Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What race are "beaners" as you put it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't put it into race category, you did.
> 
> Aha, dodging again.
> 
> I already explained it to you, beaner is not a racial slur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Beaner is a derogatory slang for Mexicans or people of Mexican descent. It's an ethnic slur.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ethnic, not racial. Just as they call us gringo.
> 
> Now, if you call them pinto beaner, that would be like a declaration of war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Gringo" is a racial slur as well.
> 
> Not sure why you're denying a clearly defined racial slur.
> 
> View attachment 199373
Click to expand...


One last time, what race are Mexicans?


----------



## Ame®icano

candycorn said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't put it into race category, you did.
> 
> Aha, dodging again.
> 
> I already explained it to you, beaner is not a racial slur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Kondor3 did when he put racial slurs into it.  Please walk into a chicano bar and start calling people "beaner"....I'd love to be there when you do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a racial slur, dunce.
> 
> You could call it derisive, but derisive has nothing to do with race.
> 
> If is up to your standards, "deplorable" is racist term. Is it?
> 
> The thing with you lefties (now that's derisive) is that you demand we prove that our views are valid to your criteria and working within arbitrary frame that you set up that a priori rule out our viewpoint.
> 
> You "feel" that something is "racist". Since we don't give a fuck about your "feelings", it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...deplorable doesn't indict people based on the color of their skin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is beaner. It's a slur for a Mexican.
> 
> Again, what race is Mexican?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know Mexico is a country.  Mexcian isn't a race.
> Are you high?
Click to expand...


I do know, and since Mexican isn't a race, "beaner" is not a racial slur, as you insist.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Dragonlady said:


> Have you said one word against this policy? Have you called your Congressman or Senator? Emailed or written the WH?



You support enforcing emotions, I support enforcing the law. If you can't make people realize the consequences of intentionally breaking our laws, then our laws are meaningless. This is all about the decisions the parents make when they set this vicious cycle in motion, not about what our government does when they bring that cycle to an end.

I support this policy, that is until a more amicable solution can be reached. But it does not mean, however, that I condone child abuse and torture.

Spare me your moral equivalencies.


----------



## Ame®icano

Flopper said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, apparently the human cost is a paltry concern. Apparently, it a superficial concern. Lets balance out the equation : The well being of Americans in general  VS the profit of the ambiguous  wealthy  puppet overlords . Is there any question whos needs come first?
> 
> 
> 
> *To many people the human cost is a concern, a major concern.  Not just the 12 million at risk of being deported but their families, their friends, their neighbors, their employer, and their employees.  I saw an article somewhere where that estimated the number of people effected by potential deportations.  It was something like 75 million people.  That's a lot of people concerned about the human cost. They don't see the cost to the nation.  They see the cost as a loss of a father, a son, a friend, a neighbor, their boss, a fellow worker, an employee.  You can't really express those cost in dollars and cents.   *
Click to expand...


What human cost are you talking about?

A week ago, 14 yo kid was killed while riding a bicycle, here in Michigan. By reckless driver, who was by the was illegal alien. That's the human cost I am concerned about. You lefties are talking about separation of kids from families? This family is separated from their kid for good. 

I don't give a shit about illegals, and I don't care if every single one is deported, regardless if is violent, or non violent, it makes no difference to me, illegals have no right to be here. I wouldn't mind if every single one is locked up until they beg to return to where they came from.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Dragonlady said:


> Have you said or done ANYTHING to stop your President from torturing and abusing children, some as young as 2, as a political ploy. If not, you are cheering him on.



First of all, show me proof of this torture and abuse. Links, stats, pictures, videos. Anything that can be verified. Do that and I will disavow Trump right here and now.

Hm, and as far as political exploitation somehow being tantamount to torturing children, what exactly are you doing in this conversation? Exploiting these children for a political purpose. What have you done in the gun debate? Exploit children (dead or alive) for a political purpose. What about the welfare and healthcare debate? Yup, you exploited children for a political purpose.

Thou hypocrite.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dragonlady said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are cheering for it to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you said one word against this policy?  Have you called your Congressman or Senator?  Emailed or written the WH?
> 
> Have you said or done ANYTHING to stop your President from torturing and abusing children, some as young as 2, as a political ploy. If not, you are cheering him on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even Melania Trump has publically condemned her husband’s policy.
Click to expand...


She used the term "her husbands policy?"


----------



## Ame®icano

Hutch Starskey said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It’s unimaginable that there are people in favor of ripping 1y/o babies from their parents by policy.
> 
> Makes you wonder about their upbringing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your “tolerant based” cries are just plain comical.
> You fools realize that ALL detained criminals are separated from their children....RIGHT?
> And you realize they’re seperated as a result of their own actions...RIGHT?
> Were none of you fools ever taught cause and effect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Knowing you can’t qualify for a asylum…And trying anyway knowing you’ll be separated from your children…Should be a crime though...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither applying for asylum nor being denied asylum is a crime. Children should not be separated in either case.
Click to expand...


You do know what asylum means and where do you ask for it, do ya?

Tell me one reason why children of illegals should not be separated from, assuming their illegal alien parents.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Hutch Starskey said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing, Reverend Cornball, but "loving the strangers" doesn't require letting them invade and destroy our home.
> 
> I need no lessons in charity and compassion from asshats who think they both involve voting money out of other people's pockets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need lessons in basic humanity. But most You need to be exposed as a Russian troll who only masquerades as an American who opposes immigration. This encourages American citizens to violate their beliefs and their Constitution and to inflict harm on little children.
> 
> Deplorable doesn’t even begin to cover it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.
> 
> I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.
> 
> Case closed.  You're dismissed, puswad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse.
> 
> This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are illegal aliens, they have no constitutional rights. Who gives a fucking shit about them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> Asylum seekers have a constitutional right to due process of their claim. Making that process criminal is decidedly unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


No, they do not have that right.  They are not Americans.  We don't extend constitutional rights to people outside of our country. 

Once in our country, it needs to be determined if their asylum claim is genuine, or just an excuse to get a hearing that will take 3 to 4 years, and then like 80% of them, just not show up in court.  

The countries these people come from are shit holes.  They were shit holes 20 years ago, shit holes now, and will be shit holes in 20 years from today.  Nothing has changed.  Asylum is to provide a safe haven from governments or movements that are a threat to life.  Once in Mexico, that was already accomplished.


----------



## Ame®icano

Hutch Starskey said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really have no idea how much I'm laughing every time you parrot "ripping out of the arms of their parents".  At the point where it became literally impossible for you to use any phrase BUT that, it became farce.
> 
> You leftists are 100% responsible for this happening.  It was YOUR law; YOU insisted on it.  YOU screamed and hollered that it was "the only humane thing to do".  Now you flip on a dime and the complete opposite is "the only humane thing to do".  And you really, genuinely expect us all to gasp in horror on cue, because you're too piss-stupid to realize how obviously you've overplayed your hand.
> 
> Traumatize this, twerp.    No one gives a shit about your melodramatic hyperbole any more.
> 
> The parents are criminals, they're in jail pending hearing, and they're staying in jail pending hearing.  Period.  You can
> clutch your pearls and screech and wail to your heart's content; no one cares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really??  No one??  Not Franklin Graham who said this policy is wrong?
> 
> Clergy Condemns AG Justifying Family Separation With Bible
> 
> Religious Rights Of Border Detainees Under Scrutiny As Black Ministers Condemn Trump’s Baby Snatcher Immigration Policy
> 
> Faith Leaders Oppose Trump's Immigration Policy Of Separating Children From Parents
> 
> 8 Clergy Arrested to Stop Immigration Policies That Tear Families Apart:  Supporters Escalate Protests Demanding Release of Immigrant Rights Leader
> 
> Phoenix church hosts Father's Day rally to protest immigration policy separating migrant families
> 
> 
> Maybe no one cares but it looks like a whole lot of faith leaders do, as do their parishioners.
> 
> Trump is coldly, calculating that by causing lifetime, irreversible harm to toddlers, he can bully people to get get what he wants. This is leadership?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, goody for you.  You found a bunch of gloryhounds who are willing to suck up to leftists for media time.  I'll get right on treating them as "faith leaders" simply because YOU decided they were spokesmen for something.
> 
> LEFTISTS demanded that law.  You can parrot, "Trump's fault!  Trump's fault!" while cravenly ignoring this fact until your face turns blue, and I frankly hope you do.  But it's not going to make your posts any less ignorant and disgustingly false and it's not going to make anyone the slightest bit interested in being "shamed" because trash like you demands it.
> 
> You want to talk cold and calculating?  Let's start with the way you leftists demanded a law you had no desire or intention to see enforced, strictly to give yourselves cover to release illegal aliens into the population in job lots.  And then we'll move on to the way you're trying to shove the blame for your shit law onto anyone but yourselves, now that you can't use it any more.
> 
> No one here believes a word of your "ripping away!  *sob sob*" melodrama.  It's nothing but _faux_-rage.  And it's falling on deaf ears.  Next time, don't be such a bunch of disingenuous pusbags.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump could stop the separations of families with a phone call.
> 
> No amount of spin can change that fact.
Click to expand...


Why he should do that? He's just continuing the same policy from previous presidents. That policy wasn't a problem to you lefties while Dubya and Barry were in the office, but NOW is a "yuge" problem.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dragonlady said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are cheering for it to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you said one word against this policy?  Have you called your Congressman or Senator?  Emailed or written the WH?
> 
> Have you said or done ANYTHING to stop your President from torturing and abusing children, some as young as 2, as a political ploy. If not, you are cheering him on.
Click to expand...


Did you do that during the Obama years?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Hutch Starskey said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Putting innocent children in jail with adults is a really bad idea, are Democrats dumb or something?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't put the adults in jail then. Duh.
Click to expand...


Then millions more will come, duh!


----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## Ame®icano

Flopper said:


> Snouter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Flopper illegal aliens criminals are really great and a model for the Western World to learn from.  They really care about humanity and stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> *Desperate people do desperate things. Refugees risk everything to crowd onto an unseaworthy boat for a 50/50 chance of making it to Europe.
> 
> Hondurans and Guatemalans cross two borders illegally and a thousands miles, mostly on foot to enter the US with less than a 40% chance of being granted asylum.  Why? Because the odds are even worse if they stay home.  Some people will consider them just criminals, mud people, the scum of the earth and others will see them as people that are willing to sacrifice everything for just a chance to become an American.    *
Click to expand...


Those what you call "refugees" from northern Africa are not refugees. They are seekers of free shit they can get in Europe. 

Honduran and Guatemalan are not fleeing wars. They cannot be refugees. Also, as refugee you don't get to pick where to go, you are simply getting asylum if neighboring country that's not affected by the war. That's what UN is saying, if you'd like to check.


----------



## Ame®icano

Cecilie1200 said:


> TahoeHorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm interested in hearing proposals from people who support the objective of preventing illegal immigration, and want a more humane treatment of children (all people really) but still retains the objective of preventing all illegal immigration.  I'm unclear when this concern for children is merely an excuse to oppose aggressive efforts to stop illegal immigration.  If we fix the problem with children does that get their support for the measure, or will they just come up with a new complaint.
> 
> I am not suggesting that the problem should not be addressed because many of the proponents of fixing it are disingenuous. But I am curious to know which complaints are from supporters of Trump's overall objective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not treating children "inhumanely" by putting them in foster care.  We do that to American children all the time when their parents are locked up.  It sucks to have to do it, but I don't see that we have a responsibility to make life not suck.
Click to expand...


I'd like to see pictures of places where those kids came from, and compare them to what they're getting in "concentration camps". I get they all lived in mansions, had three to four meals a day, toilet and shower, clean clothing and they were all checked daily by their doctors.


----------



## Rustic

These parents having these kids in these shit hole countries then trying to jump the fence into this country is inexcusable...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dragonlady said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deuteronomy 10:18-19 – “For the Lord your God...loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.  You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
> 
> From my twitter feed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing, Reverend Cornball, but "loving the strangers" doesn't require letting them invade and destroy our home.
> 
> I need no lessons in charity and compassion from asshats who think they both involve voting money out of other people's pockets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need lessons in basic humanity. But most You need to be exposed as a Russian troll who only masquerades as an American who opposes immigration. This encourages American citizens to violate their beliefs and their Constitution and to inflict harm on little children.
> 
> Deplorable doesn’t even begin to cover it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.
> 
> I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.
> 
> Case closed.  You're dismissed, puswad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse.
> 
> This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse
Click to expand...


Nobody is being tortured.  Why do you on the left continue to use lies to try and make your point?


----------



## Ame®icano

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Meanwhile, in the real world, Trump’s brutal, unwarranted policy of separating children from their families has failed to act as a ‘deterrent’ to immigration:
> 
> “…a month after the administration started generating headlines about family separation, the Homeland Security Department's own data showed the policy did not yet have the desired and predicted effect on the number of people trying to cross the border illegally or the number who show up at a legal crossing without paperwork, but may be claiming asylum.”
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/18/politics/family-separation-deterrence-dhs/index.html
> 
> At least Trump and his supporters are consistent at being wrong.



Trump's policy? 

*The Truth about Separating Kids*
*
Obama held more than double of number of children in shelters compared to Trump White House*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Meanwhile, in the real world, Trump’s brutal, unwarranted policy of separating children from their families has failed to act as a ‘deterrent’ to immigration:
> 
> “…a month after the administration started generating headlines about family separation, the Homeland Security Department's own data showed the policy did not yet have the desired and predicted effect on the number of people trying to cross the border illegally or the number who show up at a legal crossing without paperwork, but may be claiming asylum.”
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/18/politics/family-separation-deterrence-dhs/index.html
> 
> At least Trump and his supporters are consistent at being wrong.



Our economy is booming right now.  The worldwide report is we have more jobs than workers.  Of course more will try to get in and get a piece of the pie.


----------



## Ame®icano

Dragonlady said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deuteronomy 10:18-19 – “For the Lord your God...loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.  You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
> 
> From my twitter feed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing, Reverend Cornball, but "loving the strangers" doesn't require letting them invade and destroy our home.
> 
> I need no lessons in charity and compassion from asshats who think they both involve voting money out of other people's pockets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need lessons in basic humanity. But most You need to be exposed as a Russian troll who only masquerades as an American who opposes immigration. This encourages American citizens to violate their beliefs and their Constitution and to inflict harm on little children.
> 
> Deplorable doesn’t even begin to cover it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.
> 
> I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.
> 
> Case closed.  You're dismissed, puswad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse.
> 
> This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse.
Click to expand...


According to the data, what Trump is doing to those poor kids is child's play comparing to what Barry did to them.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I want families kept together unless there is a darn good reason to remove the child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what about all the parents sending their children alone across the frontier to be handled by complete strangers in hopes of getting them across the border? Have they not already broken up the family? Did they not already damage that precious bond between parent and child?
Click to expand...


Bears repeating again


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

TahoeHorn said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snouter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Flopper illegal aliens criminals are really great and a model for the Western World to learn from.  They really care about humanity and stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> *Desperate people do desperate things. Refugees risk everything to crowd onto an unseaworthy boat for a 50/50 chance of making it to Europe.
> 
> Hondurans and Guatemalans cross two borders illegally and a thousands miles, mostly on foot to enter the US with less than a 40% chance of being granted asylum.  Why? Because the odds are even worse if they stay home.  Some people will consider them just criminals, mud people, the scum of the earth and others will see them as people that are willing to sacrifice everything for just a chance to become an American.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to find some countries which will take them.  I'll bet we could cut a deal with some places like Burkina Faso or Bangladesh to accept $1,000 plus a year's room and board in an optional refugee camp to admit them as refugees.  If Guatemala is dangerous they'll want to go to Burkina Faso.  If they're looking for economic improvement maybe not.
Click to expand...


People from Canada seem to be shooting off their mouths.  Let's ship them over there.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Snouter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Flopper illegal aliens criminals are really great and a model for the Western World to learn from.  They really care about humanity and stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> *Desperate people do desperate things. Refugees risk everything to crowd onto an unseaworthy boat for a 50/50 chance of making it to Europe.
> 
> Hondurans and Guatemalans cross two borders illegally and a thousands miles, mostly on foot to enter the US with less than a 40% chance of being granted asylum.  Why? Because the odds are even worse if they stay home.  Some people will consider them just criminals, mud people, the scum of the earth and others will see them as people that are willing to sacrifice everything for just a chance to become an American.    *
Click to expand...


So how will they ever turn their countries around if they don't stay and make changes themselves?  What you are saying is that we should allow them to come here from that breeding ground and just keep taking more and more by the millions.  Until when, when we are 25 trillion in debt?


----------



## Ame®icano

TemplarKormac said:


>


----------



## Rustic

Ray From Cleveland said:


> TahoeHorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snouter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Flopper illegal aliens criminals are really great and a model for the Western World to learn from.  They really care about humanity and stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> *Desperate people do desperate things. Refugees risk everything to crowd onto an unseaworthy boat for a 50/50 chance of making it to Europe.
> 
> Hondurans and Guatemalans cross two borders illegally and a thousands miles, mostly on foot to enter the US with less than a 40% chance of being granted asylum.  Why? Because the odds are even worse if they stay home.  Some people will consider them just criminals, mud people, the scum of the earth and others will see them as people that are willing to sacrifice everything for just a chance to become an American.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to find some countries which will take them.  I'll bet we could cut a deal with some places like Burkina Faso or Bangladesh to accept $1,000 plus a year's room and board in an optional refugee camp to admit them as refugees.  If Guatemala is dangerous they'll want to go to Burkina Faso.  If they're looking for economic improvement maybe not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People from Canada seem to be shooting of their mouths.  Let's ship them over there.
Click to expand...

No doubt, If they want those little fuckers so bad put their money where their mouth is


----------



## Rustic

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snouter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Flopper illegal aliens criminals are really great and a model for the Western World to learn from.  They really care about humanity and stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> *Desperate people do desperate things. Refugees risk everything to crowd onto an unseaworthy boat for a 50/50 chance of making it to Europe.
> 
> Hondurans and Guatemalans cross two borders illegally and a thousands miles, mostly on foot to enter the US with less than a 40% chance of being granted asylum.  Why? Because the odds are even worse if they stay home.  Some people will consider them just criminals, mud people, the scum of the earth and others will see them as people that are willing to sacrifice everything for just a chance to become an American.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how will they ever turn their countries around if they don't stay and make changes themselves?  What you are saying is that we should allow them to come here from that breeding ground and just keep taking more and more by the millions.  Until when, when we are 25 trillion in debt?
Click to expand...

No doubt, if you include unfunded liabilities it’s 225+ trillion...
We can’t possibly afford these little fuckers


----------



## TemplarKormac

Ame®icano said:


> TemplarKormac said:
Click to expand...

Did you draw that?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deuteronomy 10:18-19 – “For the Lord your God...loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.  You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
> 
> From my twitter feed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing, Reverend Cornball, but "loving the strangers" doesn't require letting them invade and destroy our home.
> 
> I need no lessons in charity and compassion from asshats who think they both involve voting money out of other people's pockets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need lessons in basic humanity. But most You need to be exposed as a Russian troll who only masquerades as an American who opposes immigration. This encourages American citizens to violate their beliefs and their Constitution and to inflict harm on little children.
> 
> Deplorable doesn’t even begin to cover it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.
> 
> I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.
> 
> Case closed.  You're dismissed, puswad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse.
> 
> This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is being tortured.  Why do you on the left continue to use lies to try and make your point?
Click to expand...


They use emotion to make their point, and most of the time fail miserably.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Hutch Starskey said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we had to give asylum to everybody that had a crappy country to live in, we would have over 2 billion people here.  And again, it's not about asylum, it's about finding ways to sneak into this country without standing in line like everybody else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just it, dope. We don't let in everyone who applies for asylum. There is a process in place to make the determination on their "standing". Asylum applicants are not criminals and have a right to due process under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, and with the time and money spent, we could be doing better things for our country instead.  They come here knowing they don't have the qualifications to be granted asylum you dope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
> What the approval process is?
> What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
> Is that number trending up or down over time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Over the last 26 years we have granted asylum to 1.9 million people. That's only .5% of the US population.  The average is about 20,000/yr. 40% of those that apply and pass pre-screening are granted asylum after 3 to 6 mos of interviews and investigation. I seriously doubt that Trump would allow that many in the country.  In fact, I don't see any reason he would allow any.  There's nothing political or financial in it for him.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly right and the rates of those granted asylum have been dropping for decades.
> 
> The truth is, they don't want any immigrants at all from the south. It's  more about keeping a white majority nation than anything else. None of them will admit that though.
Click to expand...


So even if that was the case, what's wrong with that?  Show me one race of people that would support being made a minority in their own country outside of Surrender First whites.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Rustic said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TahoeHorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snouter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Flopper illegal aliens criminals are really great and a model for the Western World to learn from.  They really care about humanity and stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> *Desperate people do desperate things. Refugees risk everything to crowd onto an unseaworthy boat for a 50/50 chance of making it to Europe.
> 
> Hondurans and Guatemalans cross two borders illegally and a thousands miles, mostly on foot to enter the US with less than a 40% chance of being granted asylum.  Why? Because the odds are even worse if they stay home.  Some people will consider them just criminals, mud people, the scum of the earth and others will see them as people that are willing to sacrifice everything for just a chance to become an American.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to find some countries which will take them.  I'll bet we could cut a deal with some places like Burkina Faso or Bangladesh to accept $1,000 plus a year's room and board in an optional refugee camp to admit them as refugees.  If Guatemala is dangerous they'll want to go to Burkina Faso.  If they're looking for economic improvement maybe not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People from Canada seem to be shooting of their mouths.  Let's ship them over there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No doubt, If they want those little fuckers so bad put their money where their mouth is
Click to expand...


Agreed.  They even came here to preach it's not nice to go to Canada uninvited.  They wanted to send a warning to those poor children they are not welcome in their country; STF in the USA.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

TemplarKormac said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing, Reverend Cornball, but "loving the strangers" doesn't require letting them invade and destroy our home.
> 
> I need no lessons in charity and compassion from asshats who think they both involve voting money out of other people's pockets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need lessons in basic humanity. But most You need to be exposed as a Russian troll who only masquerades as an American who opposes immigration. This encourages American citizens to violate their beliefs and their Constitution and to inflict harm on little children.
> 
> Deplorable doesn’t even begin to cover it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.
> 
> I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.
> 
> Case closed.  You're dismissed, puswad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse.
> 
> This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is being tortured.  Why do you on the left continue to use lies to try and make your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They use emotion to make their point, and most of the time fail miserably.
Click to expand...


Yes they are, but they think they are convincing people, so there is some humor in it.


----------



## Ame®icano

TemplarKormac said:


> They use emotion to make their point, and most of the time fail miserably.



BINGO.

Lefties do not care about those illegals. They haven't during Bush presidency, they didn't during Barry's presidency, they don't even care now.

Never did, never will. They loved the status quo, that gives them something to lose their mind over when opposing party is in power. They're good actors, I would say, but in the reality, they dont give a shit about those people.

The only reason they're screaming their lungs out is because someone (Trump) decided to address the problem and do something about it. What would they have to run on, or to complain about IF problem is solved?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Rustic said:


> These parents having these kids in these shit hole countries then trying to jump the fence into this country is inexcusable...



And begs the question: if things are so bad in the country you live, WTF did you have children in the first place?  How bad can it be if you are willing to bring more people into such a place?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Ame®icano said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really have no idea how much I'm laughing every time you parrot "ripping out of the arms of their parents".  At the point where it became literally impossible for you to use any phrase BUT that, it became farce.
> 
> You leftists are 100% responsible for this happening.  It was YOUR law; YOU insisted on it.  YOU screamed and hollered that it was "the only humane thing to do".  Now you flip on a dime and the complete opposite is "the only humane thing to do".  And you really, genuinely expect us all to gasp in horror on cue, because you're too piss-stupid to realize how obviously you've overplayed your hand.
> 
> Traumatize this, twerp.    No one gives a shit about your melodramatic hyperbole any more.
> 
> The parents are criminals, they're in jail pending hearing, and they're staying in jail pending hearing.  Period.  You can
> clutch your pearls and screech and wail to your heart's content; no one cares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really??  No one??  Not Franklin Graham who said this policy is wrong?
> 
> Clergy Condemns AG Justifying Family Separation With Bible
> 
> Religious Rights Of Border Detainees Under Scrutiny As Black Ministers Condemn Trump’s Baby Snatcher Immigration Policy
> 
> Faith Leaders Oppose Trump's Immigration Policy Of Separating Children From Parents
> 
> 8 Clergy Arrested to Stop Immigration Policies That Tear Families Apart:  Supporters Escalate Protests Demanding Release of Immigrant Rights Leader
> 
> Phoenix church hosts Father's Day rally to protest immigration policy separating migrant families
> 
> 
> Maybe no one cares but it looks like a whole lot of faith leaders do, as do their parishioners.
> 
> Trump is coldly, calculating that by causing lifetime, irreversible harm to toddlers, he can bully people to get get what he wants. This is leadership?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, goody for you.  You found a bunch of gloryhounds who are willing to suck up to leftists for media time.  I'll get right on treating them as "faith leaders" simply because YOU decided they were spokesmen for something.
> 
> LEFTISTS demanded that law.  You can parrot, "Trump's fault!  Trump's fault!" while cravenly ignoring this fact until your face turns blue, and I frankly hope you do.  But it's not going to make your posts any less ignorant and disgustingly false and it's not going to make anyone the slightest bit interested in being "shamed" because trash like you demands it.
> 
> You want to talk cold and calculating?  Let's start with the way you leftists demanded a law you had no desire or intention to see enforced, strictly to give yourselves cover to release illegal aliens into the population in job lots.  And then we'll move on to the way you're trying to shove the blame for your shit law onto anyone but yourselves, now that you can't use it any more.
> 
> No one here believes a word of your "ripping away!  *sob sob*" melodrama.  It's nothing but _faux_-rage.  And it's falling on deaf ears.  Next time, don't be such a bunch of disingenuous pusbags.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump could stop the separations of families with a phone call.
> 
> No amount of spin can change that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why he should do that? He's just continuing the same policy from previous presidents. That policy wasn't a problem to you lefties while Dubya and Barry were in the office, but NOW is a "yuge" problem.
Click to expand...


The reason it's a problem now and not during DumBama is because of the MSM.  The IG report came out casting more doubt on the integrity of the DOJ and FBI, and even more on the Mueller investigation.  

Can't let that info hoard the limelight.  Need to rile up the liberals to make a bigger issue to take our mind off of things like that.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote
> 
> If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.
> 
> Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.
> 
> So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.
> 
> How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, _separates_, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?
> 
> Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred?
> 
> Why all the emotion and no solution?


You are talking about 3 different things.

Unaccompanied minors.  Thay came without parents. This policy is not about them and has no effect on them,  so lets leave them out of the discussion.

That leaves two: parents coming with their kids and human traffickers.

Those are the onky obes affected by the new 100 percent policy.

We have always seperated kids when there is suspicion they arent related.  I trust that law enforcement and immigration officials and judges are well trained in ferreting out who is real and who isnt without needing to resort to this policy.

If you want solutions, what kind of solution is this?

If you want solutions why support this?

It is interesting how this has morphed.

First Sessions, Kelly and Trump decided they were going to implement it as a deterrent.  They stated that.  

Then it morphed and they blamed it on the Dems.

Then they started denying there was any such policy.

Now Trump is using these kids to attempt to extort legislation from the Dems while still blaming them for a situation he himself created.  He is using child abuse.  This is evil and I dont use thst word lightly.

Do you realize that in those facilities, the caretakers are not allowed to touch the children beyond attending ti their physical needs?  They can pick up a distraught toddler who wants her mommy, they cant hold her, they cant comfort her.  And she could be in there for months.  Wonder how damaging that is for a child?  Look up Romanian orphanages.


----------



## Rustic

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote
> 
> If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.
> 
> Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.
> 
> So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.
> 
> How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, _separates_, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?
> 
> Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred?
> 
> Why all the emotion and no solution?
> 
> 
> 
> You are talking about 3 different things.
> 
> Unaccompanied minors.  Thay came without parents. This policy is not about them and has no effect on them,  so lets leave them out of the discussion.
> 
> That leaves two: parents coming with their kids and human traffickers.
> 
> Those are the onky obes affected by the new 100 percent policy.
> 
> We have always seperated kids when there is suspicion they arent related.  I trust that law enforcement and immigration officials and judges are well trained in ferreting out who is real and who isnt without needing to resort to this policy.
> 
> If you want solutions, what kind of solution is this?
> 
> If you want solutions why support this?
> 
> It is interesting how this has morphed.
> 
> First Sessions, Kelly and Trump decided they were going to implement it as a deterrent.  They stated that.
> 
> Then it morphed and they blamed it on the Dems.
> 
> Then they started denying there was any such policy.
> 
> Now Trump is using these kids to attempt to extort legislation from the Dems while still blaming them for a situation he himself created.  He is using child abuse.  This is evil and I dont use thst word lightly.
> 
> Do you realize that in those facilities, the caretakers are not allowed to touch the children beyond attending ti their physical needs?  They can pick up a distraught toddler who wants her mommy, they cant hold her, they cant comfort her.  And she could be in there for months.  Wonder how damaging that is for a child?  Look up Romanian orphanages.
Click to expand...

These illegal aliens with their fucked up parents are taking advantage of this country. We will get nothing in return from these little fuckers


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I want families kept together unless there is a darn good reason to remove the child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what about all the parents sending their children alone across the frontier to be handled by complete strangers in hopes of getting them across the border? Have they not already broken up the family? Did they not already damage that precious bond between parent and child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bears repeating again
Click to expand...


Except that is another issue, that is not what this is about.  These are parents coming with their kids.


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's just it, dope. We don't let in everyone who applies for asylum. There is a process in place to make the determination on their "standing". Asylum applicants are not criminals and have a right to due process under the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and with the time and money spent, we could be doing better things for our country instead.  They come here knowing they don't have the qualifications to be granted asylum you dope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
> What the approval process is?
> What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
> Is that number trending up or down over time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Over the last 26 years we have granted asylum to 1.9 million people. That's only .5% of the US population.  The average is about 20,000/yr. 40% of those that apply and pass pre-screening are granted asylum after 3 to 6 mos of interviews and investigation. I seriously doubt that Trump would allow that many in the country.  In fact, I don't see any reason he would allow any.  There's nothing political or financial in it for him.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly right and the rates of those granted asylum have been dropping for decades.
> 
> The truth is, they don't want any immigrants at all from the south. It's  more about keeping a white majority nation than anything else. None of them will admit that though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So even if that was the case, what's wrong with that?  Show me one race of people that would support being made a minority in their own country outside of Surrender First whites.
Click to expand...

Is race more important than being American?


----------



## Flopper

Cecilie1200 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really have no idea how much I'm laughing every time you parrot "ripping out of the arms of their parents".  At the point where it became literally impossible for you to use any phrase BUT that, it became farce.
> 
> You leftists are 100% responsible for this happening.  It was YOUR law; YOU insisted on it.  YOU screamed and hollered that it was "the only humane thing to do".  Now you flip on a dime and the complete opposite is "the only humane thing to do".  And you really, genuinely expect us all to gasp in horror on cue, because you're too piss-stupid to realize how obviously you've overplayed your hand.
> 
> Traumatize this, twerp.    No one gives a shit about your melodramatic hyperbole any more.
> 
> The parents are criminals, they're in jail pending hearing, and they're staying in jail pending hearing.  Period.  You can
> clutch your pearls and screech and wail to your heart's content; no one cares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really??  No one??  Not Franklin Graham who said this policy is wrong?
> 
> Clergy Condemns AG Justifying Family Separation With Bible
> 
> Religious Rights Of Border Detainees Under Scrutiny As Black Ministers Condemn Trump’s Baby Snatcher Immigration Policy
> 
> Faith Leaders Oppose Trump's Immigration Policy Of Separating Children From Parents
> 
> 8 Clergy Arrested to Stop Immigration Policies That Tear Families Apart:  Supporters Escalate Protests Demanding Release of Immigrant Rights Leader
> 
> Phoenix church hosts Father's Day rally to protest immigration policy separating migrant families
> 
> 
> Maybe no one cares but it looks like a whole lot of faith leaders do, as do their parishioners.
> 
> Trump is coldly, calculating that by causing lifetime, irreversible harm to toddlers, he can bully people to get get what he wants. This is leadership?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, goody for you.  You found a bunch of gloryhounds who are willing to suck up to leftists for media time.  I'll get right on treating them as "faith leaders" simply because YOU decided they were spokesmen for something.
> 
> LEFTISTS demanded that law.  You can parrot, "Trump's fault!  Trump's fault!" while cravenly ignoring this fact until your face turns blue, and I frankly hope you do.  But it's not going to make your posts any less ignorant and disgustingly false and it's not going to make anyone the slightest bit interested in being "shamed" because trash like you demands it.
> 
> You want to talk cold and calculating?  Let's start with the way you leftists demanded a law you had no desire or intention to see enforced, strictly to give yourselves cover to release illegal aliens into the population in job lots.  And then we'll move on to the way you're trying to shove the blame for your shit law onto anyone but yourselves, now that you can't use it any more.
> 
> No one here believes a word of your "ripping away!  *sob sob*" melodrama.  It's nothing but _faux_-rage.  And it's falling on deaf ears.  Next time, don't be such a bunch of disingenuous pusbags.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump could stop the separations of families with a phone call.
> 
> No amount of spin can change that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, OBAMA would have thought he could change the law with a phone call, because HE thought he was God-Emperor of the Universe.  You need to catch the fuck up and realize that the President doesn't make the law, and isn't above the law, and if President Trump TRIED to act the way you're currently demanding, you'd be screaming bloody murder about him violating the law.
> 
> No amount of spin can change the fact that the only thing you're REALLY outraged about is the fact that Trump is President, and you can't make it stop being true.
Click to expand...

*There is no law that requires the administration to separate children from their parents during immigration detention and proceedings.  There are policies which can be change by the president with a phone call.  Obama did it and Trump did it and most probably every president for the last 25 years did it.

American immigration is regarded throughout the world as being one the most unjust systems of any modern nation.  Why? Because it's inconsistent, it is based on rules loosely derived from laws, which the president changes based on current politics.  Our immigration laws gives the administration huge latitudes in enforcement which each administration uses to it's own advantage.  

During the first half of the 20th century, our immigration system on the southern boarder was run on the honor system.  People moved freely back forth across the border.  The US focused on collecting duties.  

In 1950's under Eisenhower, the fear the communist menace resulted in a half million Latinos, some Mexican, some US citizens being rounded up, thrown into trucks, and dumped across the boarder.  Since boarder security was so lax any that wanted to come back just walked back across the boarder.  However, the welcome map had been withdrawn .  

Low levels of Mexicans crossing the boarder resulted in severe shortages of farm labor in the southwest.  So the welcome mat was once again displayed and Mexicans poured into the county.  

Reagan decide enough was enough and we are going to solve the illegal immigration problem once and for all by legalizing long term residents and for the first time securing our boarders.  3 million undocumented immigrants were legalized but boarder security never happened.  

Clinton began his term with the welcome mat out and Mexicans poured across the boarder.   In Clinton's 2nd term, deportations skyrocketed and the welcome mat was withdrawn, and for the first time every, we started to actually secure the boarder.  

Under Bush deportations continued but his administration focused on increasing boarder security which is largely credited with the fall in illegal crossings in the years to come.  

In Obama's first term, millions of Mexicans headed north with the recession driving unemployment through the roof.  Obama, having no choice began a huge deportation effort largely covered up by the financial news.  Then in his 2nd term he abruptly stopped deportations and then he starts them up again. However, during his term in office he deported 2.5 million people. By the end his term boarder security had reached a new high, with hundreds of miles of new fencing, over 10,000 additional border patrol.  Improvements in the Mexican economy and better security brought illegal boarder crossings to a new low of 170,000. 

Now Trump takes office.  Once again the welcome mat is withdrawn and every illegal in country is going to be deported.  What do you bet the welcome mat goes out again within the next 4 years.             *


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really have no idea how much I'm laughing every time you parrot "ripping out of the arms of their parents".  At the point where it became literally impossible for you to use any phrase BUT that, it became farce.
> 
> You leftists are 100% responsible for this happening.  It was YOUR law; YOU insisted on it.  YOU screamed and hollered that it was "the only humane thing to do".  Now you flip on a dime and the complete opposite is "the only humane thing to do".  And you really, genuinely expect us all to gasp in horror on cue, because you're too piss-stupid to realize how obviously you've overplayed your hand.
> 
> Traumatize this, twerp.    No one gives a shit about your melodramatic hyperbole any more.
> 
> The parents are criminals, they're in jail pending hearing, and they're staying in jail pending hearing.  Period.  You can
> clutch your pearls and screech and wail to your heart's content; no one cares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really??  No one??  Not Franklin Graham who said this policy is wrong?
> 
> Clergy Condemns AG Justifying Family Separation With Bible
> 
> Religious Rights Of Border Detainees Under Scrutiny As Black Ministers Condemn Trump’s Baby Snatcher Immigration Policy
> 
> Faith Leaders Oppose Trump's Immigration Policy Of Separating Children From Parents
> 
> 8 Clergy Arrested to Stop Immigration Policies That Tear Families Apart:  Supporters Escalate Protests Demanding Release of Immigrant Rights Leader
> 
> Phoenix church hosts Father's Day rally to protest immigration policy separating migrant families
> 
> 
> Maybe no one cares but it looks like a whole lot of faith leaders do, as do their parishioners.
> 
> Trump is coldly, calculating that by causing lifetime, irreversible harm to toddlers, he can bully people to get get what he wants. This is leadership?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, goody for you.  You found a bunch of gloryhounds who are willing to suck up to leftists for media time.  I'll get right on treating them as "faith leaders" simply because YOU decided they were spokesmen for something.
> 
> LEFTISTS demanded that law.  You can parrot, "Trump's fault!  Trump's fault!" while cravenly ignoring this fact until your face turns blue, and I frankly hope you do.  But it's not going to make your posts any less ignorant and disgustingly false and it's not going to make anyone the slightest bit interested in being "shamed" because trash like you demands it.
> 
> You want to talk cold and calculating?  Let's start with the way you leftists demanded a law you had no desire or intention to see enforced, strictly to give yourselves cover to release illegal aliens into the population in job lots.  And then we'll move on to the way you're trying to shove the blame for your shit law onto anyone but yourselves, now that you can't use it any more.
> 
> No one here believes a word of your "ripping away!  *sob sob*" melodrama.  It's nothing but _faux_-rage.  And it's falling on deaf ears.  Next time, don't be such a bunch of disingenuous pusbags.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump could stop the separations of families with a phone call.
> 
> No amount of spin can change that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why he should do that? He's just continuing the same policy from previous presidents. That policy wasn't a problem to you lefties while Dubya and Barry were in the office, but NOW is a "yuge" problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason it's a problem now and not during DumBama is because of the MSM.  The IG report came out casting more doubt on the integrity of the DOJ and FBI, and even more on the Mueller investigation.
> 
> Can't let that info hoard the limelight.  Need to rile up the liberals to make a bigger issue to take our mind off of things like that.
Click to expand...

Thr IG report found no evidence of political bias.


----------



## karpenter

*What human cost is acceptable in controlling illegal immigration?*

What Human Cost Is Acceptable In NOT Controlling Illegal Immigration ??
If Deporting All Illegal Aliens Saves Even ONE Life
Then All Their _Inconvenience_ Is Worth It


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I want families kept together unless there is a darn good reason to remove the child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what about all the parents sending their children alone across the frontier to be handled by complete strangers in hopes of getting them across the border? Have they not already broken up the family? Did they not already damage that precious bond between parent and child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bears repeating again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that is another issue, that is not what this is about.  These are parents coming with their kids.
Click to expand...

Intriguing...

How is that a separate issue?


----------



## Rustic

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and with the time and money spent, we could be doing better things for our country instead.  They come here knowing they don't have the qualifications to be granted asylum you dope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
> What the approval process is?
> What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
> Is that number trending up or down over time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Over the last 26 years we have granted asylum to 1.9 million people. That's only .5% of the US population.  The average is about 20,000/yr. 40% of those that apply and pass pre-screening are granted asylum after 3 to 6 mos of interviews and investigation. I seriously doubt that Trump would allow that many in the country.  In fact, I don't see any reason he would allow any.  There's nothing political or financial in it for him.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly right and the rates of those granted asylum have been dropping for decades.
> 
> The truth is, they don't want any immigrants at all from the south. It's  more about keeping a white majority nation than anything else. None of them will admit that though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So even if that was the case, what's wrong with that?  Show me one race of people that would support being made a minority in their own country outside of Surrender First whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is race more important than being American?
Click to expand...

Being an individual is the most important thing… Fuck the collective


----------



## TahoeHorn

I favor a variant of the Australian approach:
How Australia's migrant policy works - and is it transferable to the Mediterranean?
We could use some place like Haiti (I'm sure they'd cooperate for the right price).


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I want families kept together unless there is a darn good reason to remove the child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what about all the parents sending their children alone across the frontier to be handled by complete strangers in hopes of getting them across the border? Have they not already broken up the family? Did they not already damage that precious bond between parent and child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bears repeating again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that is another issue, that is not what this is about.  These are parents coming with their kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intruguing...
> 
> How is that a separate issue?
Click to expand...

Becsuse the policy does not apply to them.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and with the time and money spent, we could be doing better things for our country instead.  They come here knowing they don't have the qualifications to be granted asylum you dope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
> What the approval process is?
> What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
> Is that number trending up or down over time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Over the last 26 years we have granted asylum to 1.9 million people. That's only .5% of the US population.  The average is about 20,000/yr. 40% of those that apply and pass pre-screening are granted asylum after 3 to 6 mos of interviews and investigation. I seriously doubt that Trump would allow that many in the country.  In fact, I don't see any reason he would allow any.  There's nothing political or financial in it for him.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly right and the rates of those granted asylum have been dropping for decades.
> 
> The truth is, they don't want any immigrants at all from the south. It's  more about keeping a white majority nation than anything else. None of them will admit that though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So even if that was the case, what's wrong with that?  Show me one race of people that would support being made a minority in their own country outside of Surrender First whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is race more important than being American?
Click to expand...


Both are important, especially if you are the race the Democrats want to wipe out.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Hutch Starskey said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your “tolerant based” cries are just plain comical.
> You fools realize that ALL detained criminals are separated from their children....RIGHT?
> And you realize they’re seperated as a result of their own actions...RIGHT?
> Were none of you fools ever taught cause and effect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Knowing you can’t qualify for a asylum…And trying anyway knowing you’ll be separated from your children…Should be a crime though...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither applying for asylum nor being denied asylum is a crime. Children should not be separated in either case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha...oh I get it now. You want to believe the cockroaches from Mexico, Central and South America can quality for asylum?
> You realize that whether applying for asylum or not,  an illegal alien standing on American soil is a federal criminal...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone can apply and 40% of applicants are granted asylum. Prosecuting them is not required. It is done as a matter of policy.
Click to expand...


Nice conflation.  How many of those applicants went about it the proper way, and how many swarmed across the border first chance they got, and only mentioned asylum when they got caught and arrested?


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
> What the approval process is?
> What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
> Is that number trending up or down over time?
> 
> 
> 
> *Over the last 26 years we have granted asylum to 1.9 million people. That's only .5% of the US population.  The average is about 20,000/yr. 40% of those that apply and pass pre-screening are granted asylum after 3 to 6 mos of interviews and investigation. I seriously doubt that Trump would allow that many in the country.  In fact, I don't see any reason he would allow any.  There's nothing political or financial in it for him.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly right and the rates of those granted asylum have been dropping for decades.
> 
> The truth is, they don't want any immigrants at all from the south. It's  more about keeping a white majority nation than anything else. None of them will admit that though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So even if that was the case, what's wrong with that?  Show me one race of people that would support being made a minority in their own country outside of Surrender First whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is race more important than being American?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both are important, especially if you are the race the Democrats want to wipe out.
Click to expand...

No one is trying to wipe out any race.  Can you get any nuttier
?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing, Reverend Cornball, but "loving the strangers" doesn't require letting them invade and destroy our home.
> 
> I need no lessons in charity and compassion from asshats who think they both involve voting money out of other people's pockets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need lessons in basic humanity. But most You need to be exposed as a Russian troll who only masquerades as an American who opposes immigration. This encourages American citizens to violate their beliefs and their Constitution and to inflict harm on little children.
> 
> Deplorable doesn’t even begin to cover it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.
> 
> I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.
> 
> Case closed.  You're dismissed, puswad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse.
> 
> This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well isn't that the most bullshit thing I've heard today? Not to mention that it was an incredible low blow.
> 
> Accusing someone of torturing children and then accusing someone else of cheering while it happens? Nobody is cheering this. But you are cheering the abuse of our laws. Yes, yes you are. There are consequences to every action. Coming here illegally automatically qualifies you as a criminal.
> 
> You are also claiming that someone is being immoral for supposedly cheering for the torture and abuse of children while ignoring the fact that that in most cases, the torture and abuse has already occurred, perpetrated by the parents who remain behind while they send a helpless child alone on a perilous journey to our southern border.
> 
> Don't bother.
> 
> I'm developing a knack for calling people out on their bullshit on this board, and I therefore rate your post:
> 
> TOTAL, COMPLETE, AND UTTER BULLSHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are cheering for it to happen. This is one of those things that is so morally heinous and wrong that simply doing nothing is just as wrong as the crime. You’re allowing it to happen.
> 
> This isn’t bullshit. This is a moral crisis. Children are being harmed. Deliberately and with malice aforethought. Trump could stop it with a phone call. Why aren’t you demanding that he do so?
Click to expand...


This is a steaming pile of horseshit.


----------



## Flopper

TahoeHorn said:


> I'm interested in hearing proposals from people who support the objective of preventing illegal immigration, and want a more humane treatment of children (all people really) but still retains the objective of preventing all illegal immigration.  I'm unclear when this concern for children is merely an excuse to oppose aggressive efforts to stop illegal immigration.  If we fix the problem with children does that get their support for the measure, or will they just come up with a new complaint.
> 
> I am not suggesting that the problem should not be addressed because many of the proponents of fixing it are disingenuous. But I am curious to know which complaints are from supporters of Trump's overall objective.


*I suggest, you start a new thread on this topic.  You'll get better results.

However, there is plenty that can done to reducing illegal immigration and treating people fairly and humanly but it all starts with immigration reform.  Our laws allows the president huge latitude in enforcement and entry requirements and ever administration uses it to it's own political advantage.  The current administration wants to prove it's tough on illegals.  The last administration wanted to show it was humane.  What is needed is consistency and fairness in enforcement, humane treatment, and entry requirements.  If we do this we see sanctuary cities disappearing, the number of illegal crossing falling, and we be well on our way toward a real lasting solution. *


----------



## Cecilie1200

Hutch Starskey said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Putting innocent children in jail with adults is a really bad idea, are Democrats dumb or something?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't put the adults in jail then. Duh.
Click to expand...


And there we have it:  the REAL motivation here.  The kids are just a shield to hide behind, a tool to use to advance your agenda.

Don't ever wonder why everyone pisses all over your bullshit claims of "concern" and "outrage" and "compassion".  We all knew this is what you were REALLY about long before you admitted it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Hutch Starskey said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing, Reverend Cornball, but "loving the strangers" doesn't require letting them invade and destroy our home.
> 
> I need no lessons in charity and compassion from asshats who think they both involve voting money out of other people's pockets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need lessons in basic humanity. But most You need to be exposed as a Russian troll who only masquerades as an American who opposes immigration. This encourages American citizens to violate their beliefs and their Constitution and to inflict harm on little children.
> 
> Deplorable doesn’t even begin to cover it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.
> 
> I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.
> 
> Case closed.  You're dismissed, puswad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse.
> 
> This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are illegal aliens, they have no constitutional rights. Who gives a fucking shit about them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> Asylum seekers have a constitutional right to due process of their claim. Making that process criminal is decidedly unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


No one has made seeking asylum criminal, you outrageous frigging liar.


----------



## candycorn

Ame®icano said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Kondor3 did when he put racial slurs into it.  Please walk into a chicano bar and start calling people "beaner"....I'd love to be there when you do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a racial slur, dunce.
> 
> You could call it derisive, but derisive has nothing to do with race.
> 
> If is up to your standards, "deplorable" is racist term. Is it?
> 
> The thing with you lefties (now that's derisive) is that you demand we prove that our views are valid to your criteria and working within arbitrary frame that you set up that a priori rule out our viewpoint.
> 
> You "feel" that something is "racist". Since we don't give a fuck about your "feelings", it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...deplorable doesn't indict people based on the color of their skin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is beaner. It's a slur for a Mexican.
> 
> Again, what race is Mexican?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know Mexico is a country.  Mexcian isn't a race.
> Are you high?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do know, and since Mexican isn't a race, "beaner" is not a racial slur, as you insist.
Click to expand...


Again, please walk into a chicano bar and let them explain to you how pleasant the word is.


----------



## Coyote

karpenter said:


> *What human cost is acceptable in controlling illegal immigration?*
> 
> What Human Cost Is Acceptable In NOT Controlling Illegal Immigration ??
> If Deporting All Illegal Aliens Saves Even ONE Life
> Then All Their _Inconvenience_ Is Worth It


wow...first time I have heard child abuse described as an "inconvenience"....you take the cake dude.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Over the last 26 years we have granted asylum to 1.9 million people. That's only .5% of the US population.  The average is about 20,000/yr. 40% of those that apply and pass pre-screening are granted asylum after 3 to 6 mos of interviews and investigation. I seriously doubt that Trump would allow that many in the country.  In fact, I don't see any reason he would allow any.  There's nothing political or financial in it for him.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right and the rates of those granted asylum have been dropping for decades.
> 
> The truth is, they don't want any immigrants at all from the south. It's  more about keeping a white majority nation than anything else. None of them will admit that though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So even if that was the case, what's wrong with that?  Show me one race of people that would support being made a minority in their own country outside of Surrender First whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is race more important than being American?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both are important, especially if you are the race the Democrats want to wipe out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is trying to wipe out any race.  Can you get any nuttier
> ?
Click to expand...


That's exactly what they are trying to do; not in a genocidal way, but a political way. 

Every group outside of whites vote a majority Democrat.  Middle-easterners vote a majority Democrat.  Asians vote a majority Democrat.  Jewish vote a majority Democrat. Hispanics very much vote a majority Democrat.  Blacks?  Forget about it.  

Why do you suppose the left is fighting the wall, Kate's Law, Sanctuary cities?  Their goal is to make whites a minority for the first time in our history to help insure a one-party country forever.  They want to do this ASAP.  

The game plan is to load this country with as many (legal or illegal) minorities as they can, and once they regain power, grant them citizenship.  With citizenship comes the right to vote, and the great experiment will finally end.  

Do I want to prevent this?  You bet I do.


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right and the rates of those granted asylum have been dropping for decades.
> 
> The truth is, they don't want any immigrants at all from the south. It's  more about keeping a white majority nation than anything else. None of them will admit that though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So even if that was the case, what's wrong with that?  Show me one race of people that would support being made a minority in their own country outside of Surrender First whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is race more important than being American?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both are important, especially if you are the race the Democrats want to wipe out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is trying to wipe out any race.  Can you get any nuttier
> ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what they are trying to do; not in a genocidal way, but a political way.
> 
> Every group outside of whites vote a majority Democrat.  Middle-easterners vote a majority Democrat.  Asians vote a majority Democrat.  Jewish vote a majority Democrat. Hispanics very much vote a majority Democrat.  Blacks?  Forget about it.
> 
> Why do you suppose the left is fighting the wall, Kate's Law, Sanctuary cities?  Their goal is to make whites a minority for the first time in our history to help insure a one-party country forever.  They want to do this ASAP.
> 
> The game plan is to load this country with as many (legal or illegal) minorities as they can, and once they regain power, grant them citizenship.  With citizenship comes the right to vote, and the great experiment will finally end.
> 
> Do I want to prevent this?  You bet I do.
Click to expand...

I think you read to many conspiracy theories.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I want families kept together unless there is a darn good reason to remove the child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what about all the parents sending their children alone across the frontier to be handled by complete strangers in hopes of getting them across the border? Have they not already broken up the family? Did they not already damage that precious bond between parent and child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bears repeating again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that is another issue, that is not what this is about.  These are parents coming with their kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intriguing...
> 
> How is that a separate issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the policy does not apply to them.
Click to expand...

But the inference was that the children were being separated from their parents in every case. You never acknowledged that the majority of the children came here alone. You don't acknowledge that some of these "parents" are in fact NOT parents who use them as a means to get across the border themselves. They essentially abandon these children at the first sight of trouble.

So,  what is this really about? Compassion? I seriously doubt it. Nobody showed any to these children when they sent them here/ brought them here to be used as bargaining chips.

You probably want compassion to completely overrule the law.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So even if that was the case, what's wrong with that?  Show me one race of people that would support being made a minority in their own country outside of Surrender First whites.
> 
> 
> 
> Is race more important than being American?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both are important, especially if you are the race the Democrats want to wipe out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is trying to wipe out any race.  Can you get any nuttier
> ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what they are trying to do; not in a genocidal way, but a political way.
> 
> Every group outside of whites vote a majority Democrat.  Middle-easterners vote a majority Democrat.  Asians vote a majority Democrat.  Jewish vote a majority Democrat. Hispanics very much vote a majority Democrat.  Blacks?  Forget about it.
> 
> Why do you suppose the left is fighting the wall, Kate's Law, Sanctuary cities?  Their goal is to make whites a minority for the first time in our history to help insure a one-party country forever.  They want to do this ASAP.
> 
> The game plan is to load this country with as many (legal or illegal) minorities as they can, and once they regain power, grant them citizenship.  With citizenship comes the right to vote, and the great experiment will finally end.
> 
> Do I want to prevent this?  You bet I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you read to many conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...


I think you need to look at the man behind the curtain.  Kate's Law would have given illegals a minimum five year prison sentence to foreign felons previously deported if they returned.  If that's not the Democrat plan, then why would Democrats have stopped it?  

Let  me tell you, if minorities were renown to vote Republican, that wall would have been built during Carter and they would have created such harsh laws against invaders it would be much more inhumane than what you are seeing today.


----------



## Ame®icano

candycorn said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a racial slur, dunce.
> 
> You could call it derisive, but derisive has nothing to do with race.
> 
> If is up to your standards, "deplorable" is racist term. Is it?
> 
> The thing with you lefties (now that's derisive) is that you demand we prove that our views are valid to your criteria and working within arbitrary frame that you set up that a priori rule out our viewpoint.
> 
> You "feel" that something is "racist". Since we don't give a fuck about your "feelings", it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No...deplorable doesn't indict people based on the color of their skin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is beaner. It's a slur for a Mexican.
> 
> Again, what race is Mexican?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know Mexico is a country.  Mexcian isn't a race.
> Are you high?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do know, and since Mexican isn't a race, "beaner" is not a racial slur, as you insist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, please walk into a chicano bar and let them explain to you how pleasant the word is.
Click to expand...


The thing with you, just as most of you on the left is that when can explain your reasoning or give an argument, you pull out the race card. Reason is simple, you don't have an argument, and race card is all you have left. Just like a ketchup, you're stick it to anything. 

You wanna call it an insult, than call it an insult. Still, it's not racial slur, period.


----------



## candycorn

Ame®icano said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...deplorable doesn't indict people based on the color of their skin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is beaner. It's a slur for a Mexican.
> 
> Again, what race is Mexican?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know Mexico is a country.  Mexcian isn't a race.
> Are you high?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do know, and since Mexican isn't a race, "beaner" is not a racial slur, as you insist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, please walk into a chicano bar and let them explain to you how pleasant the word is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing with you, just as most of you on the left is that when can explain your reasoning or give an argument, you pull out the race card. Reason is simple, you don't have an argument, and race card is all you have left. Just like a ketchup, you're stick it to anything.
> 
> You wanna call it an insult, than call it an insult. Still, it's not racial slur, period.
Click to expand...


Its an insult based on skin color….hence racial slur.  I’m sure that Trumpians like yourself aren’t interested in the fine distinctions between Hondurans, Nicaraguans, Mexicans, etc…..


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are cheering for it to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you said one word against this policy?  Have you called your Congressman or Senator?  Emailed or written the WH?
> 
> Have you said or done ANYTHING to stop your President from torturing and abusing children, some as young as 2, as a political ploy. If not, you are cheering him on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even Melania Trump has publically condemned her husband’s policy.
Click to expand...


Yes, and I'm very sure you've been a huge advocate for Melania's involvement in policy prior to this.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Hutch Starskey said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing, Reverend Cornball, but "loving the strangers" doesn't require letting them invade and destroy our home.
> 
> I need no lessons in charity and compassion from asshats who think they both involve voting money out of other people's pockets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need lessons in basic humanity. But most You need to be exposed as a Russian troll who only masquerades as an American who opposes immigration. This encourages American citizens to violate their beliefs and their Constitution and to inflict harm on little children.
> 
> Deplorable doesn’t even begin to cover it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.
> 
> I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.
> 
> Case closed.  You're dismissed, puswad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse.
> 
> This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this all you can say? Are you so wrapped up in emotion you're willing to claim someone supports child abuse purely because they disagree with you politically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You certainly aren't  in opposition in this case.
Click to expand...

Ha. Of what? Child abuse? That's weaksauce man. 

My father was a victim of child abuse,  he routinely told me horror stories. He was molested by his brother and beaten with a crossiron. He was starved, and his father tried to kill him. 

No. Don't you dare insinuate that I support child abuse. None of what our President does to these children comes remotely close to that level of child abuse. Nor does it rise to the level of child abuse at all.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Hutch Starskey said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing, Reverend Cornball, but "loving the strangers" doesn't require letting them invade and destroy our home.
> 
> I need no lessons in charity and compassion from asshats who think they both involve voting money out of other people's pockets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need lessons in basic humanity. But most You need to be exposed as a Russian troll who only masquerades as an American who opposes immigration. This encourages American citizens to violate their beliefs and their Constitution and to inflict harm on little children.
> 
> Deplorable doesn’t even begin to cover it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.
> 
> I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.
> 
> Case closed.  You're dismissed, puswad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse.
> 
> This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are illegal aliens, they have no constitutional rights. Who gives a fucking shit about them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> Asylum seekers have a constitutional right to due process of their claim. Making that process criminal is decidedly unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Yeah they do, but do they have a right to abuse the system?


----------



## Ame®icano

Lefties are saying: "But, it's different when we do it... and it's thing of the past. Who cares about the past hypocrisy?"



> In fiscal year 2013, under the Barack Obama administration, the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) had as many as 25,000 unaccompanied children in its care across 80 shelters, according to a July 2014 article in _Mother Jones._
> 
> The number represented a huge jump from 2011, when the ORR had just 53 shelters housing 6,560 kids.





> The surge in the number of children being taken into custody was so unexpected that federal immigration authorities temporarily placed children in emergency dormitories at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, _Mother Jones _reported.
> 
> At the time, the dramatic increase in the number of unaccompanied children arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border had "reached a crisis proportion" by June 2014, with a 90 percent surge in arrivals from 2013, according to Migration Policy.



*Obama held more than double of number of children in shelters compared to Trump White House*


----------



## Ame®icano

candycorn said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is beaner. It's a slur for a Mexican.
> 
> Again, what race is Mexican?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know Mexico is a country.  Mexcian isn't a race.
> Are you high?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do know, and since Mexican isn't a race, "beaner" is not a racial slur, as you insist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, please walk into a chicano bar and let them explain to you how pleasant the word is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing with you, just as most of you on the left is that when can explain your reasoning or give an argument, you pull out the race card. Reason is simple, you don't have an argument, and race card is all you have left. Just like a ketchup, you're stick it to anything.
> 
> You wanna call it an insult, than call it an insult. Still, it's not racial slur, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an insult based on skin color….hence racial slur.  I’m sure that Trumpians like yourself aren’t interested in the fine distinctions between Hondurans, Nicaraguans, Mexicans, etc…..
Click to expand...


No it's not.

You wishing it's a racial slur doesn't make it one. It's a derisive term which refers to Mexicans, and it's based on country of origin.

By the way, since you mentioned, what skin color Mexicans have, please?


----------



## candycorn

Ame®icano said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know Mexico is a country.  Mexcian isn't a race.
> Are you high?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do know, and since Mexican isn't a race, "beaner" is not a racial slur, as you insist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, please walk into a chicano bar and let them explain to you how pleasant the word is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing with you, just as most of you on the left is that when can explain your reasoning or give an argument, you pull out the race card. Reason is simple, you don't have an argument, and race card is all you have left. Just like a ketchup, you're stick it to anything.
> 
> You wanna call it an insult, than call it an insult. Still, it's not racial slur, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an insult based on skin color….hence racial slur.  I’m sure that Trumpians like yourself aren’t interested in the fine distinctions between Hondurans, Nicaraguans, Mexicans, etc…..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not.
> 
> You wishing it's a racial slur doesn't make it one. It's a derisive term which refers to Mexicans, and it's based on country of origin.
> 
> By the way, since you mentioned, what skin color Mexicans have, please?
Click to expand...


Now that is funny…

Yeah…someone like you who calls people “beaners” as a sign of affection makes a distinction between Mexicans and other latinos.  Riiiight.


----------



## Ame®icano

candycorn said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do know, and since Mexican isn't a race, "beaner" is not a racial slur, as you insist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, please walk into a chicano bar and let them explain to you how pleasant the word is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing with you, just as most of you on the left is that when can explain your reasoning or give an argument, you pull out the race card. Reason is simple, you don't have an argument, and race card is all you have left. Just like a ketchup, you're stick it to anything.
> 
> You wanna call it an insult, than call it an insult. Still, it's not racial slur, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an insult based on skin color….hence racial slur.  I’m sure that Trumpians like yourself aren’t interested in the fine distinctions between Hondurans, Nicaraguans, Mexicans, etc…..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not.
> 
> You wishing it's a racial slur doesn't make it one. It's a derisive term which refers to Mexicans, and it's based on country of origin.
> 
> By the way, since you mentioned, what skin color Mexicans have, please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that is funny…
> 
> Yeah…someone like you who calls people “beaners” as a sign of affection makes a distinction between Mexicans and other latinos.  Riiiight.
Click to expand...


Someone like me?

Nope, I did not call anyone a beaner, I joined the conversation to explain to you that beaner is not a racial slur. I don't use slurs on anyone but on leftist dumb fucks.

Now, since you do know the distinction, why don't you answer the question: What skin color Mexicans have?

Or you gonna act dumb and dodge it again...


----------



## candycorn

Ame®icano said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, please walk into a chicano bar and let them explain to you how pleasant the word is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing with you, just as most of you on the left is that when can explain your reasoning or give an argument, you pull out the race card. Reason is simple, you don't have an argument, and race card is all you have left. Just like a ketchup, you're stick it to anything.
> 
> You wanna call it an insult, than call it an insult. Still, it's not racial slur, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an insult based on skin color….hence racial slur.  I’m sure that Trumpians like yourself aren’t interested in the fine distinctions between Hondurans, Nicaraguans, Mexicans, etc…..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not.
> 
> You wishing it's a racial slur doesn't make it one. It's a derisive term which refers to Mexicans, and it's based on country of origin.
> 
> By the way, since you mentioned, what skin color Mexicans have, please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that is funny…
> 
> Yeah…someone like you who calls people “beaners” as a sign of affection makes a distinction between Mexicans and other latinos.  Riiiight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone like me?
> Nope, I did not call anyone a beaner, I joined the conversation to explain to you that beaner is not a racial slur.
> Now, since you do know the distinction, why don't you answer the question: What skin color Mexicans have?
> Or you gonna act dumb and dodge it again...
Click to expand...


Have you/will you  gone/go  into a chicano bar and called the bartender a beaner and shown how much you love the race?  

Are you going to dodge the question or answer it?


----------



## BrokeLoser

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Over the last 26 years we have granted asylum to 1.9 million people. That's only .5% of the US population.  The average is about 20,000/yr. 40% of those that apply and pass pre-screening are granted asylum after 3 to 6 mos of interviews and investigation. I seriously doubt that Trump would allow that many in the country.  In fact, I don't see any reason he would allow any.  There's nothing political or financial in it for him.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right and the rates of those granted asylum have been dropping for decades.
> 
> The truth is, they don't want any immigrants at all from the south. It's  more about keeping a white majority nation than anything else. None of them will admit that though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So even if that was the case, what's wrong with that?  Show me one race of people that would support being made a minority in their own country outside of Surrender First whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is race more important than being American?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both are important, especially if you are the race the Democrats want to wipe out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is trying to wipe out any race.  Can you get any nuttier
> ?
Click to expand...


Lefties have trouble looking past their nose. Anybody sane sees exactly what’s happening.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Obviously, we need to cut through the rhetorical bullshit one more time.

1)  The rules about detaining children HAVE NOT changed.  Trump IS NOT doing anything new in regards to detaining children.  The government has been required to release children from detention within 20 days ever since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals extended the Flores Consent Decree (aka the Flores Settlement) to include accompanied minors in 2016.  What Trump has changed is how we deal with adults.  Where Obama used the Flores Settlement and the accompanying Ninth Circuit ruling as an excuse to give adults a free pass if they could claim to be part of a family unit, Trump is insisting on treating those adults like the criminals they are.

2)  Separation of children from adults happens only in three cases:  if the adult is not the child's parent, if the adult is a threat to the child, or if the adult is put into criminal proceedings.  In other words, the exact same circumstances under which a child would be taken from an adult even among our own citizenry.

3)  When an illegal is prosecuted, he is taken into custody by the US Marshals.  The US Marshals do not, EVER, take care of the children of people they take into custody, no matter who that person is or what they're being arrested for.  Just as with anyone in this situation, the children are taken custody of by HHS, which cares for them in temporary shelters until they know whether the adult will be deported or will apply for asylum.

4)  Assuming the illegal has not committed another crime, the criminal proceedings are short.  Usually, the illegal pleads guilty, they are sentenced to time served, and they are returned to ICE.  This typically happens in one day.  At that point, the adult is reunited with the child, and the whole kit and kaboodle are deported back to where they came from.  If the adult is truly concerned about being separated from the child, they can easily put an end to it.

5)  The separation only becomes extended if the illegal immigrant himself chooses to make it so by applying for asylum.  THAT procedure pretty much always takes longer than the government is allowed, by law, to hold the child.  When that time limit is reached, the child is placed with a responsible party.  Quite often, that is a relative or friend of the illegal immigrant, because illegal immigrants often have connections to people who are already in the country.

6)  If the adult is held while their asylum claim is processed, it is likely to go through the system much more quickly, a couple of months as opposed to dragging on for years.  If the adult is released into the population, he is highly unlikely to return for his court dates.  We know this from experience.

7)  There is no reason whatsoever for someone who is legitimately looking for asylum to cross the border illegally.  They have only to approach a port of entry and state their desire for asylum.  They are NOT arrested when they do this, and not separated from their children.  The fact that border crossings dried up at the beginning of the Trump administration and only started again when rumors went around that the policy on the border had not changed indicates that the vast majority of these people are NOT refugees fleeing persecution, but simply prefer the economic benefits of being in the US.

8)  In April, the _New York Times_ reported:

_Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.

Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing._

"It is common to have parents entrust their children to a smuggler as a favor or for profit.” - azcentral.com

But since our policies have favored family units over single adults, we have created an incentive to put children in peril.  How can anyone who claims to care about the well-being of these children advocate policies which encourage their endangerment?

9)  Congress has the power to change all of this by one simple vote.  They can pass a law overruling the Flores Settlement; they can pass a law mandating family detention, and providing funding to make it possible.  So why is it that the only bill that has been introduced in Congress to address this situation has come from the Republicans, who are being vilified, and the Democrats are too busy grandstanding for the media to propose anything at all?


----------



## candycorn

I guess he’s out dodging the question….


----------



## Flopper

TahoeHorn said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------  stop ALL immigration .   Why the heck do you want more third world imported people in the USA which already has 310 million people and thats not counting 20 to 40 million illegals in the USA  THorn .
> 
> 
> 
> I support immigration of very high talent individuals from wherever.  I oppose immigration of low talent individuals.
> 
> Where do you get that stat of 20MM- 40MM illegals?
Click to expand...

*Then things have to change.  World class students come to this country for an education and graduate in the top 5% of their class. You would think US employers would be lining up to interview them but that is usually not the case.  Most of these students will return home an accept high paying jobs, often from companies that competing with US companies.

The problem is our immigration laws make it easy for students to get a great education at top US college but after graduation, the law expects them to take their knowledge and skills home within 60 days.  *


----------



## Billo_Really

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


Trump and Sessions, are pieces of shit humans.  They are the absolute worst of what this country has to offer.  And you can throw those kiss-ass republicans right along with them.  Trump and his dumbass minions are extremists.  They make up only 10% of the population.  We need  3rd party candidates to deal with these pricks, because the democrats are not the answer.


----------



## Flopper

Cecilie1200 said:


> Obviously, we need to cut through the rhetorical bullshit one more time.
> 
> 1)  The rules about detaining children HAVE NOT changed.  Trump IS NOT doing anything new in regards to detaining children.  The government has been required to release children from detention within 20 days ever since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals extended the Flores Consent Decree (aka the Flores Settlement) to include accompanied minors in 2016.  What Trump has changed is how we deal with adults.  Where Obama used the Flores Settlement and the accompanying Ninth Circuit ruling as an excuse to give adults a free pass if they could claim to be part of a family unit, Trump is insisting on treating those adults like the criminals they are.
> 
> 2)  Separation of children from adults happens only in three cases:  if the adult is not the child's parent, if the adult is a threat to the child, or if the adult is put into criminal proceedings.  In other words, the exact same circumstances under which a child would be taken from an adult even among our own citizenry.
> 
> 3)  When an illegal is prosecuted, he is taken into custody by the US Marshals.  The US Marshals do not, EVER, take care of the children of people they take into custody, no matter who that person is or what they're being arrested for.  Just as with anyone in this situation, the children are taken custody of by HHS, which cares for them in temporary shelters until they know whether the adult will be deported or will apply for asylum.
> 
> 4)  Assuming the illegal has not committed another crime, the criminal proceedings are short.  Usually, the illegal pleads guilty, they are sentenced to time served, and they are returned to ICE.  This typically happens in one day.  At that point, the adult is reunited with the child, and the whole kit and kaboodle are deported back to where they came from.  If the adult is truly concerned about being separated from the child, they can easily put an end to it.
> 
> 5)  The separation only becomes extended if the illegal immigrant himself chooses to make it so by applying for asylum.  THAT procedure pretty much always takes longer than the government is allowed, by law, to hold the child.  When that time limit is reached, the child is placed with a responsible party.  Quite often, that is a relative or friend of the illegal immigrant, because illegal immigrants often have connections to people who are already in the country.
> 
> 6)  If the adult is held while their asylum claim is processed, it is likely to go through the system much more quickly, a couple of months as opposed to dragging on for years.  If the adult is released into the population, he is highly unlikely to return for his court dates.  We know this from experience.
> 
> 7)  There is no reason whatsoever for someone who is legitimately looking for asylum to cross the border illegally.  They have only to approach a port of entry and state their desire for asylum.  They are NOT arrested when they do this, and not separated from their children.  The fact that border crossings dried up at the beginning of the Trump administration and only started again when rumors went around that the policy on the border had not changed indicates that the vast majority of these people are NOT refugees fleeing persecution, but simply prefer the economic benefits of being in the US.
> 
> 8)  In April, the _New York Times_ reported:
> 
> _Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.
> 
> Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing._
> 
> "It is common to have parents entrust their children to a smuggler as a favor or for profit.” - azcentral.com
> 
> But since our policies have favored family units over single adults, we have created an incentive to put children in peril.  How can anyone who claims to care about the well-being of these children advocate policies which encourage their endangerment?
> 
> 9)  Congress has the power to change all of this by one simple vote.  They can pass a law overruling the Flores Settlement; they can pass a law mandating family detention, and providing funding to make it possible.  So why is it that the only bill that has been introduced in Congress to address this situation has come from the Republicans, who are being vilified, and the Democrats are too busy grandstanding for the media to propose anything at all?


*Lots of good information but the fact remains there is no law that requires Trump to separate the kids from their parents at the border.  This is policy which can be changed at the discretion of the president.  Claiming the law made me do it is just bullshit.  He clearly feels separating the kids from the parents is a determent so why doesn't he admit it.  I'm sure most of his supporters would agree. *


----------



## candycorn

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, we need to cut through the rhetorical bullshit one more time.
> 
> 1)  The rules about detaining children HAVE NOT changed.  Trump IS NOT doing anything new in regards to detaining children.  The government has been required to release children from detention within 20 days ever since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals extended the Flores Consent Decree (aka the Flores Settlement) to include accompanied minors in 2016.  What Trump has changed is how we deal with adults.  Where Obama used the Flores Settlement and the accompanying Ninth Circuit ruling as an excuse to give adults a free pass if they could claim to be part of a family unit, Trump is insisting on treating those adults like the criminals they are.
> 
> 2)  Separation of children from adults happens only in three cases:  if the adult is not the child's parent, if the adult is a threat to the child, or if the adult is put into criminal proceedings.  In other words, the exact same circumstances under which a child would be taken from an adult even among our own citizenry.
> 
> 3)  When an illegal is prosecuted, he is taken into custody by the US Marshals.  The US Marshals do not, EVER, take care of the children of people they take into custody, no matter who that person is or what they're being arrested for.  Just as with anyone in this situation, the children are taken custody of by HHS, which cares for them in temporary shelters until they know whether the adult will be deported or will apply for asylum.
> 
> 4)  Assuming the illegal has not committed another crime, the criminal proceedings are short.  Usually, the illegal pleads guilty, they are sentenced to time served, and they are returned to ICE.  This typically happens in one day.  At that point, the adult is reunited with the child, and the whole kit and kaboodle are deported back to where they came from.  If the adult is truly concerned about being separated from the child, they can easily put an end to it.
> 
> 5)  The separation only becomes extended if the illegal immigrant himself chooses to make it so by applying for asylum.  THAT procedure pretty much always takes longer than the government is allowed, by law, to hold the child.  When that time limit is reached, the child is placed with a responsible party.  Quite often, that is a relative or friend of the illegal immigrant, because illegal immigrants often have connections to people who are already in the country.
> 
> 6)  If the adult is held while their asylum claim is processed, it is likely to go through the system much more quickly, a couple of months as opposed to dragging on for years.  If the adult is released into the population, he is highly unlikely to return for his court dates.  We know this from experience.
> 
> 7)  There is no reason whatsoever for someone who is legitimately looking for asylum to cross the border illegally.  They have only to approach a port of entry and state their desire for asylum.  They are NOT arrested when they do this, and not separated from their children.  The fact that border crossings dried up at the beginning of the Trump administration and only started again when rumors went around that the policy on the border had not changed indicates that the vast majority of these people are NOT refugees fleeing persecution, but simply prefer the economic benefits of being in the US.
> 
> 8)  In April, the _New York Times_ reported:
> 
> _Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.
> 
> Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing._
> 
> "It is common to have parents entrust their children to a smuggler as a favor or for profit.” - azcentral.com
> 
> But since our policies have favored family units over single adults, we have created an incentive to put children in peril.  How can anyone who claims to care about the well-being of these children advocate policies which encourage their endangerment?
> 
> 9)  Congress has the power to change all of this by one simple vote.  They can pass a law overruling the Flores Settlement; they can pass a law mandating family detention, and providing funding to make it possible.  So why is it that the only bill that has been introduced in Congress to address this situation has come from the Republicans, who are being vilified, and the Democrats are too busy grandstanding for the media to propose anything at all?
> 
> 
> 
> *Lots of good information but the fact remains there is no law that requires Trump to separate the kids from their parents at the border.  This is policy which can be changed at the discretion of the president.  Claiming the law made me do it is just bullshit.  He clearly feels separating the kids from the parents is a determent so why doesn't he admit it.  I'm sure most of his supporters would agree. *
Click to expand...

If they don’t change the policy, 
Do you think we can/we should send in a 3rd party monitor like the International Red Cross to  observe the conditions?  Like they did in POW camps?  

Prisoners of the First World War | International Committee of the Red Cross - Index


----------



## Flopper

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote
> 
> If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.
> 
> Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.
> 
> So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.
> 
> How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, _separates_, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?
> 
> Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred?
> 
> Why all the emotion and no solution?


*If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act.  However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have  some documentation.*


----------



## Flopper

candycorn said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, we need to cut through the rhetorical bullshit one more time.
> 
> 1)  The rules about detaining children HAVE NOT changed.  Trump IS NOT doing anything new in regards to detaining children.  The government has been required to release children from detention within 20 days ever since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals extended the Flores Consent Decree (aka the Flores Settlement) to include accompanied minors in 2016.  What Trump has changed is how we deal with adults.  Where Obama used the Flores Settlement and the accompanying Ninth Circuit ruling as an excuse to give adults a free pass if they could claim to be part of a family unit, Trump is insisting on treating those adults like the criminals they are.
> 
> 2)  Separation of children from adults happens only in three cases:  if the adult is not the child's parent, if the adult is a threat to the child, or if the adult is put into criminal proceedings.  In other words, the exact same circumstances under which a child would be taken from an adult even among our own citizenry.
> 
> 3)  When an illegal is prosecuted, he is taken into custody by the US Marshals.  The US Marshals do not, EVER, take care of the children of people they take into custody, no matter who that person is or what they're being arrested for.  Just as with anyone in this situation, the children are taken custody of by HHS, which cares for them in temporary shelters until they know whether the adult will be deported or will apply for asylum.
> 
> 4)  Assuming the illegal has not committed another crime, the criminal proceedings are short.  Usually, the illegal pleads guilty, they are sentenced to time served, and they are returned to ICE.  This typically happens in one day.  At that point, the adult is reunited with the child, and the whole kit and kaboodle are deported back to where they came from.  If the adult is truly concerned about being separated from the child, they can easily put an end to it.
> 
> 5)  The separation only becomes extended if the illegal immigrant himself chooses to make it so by applying for asylum.  THAT procedure pretty much always takes longer than the government is allowed, by law, to hold the child.  When that time limit is reached, the child is placed with a responsible party.  Quite often, that is a relative or friend of the illegal immigrant, because illegal immigrants often have connections to people who are already in the country.
> 
> 6)  If the adult is held while their asylum claim is processed, it is likely to go through the system much more quickly, a couple of months as opposed to dragging on for years.  If the adult is released into the population, he is highly unlikely to return for his court dates.  We know this from experience.
> 
> 7)  There is no reason whatsoever for someone who is legitimately looking for asylum to cross the border illegally.  They have only to approach a port of entry and state their desire for asylum.  They are NOT arrested when they do this, and not separated from their children.  The fact that border crossings dried up at the beginning of the Trump administration and only started again when rumors went around that the policy on the border had not changed indicates that the vast majority of these people are NOT refugees fleeing persecution, but simply prefer the economic benefits of being in the US.
> 
> 8)  In April, the _New York Times_ reported:
> 
> _Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.
> 
> Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing._
> 
> "It is common to have parents entrust their children to a smuggler as a favor or for profit.” - azcentral.com
> 
> But since our policies have favored family units over single adults, we have created an incentive to put children in peril.  How can anyone who claims to care about the well-being of these children advocate policies which encourage their endangerment?
> 
> 9)  Congress has the power to change all of this by one simple vote.  They can pass a law overruling the Flores Settlement; they can pass a law mandating family detention, and providing funding to make it possible.  So why is it that the only bill that has been introduced in Congress to address this situation has come from the Republicans, who are being vilified, and the Democrats are too busy grandstanding for the media to propose anything at all?
> 
> 
> 
> *Lots of good information but the fact remains there is no law that requires Trump to separate the kids from their parents at the border.  This is policy which can be changed at the discretion of the president.  Claiming the law made me do it is just bullshit.  He clearly feels separating the kids from the parents is a determent so why doesn't he admit it.  I'm sure most of his supporters would agree. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they don’t change the policy,
> Do you think we can/we should send in a 3rd party monitor like the International Red Cross to  observe the conditions?  Like they did in POW camps?
> 
> Prisoners of the First World War | International Committee of the Red Cross - Index
Click to expand...

*Trump would never allow that.  He wouldn't even let reporters take pictures of the cages he keeps them in. Since he believes their animals, maybe he feels he has the right to treat them as such.*


----------



## karpenter

Ray From Cleveland said:
			
		

> The game plan is to load this country with as many (legal or illegal) minorities as they can, and once they regain power, grant them citizenship.  With citizenship comes the right to vote, and the great experiment will finally end.


The Immigration Act Of 1965
Was Ted Kennedy's Greatest Gift To The Democratic Party



			
				Coyote said:
			
		

> I think you read to many conspiracy theories.


It's Not A Conspiracy Theory
It's The Immigration Act Of 1965

U.S. Immigration Since 1965 - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

"Over the next four decades, the policies put into effect in 1965 would greatly *change the demographic makeup of the American population*, as immigrants entering the United States under the new legislation _*came increasingly*_ from countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, as opposed to Europe."

Democrats Are Not Interested In The Country Or Any People Anywhere
They Are Only Interested In The Political Power Of Their Party

We Can Be Dismissive And Minimize Just About Anything
By Tossing Out 'Conspiracy Theory'
Or We Can Sneer 'Racist', 'Sexist', 'Homophobe', 'Fascist'
Whatever's Handy....Right ??


----------



## Snouter

The Democrats and "never" Trump Republicans are interested in destroying the country.  And indeed the 1965 act was a cornerstone for their agenda.  But you are misunderstanding the Electric Kool Aid Acid Test.

The Dead created some of the best American music ever.

Jesus, the announcer pronounces Oregon, Oregon.  It is pronounced Oregin.  Rhymes with begin.


Yours truly actually met Ken Kesey's son at the Bridgeport Vibes some years ago.  My brother bought a light from him allegedly from one of the original Acid Test buses.  Hopefully he got signed documentation for it.


----------



## karpenter

Cecile1200 said:
			
		

> How many of those applicants went about it the proper way, and how many swarmed across the border first chance they got, and only mentioned asylum when they got caught and arrested?


The Illegals Selfishly Elbow Themselves To The Front Of The Line
At The Expense Of People Already Willing To Follow Our Laws

And Then These Alien Nationals Demand Special Dispensation


----------



## karpenter

Snouter said:
			
		

> But you are misunderstanding the Electric Kool Aid Acid Test.


Nope
Although I Deleted That As An Unnecessary Post
I Was Mocking People That Think Like They Are Under The Influence LSD


----------



## Vandalshandle

Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy. Their crime? Gold was discovered on their land. Trump will be known as the man who's racist philosophy knew no limits in a humanitarian society. He will be forever be reviled as the very essence of hate and racism. He has not yet reached the level of a Nazi, but many of his followers have, and he has done absolutely nothing to dissuade them.


----------



## karpenter

Vandalshandle said:
			
		

> Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.


I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
BTW, Jackson _WAS_ A Democrat...
And Jackson Marched Those People To Their Deaths Along The Way
The NAZI Comparison Holds To The _Democrat Of Your Analogy

But Not To Trump_


----------



## forkup

karpenter said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.
> 
> 
> 
> I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
> BTW, Jackson _WAS_ A Democrat...
Click to expand...

The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.


----------



## Snouter

The Democrats whine about "Nazism" but it they whose objective is to genocide White people.  It is pretty obvious.  And Nazi were not even genocidal.  They just were battling for their homeland just like Jews in Israel do today (although southern Saudi Arabia was where the tribes of Israel came from, besides all the artifacts in Israel are Roman stuff).


----------



## karpenter

forkup said:


> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration..


Trump's Not Seizing Their Lands
Marching Them Off To Death
Or Rescinding Any Of Their Rightful Citizenship Claims

To Compare What Is Happening Along Our Border Now
To What Jackson Did Then And NAZIism
Is The Height Of Hyperbole

You Folks Cheapen Words Like
'Hitler' And 'Atrocity' Every Time You Use Them
Because You Use Them To Describe Everything
From Having Your Feelings Hurt To Stubbing Your Toes

So Save It
There Is NO Equivalence
Not In The Analogy That Was Used To Compare Trump To Jackson Or NAZIs

But The Equivalence Does Apply To Jackson (A Democrat)
To Your 'Hitlers' And Your 'Atrocities'


----------



## karpenter

I Almost Forgot To Mention:
Andrew Jackson Fended Off National Usery
By The Rothschilds Globalist Banking Cabal
For Another 75yrs Or So
Until We Were Handed Over To The Rothschilds As A Nation
By Another Democrat---Woodrow Wilson
Under The Federal Reserve Act

For That, Jackson Is An American GOD


----------



## forkup

karpenter said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration..
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Not Seizing Their Lands
> Marching Them Off To Death
> Or Rescinding Any Of Their Rightful Citizenship Claims
> 
> To Compare What Is Happening Along Our Border Now
> To What Jackson Did Then And NAZIism
> Is The Height Of Hyperbole
> 
> You Folks Cheapen Words Like
> 'Hitler' And 'Atrocity' Every Time You Use Them
> Because You Use Them To Describe Everything
> From Having Your Feelings Hurt To Stubbing Your Toes
> 
> So Save It
> There Is NO Equivalence
> Not In The Analogy That Was Used To Compare Trump To Jackson Or NAZIs
> 
> But The Equivalence Does Apply To Jackson (A Democrat)
> To Your 'Hitlers' And Your 'Atrocities'
> 
> I Almost Forgot To Mention:
> Andrew Jackson Fended Off National Usery
> By The Rothchilds Globalist Banking Cabal
> For Another 75yrs Or So
> Until We Were Handed Over To Them
> By Another Democrat---Woodrow Wilson
> Under The Federal Reserve Act
> 
> For That, Jackson Is An American GOD
Click to expand...

My post wasn't hyperbolic in nature. I did not compare this situation to Jackson's. I clearly defined how far both situation were similar. I defined it in terms of morality and made no further comparison. I even went as far as giving context to why morality is set aside in terms of national interest. To call it hyperbole is a deflection from both mine and the OP's premise, namely that one can't serve national interest if not prepared to impose moral limits on it, and be expected to be liable to be looked in favorable terms by history.


----------



## Cellblock2429

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it, Obama did the same thing but it was on the basis of only doing it when it was impossible to keep the family unit together.  The hard and fast policy of ripping kids away from their parents as just an enhanced form of deterrence is, frankly, sickening.  It say much more about how far we have sunk as a society than what it says to those who break our immigration laws.
> 
> 
> 
> *Any ICE agent could tell you the real reason for separating parents from their kids.  Recently in Texas immigration court, 57 parents appeared before an immigration judge and all but one plead guilty after being told that if they plead guilty, they will be united with their kids and deported.  If they ask for a trial, they will be detained till the trial.  Detention can be as long as one year.  It's just a legal form of extortion.
> 
> And the Orange Clown appears on TV and says, "I really care about these kids."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sooner or later karma catches up to everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It will certain catch up with Trump.  The question is how much damage will be done to the nation before that happens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would be willing to bet that most Americans don't even know what's going on at the border, and the ones that do, many don't care either.
> 
> Trump won because of the border and immigration issues.  People like me who are sick of pressing 1 to speak to an English speaking person, those who live where a lot of illegals live, those who are battling crime; some brought to us by illegals, those who watch as foreigners are taking our jobs for less money, we are all fed up with it, especially when our representatives tell us we need "immigration reform" instead of telling us what we really want to hear which is shut down the border, or at least get as close as we can to it.
> 
> So what damage to the nation do you speak of?  I see no damage.  If anything, I see taking a tougher stance on illegals which is what many of us want in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you feel better pressing #2..seems like you already are a piece of  #2
Click to expand...

/——/ Is that your best comeback to a well reasoned post, third grade bathroom humor?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

forkup said:


> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.
> 
> 
> 
> I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
> BTW, Jackson _WAS_ A Democrat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
Click to expand...


That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent. 

I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote
> 
> If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.
> 
> Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.
> 
> So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.
> 
> How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, _separates_, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?
> 
> Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred?
> 
> Why all the emotion and no solution?
> 
> 
> 
> *If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act.  However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have  some documentation.*
Click to expand...


It's one of the reasons we take away their kids.  Look, if you are a mother or father, you should know the birthdate of your kid, where he lived last, how parents obtained money for food, what was the last thing they ate before they left........... 

If there is a conflict in answers between the child and the so-called parent, the kids are taken away until they can figure out why there is such confusion.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Flopper said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote
> 
> If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.
> 
> Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.
> 
> So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.
> 
> How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, _separates_, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?
> 
> Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred?
> 
> Why all the emotion and no solution?
> 
> 
> 
> *If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act.  However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have  some documentation.*
Click to expand...

First... I can contend that the exact opposite is true. You can't assume that all of these adults with minors are in fact families.

Second,  these people had no rights in America (constitutional or otherwise) before they crossed the border illegally, why should they suddenly attain them when they do? If you aren't a citizen, you should not be entitled to constitutional rights until you go through the proper channels. Period. Full stop.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote
> 
> If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.
> 
> Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.
> 
> So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.
> 
> How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, _separates_, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?
> 
> Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred?
> 
> Why all the emotion and no solution?
> 
> 
> 
> *If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act.  However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have  some documentation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's one of the reasons we take away their kids.  Look, if you are a mother or father, you should know the birthdate of your kid, where he lived last, how parents obtained money for food, what was the last thing they ate before they left...........
> 
> If there is a conflict in answers between the child and the so-called parent, the kids are taken away until they can figure out why there is such confusion.
Click to expand...

/----/ I'm reminded of the scene from Titanic when Caledon Hockley grabs a child and says "I have a child am I'm all she has." just so he can get on a lifeboat.


----------



## candycorn

TemplarKormac said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote
> 
> If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.
> 
> Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.
> 
> So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.
> 
> How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, _separates_, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?
> 
> Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred?
> 
> Why all the emotion and no solution?
> 
> 
> 
> *If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act.  However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have  some documentation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First... I can contend that the exact opposite is true. You can't assume that all of these adults with minors are in fact families.
> 
> Second,  these people had no rights in America (constitutional or otherwise) before they crossed the border illegally, why should they suddenly attain them when they do? If you aren't a citizen, you should not be entitled to constitutional rights until you go through the proper channels. Period. Full stop.
Click to expand...


So there are no basic human rights?


----------



## pismoe

Billo_Really said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> Trump and Sessions, are pieces of shit humans.  They are the absolute worst of what this country has to offer.  And you can throw those kiss-ass republicans right along with them.  Trump and his dumbass minions are extremists.  They make up only 10% of the population.  We need  3rd party candidates to deal with these pricks, because the democrats are not the answer.
Click to expand...

---------------------------------------------------   i like yer last line , now get your azz out there and divide the 'dems' up into multiple parties  Billo !!


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, we need to cut through the rhetorical bullshit one more time.
> 
> 1)  The rules about detaining children HAVE NOT changed.  Trump IS NOT doing anything new in regards to detaining children.  The government has been required to release children from detention within 20 days ever since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals extended the Flores Consent Decree (aka the Flores Settlement) to include accompanied minors in 2016.  What Trump has changed is how we deal with adults.  Where Obama used the Flores Settlement and the accompanying Ninth Circuit ruling as an excuse to give adults a free pass if they could claim to be part of a family unit, Trump is insisting on treating those adults like the criminals they are.
> 
> 2)  Separation of children from adults happens only in three cases:  if the adult is not the child's parent, if the adult is a threat to the child, or if the adult is put into criminal proceedings.  In other words, the exact same circumstances under which a child would be taken from an adult even among our own citizenry.
> 
> 3)  When an illegal is prosecuted, he is taken into custody by the US Marshals.  The US Marshals do not, EVER, take care of the children of people they take into custody, no matter who that person is or what they're being arrested for.  Just as with anyone in this situation, the children are taken custody of by HHS, which cares for them in temporary shelters until they know whether the adult will be deported or will apply for asylum.
> 
> 4)  Assuming the illegal has not committed another crime, the criminal proceedings are short.  Usually, the illegal pleads guilty, they are sentenced to time served, and they are returned to ICE.  This typically happens in one day.  At that point, the adult is reunited with the child, and the whole kit and kaboodle are deported back to where they came from.  If the adult is truly concerned about being separated from the child, they can easily put an end to it.
> 
> 5)  The separation only becomes extended if the illegal immigrant himself chooses to make it so by applying for asylum.  THAT procedure pretty much always takes longer than the government is allowed, by law, to hold the child.  When that time limit is reached, the child is placed with a responsible party.  Quite often, that is a relative or friend of the illegal immigrant, because illegal immigrants often have connections to people who are already in the country.
> 
> 6)  If the adult is held while their asylum claim is processed, it is likely to go through the system much more quickly, a couple of months as opposed to dragging on for years.  If the adult is released into the population, he is highly unlikely to return for his court dates.  We know this from experience.
> 
> 7)  There is no reason whatsoever for someone who is legitimately looking for asylum to cross the border illegally.  They have only to approach a port of entry and state their desire for asylum.  They are NOT arrested when they do this, and not separated from their children.  The fact that border crossings dried up at the beginning of the Trump administration and only started again when rumors went around that the policy on the border had not changed indicates that the vast majority of these people are NOT refugees fleeing persecution, but simply prefer the economic benefits of being in the US.
> 
> 8)  In April, the _New York Times_ reported:
> 
> _Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.
> 
> Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing._
> 
> "It is common to have parents entrust their children to a smuggler as a favor or for profit.” - azcentral.com
> 
> But since our policies have favored family units over single adults, we have created an incentive to put children in peril.  How can anyone who claims to care about the well-being of these children advocate policies which encourage their endangerment?
> 
> 9)  Congress has the power to change all of this by one simple vote.  They can pass a law overruling the Flores Settlement; they can pass a law mandating family detention, and providing funding to make it possible.  So why is it that the only bill that has been introduced in Congress to address this situation has come from the Republicans, who are being vilified, and the Democrats are too busy grandstanding for the media to propose anything at all?
> 
> 
> 
> *Lots of good information but the fact remains there is no law that requires Trump to separate the kids from their parents at the border.  This is policy which can be changed at the discretion of the president.  Claiming the law made me do it is just bullshit.  He clearly feels separating the kids from the parents is a determent so why doesn't he admit it.  I'm sure most of his supporters would agree. *
Click to expand...


The fact remains that there ARE laws that require it.  I realize that you think the President can just pick and choose what laws to obey and how to do so, but don't think for a second that I believe you wouldn't be screaming about "imperial Presidency" if Trump started acting like Obama.

It is the law that crossing the border without permission is a criminal act.  It is the law that the President is required to enforce the law.  And it is the law that children cannot be held longer than 20 days.

It is not President Trump's job to make law, or to ignore it.


----------



## pismoe

candycorn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote
> 
> If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.
> 
> Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.
> 
> So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.
> 
> How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, _separates_, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?
> 
> Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred?
> 
> Why all the emotion and no solution?
> 
> 
> 
> *If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act.  However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have  some documentation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First... I can contend that the exact opposite is true. You can't assume that all of these adults with minors are in fact families.
> 
> Second,  these people had no rights in America (constitutional or otherwise) before they crossed the border illegally, why should they suddenly attain them when they do? If you aren't a citizen, you should not be entitled to constitutional rights until you go through the proper channels. Period. Full stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there are no basic human rights?
Click to expand...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------  i only concern myself with Americas 'Bill of Rights'   Candy .


----------



## forkup

Ray From Cleveland said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.
> 
> 
> 
> I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
> BTW, Jackson _WAS_ A Democrat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
Click to expand...

I see. This is only if you


Ray From Cleveland said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.
> 
> 
> 
> I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
> BTW, Jackson _WAS_ A Democrat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
Click to expand...

By that logic everybody who ever emigrated with kids should all lose their parental rights. See the only way your argument works is, if you see parents who try to cross the border as reckless and not desperate. By the way I love how you so studiously used air quotes when saying people. So you didn't have to use parents. Like taking away parents from their children because of something that is even by law a simple misdemeanor is not by it's very nature immoral and makes them undeserving of raising a kid.


----------



## pismoe

Cellblock2429 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote
> 
> If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.
> 
> Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.
> 
> So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.
> 
> How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, _separates_, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?
> 
> Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred?
> 
> Why all the emotion and no solution?
> 
> 
> 
> *If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act.  However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have  some documentation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's one of the reasons we take away their kids.  Look, if you are a mother or father, you should know the birthdate of your kid, where he lived last, how parents obtained money for food, what was the last thing they ate before they left...........
> 
> If there is a conflict in answers between the child and the so-called parent, the kids are taken away until they can figure out why there is such confusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ I'm reminded of the scene from Titanic when Caledon Hockley grabs a child and says "I have a child am I'm all she has." just so he can get on a lifeboat.
Click to expand...

----------------------------------------------------------------   thanks , if i understand correctly thats a good illustration of whats going on  Cellblock .


----------



## pismoe

candycorn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote
> 
> If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.
> 
> Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.
> 
> So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.
> 
> How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, _separates_, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?
> 
> Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred?
> 
> Why all the emotion and no solution?
> 
> 
> 
> *If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act.  However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have  some documentation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First... I can contend that the exact opposite is true. You can't assume that all of these adults with minors are in fact families.
> 
> Second,  these people had no rights in America (constitutional or otherwise) before they crossed the border illegally, why should they suddenly attain them when they do? If you aren't a citizen, you should not be entitled to constitutional rights until you go through the proper channels. Period. Full stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there are no basic human rights?
Click to expand...

----------------------------------------------   [chuckle] mornin Candy .


----------



## Cellblock2429

candycorn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote
> 
> If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.
> 
> Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.
> 
> So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.
> 
> How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, _separates_, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?
> 
> Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred?
> 
> Why all the emotion and no solution?
> 
> 
> 
> *If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act.  However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have  some documentation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First... I can contend that the exact opposite is true. You can't assume that all of these adults with minors are in fact families.
> 
> Second,  these people had no rights in America (constitutional or otherwise) before they crossed the border illegally, why should they suddenly attain them when they do? If you aren't a citizen, you should not be entitled to constitutional rights until you go through the proper channels. Period. Full stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there are no basic human rights?
Click to expand...

/----/ Are you saying you can't argue a point without lies. twists and distortions?


----------



## Cecilie1200

forkup said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.
> 
> 
> 
> I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
> BTW, Jackson _WAS_ A Democrat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see. This is only if you
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
> BTW, Jackson _WAS_ A Democrat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By that logic everybody who ever emigrated with kids should all lose their parental rights. See the only way your argument works is, if you see parents who try to cross the border as reckless and not desperate. By the way I love how you so studiously used air quotes when saying people. So you didn't have to use parents. Like taking away parents from their children because of something that is even by law a simple misdemeanor is not by it's very nature immoral and makes them undeserving of raising a kid.
Click to expand...


A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.


----------



## Unkotare

A lot of these ‘parents’ are not really.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Cecilie1200 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.
> 
> 
> 
> I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
> BTW, Jackson _WAS_ A Democrat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see. This is only if you
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
> BTW, Jackson _WAS_ A Democrat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By that logic everybody who ever emigrated with kids should all lose their parental rights. See the only way your argument works is, if you see parents who try to cross the border as reckless and not desperate. By the way I love how you so studiously used air quotes when saying people. So you didn't have to use parents. Like taking away parents from their children because of something that is even by law a simple misdemeanor is not by it's very nature immoral and makes them undeserving of raising a kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.
Click to expand...

/-----/ Plain and simple:  "If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law. If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border." -- Jeff Sessions.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Trump is separating parents from kids because they committed a misdemeanor. That being the case, you had better not exceed the speed limit in your state.


----------



## deanrd

Even though we are a nation of immigrants, Republicans don't see immigrants as people.  They see immigrants as animals.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vandalshandle said:


> Trump is separating parents from kids because they committed a misdemeanor. That being the case, you had better not exceed the speed limit in your state.



You shouldn't exceed the speed limit, anyway.  But yeah, you definitely shouldn't do anything in a car, with your kids present, that gets you arrested.  You shouldn't do anything AT ALL that carries with it the chance of being arrested when you have your kids with you, because they will ALWAYS be taken away from you while you're in the pokey.  I have no idea why it's a shock to you that kids aren't jailed along with their parents.

But this really cuts to the heart of the matter.  You leftists keep yabbling mindlessly about "just a misdemeanor", when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".


----------



## Pop23

If you go to a port of entry and declare that you seek Asylum you are not separated.

If you cross the border illegally you might be.

What am I missing here?


----------



## candycorn

Billo_Really said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> Trump and Sessions, are pieces of shit humans.  They are the absolute worst of what this country has to offer.  And you can throw those kiss-ass republicans right along with them.  Trump and his dumbass minions are extremists.  They make up only 10% of the population.  We need  3rd party candidates to deal with these pricks, because the democrats are not the answer.
Click to expand...


If the Democrats just showed up at the polls, they would win.  Independents do not favor the draconian measures that we are using on kids at the borders though they probably do abhor illegal immigration.  Independents do not favor the tactics we’re taking with our allies in terms of trade.  They sure do not favor the behavior of the president; the sleaze, the legal issues, the idea that he could self-pardon….  

If the Dems show up at the polls, they win in the general election.


----------



## Coyote

karpenter said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration..
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Not Seizing Their Lands
> Marching Them Off To Death
> Or Rescinding Any Of Their Rightful Citizenship Claims
> 
> To Compare What Is Happening Along Our Border Now
> To What Jackson Did Then And NAZIism
> Is The Height Of Hyperbole
> 
> You Folks Cheapen Words Like
> 'Hitler' And 'Atrocity' Every Time You Use Them
> Because You Use Them To Describe Everything
> From Having Your Feelings Hurt To Stubbing Your Toes
> 
> So Save It
> There Is NO Equivalence
> Not In The Analogy That Was Used To Compare Trump To Jackson Or NAZIs
> 
> But The Equivalence Does Apply To Jackson (A Democrat)
> To Your 'Hitlers' And Your 'Atrocities'
Click to expand...

He is just abusing children.  No big deal to his base.


----------



## candycorn

Flopper said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, we need to cut through the rhetorical bullshit one more time.
> 
> 1)  The rules about detaining children HAVE NOT changed.  Trump IS NOT doing anything new in regards to detaining children.  The government has been required to release children from detention within 20 days ever since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals extended the Flores Consent Decree (aka the Flores Settlement) to include accompanied minors in 2016.  What Trump has changed is how we deal with adults.  Where Obama used the Flores Settlement and the accompanying Ninth Circuit ruling as an excuse to give adults a free pass if they could claim to be part of a family unit, Trump is insisting on treating those adults like the criminals they are.
> 
> 2)  Separation of children from adults happens only in three cases:  if the adult is not the child's parent, if the adult is a threat to the child, or if the adult is put into criminal proceedings.  In other words, the exact same circumstances under which a child would be taken from an adult even among our own citizenry.
> 
> 3)  When an illegal is prosecuted, he is taken into custody by the US Marshals.  The US Marshals do not, EVER, take care of the children of people they take into custody, no matter who that person is or what they're being arrested for.  Just as with anyone in this situation, the children are taken custody of by HHS, which cares for them in temporary shelters until they know whether the adult will be deported or will apply for asylum.
> 
> 4)  Assuming the illegal has not committed another crime, the criminal proceedings are short.  Usually, the illegal pleads guilty, they are sentenced to time served, and they are returned to ICE.  This typically happens in one day.  At that point, the adult is reunited with the child, and the whole kit and kaboodle are deported back to where they came from.  If the adult is truly concerned about being separated from the child, they can easily put an end to it.
> 
> 5)  The separation only becomes extended if the illegal immigrant himself chooses to make it so by applying for asylum.  THAT procedure pretty much always takes longer than the government is allowed, by law, to hold the child.  When that time limit is reached, the child is placed with a responsible party.  Quite often, that is a relative or friend of the illegal immigrant, because illegal immigrants often have connections to people who are already in the country.
> 
> 6)  If the adult is held while their asylum claim is processed, it is likely to go through the system much more quickly, a couple of months as opposed to dragging on for years.  If the adult is released into the population, he is highly unlikely to return for his court dates.  We know this from experience.
> 
> 7)  There is no reason whatsoever for someone who is legitimately looking for asylum to cross the border illegally.  They have only to approach a port of entry and state their desire for asylum.  They are NOT arrested when they do this, and not separated from their children.  The fact that border crossings dried up at the beginning of the Trump administration and only started again when rumors went around that the policy on the border had not changed indicates that the vast majority of these people are NOT refugees fleeing persecution, but simply prefer the economic benefits of being in the US.
> 
> 8)  In April, the _New York Times_ reported:
> 
> _Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.
> 
> Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing._
> 
> "It is common to have parents entrust their children to a smuggler as a favor or for profit.” - azcentral.com
> 
> But since our policies have favored family units over single adults, we have created an incentive to put children in peril.  How can anyone who claims to care about the well-being of these children advocate policies which encourage their endangerment?
> 
> 9)  Congress has the power to change all of this by one simple vote.  They can pass a law overruling the Flores Settlement; they can pass a law mandating family detention, and providing funding to make it possible.  So why is it that the only bill that has been introduced in Congress to address this situation has come from the Republicans, who are being vilified, and the Democrats are too busy grandstanding for the media to propose anything at all?
> 
> 
> 
> *Lots of good information but the fact remains there is no law that requires Trump to separate the kids from their parents at the border.  This is policy which can be changed at the discretion of the president.  Claiming the law made me do it is just bullshit.  He clearly feels separating the kids from the parents is a determent so why doesn't he admit it.  I'm sure most of his supporters would agree. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they don’t change the policy,
> Do you think we can/we should send in a 3rd party monitor like the International Red Cross to  observe the conditions?  Like they did in POW camps?
> 
> Prisoners of the First World War | International Committee of the Red Cross - Index
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump would never allow that.  He wouldn't even let reporters take pictures of the cages he keeps them in. Since he believes their animals, maybe he feels he has the right to treat them as such.*
Click to expand...


You’re correct.


----------



## Cecilie1200

deanrd said:


> Even though we are a nation of immigrants, Republicans don't see immigrants as people.  They see immigrants as animals.



As opposed to leftists, who see them as useful objects.

And FYI on your whole "nation of immigrants" schtick, if you actually gave a damn about ANY of these people, you wouldn't deliberately conflate the ones who respect our laws and come here legally with those who spit on our country by waltzing across the border illegally.  MY ancestors most assuredly did not flout the law and come here illegally, and I resent you trying to draw such a parallel.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration..
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Not Seizing Their Lands
> Marching Them Off To Death
> Or Rescinding Any Of Their Rightful Citizenship Claims
> 
> To Compare What Is Happening Along Our Border Now
> To What Jackson Did Then And NAZIism
> Is The Height Of Hyperbole
> 
> You Folks Cheapen Words Like
> 'Hitler' And 'Atrocity' Every Time You Use Them
> Because You Use Them To Describe Everything
> From Having Your Feelings Hurt To Stubbing Your Toes
> 
> So Save It
> There Is NO Equivalence
> Not In The Analogy That Was Used To Compare Trump To Jackson Or NAZIs
> 
> But The Equivalence Does Apply To Jackson (A Democrat)
> To Your 'Hitlers' And Your 'Atrocities'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is just abusing children.  No big deal to his base.
Click to expand...


It is just an accusation from lying trash.  You're right, that IS no big deal.


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote
> 
> If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.
> 
> Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.
> 
> So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.
> 
> How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, _separates_, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?
> 
> Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred?
> 
> Why all the emotion and no solution?
> 
> 
> 
> *If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act.  However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have  some documentation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's one of the reasons we take away their kids.  Look, if you are a mother or father, you should know the birthdate of your kid, where he lived last, how parents obtained money for food, what was the last thing they ate before they left...........
> 
> If there is a conflict in answers between the child and the so-called parent, the kids are taken away until they can figure out why there is such confusion.
Click to expand...

That is not what is hapoening however. This eas called the 100% policy for a reason.


----------



## Pop23

Coyote said:


> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration..
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Not Seizing Their Lands
> Marching Them Off To Death
> Or Rescinding Any Of Their Rightful Citizenship Claims
> 
> To Compare What Is Happening Along Our Border Now
> To What Jackson Did Then And NAZIism
> Is The Height Of Hyperbole
> 
> You Folks Cheapen Words Like
> 'Hitler' And 'Atrocity' Every Time You Use Them
> Because You Use Them To Describe Everything
> From Having Your Feelings Hurt To Stubbing Your Toes
> 
> So Save It
> There Is NO Equivalence
> Not In The Analogy That Was Used To Compare Trump To Jackson Or NAZIs
> 
> But The Equivalence Does Apply To Jackson (A Democrat)
> To Your 'Hitlers' And Your 'Atrocities'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is just abusing children.  No big deal to his base.
Click to expand...


If one child slipped through, and ended up dead or trafficed as a sex slave, because we did not find out DEFINITIVELY that the adult was the child's parent, you would cry foul on the administration.

How proud that must make you, getting your cake and eating it too.


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.
> 
> 
> 
> I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
> BTW, Jackson _WAS_ A Democrat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
Click to expand...

They can't get all that together with their parents? Really?


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration..
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Not Seizing Their Lands
> Marching Them Off To Death
> Or Rescinding Any Of Their Rightful Citizenship Claims
> 
> To Compare What Is Happening Along Our Border Now
> To What Jackson Did Then And NAZIism
> Is The Height Of Hyperbole
> 
> You Folks Cheapen Words Like
> 'Hitler' And 'Atrocity' Every Time You Use Them
> Because You Use Them To Describe Everything
> From Having Your Feelings Hurt To Stubbing Your Toes
> 
> So Save It
> There Is NO Equivalence
> Not In The Analogy That Was Used To Compare Trump To Jackson Or NAZIs
> 
> But The Equivalence Does Apply To Jackson (A Democrat)
> To Your 'Hitlers' And Your 'Atrocities'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is just abusing children.  No big deal to his base.
Click to expand...

Says the cheerleader for sharia and human traffickers. 

Fuck off.


----------



## pismoe

Coyote said:


> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration..
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Not Seizing Their Lands
> Marching Them Off To Death
> Or Rescinding Any Of Their Rightful Citizenship Claims
> 
> To Compare What Is Happening Along Our Border Now
> To What Jackson Did Then And NAZIism
> Is The Height Of Hyperbole
> 
> You Folks Cheapen Words Like
> 'Hitler' And 'Atrocity' Every Time You Use Them
> Because You Use Them To Describe Everything
> From Having Your Feelings Hurt To Stubbing Your Toes
> 
> So Save It
> There Is NO Equivalence
> Not In The Analogy That Was Used To Compare Trump To Jackson Or NAZIs
> 
> But The Equivalence Does Apply To Jackson (A Democrat)
> To Your 'Hitlers' And Your 'Atrocities'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is just abusing children.  No big deal to his base.
Click to expand...

-----------------------   i love the way that this tactic is reportedly scaring the heck out of other third worlders .   Also good news is that this tactic is supposedly stopping some overseas people from wanting to import themselves into the USA .    Hey , its ALL Good Coyote .


----------



## Coyote

Pop23 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration..
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Not Seizing Their Lands
> Marching Them Off To Death
> Or Rescinding Any Of Their Rightful Citizenship Claims
> 
> To Compare What Is Happening Along Our Border Now
> To What Jackson Did Then And NAZIism
> Is The Height Of Hyperbole
> 
> You Folks Cheapen Words Like
> 'Hitler' And 'Atrocity' Every Time You Use Them
> Because You Use Them To Describe Everything
> From Having Your Feelings Hurt To Stubbing Your Toes
> 
> So Save It
> There Is NO Equivalence
> Not In The Analogy That Was Used To Compare Trump To Jackson Or NAZIs
> 
> But The Equivalence Does Apply To Jackson (A Democrat)
> To Your 'Hitlers' And Your 'Atrocities'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is just abusing children.  No big deal to his base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one child slipped through, and ended up dead or trafficed as a sex slave, because we did not find out DEFINITIVELY that the adult was the child's parent, you would cry foul on the administration.
> 
> How proud that must make you, getting your cake and eating it too.
Click to expand...


How proud you must be supporting a policy that tears children from their parents arms WITHOUT regard.  Stop pretending it has anything to do with stopping trafficking, you and I both know it doent and that is directky from the mouths of those who impmemented it as a deterrant.  At least have the integrity to be honest about it.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration..
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Not Seizing Their Lands
> Marching Them Off To Death
> Or Rescinding Any Of Their Rightful Citizenship Claims
> 
> To Compare What Is Happening Along Our Border Now
> To What Jackson Did Then And NAZIism
> Is The Height Of Hyperbole
> 
> You Folks Cheapen Words Like
> 'Hitler' And 'Atrocity' Every Time You Use Them
> Because You Use Them To Describe Everything
> From Having Your Feelings Hurt To Stubbing Your Toes
> 
> So Save It
> There Is NO Equivalence
> Not In The Analogy That Was Used To Compare Trump To Jackson Or NAZIs
> 
> But The Equivalence Does Apply To Jackson (A Democrat)
> To Your 'Hitlers' And Your 'Atrocities'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is just abusing children.  No big deal to his base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one child slipped through, and ended up dead or trafficed as a sex slave, because we did not find out DEFINITIVELY that the adult was the child's parent, you would cry foul on the administration.
> 
> How proud that must make you, getting your cake and eating it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How proud you must be supporting a policy that tears children from their parents arms WITHOUT regard.  Stop pretending it has anything to do with stopping trafficking, you and I both know it doent and that is directky from the mouths of those who impmemented it as a deterrant.  At least have the integrity to be honest about it.
Click to expand...


Doesn't happen. 

It's a fabrication. False narrative being pushed by child sex traffickers. 

And you're all in.


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration..
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Not Seizing Their Lands
> Marching Them Off To Death
> Or Rescinding Any Of Their Rightful Citizenship Claims
> 
> To Compare What Is Happening Along Our Border Now
> To What Jackson Did Then And NAZIism
> Is The Height Of Hyperbole
> 
> You Folks Cheapen Words Like
> 'Hitler' And 'Atrocity' Every Time You Use Them
> Because You Use Them To Describe Everything
> From Having Your Feelings Hurt To Stubbing Your Toes
> 
> So Save It
> There Is NO Equivalence
> Not In The Analogy That Was Used To Compare Trump To Jackson Or NAZIs
> 
> But The Equivalence Does Apply To Jackson (A Democrat)
> To Your 'Hitlers' And Your 'Atrocities'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is just abusing children.  No big deal to his base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the cheerleader for sharia and human traffickers.
> 
> Fuck off.
Click to expand...

...after you dear.


----------



## Pop23

Coyote said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration..
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Not Seizing Their Lands
> Marching Them Off To Death
> Or Rescinding Any Of Their Rightful Citizenship Claims
> 
> To Compare What Is Happening Along Our Border Now
> To What Jackson Did Then And NAZIism
> Is The Height Of Hyperbole
> 
> You Folks Cheapen Words Like
> 'Hitler' And 'Atrocity' Every Time You Use Them
> Because You Use Them To Describe Everything
> From Having Your Feelings Hurt To Stubbing Your Toes
> 
> So Save It
> There Is NO Equivalence
> Not In The Analogy That Was Used To Compare Trump To Jackson Or NAZIs
> 
> But The Equivalence Does Apply To Jackson (A Democrat)
> To Your 'Hitlers' And Your 'Atrocities'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is just abusing children.  No big deal to his base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one child slipped through, and ended up dead or trafficed as a sex slave, because we did not find out DEFINITIVELY that the adult was the child's parent, you would cry foul on the administration.
> 
> How proud that must make you, getting your cake and eating it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How proud you must be supporting a policy that tears children from their parents arms WITHOUT regard.  Stop pretending it has anything to do with stopping trafficking, you and I both know it doent and that is directky from the mouths of those who impmemented it as a deterrant.  At least have the integrity to be honest about it.
Click to expand...


*YES, AFTER READING THIS, YOU DAMN RIGHT I AM!*

Link: 
Mexican woman tells of ordeal with cross-border child traffickers

*A young Mexican woman who escaped from human traffickers has told US special agents how she witnessed babies and children being "sold to order" to US citizens.

America's Department of Homeland Security in Washington says the girl, known only as Maria, had "significant ~information" and possessed a "remarkable memory" of her experiences inside the gang.*


----------



## Coyote

Vandalshandle said:


> Trump is separating parents from kids because they committed a misdemeanor. That being the case, you had better not exceed the speed limit in your state.


or jaywalk...


----------



## koshergrl

Pop23 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration..
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Not Seizing Their Lands
> Marching Them Off To Death
> Or Rescinding Any Of Their Rightful Citizenship Claims
> 
> To Compare What Is Happening Along Our Border Now
> To What Jackson Did Then And NAZIism
> Is The Height Of Hyperbole
> 
> You Folks Cheapen Words Like
> 'Hitler' And 'Atrocity' Every Time You Use Them
> Because You Use Them To Describe Everything
> From Having Your Feelings Hurt To Stubbing Your Toes
> 
> So Save It
> There Is NO Equivalence
> Not In The Analogy That Was Used To Compare Trump To Jackson Or NAZIs
> 
> But The Equivalence Does Apply To Jackson (A Democrat)
> To Your 'Hitlers' And Your 'Atrocities'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is just abusing children.  No big deal to his base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one child slipped through, and ended up dead or trafficed as a sex slave, because we did not find out DEFINITIVELY that the adult was the child's parent, you would cry foul on the administration.
> 
> How proud that must make you, getting your cake and eating it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How proud you must be supporting a policy that tears children from their parents arms WITHOUT regard.  Stop pretending it has anything to do with stopping trafficking, you and I both know it doent and that is directky from the mouths of those who impmemented it as a deterrant.  At least have the integrity to be honest about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *YES, AFTER READING THIS, YOU DAMN RIGHT I AM!*
> 
> Link:
> Mexican woman tells of ordeal with cross-border child traffickers
> 
> *A young Mexican woman who escaped from human traffickers has told US special agents how she witnessed babies and children being "sold to order" to US citizens.
> 
> America's Department of Homeland Security in Washington says the girl, known only as Maria, had "significant ~information" and possessed a "remarkable memory" of her experiences inside the gang.*
Click to expand...


That's what Coyote is mad about. She doesn't give a shit about the so-called kids being *abused*. She's afraid they will be protected, and the child sex trafficking that is taking place will suffer a hit.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.
> 
> 
> 
> I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
> BTW, Jackson _WAS_ A Democrat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see. This is only if you
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
> BTW, Jackson _WAS_ A Democrat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By that logic everybody who ever emigrated with kids should all lose their parental rights. See the only way your argument works is, if you see parents who try to cross the border as reckless and not desperate. By the way I love how you so studiously used air quotes when saying people. So you didn't have to use parents. Like taking away parents from their children because of something that is even by law a simple misdemeanor is not by it's very nature immoral and makes them undeserving of raising a kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.
Click to expand...

So does jay walking and speeding.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
> BTW, Jackson _WAS_ A Democrat...
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see. This is only if you
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
> BTW, Jackson _WAS_ A Democrat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By that logic everybody who ever emigrated with kids should all lose their parental rights. See the only way your argument works is, if you see parents who try to cross the border as reckless and not desperate. By the way I love how you so studiously used air quotes when saying people. So you didn't have to use parents. Like taking away parents from their children because of something that is even by law a simple misdemeanor is not by it's very nature immoral and makes them undeserving of raising a kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So does jay walking and speeding.
Click to expand...

And if you are arrested jaywalking and you have your kids with you..guess what?

The cops are taking any kids you have with you, and giving them to child welfare.

I swear you're organically brain damaged. Or just evil. Maybe both.


----------



## Pop23

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
> BTW, Jackson _WAS_ A Democrat...
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see. This is only if you
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
> BTW, Jackson _WAS_ A Democrat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By that logic everybody who ever emigrated with kids should all lose their parental rights. See the only way your argument works is, if you see parents who try to cross the border as reckless and not desperate. By the way I love how you so studiously used air quotes when saying people. So you didn't have to use parents. Like taking away parents from their children because of something that is even by law a simple misdemeanor is not by it's very nature immoral and makes them undeserving of raising a kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So does jay walking and speeding.
Click to expand...


This is a bit more than Jaywalking:

Mexican woman tells of ordeal with cross-border child traffickers

"
*Maria says she was 16 when she was lured into the gang by a man on the streets of the Mexican border town of Ciudad Juárez.

Since the 1990s, thousands of women have disappeared from the town. Hundreds of bodies bearing signs of rape and sexual mutilation have been dumped on waste ground in the city; thousands more have never returned.

In 2009, 55 teenage girls vanished in the town, which has been gripped by violence as two drug cartels fight a lethal turf war over cocaine smuggling routes into the US.

Maria, who was in hiding when she talked to Channel 4 News, said she had been given presents and promised a job in an office by the gang member but was instead drugged and raped and sold to men."
*
IF ONE CHILD IS SAVED FROM THIS, THEN OUR JOB DOES IT'S JOB.............

PERIOD!


----------



## pismoe

Coyote said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration..
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Not Seizing Their Lands
> Marching Them Off To Death
> Or Rescinding Any Of Their Rightful Citizenship Claims
> 
> To Compare What Is Happening Along Our Border Now
> To What Jackson Did Then And NAZIism
> Is The Height Of Hyperbole
> 
> You Folks Cheapen Words Like
> 'Hitler' And 'Atrocity' Every Time You Use Them
> Because You Use Them To Describe Everything
> From Having Your Feelings Hurt To Stubbing Your Toes
> 
> So Save It
> There Is NO Equivalence
> Not In The Analogy That Was Used To Compare Trump To Jackson Or NAZIs
> 
> But The Equivalence Does Apply To Jackson (A Democrat)
> To Your 'Hitlers' And Your 'Atrocities'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is just abusing children.  No big deal to his base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one child slipped through, and ended up dead or trafficed as a sex slave, because we did not find out DEFINITIVELY that the adult was the child's parent, you would cry foul on the administration.
> 
> How proud that must make you, getting your cake and eating it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How proud you must be supporting a policy that tears children from their parents arms WITHOUT regard.  Stop pretending it has anything to do with stopping trafficking, you and I both know it doent and that is directky from the mouths of those who impmemented it as a deterrant.  At least have the integrity to be honest about it.
Click to expand...

-------------------------  i don't care about the TRAFFICKING .  I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law  Coyote .   ---------------------  just a comment .


----------



## Coyote

Pop23 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. uI believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see. This is only if you
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By that logic everybody who ever emigrated with kids should all lose their parental rights. See the only way your argument works is, if you see parents who try to cross the border as reckless and not desperate. By the way I love how you so studiously used air quotes when saying people. So you didn't have to use parents. Like taking away parents from their children because of something that is even by law a simple misdemeanor is not by it's very nature immoral and makes them undeserving of raising a kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So does jay walking and speeding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a bit more than Jaywalking:
> 
> Mexican woman tells of ordeal with cross-border child traffickers
> 
> "
> *Maria says she was 16 when she was lured into the gang by a man on the streets of the Mexican border town of Ciudad Juárez.
> 
> Since the 1990s, thousands of women have disappeared from the town. Hundreds of bodies bearing signs of rape and sexual mutilation have been dumped on waste ground in the city; thousands more have never returned.
> 
> In 2009, 55 teenage girls vanished in the town, which has been gripped by violence as two drug cartels fight a lethal turf war over cocaine smuggling routes into the US.
> 
> Maria, who was in hiding when she talked to Channel 4 News, said she had been given presents and promised a job in an office by the gang member but was instead drugged and raped and sold to men."
> *
> IF ONE CHILD IS SAVED FROM THIS, THEN OUR JOB DOES IT'S JOB.............
> 
> PERIOD!
Click to expand...

Then all children should be removed from any any adult entering or leaving our country for Mexico or Canada and put into a detention facility regardless of age until aithorities can determine with out a doubt they are indeed the parents.

And dont forget, in these facilities they arent even allowed to pick up and console a hysterical toddler who just wants her Mommy!

What separation from parents does to children: 'The effect is catastrophic ...
Chicago Tribune › nationworld
What separation from parents does to children: 'The effect is catastrophic'


----------



## Pop23

Coyote said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> 
> 
> I see. This is only if you
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By that logic everybody who ever emigrated with kids should all lose their parental rights. See the only way your argument works is, if you see parents who try to cross the border as reckless and not desperate. By the way I love how you so studiously used air quotes when saying people. So you didn't have to use parents. Like taking away parents from their children because of something that is even by law a simple misdemeanor is not by it's very nature immoral and makes them undeserving of raising a kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So does jay walking and speeding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a bit more than Jaywalking:
> 
> Mexican woman tells of ordeal with cross-border child traffickers
> 
> "
> *Maria says she was 16 when she was lured into the gang by a man on the streets of the Mexican border town of Ciudad Juárez.
> 
> Since the 1990s, thousands of women have disappeared from the town. Hundreds of bodies bearing signs of rape and sexual mutilation have been dumped on waste ground in the city; thousands more have never returned.
> 
> In 2009, 55 teenage girls vanished in the town, which has been gripped by violence as two drug cartels fight a lethal turf war over cocaine smuggling routes into the US.
> 
> Maria, who was in hiding when she talked to Channel 4 News, said she had been given presents and promised a job in an office by the gang member but was instead drugged and raped and sold to men."
> *
> IF ONE CHILD IS SAVED FROM THIS, THEN OUR JOB DOES IT'S JOB.............
> 
> PERIOD!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then all children should be removed from any any adult entering or leaving our country for Mexico or Canada and put into a detention facility regardless of age until aithorities can determine with out a doubt they are indeed the parents.
> 
> And dont forget, in these facilities they arent even allowed to pick up and console a hysterical toddler who just wants her Mommy!
> 
> What separation from parents does to children: 'The effect is catastrophic ...
> Chicago Tribune › nationworld
> What separation from parents does to children: 'The effect is catastrophic'
Click to expand...


You do understand about Passports, Right? You understand about the requirements for Documents, Right?

Unless you are that Naive (and maybe you are), you actually do sound as if you support Human Trafficking.


----------



## Pop23

Coyote said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> 
> 
> I see. This is only if you
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By that logic everybody who ever emigrated with kids should all lose their parental rights. See the only way your argument works is, if you see parents who try to cross the border as reckless and not desperate. By the way I love how you so studiously used air quotes when saying people. So you didn't have to use parents. Like taking away parents from their children because of something that is even by law a simple misdemeanor is not by it's very nature immoral and makes them undeserving of raising a kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So does jay walking and speeding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a bit more than Jaywalking:
> 
> Mexican woman tells of ordeal with cross-border child traffickers
> 
> "
> *Maria says she was 16 when she was lured into the gang by a man on the streets of the Mexican border town of Ciudad Juárez.
> 
> Since the 1990s, thousands of women have disappeared from the town. Hundreds of bodies bearing signs of rape and sexual mutilation have been dumped on waste ground in the city; thousands more have never returned.
> 
> In 2009, 55 teenage girls vanished in the town, which has been gripped by violence as two drug cartels fight a lethal turf war over cocaine smuggling routes into the US.
> 
> Maria, who was in hiding when she talked to Channel 4 News, said she had been given presents and promised a job in an office by the gang member but was instead drugged and raped and sold to men."
> *
> IF ONE CHILD IS SAVED FROM THIS, THEN OUR JOB DOES IT'S JOB.............
> 
> PERIOD!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then all children should be removed from any any adult entering or leaving our country for Mexico or Canada and put into a detention facility regardless of age until aithorities can determine with out a doubt they are indeed the parents.
> 
> And dont forget, in these facilities they arent even allowed to pick up and console a hysterical toddler who just wants her Mommy!
> 
> What separation from parents does to children: 'The effect is catastrophic ...
> Chicago Tribune › nationworld
> What separation from parents does to children: 'The effect is catastrophic'
Click to expand...


And the effect of not separating them from the adults can be EVEN MORE TRAGIC!

Mexican woman tells of ordeal with cross-border child traffickers

*"A young Mexican woman who escaped from human traffickers has told US special agents how she witnessed babies and children being "sold to order" to US citizens.

America's Department of Homeland Security in Washington says the girl, known only as Maria, had "significant ~information" and possessed a "remarkable memory" of her experiences inside the gang.

In an interview with Channel 4 News, to be broadcast tonight, the teenager tells of a cross-border trade in babies and young children, where Mexican and US gangs worked together to supply a demand in the United States.

As a result of the interview, US officials and Mexican authorities have begun an investigation into the alleged trafficking."*


----------



## Coyote

Pop23 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see. This is only if you
> By that logic everybody who ever emigrated with kids should all lose their parental rights. See the only way your argument works is, if you see parents who try to cross the border as reckless and not desperate. By the way I love how you so studiously used air quotes when saying people. So you didn't have to use parents. Like taking away parents from their children because of something that is even by law a simple misdemeanor is not by it's very nature immoral and makes them undeserving of raising a kid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So does jay walking and speeding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a bit more than Jaywalking:
> 
> Mexican woman tells of ordeal with cross-border child traffickers
> 
> "
> *Maria says she was 16 when she was lured into the gang by a man on the streets of the Mexican border town of Ciudad Juárez.
> 
> Since the 1990s, thousands of women have disappeared from the town. Hundreds of bodies bearing signs of rape and sexual mutilation have been dumped on waste ground in the city; thousands more have never returned.
> 
> In 2009, 55 teenage girls vanished in the town, which has been gripped by violence as two drug cartels fight a lethal turf war over cocaine smuggling routes into the US.
> 
> Maria, who was in hiding when she talked to Channel 4 News, said she had been given presents and promised a job in an office by the gang member but was instead drugged and raped and sold to men."
> *
> IF ONE CHILD IS SAVED FROM THIS, THEN OUR JOB DOES IT'S JOB.............
> 
> PERIOD!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then all children should be removed from any any adult entering or leaving our country for Mexico or Canada and put into a detention facility regardless of age until aithorities can determine with out a doubt they are indeed the parents.
> 
> And dont forget, in these facilities they arent even allowed to pick up and console a hysterical toddler who just wants her Mommy!
> 
> What separation from parents does to children: 'The effect is catastrophic ...
> Chicago Tribune › nationworld
> What separation from parents does to children: 'The effect is catastrophic'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do understand about Passports, Right? You understand about the requirements for Documents, Right?
> 
> Unless you are that Naive (and maybe you are), you actually do sound as if you support Human Trafficking.
Click to expand...

So you are claiming that 100% of those parents have no documents? Or they cant possibly be kept with their children prior to their heating if there is no reasonable suspicion of trafficking?  They cant possibly be detained as a family unit until their hearing?????  Even a nursing child?

Even passports can be faked.

You think I support child trafficking?  Well it sure sounds like you support child abuse.

Do you know what happens to some of those kids in detention facilities?


----------



## Coyote

The only logical end for those that claim 100% of children be removed from adults illegally crossong the border is that all children be removed from all travers in and out of this country.  That is if you really think this has anything to do with reducing child trafficking.

Passports can be faked and actually used by traffickers.


Fake passports fuel child trafficking to Hong Kong, Singapore

Human trafficking case: Cops to probe fake passports


----------



## Flopper

karpenter said:


> Cecile1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those applicants went about it the proper way, and how many swarmed across the border first chance they got, and only mentioned asylum when they got caught and arrested?
> 
> 
> 
> The Illegals Selfishly Elbow Themselves To The Front Of The Line
> At The Expense Of People Already Willing To Follow Our Laws
> 
> And Then These Alien Nationals Demand Special Dispensation
Click to expand...

*You act as if this is a school cafeteria lunch line.  The fact is for people in Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras without a family member or employer in the US to sponsor them, there is no line to wait in.  If you are lucky enough to have a sponsor, the wait is 20 years and rising for an immigrant visa.  If your status or that of your sponsor changes you are likely to find yourself at the end line.  For most people that live in Central America or Mexico, that line you speak of doesn't really exist.  For them, there is only one way to enter the US.*


----------



## Pop23

Coyote said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.
> 
> 
> 
> So does jay walking and speeding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a bit more than Jaywalking:
> 
> Mexican woman tells of ordeal with cross-border child traffickers
> 
> "
> *Maria says she was 16 when she was lured into the gang by a man on the streets of the Mexican border town of Ciudad Juárez.
> 
> Since the 1990s, thousands of women have disappeared from the town. Hundreds of bodies bearing signs of rape and sexual mutilation have been dumped on waste ground in the city; thousands more have never returned.
> 
> In 2009, 55 teenage girls vanished in the town, which has been gripped by violence as two drug cartels fight a lethal turf war over cocaine smuggling routes into the US.
> 
> Maria, who was in hiding when she talked to Channel 4 News, said she had been given presents and promised a job in an office by the gang member but was instead drugged and raped and sold to men."
> *
> IF ONE CHILD IS SAVED FROM THIS, THEN OUR JOB DOES IT'S JOB.............
> 
> PERIOD!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then all children should be removed from any any adult entering or leaving our country for Mexico or Canada and put into a detention facility regardless of age until aithorities can determine with out a doubt they are indeed the parents.
> 
> And dont forget, in these facilities they arent even allowed to pick up and console a hysterical toddler who just wants her Mommy!
> 
> What separation from parents does to children: 'The effect is catastrophic ...
> Chicago Tribune › nationworld
> What separation from parents does to children: 'The effect is catastrophic'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do understand about Passports, Right? You understand about the requirements for Documents, Right?
> 
> Unless you are that Naive (and maybe you are), you actually do sound as if you support Human Trafficking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are claiming that 100% of those parents have no documents? Or they cant possibly be kept with their children prior to their heating if there is no reasonable suspicion of trafficking?  They cant possibly be detained as a family unit until their hearing?????  Even a nursing child?
> 
> Even passports can be faked.
> 
> You think I support child trafficking?  Well it sure sounds like you support child abuse.
> 
> Do you know what happens to some of those kids in detention facilities?
Click to expand...




Coyote said:


> So you are claiming that 100% of those parents have no documents?



I made no such claim, and if they show up at the boarder crossing seeking Asylum. THEY ARE NOT SEPARATED.



Coyote said:


> Or they cant possibly be kept with their children prior to their heating if there is no reasonable suspicion of trafficking?



FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, If they cross at a non border crossing WITHOUT DOCUMENTS, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY MORE EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE FAMILY THAN YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE TRAFFICKING!



Coyote said:


> Even passports can be faked.



Border Patrol is trained on passport recognition. Now you are simply making excuses making it appear you support trafficking. It's not a good look for you.



Coyote said:


> You think I support child trafficking? Well it sure sounds like you support child abuse.



We have put in a system that eliminates the possibility that the adults that would traffic these children, be done in a manner that is as non abusive as possible, while insuring these children are not being trafficked. That is about all we can do.



Coyote said:


> Do you know what happens to some of those kids in detention facilities?



If not worse than happened to Maria, then what is your point?

Mexican woman tells of ordeal with cross-border child traffickers


----------



## Cellblock2429

Vandalshandle said:


> Trump is separating parents from kids because they committed a misdemeanor. That being the case, you had better not exceed the speed limit in your state.


/----/ Trump isn't separating anyone.  It's a consequence of breaking the law. 

_“I hate the children being taken away. The Democrats have to change their law. That’s their law.”_
*— President Trump, in remarks to reporters at the White House, June 15*

_“We have the worst immigration laws in the entire world. Nobody has such sad, such bad and, actually, in many cases, such horrible and tough — you see about child separation, you see what’s going on there.”_
*— Trump, in remarks at the White House, June 18*

_“Because of the Flores consent decree and a 9th Circuit Court decision, ICE can only keep families detained together for a very short period of time.”_
*— Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in a speech in Bozeman, Mont., June 7*


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
> What the approval process is?
> What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
> Is that number trending up or down over time?
> 
> 
> 
> *Over the last 26 years we have granted asylum to 1.9 million people. That's only .5% of the US population.  The average is about 20,000/yr. 40% of those that apply and pass pre-screening are granted asylum after 3 to 6 mos of interviews and investigation. I seriously doubt that Trump would allow that many in the country.  In fact, I don't see any reason he would allow any.  There's nothing political or financial in it for him.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly right and the rates of those granted asylum have been dropping for decades.
> 
> The truth is, they don't want any immigrants at all from the south. It's  more about keeping a white majority nation than anything else. None of them will admit that though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So even if that was the case, what's wrong with that?  Show me one race of people that would support being made a minority in their own country outside of Surrender First whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is race more important than being American?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both are important, especially if you are the race the Democrats want to wipe out.
Click to expand...

Just admit that for you, it's all about keeping brown people out of America.
Don't be a pussy and stop dancing around that point you so desperately are trying to make.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cellblock2429 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is separating parents from kids because they committed a misdemeanor. That being the case, you had better not exceed the speed limit in your state.
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Trump isn't separating anyone.  It's a consequence of breaking the law.
> 
> _“I hate the children being taken away. The Democrats have to change their law. That’s their law.”_
> *— President Trump, in remarks to reporters at the White House, June 15*
> 
> _“We have the worst immigration laws in the entire world. Nobody has such sad, such bad and, actually, in many cases, such horrible and tough — you see about child separation, you see what’s going on there.”_
> *— Trump, in remarks at the White House, June 18*
> 
> _“Because of the Flores consent decree and a 9th Circuit Court decision, ICE can only keep families detained together for a very short period of time.”_
> *— Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in a speech in Bozeman, Mont., June 7*
Click to expand...


It's a result of their zero tolerance policy, dope.

Please tell us what they did during their first year. Did they separate families in this way?  Of course not. It's  a new policy.


----------



## pismoe

Hutch Starskey said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Over the last 26 years we have granted asylum to 1.9 million people. That's only .5% of the US population.  The average is about 20,000/yr. 40% of those that apply and pass pre-screening are granted asylum after 3 to 6 mos of interviews and investigation. I seriously doubt that Trump would allow that many in the country.  In fact, I don't see any reason he would allow any.  There's nothing political or financial in it for him.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right and the rates of those granted asylum have been dropping for decades.
> 
> The truth is, they don't want any immigrants at all from the south. It's  more about keeping a white majority nation than anything else. None of them will admit that though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So even if that was the case, what's wrong with that?  Show me one race of people that would support being made a minority in their own country outside of Surrender First whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is race more important than being American?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both are important, especially if you are the race the Democrats want to wipe out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just admit that for you, it's all about keeping brown people out of America.
> Don't be a pussy and stop dancing around that point you so desperately are trying to make.
Click to expand...

--------------------------------------------   i just say , third worlders as its inclusive of ALL inferiors that i want kept out of the USA no matter what they look like  Hutch .  .


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cecilie1200 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing you can’t qualify for a asylum…And trying anyway knowing you’ll be separated from your children…Should be a crime though...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither applying for asylum nor being denied asylum is a crime. Children should not be separated in either case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha...oh I get it now. You want to believe the cockroaches from Mexico, Central and South America can quality for asylum?
> You realize that whether applying for asylum or not,  an illegal alien standing on American soil is a federal criminal...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone can apply and 40% of applicants are granted asylum. Prosecuting them is not required. It is done as a matter of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice conflation.  How many of those applicants went about it the proper way, and how many swarmed across the border first chance they got, and only mentioned asylum when they got caught and arrested?
Click to expand...

There's no conflation. Asylum seekers were not prosecuted prior to thle implementation of this new policy.
Zero tolerance, meaning 100% prosecutions, is a new policy, fool.


----------



## Pop23

Hutch Starskey said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing you can’t qualify for a asylum…And trying anyway knowing you’ll be separated from your children…Should be a crime though...right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither applying for asylum nor being denied asylum is a crime. Children should not be separated in either case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha...oh I get it now. You want to believe the cockroaches from Mexico, Central and South America can quality for asylum?
> You realize that whether applying for asylum or not,  an illegal alien standing on American soil is a federal criminal...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone can apply and 40% of applicants are granted asylum. Prosecuting them is not required. It is done as a matter of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice conflation.  How many of those applicants went about it the proper way, and how many swarmed across the border first chance they got, and only mentioned asylum when they got caught and arrested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no conflation. Asylum seekers were not prosecuted prior to thle implementation of this new policy.
> Zero tolerance, meaning 100% prosecutions, is a new policy, fool.
Click to expand...


And they aren't now if they present themselves at a border crossing.

Glad I could be here to inform you of something you should google before posting.

Thank me later


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cecilie1200 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need lessons in basic humanity. But most You need to be exposed as a Russian troll who only masquerades as an American who opposes immigration. This encourages American citizens to violate their beliefs and their Constitution and to inflict harm on little children.
> 
> Deplorable doesn’t even begin to cover it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.
> 
> I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.
> 
> Case closed.  You're dismissed, puswad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse.
> 
> This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are illegal aliens, they have no constitutional rights. Who gives a fucking shit about them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> Asylum seekers have a constitutional right to due process of their claim. Making that process criminal is decidedly unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has made seeking asylum criminal, you outrageous frigging liar.
Click to expand...


Sure they did, dope.

If a person crosses illegally and immediately turns themselves in and claims asylum, they crossed for that reason.

Prosecuting them and separating them as a result is a new policy.


----------



## Vandalshandle

There is nothing new about this. Americans hated the Irish immigrants, the Jews, the Italians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the blacks, the Muslims, the Puerto Ricans, the Jamaicans and now Trump has created the hatred of Central Americans. It is the American Way….


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cecilie1200 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Putting innocent children in jail with adults is a really bad idea, are Democrats dumb or something?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't put the adults in jail then. Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there we have it:  the REAL motivation here.  The kids are just a shield to hide behind, a tool to use to advance your agenda.
> 
> Don't ever wonder why everyone pisses all over your bullshit claims of "concern" and "outrage" and "compassion".  We all knew this is what you were REALLY about long before you admitted it.
Click to expand...




Cecilie1200 said:


> And there we have it: the REAL motivation here. The kids are just a shield to hide behind, a tool to use to advance your agenda.
> 
> Don't ever wonder why everyone pisses all over your bullshit claims of "concern" and "outrage" and "compassion". We all knew this is what you were REALLY about long before you admitted it.



That's not what it's  about at all, dope.
It is through their choice to prosecute them that the separation is necessary.
You dopes have a problem understanding that they just started doing this shit six weeks ago. 

For the first year and change they did it the the way every other administration had.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

TemplarKormac said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need lessons in basic humanity. But most You need to be exposed as a Russian troll who only masquerades as an American who opposes immigration. This encourages American citizens to violate their beliefs and their Constitution and to inflict harm on little children.
> 
> Deplorable doesn’t even begin to cover it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.
> 
> I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.
> 
> Case closed.  You're dismissed, puswad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse.
> 
> This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this all you can say? Are you so wrapped up in emotion you're willing to claim someone supports child abuse purely because they disagree with you politically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You certainly aren't  in opposition in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha. Of what? Child abuse? That's weaksauce man.
> 
> My father was a victim of child abuse,  he routinely told me horror stories. He was molested by his brother and beaten with a crossiron. He was starved, and his father tried to kill him.
> 
> No. Don't you dare insinuate that I support child abuse. None of what our President does to these children comes remotely close to that level of child abuse. Nor does it rise to the level of child abuse at all.
Click to expand...


Causing mental and emotional harm to children over prolonged periods of time is certainly child abuse. Especially when done when discrestion allows for altenatives.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, we need to cut through the rhetorical bullshit one more time.
> 
> 1)  The rules about detaining children HAVE NOT changed.  Trump IS NOT doing anything new in regards to detaining children.  The government has been required to release children from detention within 20 days ever since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals extended the Flores Consent Decree (aka the Flores Settlement) to include accompanied minors in 2016.  What Trump has changed is how we deal with adults.  Where Obama used the Flores Settlement and the accompanying Ninth Circuit ruling as an excuse to give adults a free pass if they could claim to be part of a family unit, Trump is insisting on treating those adults like the criminals they are.
> 
> 2)  Separation of children from adults happens only in three cases:  if the adult is not the child's parent, if the adult is a threat to the child, or if the adult is put into criminal proceedings.  In other words, the exact same circumstances under which a child would be taken from an adult even among our own citizenry.
> 
> 3)  When an illegal is prosecuted, he is taken into custody by the US Marshals.  The US Marshals do not, EVER, take care of the children of people they take into custody, no matter who that person is or what they're being arrested for.  Just as with anyone in this situation, the children are taken custody of by HHS, which cares for them in temporary shelters until they know whether the adult will be deported or will apply for asylum.
> 
> 4)  Assuming the illegal has not committed another crime, the criminal proceedings are short.  Usually, the illegal pleads guilty, they are sentenced to time served, and they are returned to ICE.  This typically happens in one day.  At that point, the adult is reunited with the child, and the whole kit and kaboodle are deported back to where they came from.  If the adult is truly concerned about being separated from the child, they can easily put an end to it.
> 
> 5)  The separation only becomes extended if the illegal immigrant himself chooses to make it so by applying for asylum.  THAT procedure pretty much always takes longer than the government is allowed, by law, to hold the child.  When that time limit is reached, the child is placed with a responsible party.  Quite often, that is a relative or friend of the illegal immigrant, because illegal immigrants often have connections to people who are already in the country.
> 
> 6)  If the adult is held while their asylum claim is processed, it is likely to go through the system much more quickly, a couple of months as opposed to dragging on for years.  If the adult is released into the population, he is highly unlikely to return for his court dates.  We know this from experience.
> 
> 7)  There is no reason whatsoever for someone who is legitimately looking for asylum to cross the border illegally.  They have only to approach a port of entry and state their desire for asylum.  They are NOT arrested when they do this, and not separated from their children.  The fact that border crossings dried up at the beginning of the Trump administration and only started again when rumors went around that the policy on the border had not changed indicates that the vast majority of these people are NOT refugees fleeing persecution, but simply prefer the economic benefits of being in the US.
> 
> 8)  In April, the _New York Times_ reported:
> 
> _Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.
> 
> Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing._
> 
> "It is common to have parents entrust their children to a smuggler as a favor or for profit.” - azcentral.com
> 
> But since our policies have favored family units over single adults, we have created an incentive to put children in peril.  How can anyone who claims to care about the well-being of these children advocate policies which encourage their endangerment?
> 
> 9)  Congress has the power to change all of this by one simple vote.  They can pass a law overruling the Flores Settlement; they can pass a law mandating family detention, and providing funding to make it possible.  So why is it that the only bill that has been introduced in Congress to address this situation has come from the Republicans, who are being vilified, and the Democrats are too busy grandstanding for the media to propose anything at all?
> 
> 
> 
> *Lots of good information but the fact remains there is no law that requires Trump to separate the kids from their parents at the border.  This is policy which can be changed at the discretion of the president.  Claiming the law made me do it is just bullshit.  He clearly feels separating the kids from the parents is a determent so why doesn't he admit it.  I'm sure most of his supporters would agree. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact remains that there ARE laws that require it.  I realize that you think the President can just pick and choose what laws to obey and how to do so, but don't think for a second that I believe you wouldn't be screaming about "imperial Presidency" if Trump started acting like Obama.
> 
> It is the law that crossing the border without permission is a criminal act.  It is the law that the President is required to enforce the law.  And it is the law that children cannot be held longer than 20 days.
> 
> It is not President Trump's job to make law, or to ignore it.
Click to expand...




Cecilie1200 said:


> The fact remains that there ARE laws that require it.



Only after the parents are prosecuted which is the new policy, fool.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cecilie1200 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.
> 
> 
> 
> I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
> BTW, Jackson _WAS_ A Democrat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see. This is only if you
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
> BTW, Jackson _WAS_ A Democrat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By that logic everybody who ever emigrated with kids should all lose their parental rights. See the only way your argument works is, if you see parents who try to cross the border as reckless and not desperate. By the way I love how you so studiously used air quotes when saying people. So you didn't have to use parents. Like taking away parents from their children because of something that is even by law a simple misdemeanor is not by it's very nature immoral and makes them undeserving of raising a kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.
Click to expand...




Cecilie1200 said:


> A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.



Which is of course much better than the situation they're fleeing.  

There's an old saying regarding the actions of refugees. " Parents only put their children in a boat whe the land is no longer safe."


----------



## Coyote

A few facts:  What We Know: Family Separation And 'Zero Tolerance' At The Border

*Does the Trump administration have a policy of separating families at the border?*
*Yes.*

In April, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered prosecutors along the border to "adopt immediately a zero-tolerance policy" for illegal border crossings. *That included prosecuting parents traveling with their children as well as people who subsequently attempted to request asylum.*

White House officials *have repeatedly acknowledged* that under that new policy, they separate all families who cross the border. Sessions has described it as deterrence.

_*In Their Own Words*

President Trump: "The United States will not be a migrant camp and it will not be a refugee holding facility. ... Not on my watch."

Attorney General Jeff Sessions: "If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It's that simple. ... If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law. If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."

Sessions on whether the policy is a deterrent: "Yes, hopefully people will get the message and come through the border at the port of entry and not break across the border unlawfully."

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen: Under the "zero tolerance" policy, when families cross the border illegally, "Operationally, what that means is we will have to separate your family. That's no different than what we do every day in every part of the United States when an adult of a family commits a crime."

White House Chief of Staff John Kelly: Separating families is "a tough deterrent. ... The children will be taken care of — put into foster care or whatever. But the big point is they elected to come illegally into the United States and this is a technique that no one hopes will be used extensively or for very long."_​
*The policy is unique to the Trump administration.* Previous administrations did not, as a general principle, separate all families crossing the U.S. border illegally. And the current administration could choose to end this practice and release families together from detention at any time.


----------



## Coyote

A few more facts: A few facts:  What We Know: Family Separation And 'Zero Tolerance' At The Border

*Where do the children go once they've been separated? *
The answer varies over time. Children begin at Border Patrol facilities, are transferred to longer-term shelters and are supposed to eventually be placed with families or sponsors. Here's more about each step:

*Border Patrol facilities.* If you've seen photos of children in what look like chain-link cages — whether unaccompanied minors in 2014 or separated children in 2018 — they are probably photos from a Border Patrol facility.

Children usually are held here initially, but it is illegal to keep them for more than three days — these holding cells are not meant for long-term detainment.

The Associated Press visited one site on Monday and described a "large, dark facility" with separate wings for children, adults and families:
_

"Inside an old warehouse in South Texas, hundreds of children wait in a series of cages created by metal fencing. One cage had 20 children inside. Scattered about are bottles of water, bags of chips and large foil sheets intended to serve as blankets."_​
*Such facilities have been criticized before for poor conditions and reports of abuse and inhumane treatment, including a number of allegations the CBP strongly denies.*

*Child immigrant shelters*. Within three days, children are supposed to be transferred from immigration detention to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services.

For 15 years, ORR has handled the "care and placement" of unaccompanied migrant children. Until recently, that usually meant minors who crossed into the U.S. alone. Now it also includes children who have been separated from their families by authorities,* including much younger children.*

ORR has a network of about 100 shelter facilities, all operated by nonprofit groups, where children are detained.

NPR's John Burnett recently joined other reporters to visit one such facility, a converted Walmart Supercenter housing nearly 1,500 boys ages 10 to 17. Journalists' access to that facility in Brownsville, Texas, was limited, but the site was markedly different from Border Patrol facilities seen in photos released by the government — the teenage boys slept on beds instead of mats in the floor, in rooms instead of cages, and had access to classes and games.

ORR says children remain at these shelters for "fewer than 57 days on average."* However some children have been kept detained for months longer than that, and some advocates say certain facilities improperly administer psychotropic medications.*

Observers have raised concerns about the psychological toll on young children who enter this shelter system. NPR's Joel Rose talked to one former shelter employee *who said he quit after he was instructed to prevent siblings from hugging each other.* The organization that runs the shelter said it allows touching and hugging in certain circumstances.

*Where are the girls and young children? *
Official photos and videos have shown only older boys at shelter facilities. 

HHS says there are specialized shelters for children under 13. *No images from those shelters have been released,* but authorities say new images and videos will be provided later this week.

_Note: why aren't reporters allowed inside?_

More than 10,000 migrant children, including children who crossed the border alone, are kept in ORR facilities. And existing facilities are filling up — the shelter Burnett visited was 95 percent full.

*Tent camps*_. _A temporary facility has been set up in Tornillo, Texas, near El Paso. L*ittle is known about the facility, and reporters have not been allowed outside*, but KQED's John Sepulvado has seen the tent from outside.

_Note: why aren't reporters allowed inside?_

"It's a heavy-duty-grade white tent in the middle of a desert," he told NPR's Here & Now. "It's behind two chain-link fences and there's a dirt easement that's on top of it so you can't actually see into it from the American side.







*Sponsors or family members:* Ultimately, ORR tries to find family members, foster parents or sponsors to take in children. Parents are the preferred option, but that's not a possibility for children who have been separated from parents who remain in detention.

There is no time limit on how long it can take to find a home for a child, but again, ORR says that on average the process takes less than two months.

By law, those relatives or sponsors must, among other requirements, show that they can provide for the minor — sometimes verified with home visits — and ensure the minor's attendance at any future court hearing.

*The Trump administration has said that it intends to subject sponsors to increased scrutiny.*

Under those new rules, the criminal background and immigration status of all sponsors, and any other adult living in the household, will be examined. Biometric data, such as fingerprints, also will be required. The checks will be performed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and not by ORR.


*Critics say these new background checks will have a chilling effect.*

"Under the current circumstances and given the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the administration, it may be that few will be willing to come forward to claim children," said Bob Carey, who was director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement under the Obama administration.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what about all the parents sending their children alone across the frontier to be handled by complete strangers in hopes of getting them across the border? Have they not already broken up the family? Did they not already damage that precious bond between parent and child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bears repeating again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that is another issue, that is not what this is about.  These are parents coming with their kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intriguing...
> 
> How is that a separate issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the policy does not apply to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the inference was that the children were being separated from their parents in every case. You never acknowledged that the majority of the children came here alone. You don't acknowledge that some of these "parents" are in fact NOT parents who use them as a means to get across the border themselves. They essentially abandon these children at the first sight of trouble.
> 
> So,  what is this really about? Compassion? I seriously doubt it. Nobody showed any to these children when they sent them here/ brought them here to be used as bargaining chips.
> 
> You probably want compassion to completely overrule the law.
Click to expand...


It's apples and oranges here - you are trying to conflate two seperate issues in order to somehow deflect this policy.  The children ARE being seperated from their parents in every case where PARENTS CROSSED THE BORDER ILLEGALLY with their children.  I never said ALL MINORS being detained came with parents.

YOU don't acknowledge that thousands of children have been seperated from their parents under this new policy.  Instead you deflect deflect and justify.

Do you seriously expect them to leave their children behind in gang and violence infested areas that they are trying to save them from?  Seriously?


----------



## forkup

Cecilie1200 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.
> 
> 
> 
> I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
> BTW, Jackson _WAS_ A Democrat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see. This is only if you
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
> BTW, Jackson _WAS_ A Democrat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By that logic everybody who ever emigrated with kids should all lose their parental rights. See the only way your argument works is, if you see parents who try to cross the border as reckless and not desperate. By the way I love how you so studiously used air quotes when saying people. So you didn't have to use parents. Like taking away parents from their children because of something that is even by law a simple misdemeanor is not by it's very nature immoral and makes them undeserving of raising a kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.
Click to expand...

So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid.


----------



## Coyote

Pop23 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> So does jay walking and speeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a bit more than Jaywalking:
> 
> Mexican woman tells of ordeal with cross-border child traffickers
> 
> "
> *Maria says she was 16 when she was lured into the gang by a man on the streets of the Mexican border town of Ciudad Juárez.
> 
> Since the 1990s, thousands of women have disappeared from the town. Hundreds of bodies bearing signs of rape and sexual mutilation have been dumped on waste ground in the city; thousands more have never returned.
> 
> In 2009, 55 teenage girls vanished in the town, which has been gripped by violence as two drug cartels fight a lethal turf war over cocaine smuggling routes into the US.
> 
> Maria, who was in hiding when she talked to Channel 4 News, said she had been given presents and promised a job in an office by the gang member but was instead drugged and raped and sold to men."
> *
> IF ONE CHILD IS SAVED FROM THIS, THEN OUR JOB DOES IT'S JOB.............
> 
> PERIOD!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then all children should be removed from any any adult entering or leaving our country for Mexico or Canada and put into a detention facility regardless of age until aithorities can determine with out a doubt they are indeed the parents.
> 
> And dont forget, in these facilities they arent even allowed to pick up and console a hysterical toddler who just wants her Mommy!
> 
> What separation from parents does to children: 'The effect is catastrophic ...
> Chicago Tribune › nationworld
> What separation from parents does to children: 'The effect is catastrophic'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do understand about Passports, Right? You understand about the requirements for Documents, Right?
> 
> Unless you are that Naive (and maybe you are), you actually do sound as if you support Human Trafficking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are claiming that 100% of those parents have no documents? Or they cant possibly be kept with their children prior to their heating if there is no reasonable suspicion of trafficking?  They cant possibly be detained as a family unit until their hearing?????  Even a nursing child?
> 
> Even passports can be faked.
> 
> You think I support child trafficking?  Well it sure sounds like you support child abuse.
> 
> Do you know what happens to some of those kids in detention facilities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are claiming that 100% of those parents have no documents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I made no such claim, and if they show up at the boarder crossing seeking Asylum. THEY ARE NOT SEPARATED.
Click to expand...


It sure sounded like it Pops.  I mean, you have 100% seperation of all parents crossing with children.  Not just parents without documents, and you implied that was the case where there was seperation.  *ALL parents.*

And yes.  Those seeking asylum are also being seperated: https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/whats-really-happening-asylum-seeking-families-seperated.




> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or they cant possibly be kept with their children prior to their heating if there is no reasonable suspicion of trafficking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, If they cross at a non border crossing WITHOUT DOCUMENTS, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY MORE EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE FAMILY THAN YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE TRAFFICKING!
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even passports can be faked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Border Patrol is trained on passport recognition. Now you are simply making excuses making it appear you support trafficking. It's not a good look for you.*
Click to expand...


Really  now?  You think they just look at passports, which are easily faked?  

Migrants, young and old, are not always related. Border Patrol says fear of child trafficking forces separations

No.  YOU are just trying to make it appear like I support trafficking rather than addressing the arguments.  Do you support child abuse?  I don't really think so.  But if I go by your rationale,* then it sure looks like it*.  How about we quit these stupid insults?



> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think I support child trafficking? Well it sure sounds like you support child abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have put in a system that eliminates the possibility that the adults that would traffic these children, be done in a manner that is *as non abusive as possible, *while insuring these children are not being trafficked. That is about all we can do.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what happens to some of those kids in detention facilities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If not worse than happened to Maria, then what is your point?
> 
> Mexican woman tells of ordeal with cross-border child traffickers
Click to expand...


Is that your excuse for supporting this policy?  You do realize that this was not put into place for the purposes of addressing child trafficking don't you?  That's just the most recent excuse for supporting what is effectively a very very damaging policy for the children who aren't being trafficked.

Do you have any real numbers on how many of those children being detained since this policy went into effect were found *after *detention to be victims of traffickers?  Not children seperated because border control thought they were (ie parents couldn't identify a birthday or children themselves gave indications that they weren't their parents)?

*How many of the children automatically torn away were victims of traffickers?*


----------



## Coyote

Pop23 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither applying for asylum nor being denied asylum is a crime. Children should not be separated in either case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...oh I get it now. You want to believe the cockroaches from Mexico, Central and South America can quality for asylum?
> You realize that whether applying for asylum or not,  an illegal alien standing on American soil is a federal criminal...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone can apply and 40% of applicants are granted asylum. Prosecuting them is not required. It is done as a matter of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice conflation.  How many of those applicants went about it the proper way, and how many swarmed across the border first chance they got, and only mentioned asylum when they got caught and arrested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no conflation. Asylum seekers were not prosecuted prior to thle implementation of this new policy.
> Zero tolerance, meaning 100% prosecutions, is a new policy, fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they aren't now if they present themselves at a border crossing.
> 
> Glad I could be here to inform you of something you should google before posting.
> 
> Thank me later
Click to expand...


Trump admin discussed splitting moms, kids to prevent asylum in Feb. 2017
WASHINGTON — The idea of separating migrant children from their mothers was discussed during the earliest days of the Trump administration *as a way to deter asylum-seekers,* according to notes from a closed-door DHS meeting.

BC News has found that some women *are separated from their children even if they are legally claiming asylum* and not being referred for prosecution. In those cases, the children are kept in the same facility, *but they are still separated for days without being told whether they will be reunited.*

Former USCIS Director Leon Rodriguez, who served under the Obama administration, said families who presented themselves for asylum between ports of entry were not previously prosecuted.

"We understood that the border had to have integrity," Rodriguez said. "But we also had a pretty deep awareness of why people were coming. There were deep humanitarian issues that were driving them here."


----------



## Cecilie1200

Hutch Starskey said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing you can’t qualify for a asylum…And trying anyway knowing you’ll be separated from your children…Should be a crime though...right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither applying for asylum nor being denied asylum is a crime. Children should not be separated in either case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha...oh I get it now. You want to believe the cockroaches from Mexico, Central and South America can quality for asylum?
> You realize that whether applying for asylum or not,  an illegal alien standing on American soil is a federal criminal...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone can apply and 40% of applicants are granted asylum. Prosecuting them is not required. It is done as a matter of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice conflation.  How many of those applicants went about it the proper way, and how many swarmed across the border first chance they got, and only mentioned asylum when they got caught and arrested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no conflation. Asylum seekers were not prosecuted prior to thle implementation of this new policy.
> Zero tolerance, meaning 100% prosecutions, is a new policy, fool.
Click to expand...


Asylum seekers aren't prosecuted NOW, unless they commit a crime.  Too bad for you that crossing the border IS still a crime.

However, if someone who has crossed the border illegally THEN asked for asylum is actually granted the asylum, then they certainly aren't prosecuted for anything.

Meanwhile, none of this answers the question you're either too stupid to understand, or too cowardly and dishonest to acknowledge:  40% of WHICH applicants?  You're conflating asylum applicants who go about it the legal way with people who only request asylum when they get caught breaking the law.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Hutch Starskey said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.
> 
> I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.
> 
> Case closed.  You're dismissed, puswad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse.
> 
> This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are illegal aliens, they have no constitutional rights. Who gives a fucking shit about them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> Asylum seekers have a constitutional right to due process of their claim. Making that process criminal is decidedly unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has made seeking asylum criminal, you outrageous frigging liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they did, dope.
> 
> If a person crosses illegally and immediately turns themselves in and claims asylum, they crossed for that reason.
> 
> Prosecuting them and separating them as a result is a new policy.
Click to expand...


Sorry, asshole, but seeking asylum is not illegal.  Crossing the border between ports of entry is, and committing a crime "for a really good reason" is still committing a crime.  They are being prosecuted for their criminal act, not for seeking entry.  There is no earthly reason whatsoever for a legitimate asylum seeker to EVER cross the border illegally.

You're cordially invited to stop lying and making shit up any time now.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Hutch Starskey said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Putting innocent children in jail with adults is a really bad idea, are Democrats dumb or something?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't put the adults in jail then. Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there we have it:  the REAL motivation here.  The kids are just a shield to hide behind, a tool to use to advance your agenda.
> 
> Don't ever wonder why everyone pisses all over your bullshit claims of "concern" and "outrage" and "compassion".  We all knew this is what you were REALLY about long before you admitted it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there we have it: the REAL motivation here. The kids are just a shield to hide behind, a tool to use to advance your agenda.
> 
> Don't ever wonder why everyone pisses all over your bullshit claims of "concern" and "outrage" and "compassion". We all knew this is what you were REALLY about long before you admitted it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what it's  about at all, dope.
> It is through their choice to prosecute them that the separation is necessary.
> You dopes have a problem understanding that they just started doing this shit six weeks ago.
> 
> For the first year and change they did it the the way every other administration had.
Click to expand...


"Ehrmagerd, Trump is so eeeeevil to prosecute people for committing crimes!  How DARE he not just give criminals a pass because they squeezed out some kids?!"

You dopes have a problem understanding that "this shit" is happening because you wanted to let illegals flood into the country, but you were too chickenshit and dishonest to just SAY it.  It's no one's fault but your own that you dumbasses fought for a law you never intended to have enforced.  And now your chickens have come home to roost, because your God-Emperor isn't in office anymore, and can't use your underhanded maneuvers as an excuse to release illegals in job lots.

You can scream to the skies how it's "all Trump's fault", but I have no intention of letting you get away with it.  You have no one to blame but yourselves.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> YOU don't acknowledge that thousands of children have been seperated from their parents under this new policy. Instead you deflect deflect and justify.



First of all, I can't help but notice how emotional your argument is getting.

Second, this isn't a new policy. Go look up the William Wilberforce Trafficking Act. Bush signed that law in 2008. This whole thing is the result of multiple administrations implementing and expanding upon existing immigration and anti-trafficking laws.

Third, you fail to acknowledge, on your own, that separation happens all the time with legal citizens here in the US. When a mother with children commits a crime, she is sent to jail. If a mother and father are partners in crime, they are both sent to jail. Separated from their children. But no outcry from you.

Fourth, you refuse to acknowledge that the majority of the children who come here are smuggled here or sent here ALONE. You refuse to see the fact that the separation happened before they even got here.

Fifth, Trump has already called for the authority from congress to detain and deport families at the border TOGETHER. But Democrats are too busy wailing and resisting to even consider helping him with that.

Lastly, how can you blame Trump for any of this? You can't. How can you expect anyone to have sympathy when Democrats are serving as a constant barrier to the resolution of this issue? Wouldn't that show that they lack sympathy? Putting their own political goals ahead of that of the families they don't want being separated?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Hutch Starskey said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.
> 
> I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.
> 
> Case closed.  You're dismissed, puswad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse.
> 
> This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this all you can say? Are you so wrapped up in emotion you're willing to claim someone supports child abuse purely because they disagree with you politically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You certainly aren't  in opposition in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha. Of what? Child abuse? That's weaksauce man.
> 
> My father was a victim of child abuse,  he routinely told me horror stories. He was molested by his brother and beaten with a crossiron. He was starved, and his father tried to kill him.
> 
> No. Don't you dare insinuate that I support child abuse. None of what our President does to these children comes remotely close to that level of child abuse. Nor does it rise to the level of child abuse at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Causing mental and emotional harm to children over prolonged periods of time is certainly child abuse. Especially when done when discrestion allows for altenatives.
Click to expand...


Then perhaps their parents shouldn't do it.

And we all know about your "discretion allows for alternatives", otherwise known as "just stop enforcing the border!"


----------



## Cecilie1200

Hutch Starskey said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, we need to cut through the rhetorical bullshit one more time.
> 
> 1)  The rules about detaining children HAVE NOT changed.  Trump IS NOT doing anything new in regards to detaining children.  The government has been required to release children from detention within 20 days ever since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals extended the Flores Consent Decree (aka the Flores Settlement) to include accompanied minors in 2016.  What Trump has changed is how we deal with adults.  Where Obama used the Flores Settlement and the accompanying Ninth Circuit ruling as an excuse to give adults a free pass if they could claim to be part of a family unit, Trump is insisting on treating those adults like the criminals they are.
> 
> 2)  Separation of children from adults happens only in three cases:  if the adult is not the child's parent, if the adult is a threat to the child, or if the adult is put into criminal proceedings.  In other words, the exact same circumstances under which a child would be taken from an adult even among our own citizenry.
> 
> 3)  When an illegal is prosecuted, he is taken into custody by the US Marshals.  The US Marshals do not, EVER, take care of the children of people they take into custody, no matter who that person is or what they're being arrested for.  Just as with anyone in this situation, the children are taken custody of by HHS, which cares for them in temporary shelters until they know whether the adult will be deported or will apply for asylum.
> 
> 4)  Assuming the illegal has not committed another crime, the criminal proceedings are short.  Usually, the illegal pleads guilty, they are sentenced to time served, and they are returned to ICE.  This typically happens in one day.  At that point, the adult is reunited with the child, and the whole kit and kaboodle are deported back to where they came from.  If the adult is truly concerned about being separated from the child, they can easily put an end to it.
> 
> 5)  The separation only becomes extended if the illegal immigrant himself chooses to make it so by applying for asylum.  THAT procedure pretty much always takes longer than the government is allowed, by law, to hold the child.  When that time limit is reached, the child is placed with a responsible party.  Quite often, that is a relative or friend of the illegal immigrant, because illegal immigrants often have connections to people who are already in the country.
> 
> 6)  If the adult is held while their asylum claim is processed, it is likely to go through the system much more quickly, a couple of months as opposed to dragging on for years.  If the adult is released into the population, he is highly unlikely to return for his court dates.  We know this from experience.
> 
> 7)  There is no reason whatsoever for someone who is legitimately looking for asylum to cross the border illegally.  They have only to approach a port of entry and state their desire for asylum.  They are NOT arrested when they do this, and not separated from their children.  The fact that border crossings dried up at the beginning of the Trump administration and only started again when rumors went around that the policy on the border had not changed indicates that the vast majority of these people are NOT refugees fleeing persecution, but simply prefer the economic benefits of being in the US.
> 
> 8)  In April, the _New York Times_ reported:
> 
> _Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.
> 
> Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing._
> 
> "It is common to have parents entrust their children to a smuggler as a favor or for profit.” - azcentral.com
> 
> But since our policies have favored family units over single adults, we have created an incentive to put children in peril.  How can anyone who claims to care about the well-being of these children advocate policies which encourage their endangerment?
> 
> 9)  Congress has the power to change all of this by one simple vote.  They can pass a law overruling the Flores Settlement; they can pass a law mandating family detention, and providing funding to make it possible.  So why is it that the only bill that has been introduced in Congress to address this situation has come from the Republicans, who are being vilified, and the Democrats are too busy grandstanding for the media to propose anything at all?
> 
> 
> 
> *Lots of good information but the fact remains there is no law that requires Trump to separate the kids from their parents at the border.  This is policy which can be changed at the discretion of the president.  Claiming the law made me do it is just bullshit.  He clearly feels separating the kids from the parents is a determent so why doesn't he admit it.  I'm sure most of his supporters would agree. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact remains that there ARE laws that require it.  I realize that you think the President can just pick and choose what laws to obey and how to do so, but don't think for a second that I believe you wouldn't be screaming about "imperial Presidency" if Trump started acting like Obama.
> 
> It is the law that crossing the border without permission is a criminal act.  It is the law that the President is required to enforce the law.  And it is the law that children cannot be held longer than 20 days.
> 
> It is not President Trump's job to make law, or to ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains that there ARE laws that require it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only after the parents are prosecuted which is the new policy, fool.
Click to expand...


No, dumbshit, the law requires that if the parents are arrested, the children cannot be detained for longer than 20 days.  Period.  End of discussion.  You can say, "Trump can just sign an order to ignore that" and force me to say it for 100 more times on top of the 100 you've done it so far, but the answer will remain the same.

The only fool here is the one who deliberately forgets what he's told five seconds after it's said, because he REALLY wants to believe he can wish the world different.

Let me save you some time.

The law requires that children whose parents have been arrested MUST not be detained longer than 20 days. 

"Trump could just issue and executive order and change that."

The President does not have the legal authority to ignore or change the law unilaterally.  Congress could change it, but I notice you're not spending ANY time excoriating the people who have that power, and ALL your time blaming someone who doesn't.

Until I hear you say something about "Why doesn't Congress do something?" you lack all moral credibility on this subject, and have summarily lost the debate.

There.  Now copy and paste that somewhere, and stop chasing your tail.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cecilie1200 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is separating parents from kids because they committed a misdemeanor. That being the case, you had better not exceed the speed limit in your state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't exceed the speed limit, anyway.  But yeah, you definitely shouldn't do anything in a car, with your kids present, that gets you arrested.  You shouldn't do anything AT ALL that carries with it the chance of being arrested when you have your kids with you, because they will ALWAYS be taken away from you while you're in the pokey.  I have no idea why it's a shock to you that kids aren't jailed along with their parents.
> 
> But this really cuts to the heart of the matter.  You leftists keep yabbling mindlessly about "just a misdemeanor", when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".
Click to expand...




Cecilie1200 said:


> when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".



No. What we really mean is there are ways to deal with this without separation being a result. Trump knows this. Separation was always their intention.

From march of 17. Video in link.

"Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly says the Trump administration is considering separating children from their parents to deter families from trying to enter the United States illegally"

Kelly: Separating families under consideration - CNN Video


----------



## Cecilie1200

Hutch Starskey said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
> BTW, Jackson _WAS_ A Democrat...
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see. This is only if you
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
> BTW, Jackson _WAS_ A Democrat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By that logic everybody who ever emigrated with kids should all lose their parental rights. See the only way your argument works is, if you see parents who try to cross the border as reckless and not desperate. By the way I love how you so studiously used air quotes when saying people. So you didn't have to use parents. Like taking away parents from their children because of something that is even by law a simple misdemeanor is not by it's very nature immoral and makes them undeserving of raising a kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is of course much better than the situation they're fleeing.
> 
> There's an old saying regarding the actions of refugees. " Parents only put their children in a boat whe the land is no longer safe."
Click to expand...


What a load of horseshit.  I realize you want to pretend that every single one of these people is fleeing horrible persecution, but the fact is that most of them just want to take advantage of our standard of living.  Which is understandable, but it's also not my fucking problem.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> A few facts:  What We Know: Family Separation And 'Zero Tolerance' At The Border
> 
> *Does the Trump administration have a policy of separating families at the border?*
> *Yes.*
> 
> In April, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered prosecutors along the border to "adopt immediately a zero-tolerance policy" for illegal border crossings. *That included prosecuting parents traveling with their children as well as people who subsequently attempted to request asylum.*
> 
> White House officials *have repeatedly acknowledged* that under that new policy, they separate all families who cross the border. Sessions has described it as deterrence.
> 
> _*In Their Own Words*
> 
> President Trump: "The United States will not be a migrant camp and it will not be a refugee holding facility. ... Not on my watch."
> 
> Attorney General Jeff Sessions: "If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It's that simple. ... If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law. If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Sessions on whether the policy is a deterrent: "Yes, hopefully people will get the message and come through the border at the port of entry and not break across the border unlawfully."
> 
> Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen: Under the "zero tolerance" policy, when families cross the border illegally, "Operationally, what that means is we will have to separate your family. That's no different than what we do every day in every part of the United States when an adult of a family commits a crime."
> 
> White House Chief of Staff John Kelly: Separating families is "a tough deterrent. ... The children will be taken care of — put into foster care or whatever. But the big point is they elected to come illegally into the United States and this is a technique that no one hopes will be used extensively or for very long."_​
> *The policy is unique to the Trump administration.* Previous administrations did not, as a general principle, separate all families crossing the U.S. border illegally. And the current administration could choose to end this practice and release families together from detention at any time.



A few facts:

NPR isn't "facts".

Okay, that was just one fact, but it's a fairly important one.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

pismoe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration..
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Not Seizing Their Lands
> Marching Them Off To Death
> Or Rescinding Any Of Their Rightful Citizenship Claims
> 
> To Compare What Is Happening Along Our Border Now
> To What Jackson Did Then And NAZIism
> Is The Height Of Hyperbole
> 
> You Folks Cheapen Words Like
> 'Hitler' And 'Atrocity' Every Time You Use Them
> Because You Use Them To Describe Everything
> From Having Your Feelings Hurt To Stubbing Your Toes
> 
> So Save It
> There Is NO Equivalence
> Not In The Analogy That Was Used To Compare Trump To Jackson Or NAZIs
> 
> But The Equivalence Does Apply To Jackson (A Democrat)
> To Your 'Hitlers' And Your 'Atrocities'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is just abusing children.  No big deal to his base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------   i love the way that this tactic is reportedly scaring the heck out of other third worlders .   Also good news is that this tactic is supposedly stopping some overseas people from wanting to import themselves into the USA .    Hey , its ALL Good Coyote .
Click to expand...




pismoe said:


> - i love the way that this tactic is reportedly scaring the heck out of other third worlders .



It's not. Thats the point. It's creating alot of pain for children without much benefit.

Border Patrol agents say Trump's 'zero tolerance' border policy isn't immediately working, and officials are bracing for an 'eruption' from Trump


----------



## Cecilie1200

forkup said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
> BTW, Jackson _WAS_ A Democrat...
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see. This is only if you
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
> BTW, Jackson _WAS_ A Democrat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By that logic everybody who ever emigrated with kids should all lose their parental rights. See the only way your argument works is, if you see parents who try to cross the border as reckless and not desperate. By the way I love how you so studiously used air quotes when saying people. So you didn't have to use parents. Like taking away parents from their children because of something that is even by law a simple misdemeanor is not by it's very nature immoral and makes them undeserving of raising a kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid.
Click to expand...


You should never have been allowed to reproduce, simply because you're pig-stupid enough to compare crossing the street (presumably at an intersection, but given your shocking level of brain damage, I won't assume anything) with entering the country illegally.

Your post is invalid, your presumption of functional intelligence is invalid, your existence is invalid.  Maybe you should send your kid in to debate on your behalf.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Pop23 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither applying for asylum nor being denied asylum is a crime. Children should not be separated in either case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...oh I get it now. You want to believe the cockroaches from Mexico, Central and South America can quality for asylum?
> You realize that whether applying for asylum or not,  an illegal alien standing on American soil is a federal criminal...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone can apply and 40% of applicants are granted asylum. Prosecuting them is not required. It is done as a matter of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice conflation.  How many of those applicants went about it the proper way, and how many swarmed across the border first chance they got, and only mentioned asylum when they got caught and arrested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no conflation. Asylum seekers were not prosecuted prior to thle implementation of this new policy.
> Zero tolerance, meaning 100% prosecutions, is a new policy, fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they aren't now if they present themselves at a border crossing.
> 
> Glad I could be here to inform you of something you should google before posting.
> 
> Thank me later
Click to expand...


That's not what I'm talking about, dope


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

Cecilie1200 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, we need to cut through the rhetorical bullshit one more time.
> 
> 1)  The rules about detaining children HAVE NOT changed.  Trump IS NOT doing anything new in regards to detaining children.  The government has been required to release children from detention within 20 days ever since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals extended the Flores Consent Decree (aka the Flores Settlement) to include accompanied minors in 2016.  What Trump has changed is how we deal with adults.  Where Obama used the Flores Settlement and the accompanying Ninth Circuit ruling as an excuse to give adults a free pass if they could claim to be part of a family unit, Trump is insisting on treating those adults like the criminals they are.
> 
> 2)  Separation of children from adults happens only in three cases:  if the adult is not the child's parent, if the adult is a threat to the child, or if the adult is put into criminal proceedings.  In other words, the exact same circumstances under which a child would be taken from an adult even among our own citizenry.
> 
> 3)  When an illegal is prosecuted, he is taken into custody by the US Marshals.  The US Marshals do not, EVER, take care of the children of people they take into custody, no matter who that person is or what they're being arrested for.  Just as with anyone in this situation, the children are taken custody of by HHS, which cares for them in temporary shelters until they know whether the adult will be deported or will apply for asylum.
> 
> 4)  Assuming the illegal has not committed another crime, the criminal proceedings are short.  Usually, the illegal pleads guilty, they are sentenced to time served, and they are returned to ICE.  This typically happens in one day.  At that point, the adult is reunited with the child, and the whole kit and kaboodle are deported back to where they came from.  If the adult is truly concerned about being separated from the child, they can easily put an end to it.
> 
> 5)  The separation only becomes extended if the illegal immigrant himself chooses to make it so by applying for asylum.  THAT procedure pretty much always takes longer than the government is allowed, by law, to hold the child.  When that time limit is reached, the child is placed with a responsible party.  Quite often, that is a relative or friend of the illegal immigrant, because illegal immigrants often have connections to people who are already in the country.
> 
> 6)  If the adult is held while their asylum claim is processed, it is likely to go through the system much more quickly, a couple of months as opposed to dragging on for years.  If the adult is released into the population, he is highly unlikely to return for his court dates.  We know this from experience.
> 
> 7)  There is no reason whatsoever for someone who is legitimately looking for asylum to cross the border illegally.  They have only to approach a port of entry and state their desire for asylum.  They are NOT arrested when they do this, and not separated from their children.  The fact that border crossings dried up at the beginning of the Trump administration and only started again when rumors went around that the policy on the border had not changed indicates that the vast majority of these people are NOT refugees fleeing persecution, but simply prefer the economic benefits of being in the US.
> 
> 8)  In April, the _New York Times_ reported:
> 
> _Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.
> 
> Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing._
> 
> "It is common to have parents entrust their children to a smuggler as a favor or for profit.” - azcentral.com
> 
> But since our policies have favored family units over single adults, we have created an incentive to put children in peril.  How can anyone who claims to care about the well-being of these children advocate policies which encourage their endangerment?
> 
> 9)  Congress has the power to change all of this by one simple vote.  They can pass a law overruling the Flores Settlement; they can pass a law mandating family detention, and providing funding to make it possible.  So why is it that the only bill that has been introduced in Congress to address this situation has come from the Republicans, who are being vilified, and the Democrats are too busy grandstanding for the media to propose anything at all?
> 
> 
> 
> *Lots of good information but the fact remains there is no law that requires Trump to separate the kids from their parents at the border.  This is policy which can be changed at the discretion of the president.  Claiming the law made me do it is just bullshit.  He clearly feels separating the kids from the parents is a determent so why doesn't he admit it.  I'm sure most of his supporters would agree. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact remains that there ARE laws that require it.  I realize that you think the President can just pick and choose what laws to obey and how to do so, but don't think for a second that I believe you wouldn't be screaming about "imperial Presidency" if Trump started acting like Obama.
> 
> It is the law that crossing the border without permission is a criminal act.  It is the law that the President is required to enforce the law.  And it is the law that children cannot be held longer than 20 days.
> 
> It is not President Trump's job to make law, or to ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains that there ARE laws that require it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only after the parents are prosecuted which is the new policy, fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, dumbshit, the law requires that if the parents are arrested, the children cannot be detained for longer than 20 days.  Period.  End of discussion.  You can say, "Trump can just sign an order to ignore that" and force me to say it for 100 more times on top of the 100 you've done it so far, but the answer will remain the same.
> 
> The only fool here is the one who deliberately forgets what he's told five seconds after it's said, because he REALLY wants to believe he can wish the world different.
> 
> Let me save you some time.
> 
> The law requires that children whose parents have been arrested MUST not be detained longer than 20 days.
> 
> "Trump could just issue and executive order and change that."
> 
> The President does not have the legal authority to ignore or change the law unilaterally.  Congress could change it, but I notice you're not spending ANY time excoriating the people who have that power, and ALL your time blaming someone who doesn't.
> 
> Until I hear you say something about "Why doesn't Congress do something?" you lack all moral credibility on this subject, and have summarily lost the debate.
> 
> There.  Now copy and paste that somewhere, and stop chasing your tail.
Click to expand...


Most Dem Voters just don't have the mental capacity to understand how our three branches of government work.


----------



## Flopper

Cecilie1200 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is separating parents from kids because they committed a misdemeanor. That being the case, you had better not exceed the speed limit in your state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't exceed the speed limit, anyway.  But yeah, you definitely shouldn't do anything in a car, with your kids present, that gets you arrested.  You shouldn't do anything AT ALL that carries with it the chance of being arrested when you have your kids with you, because they will ALWAYS be taken away from you while you're in the pokey.  I have no idea why it's a shock to you that kids aren't jailed along with their parents.
> 
> But this really cuts to the heart of the matter.  You leftists keep yabbling mindlessly about "just a misdemeanor", when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".
Click to expand...

*The difference is in most traffic violations you don't go to jail and if you do, you can request bail.  

And yes, our immigration laws do consider a first time offense of crossing the boarder illegally a misdemeanor, a minor wrongdoing by definition.  A first time offense carries a maximum of 6 mos in jail which is rarely used.  To give you an idea how minor the offense is, Misdemeanor Trespassing carries a heavier penalty in most states and it wasn't until  the 1996 immigration reform law that there was any legal penalty at all.

The first step in fixing the immigration system is to fix the law.*


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cecilie1200 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither applying for asylum nor being denied asylum is a crime. Children should not be separated in either case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...oh I get it now. You want to believe the cockroaches from Mexico, Central and South America can quality for asylum?
> You realize that whether applying for asylum or not,  an illegal alien standing on American soil is a federal criminal...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone can apply and 40% of applicants are granted asylum. Prosecuting them is not required. It is done as a matter of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice conflation.  How many of those applicants went about it the proper way, and how many swarmed across the border first chance they got, and only mentioned asylum when they got caught and arrested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no conflation. Asylum seekers were not prosecuted prior to thle implementation of this new policy.
> Zero tolerance, meaning 100% prosecutions, is a new policy, fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers aren't prosecuted NOW, unless they commit a crime.  Too bad for you that crossing the border IS still a crime.
> 
> However, if someone who has crossed the border illegally THEN asked for asylum is actually granted the asylum, then they certainly aren't prosecuted for anything.
> 
> Meanwhile, none of this answers the question you're either too stupid to understand, or too cowardly and dishonest to acknowledge:
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither applying for asylum nor being denied asylum is a crime. Children should not be separated in either case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha...oh I get it now. You want to believe the cockroaches from Mexico, Central and South America can quality for asylum?
> You realize that whether applying for asylum or not,  an illegal alien standing on American soil is a federal criminal...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone can apply and 40% of applicants are granted asylum. Prosecuting them is not required. It is done as a matter of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice conflation.  How many of those applicants went about it the proper way, and how many swarmed across the border first chance they got, and only mentioned asylum when they got caught and arrested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no conflation. Asylum seekers were not prosecuted prior to thle implementation of this new policy.
> Zero tolerance, meaning 100% prosecutions, is a new policy, fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum seekers aren't prosecuted NOW, unless they commit a crime.  Too bad for you that crossing the border IS still a crime.
> 
> However, if someone who has crossed the border illegally THEN asked for asylum is actually granted the asylum, then they certainly aren't prosecuted for anything.
> 
> Meanwhile, none of this answers the question you're either too stupid to understand, or too cowardly and dishonest to acknowledge:  40% of WHICH applicants?  You're conflating asylum applicants who go about it the legal way with people who only request asylum when they get caught breaking the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're conflating asylum applicants who go about it the legal way with people who only request asylum when they get caught breaking the law.
Click to expand...




Cecilie1200 said:


> Asylum seekers aren't prosecuted NOW, unless they commit a crime. Too bad for you that crossing the border IS still a crime.



All asylum seekers who crossed illegally are prosecuted now under this policy, dope.



Cecilie1200 said:


> However, if someone who has crossed the border illegally THEN asked for asylum is actually granted the asylum, then they certainly aren't prosecuted for anything



This just contradicted your first pargraph, dope.



Cecilie1200 said:


> : 40% of WHICH applicants?


 All applicants, dope.


----------



## forkup

Cecilie1200 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see. This is only if you
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By that logic everybody who ever emigrated with kids should all lose their parental rights. See the only way your argument works is, if you see parents who try to cross the border as reckless and not desperate. By the way I love how you so studiously used air quotes when saying people. So you didn't have to use parents. Like taking away parents from their children because of something that is even by law a simple misdemeanor is not by it's very nature immoral and makes them undeserving of raising a kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should never have been allowed to reproduce, simply because you're pig-stupid enough to compare crossing the street (presumably at an intersection, but given your shocking level of brain damage, I won't assume anything) with entering the country illegally.
> 
> Your post is invalid, your presumption of functional intelligence is invalid, your existence is invalid.  Maybe you should send your kid in to debate on your behalf.
Click to expand...

I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.


----------



## TemplarKormac

candycorn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote
> 
> If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.
> 
> Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.
> 
> So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.
> 
> How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, _separates_, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?
> 
> Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred?
> 
> Why all the emotion and no solution?
> 
> 
> 
> *If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act.  However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have  some documentation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First... I can contend that the exact opposite is true. You can't assume that all of these adults with minors are in fact families.
> 
> Second,  these people had no rights in America (constitutional or otherwise) before they crossed the border illegally, why should they suddenly attain them when they do? If you aren't a citizen, you should not be entitled to constitutional rights until you go through the proper channels. Period. Full stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there are no basic human rights?
Click to expand...


 You want compassion to overrule the law. I want the law to stand sacrosanct against emotional arguments like yours. Too much emotion and compassion can erode the rule of law. You can have your basic human rights, but you surrender all others when you commit a crime against justly enacted law. That's what _you_ fail to understand.

I'm beginning to think people like you and Coyote hold no respect for the law. Otherwise you would demand that it be enforced. But you want the law to be selectively applied.

I SAID _NOTHING_ ABOUT DENYING THEM THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cecilie1200 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse.
> 
> This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse
> 
> 
> 
> They are illegal aliens, they have no constitutional rights. Who gives a fucking shit about them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> Asylum seekers have a constitutional right to due process of their claim. Making that process criminal is decidedly unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has made seeking asylum criminal, you outrageous frigging liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they did, dope.
> 
> If a person crosses illegally and immediately turns themselves in and claims asylum, they crossed for that reason.
> 
> Prosecuting them and separating them as a result is a new policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, asshole, but seeking asylum is not illegal.  Crossing the border between ports of entry is, and committing a crime "for a really good reason" is still committing a crime.  They are being prosecuted for their criminal act, not for seeking entry.  There is no earthly reason whatsoever for a legitimate asylum seeker to EVER cross the border illegally.
> 
> You're cordially invited to stop lying and making shit up any time now.
Click to expand...


All asylum seekers who cross illegally are prosecuted now. That was not the case six weeks ago, dope.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Hutch Starskey said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is separating parents from kids because they committed a misdemeanor. That being the case, you had better not exceed the speed limit in your state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't exceed the speed limit, anyway.  But yeah, you definitely shouldn't do anything in a car, with your kids present, that gets you arrested.  You shouldn't do anything AT ALL that carries with it the chance of being arrested when you have your kids with you, because they will ALWAYS be taken away from you while you're in the pokey.  I have no idea why it's a shock to you that kids aren't jailed along with their parents.
> 
> But this really cuts to the heart of the matter.  You leftists keep yabbling mindlessly about "just a misdemeanor", when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. What we really mean is there are ways to deal with this without separation being a result. Trump knows this. Separation was always their intention.
> 
> From march of 17. Video in link.
> 
> "Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly says the Trump administration is considering separating children from their parents to deter families from trying to enter the United States illegally"
> 
> Kelly: Separating families under consideration - CNN Video
Click to expand...


No, what you really mean is that unrestricted, unregulated immigration was always your intention.  There is a way to deal with this, but it runs through Congress, not the President.

I don't give a tin shit what stupid stuff Kelly spewed out.  People are always saying dumb things, and unlike you, I don't focus my whole life around people and personalities and who-said-what.  Every single bit of my argument is based on the actual laws, and you have yet to dispute a one of them.

Dispute my points, or admit defeat.  Trying to move the goalposts is the same as admitting defeat.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Hutch Starskey said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is separating parents from kids because they committed a misdemeanor. That being the case, you had better not exceed the speed limit in your state.
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Trump isn't separating anyone.  It's a consequence of breaking the law.
> 
> _“I hate the children being taken away. The Democrats have to change their law. That’s their law.”_
> *— President Trump, in remarks to reporters at the White House, June 15*
> 
> _“We have the worst immigration laws in the entire world. Nobody has such sad, such bad and, actually, in many cases, such horrible and tough — you see about child separation, you see what’s going on there.”_
> *— Trump, in remarks at the White House, June 18*
> 
> _“Because of the Flores consent decree and a 9th Circuit Court decision, ICE can only keep families detained together for a very short period of time.”_
> *— Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in a speech in Bozeman, Mont., June 7*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a result of their zero tolerance policy, dope.
> 
> Please tell us what they did during their first year. Did they separate families in this way?  Of course not. It's  a new policy.
Click to expand...

/——/ It’s better than the democRAT Policy of Turing America into a shythole.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cecilie1200 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse.
> 
> This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this all you can say? Are you so wrapped up in emotion you're willing to claim someone supports child abuse purely because they disagree with you politically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You certainly aren't  in opposition in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha. Of what? Child abuse? That's weaksauce man.
> 
> My father was a victim of child abuse,  he routinely told me horror stories. He was molested by his brother and beaten with a crossiron. He was starved, and his father tried to kill him.
> 
> No. Don't you dare insinuate that I support child abuse. None of what our President does to these children comes remotely close to that level of child abuse. Nor does it rise to the level of child abuse at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Causing mental and emotional harm to children over prolonged periods of time is certainly child abuse. Especially when done when discrestion allows for altenatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then perhaps their parents shouldn't do it.
> 
> And we all know about your "discretion allows for alternatives", otherwise known as "just stop enforcing the border!"
Click to expand...




Cecilie1200 said:


> Then perhaps their parents shouldn't do it.
> 
> And we all know about your "discretion allows for alternatives", otherwise known as "just stop enforcing the border!"




The parents aren't doing it. The govt is.

Discretion as in prosecutorial discretion, dope.

All of the people will be dealt with. Those who don't qualify or apply for asylum are deported immediately.  Those who qualify are processed. Those granted asylum can stay and those denied are immediately deported.

Where is there "no enforcement" in that?


----------



## Cellblock2429

Hutch Starskey said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Over the last 26 years we have granted asylum to 1.9 million people. That's only .5% of the US population.  The average is about 20,000/yr. 40% of those that apply and pass pre-screening are granted asylum after 3 to 6 mos of interviews and investigation. I seriously doubt that Trump would allow that many in the country.  In fact, I don't see any reason he would allow any.  There's nothing political or financial in it for him.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right and the rates of those granted asylum have been dropping for decades.
> 
> The truth is, they don't want any immigrants at all from the south. It's  more about keeping a white majority nation than anything else. None of them will admit that though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So even if that was the case, what's wrong with that?  Show me one race of people that would support being made a minority in their own country outside of Surrender First whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is race more important than being American?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both are important, especially if you are the race the Democrats want to wipe out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just admit that for you, it's all about keeping brown people out of America.
> Don't be a pussy and stop dancing around that point you so desperately are trying to make.
Click to expand...

/———/ Ahhh the good old race card has been dealt


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cecilie1200 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, we need to cut through the rhetorical bullshit one more time.
> 
> 1)  The rules about detaining children HAVE NOT changed.  Trump IS NOT doing anything new in regards to detaining children.  The government has been required to release children from detention within 20 days ever since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals extended the Flores Consent Decree (aka the Flores Settlement) to include accompanied minors in 2016.  What Trump has changed is how we deal with adults.  Where Obama used the Flores Settlement and the accompanying Ninth Circuit ruling as an excuse to give adults a free pass if they could claim to be part of a family unit, Trump is insisting on treating those adults like the criminals they are.
> 
> 2)  Separation of children from adults happens only in three cases:  if the adult is not the child's parent, if the adult is a threat to the child, or if the adult is put into criminal proceedings.  In other words, the exact same circumstances under which a child would be taken from an adult even among our own citizenry.
> 
> 3)  When an illegal is prosecuted, he is taken into custody by the US Marshals.  The US Marshals do not, EVER, take care of the children of people they take into custody, no matter who that person is or what they're being arrested for.  Just as with anyone in this situation, the children are taken custody of by HHS, which cares for them in temporary shelters until they know whether the adult will be deported or will apply for asylum.
> 
> 4)  Assuming the illegal has not committed another crime, the criminal proceedings are short.  Usually, the illegal pleads guilty, they are sentenced to time served, and they are returned to ICE.  This typically happens in one day.  At that point, the adult is reunited with the child, and the whole kit and kaboodle are deported back to where they came from.  If the adult is truly concerned about being separated from the child, they can easily put an end to it.
> 
> 5)  The separation only becomes extended if the illegal immigrant himself chooses to make it so by applying for asylum.  THAT procedure pretty much always takes longer than the government is allowed, by law, to hold the child.  When that time limit is reached, the child is placed with a responsible party.  Quite often, that is a relative or friend of the illegal immigrant, because illegal immigrants often have connections to people who are already in the country.
> 
> 6)  If the adult is held while their asylum claim is processed, it is likely to go through the system much more quickly, a couple of months as opposed to dragging on for years.  If the adult is released into the population, he is highly unlikely to return for his court dates.  We know this from experience.
> 
> 7)  There is no reason whatsoever for someone who is legitimately looking for asylum to cross the border illegally.  They have only to approach a port of entry and state their desire for asylum.  They are NOT arrested when they do this, and not separated from their children.  The fact that border crossings dried up at the beginning of the Trump administration and only started again when rumors went around that the policy on the border had not changed indicates that the vast majority of these people are NOT refugees fleeing persecution, but simply prefer the economic benefits of being in the US.
> 
> 8)  In April, the _New York Times_ reported:
> 
> _Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.
> 
> Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing._
> 
> "It is common to have parents entrust their children to a smuggler as a favor or for profit.” - azcentral.com
> 
> But since our policies have favored family units over single adults, we have created an incentive to put children in peril.  How can anyone who claims to care about the well-being of these children advocate policies which encourage their endangerment?
> 
> 9)  Congress has the power to change all of this by one simple vote.  They can pass a law overruling the Flores Settlement; they can pass a law mandating family detention, and providing funding to make it possible.  So why is it that the only bill that has been introduced in Congress to address this situation has come from the Republicans, who are being vilified, and the Democrats are too busy grandstanding for the media to propose anything at all?
> 
> 
> 
> *Lots of good information but the fact remains there is no law that requires Trump to separate the kids from their parents at the border.  This is policy which can be changed at the discretion of the president.  Claiming the law made me do it is just bullshit.  He clearly feels separating the kids from the parents is a determent so why doesn't he admit it.  I'm sure most of his supporters would agree. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact remains that there ARE laws that require it.  I realize that you think the President can just pick and choose what laws to obey and how to do so, but don't think for a second that I believe you wouldn't be screaming about "imperial Presidency" if Trump started acting like Obama.
> 
> It is the law that crossing the border without permission is a criminal act.  It is the law that the President is required to enforce the law.  And it is the law that children cannot be held longer than 20 days.
> 
> It is not President Trump's job to make law, or to ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains that there ARE laws that require it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only after the parents are prosecuted which is the new policy, fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, dumbshit, the law requires that if the parents are arrested, the children cannot be detained for longer than 20 days.  Period.  End of discussion.  You can say, "Trump can just sign an order to ignore that" and force me to say it for 100 more times on top of the 100 you've done it so far, but the answer will remain the same.
> 
> The only fool here is the one who deliberately forgets what he's told five seconds after it's said, because he REALLY wants to believe he can wish the world different.
> 
> Let me save you some time.
> 
> The law requires that children whose parents have been arrested MUST not be detained longer than 20 days.
> 
> "Trump could just issue and executive order and change that."
> 
> The President does not have the legal authority to ignore or change the law unilaterally.  Congress could change it, but I notice you're not spending ANY time excoriating the people who have that power, and ALL your time blaming someone who doesn't.
> 
> Until I hear you say something about "Why doesn't Congress do something?" you lack all moral credibility on this subject, and have summarily lost the debate.
> 
> There.  Now copy and paste that somewhere, and stop chasing your tail.
Click to expand...




Cecilie1200 said:


> No, dumbshit, the law requires that *if* the parents are arrested, the children cannot be detained for longer than 20 days.



"If"

The new policy changed that to "when".

The separation is the result of their zero tolerance, 100% prosecution policy, dope.

There's  no getting around that.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cecilie1200 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see. This is only if you
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By that logic everybody who ever emigrated with kids should all lose their parental rights. See the only way your argument works is, if you see parents who try to cross the border as reckless and not desperate. By the way I love how you so studiously used air quotes when saying people. So you didn't have to use parents. Like taking away parents from their children because of something that is even by law a simple misdemeanor is not by it's very nature immoral and makes them undeserving of raising a kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is of course much better than the situation they're fleeing.
> 
> There's an old saying regarding the actions of refugees. " Parents only put their children in a boat whe the land is no longer safe."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a load of horseshit.  I realize you want to pretend that every single one of these people is fleeing horrible persecution, but the fact is that most of them just want to take advantage of our standard of living.  Which is understandable, but it's also not my fucking problem.
Click to expand...


I don't have to pretend anything. We have a process that determines that. It's you pretending that is not the case.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Hutch Starskey said:


> The parents aren't doing it. The govt is.



No.

Do you think these children suddenly developed a sudden societal and environmental awareness and decided to come here on their own? No. The parents chose to send them here, alone. Adults claiming to be parents smuggled them here, only to leave them alone when they were detained for crossing illegally. You are so damned ignorant that you can't see these people are taking advantage of our system. That system must be changed. With or without your help.


----------



## forkup

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is separating parents from kids because they committed a misdemeanor. That being the case, you had better not exceed the speed limit in your state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't exceed the speed limit, anyway.  But yeah, you definitely shouldn't do anything in a car, with your kids present, that gets you arrested.  You shouldn't do anything AT ALL that carries with it the chance of being arrested when you have your kids with you, because they will ALWAYS be taken away from you while you're in the pokey.  I have no idea why it's a shock to you that kids aren't jailed along with their parents.
> 
> But this really cuts to the heart of the matter.  You leftists keep yabbling mindlessly about "just a misdemeanor", when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The difference is in most traffic violations you don't go to jail and if you do, you can request bail.
> 
> And yes, our immigration laws do consider a first time offense of crossing the boarder illegally a misdemeanor, a minor wrongdoing by definition.  A first time offense carries a maximum of 6 mos in jail which is rarely used.  To give you an idea how minor the offense is, Misdemeanor Trespassing carries a heavier penalty in most states and it wasn't until  the 1996 immigration reform law that there was any legal penalty at all.
> 
> The first step in fixing the immigration system is to fix the law.*
Click to expand...

There is another difference. If they take away your kids for speeding, unlikely but I'll accept it. You have an actual idea were they are, and you can be certain that you will get them back after you get out of the "pokey" as you so colorfully said, providing that's the only thing you did, not only that you will have the benefit of assured legal representation. The people who get caught here have none of these assurances.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, we need to cut through the rhetorical bullshit one more time.
> 
> 1)  The rules about detaining children HAVE NOT changed.  Trump IS NOT doing anything new in regards to detaining children.  The government has been required to release children from detention within 20 days ever since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals extended the Flores Consent Decree (aka the Flores Settlement) to include accompanied minors in 2016.  What Trump has changed is how we deal with adults.  Where Obama used the Flores Settlement and the accompanying Ninth Circuit ruling as an excuse to give adults a free pass if they could claim to be part of a family unit, Trump is insisting on treating those adults like the criminals they are.
> 
> 2)  Separation of children from adults happens only in three cases:  if the adult is not the child's parent, if the adult is a threat to the child, or if the adult is put into criminal proceedings.  In other words, the exact same circumstances under which a child would be taken from an adult even among our own citizenry.
> 
> 3)  When an illegal is prosecuted, he is taken into custody by the US Marshals.  The US Marshals do not, EVER, take care of the children of people they take into custody, no matter who that person is or what they're being arrested for.  Just as with anyone in this situation, the children are taken custody of by HHS, which cares for them in temporary shelters until they know whether the adult will be deported or will apply for asylum.
> 
> 4)  Assuming the illegal has not committed another crime, the criminal proceedings are short.  Usually, the illegal pleads guilty, they are sentenced to time served, and they are returned to ICE.  This typically happens in one day.  At that point, the adult is reunited with the child, and the whole kit and kaboodle are deported back to where they came from.  If the adult is truly concerned about being separated from the child, they can easily put an end to it.
> 
> 5)  The separation only becomes extended if the illegal immigrant himself chooses to make it so by applying for asylum.  THAT procedure pretty much always takes longer than the government is allowed, by law, to hold the child.  When that time limit is reached, the child is placed with a responsible party.  Quite often, that is a relative or friend of the illegal immigrant, because illegal immigrants often have connections to people who are already in the country.
> 
> 6)  If the adult is held while their asylum claim is processed, it is likely to go through the system much more quickly, a couple of months as opposed to dragging on for years.  If the adult is released into the population, he is highly unlikely to return for his court dates.  We know this from experience.
> 
> 7)  There is no reason whatsoever for someone who is legitimately looking for asylum to cross the border illegally.  They have only to approach a port of entry and state their desire for asylum.  They are NOT arrested when they do this, and not separated from their children.  The fact that border crossings dried up at the beginning of the Trump administration and only started again when rumors went around that the policy on the border had not changed indicates that the vast majority of these people are NOT refugees fleeing persecution, but simply prefer the economic benefits of being in the US.
> 
> 8)  In April, the _New York Times_ reported:
> 
> _Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.
> 
> Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing._
> 
> "It is common to have parents entrust their children to a smuggler as a favor or for profit.” - azcentral.com
> 
> But since our policies have favored family units over single adults, we have created an incentive to put children in peril.  How can anyone who claims to care about the well-being of these children advocate policies which encourage their endangerment?
> 
> 9)  Congress has the power to change all of this by one simple vote.  They can pass a law overruling the Flores Settlement; they can pass a law mandating family detention, and providing funding to make it possible.  So why is it that the only bill that has been introduced in Congress to address this situation has come from the Republicans, who are being vilified, and the Democrats are too busy grandstanding for the media to propose anything at all?
> 
> 
> 
> *Lots of good information but the fact remains there is no law that requires Trump to separate the kids from their parents at the border.  This is policy which can be changed at the discretion of the president.  Claiming the law made me do it is just bullshit.  He clearly feels separating the kids from the parents is a determent so why doesn't he admit it.  I'm sure most of his supporters would agree. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact remains that there ARE laws that require it.  I realize that you think the President can just pick and choose what laws to obey and how to do so, but don't think for a second that I believe you wouldn't be screaming about "imperial Presidency" if Trump started acting like Obama.
> 
> It is the law that crossing the border without permission is a criminal act.  It is the law that the President is required to enforce the law.  And it is the law that children cannot be held longer than 20 days.
> 
> It is not President Trump's job to make law, or to ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains that there ARE laws that require it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only after the parents are prosecuted which is the new policy, fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, dumbshit, the law requires that if the parents are arrested, the children cannot be detained for longer than 20 days.  Period.  End of discussion.  You can say, "Trump can just sign an order to ignore that" and force me to say it for 100 more times on top of the 100 you've done it so far, but the answer will remain the same.
> 
> The only fool here is the one who deliberately forgets what he's told five seconds after it's said, because he REALLY wants to believe he can wish the world different.
> 
> Let me save you some time.
> 
> The law requires that children whose parents have been arrested MUST not be detained longer than 20 days.
> 
> "Trump could just issue and executive order and change that."
> 
> The President does not have the legal authority to ignore or change the law unilaterally.  Congress could change it, but I notice you're not spending ANY time excoriating the people who have that power, and ALL your time blaming someone who doesn't.
> 
> Until I hear you say something about "Why doesn't Congress do something?" you lack all moral credibility on this subject, and have summarily lost the debate.
> 
> There.  Now copy and paste that somewhere, and stop chasing your tail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Dem Voters just don't have the mental capacity to understand how our three branches of government work.
Click to expand...




TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Most Dem Voters just don't have the mental capacity to understand how our three branches of government work



Explain it to us, professor.


----------



## Flopper

pismoe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration..
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Not Seizing Their Lands
> Marching Them Off To Death
> Or Rescinding Any Of Their Rightful Citizenship Claims
> 
> To Compare What Is Happening Along Our Border Now
> To What Jackson Did Then And NAZIism
> Is The Height Of Hyperbole
> 
> You Folks Cheapen Words Like
> 'Hitler' And 'Atrocity' Every Time You Use Them
> Because You Use Them To Describe Everything
> From Having Your Feelings Hurt To Stubbing Your Toes
> 
> So Save It
> There Is NO Equivalence
> Not In The Analogy That Was Used To Compare Trump To Jackson Or NAZIs
> 
> But The Equivalence Does Apply To Jackson (A Democrat)
> To Your 'Hitlers' And Your 'Atrocities'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is just abusing children.  No big deal to his base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one child slipped through, and ended up dead or trafficed as a sex slave, because we did not find out DEFINITIVELY that the adult was the child's parent, you would cry foul on the administration.
> 
> How proud that must make you, getting your cake and eating it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How proud you must be supporting a policy that tears children from their parents arms WITHOUT regard.  Stop pretending it has anything to do with stopping trafficking, you and I both know it doent and that is directky from the mouths of those who impmemented it as a deterrant.  At least have the integrity to be honest about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------  i don't care about the TRAFFICKING .  I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law  Coyote .   ---------------------  just a comment .
Click to expand...

*Scare them?  You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation.   Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates.  Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?

*


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cecilie1200 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is separating parents from kids because they committed a misdemeanor. That being the case, you had better not exceed the speed limit in your state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't exceed the speed limit, anyway.  But yeah, you definitely shouldn't do anything in a car, with your kids present, that gets you arrested.  You shouldn't do anything AT ALL that carries with it the chance of being arrested when you have your kids with you, because they will ALWAYS be taken away from you while you're in the pokey.  I have no idea why it's a shock to you that kids aren't jailed along with their parents.
> 
> But this really cuts to the heart of the matter.  You leftists keep yabbling mindlessly about "just a misdemeanor", when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. What we really mean is there are ways to deal with this without separation being a result. Trump knows this. Separation was always their intention.
> 
> From march of 17. Video in link.
> 
> "Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly says the Trump administration is considering separating children from their parents to deter families from trying to enter the United States illegally"
> 
> Kelly: Separating families under consideration - CNN Video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what you really mean is that unrestricted, unregulated immigration was always your intention.  There is a way to deal with this, but it runs through Congress, not the President.
> 
> I don't give a tin shit what stupid stuff Kelly spewed out.  People are always saying dumb things, and unlike you, I don't focus my whole life around people and personalities and who-said-what.  Every single bit of my argument is based on the actual laws, and you have yet to dispute a one of them.
> 
> Dispute my points, or admit defeat.  Trying to move the goalposts is the same as admitting defeat.
Click to expand...




Cecilie1200 said:


> No, what you really mean is that unrestricted, unregulated immigration was always your intention.



That's not what I mean at all and I've told you that several times now, dope.

Obviously the process for determining eligibility for asylum is neither unresricted nor unregulated. 

I've disputed and debunked your argument each time.

It is their policy to separate families as a deterrent. Period. 
If you won't  take the word of the then DHS secretary, then you're truly lost.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cellblock2429 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right and the rates of those granted asylum have been dropping for decades.
> 
> The truth is, they don't want any immigrants at all from the south. It's  more about keeping a white majority nation than anything else. None of them will admit that though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So even if that was the case, what's wrong with that?  Show me one race of people that would support being made a minority in their own country outside of Surrender First whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is race more important than being American?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both are important, especially if you are the race the Democrats want to wipe out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just admit that for you, it's all about keeping brown people out of America.
> Don't be a pussy and stop dancing around that point you so desperately are trying to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /———/ Ahhh the good old race card has been dealt
Click to expand...


^Another cowardly denier.


----------



## forkup

Flopper said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Not Seizing Their Lands
> Marching Them Off To Death
> Or Rescinding Any Of Their Rightful Citizenship Claims
> 
> To Compare What Is Happening Along Our Border Now
> To What Jackson Did Then And NAZIism
> Is The Height Of Hyperbole
> 
> You Folks Cheapen Words Like
> 'Hitler' And 'Atrocity' Every Time You Use Them
> Because You Use Them To Describe Everything
> From Having Your Feelings Hurt To Stubbing Your Toes
> 
> So Save It
> There Is NO Equivalence
> Not In The Analogy That Was Used To Compare Trump To Jackson Or NAZIs
> 
> But The Equivalence Does Apply To Jackson (A Democrat)
> To Your 'Hitlers' And Your 'Atrocities'
> 
> 
> 
> He is just abusing children.  No big deal to his base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one child slipped through, and ended up dead or trafficed as a sex slave, because we did not find out DEFINITIVELY that the adult was the child's parent, you would cry foul on the administration.
> 
> How proud that must make you, getting your cake and eating it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How proud you must be supporting a policy that tears children from their parents arms WITHOUT regard.  Stop pretending it has anything to do with stopping trafficking, you and I both know it doent and that is directky from the mouths of those who impmemented it as a deterrant.  At least have the integrity to be honest about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------  i don't care about the TRAFFICKING .  I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law  Coyote .   ---------------------  just a comment .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Scare them?  You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation.   Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates.  Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?
> *
Click to expand...

Yes how insanely irresponsible off parents to try to go to the US when they so obviously live in paradise. You should definitely punish parents like that and send them on their way minus the children. After all they deserve no better. (I hope I laid on the sarcasm thick enough)


----------



## Cellblock2429

Hutch Starskey said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So even if that was the case, what's wrong with that?  Show me one race of people that would support being made a minority in their own country outside of Surrender First whites.
> 
> 
> 
> Is race more important than being American?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both are important, especially if you are the race the Democrats want to wipe out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just admit that for you, it's all about keeping brown people out of America.
> Don't be a pussy and stop dancing around that point you so desperately are trying to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /———/ Ahhh the good old race card has been dealt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^Another cowardly denier.
Click to expand...

/—-/ When all else fails call your opponent a racist.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

TemplarKormac said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The parents aren't doing it. The govt is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Do you think these children suddenly developed a sudden societal and environmental awareness and decided to come here on their own? No. The parents chose to send them here, alone. Adults claiming to be parents smuggled them here, only to leave them alone when they were detained for crossing illegally. You are so damned ignorant that you can't see these people are taking advantage of our system. That system must be changed. With or without your help.
Click to expand...


The govt, through policy, is deciding to prosecute 100% them. Including those seeking asylum.The result of said prosecution is separation. This was not the case six weeks ago.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cellblock2429 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is race more important than being American?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both are important, especially if you are the race the Democrats want to wipe out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just admit that for you, it's all about keeping brown people out of America.
> Don't be a pussy and stop dancing around that point you so desperately are trying to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /———/ Ahhh the good old race card has been dealt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^Another cowardly denier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /—-/ When all else fails call your opponent a racist.
Click to expand...

I never used that word but feel free to explain why you feel these people would make America a "shithole".



Cellblock2429 said:


> /——/ It’s better than the democRAT Policy of Turing America into a shythole.


----------



## Pop23

Flopper said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Not Seizing Their Lands
> Marching Them Off To Death
> Or Rescinding Any Of Their Rightful Citizenship Claims
> 
> To Compare What Is Happening Along Our Border Now
> To What Jackson Did Then And NAZIism
> Is The Height Of Hyperbole
> 
> You Folks Cheapen Words Like
> 'Hitler' And 'Atrocity' Every Time You Use Them
> Because You Use Them To Describe Everything
> From Having Your Feelings Hurt To Stubbing Your Toes
> 
> So Save It
> There Is NO Equivalence
> Not In The Analogy That Was Used To Compare Trump To Jackson Or NAZIs
> 
> But The Equivalence Does Apply To Jackson (A Democrat)
> To Your 'Hitlers' And Your 'Atrocities'
> 
> 
> 
> He is just abusing children.  No big deal to his base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one child slipped through, and ended up dead or trafficed as a sex slave, because we did not find out DEFINITIVELY that the adult was the child's parent, you would cry foul on the administration.
> 
> How proud that must make you, getting your cake and eating it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How proud you must be supporting a policy that tears children from their parents arms WITHOUT regard.  Stop pretending it has anything to do with stopping trafficking, you and I both know it doent and that is directky from the mouths of those who impmemented it as a deterrant.  At least have the integrity to be honest about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------  i don't care about the TRAFFICKING .  I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law  Coyote .   ---------------------  just a comment .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Scare them?  You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation.   Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates.  Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?
> *
Click to expand...


And the same thugs would think nothing of abducting a child and crossing our border with them. 

Think about that


----------



## kaz

forkup said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> 
> 
> I see. This is only if you
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By that logic everybody who ever emigrated with kids should all lose their parental rights. See the only way your argument works is, if you see parents who try to cross the border as reckless and not desperate. By the way I love how you so studiously used air quotes when saying people. So you didn't have to use parents. Like taking away parents from their children because of something that is even by law a simple misdemeanor is not by it's very nature immoral and makes them undeserving of raising a kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should never have been allowed to reproduce, simply because you're pig-stupid enough to compare crossing the street (presumably at an intersection, but given your shocking level of brain damage, I won't assume anything) with entering the country illegally.
> 
> Your post is invalid, your presumption of functional intelligence is invalid, your existence is invalid.  Maybe you should send your kid in to debate on your behalf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.
Click to expand...


Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass


----------



## Flopper

Coyote said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...oh I get it now. You want to believe the cockroaches from Mexico, Central and South America can quality for asylum?
> You realize that whether applying for asylum or not,  an illegal alien standing on American soil is a federal criminal...right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can apply and 40% of applicants are granted asylum. Prosecuting them is not required. It is done as a matter of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice conflation.  How many of those applicants went about it the proper way, and how many swarmed across the border first chance they got, and only mentioned asylum when they got caught and arrested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no conflation. Asylum seekers were not prosecuted prior to thle implementation of this new policy.
> Zero tolerance, meaning 100% prosecutions, is a new policy, fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they aren't now if they present themselves at a border crossing.
> 
> Glad I could be here to inform you of something you should google before posting.
> 
> Thank me later
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump admin discussed splitting moms, kids to prevent asylum in Feb. 2017
> WASHINGTON — The idea of separating migrant children from their mothers was discussed during the earliest days of the Trump administration *as a way to deter asylum-seekers,* according to notes from a closed-door DHS meeting.
> 
> BC News has found that some women *are separated from their children even if they are legally claiming asylum* and not being referred for prosecution. In those cases, the children are kept in the same facility, *but they are still separated for days without being told whether they will be reunited.*
> 
> Former USCIS Director Leon Rodriguez, who served under the Obama administration, said families who presented themselves for asylum between ports of entry were not previously prosecuted.
> 
> "We understood that the border had to have integrity," Rodriguez said. "But we also had a pretty deep awareness of why people were coming. There were deep humanitarian issues that were driving them here."
Click to expand...

*During the Obama administration after successful making it thru the first interview, asylum seekers were housed in family detention centers if they did not have a visa.  Families were separated in cases where there was no room available.  Interviews and investigations typically took about 3 to 6 mos. About 40% of those that that made it thru the first interview were accepted.   There is no law that requires that families be separated or kept together.  It is policy which is always subject to change.*


----------



## forkup

kaz said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see. This is only if you
> By that logic everybody who ever emigrated with kids should all lose their parental rights. See the only way your argument works is, if you see parents who try to cross the border as reckless and not desperate. By the way I love how you so studiously used air quotes when saying people. So you didn't have to use parents. Like taking away parents from their children because of something that is even by law a simple misdemeanor is not by it's very nature immoral and makes them undeserving of raising a kid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should never have been allowed to reproduce, simply because you're pig-stupid enough to compare crossing the street (presumably at an intersection, but given your shocking level of brain damage, I won't assume anything) with entering the country illegally.
> 
> Your post is invalid, your presumption of functional intelligence is invalid, your existence is invalid.  Maybe you should send your kid in to debate on your behalf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
Click to expand...

Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Hutch Starskey said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The parents aren't doing it. The govt is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Do you think these children suddenly developed a sudden societal and environmental awareness and decided to come here on their own? No. The parents chose to send them here, alone. Adults claiming to be parents smuggled them here, only to leave them alone when they were detained for crossing illegally. You are so damned ignorant that you can't see these people are taking advantage of our system. That system must be changed. With or without your help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The govt, through policy, is deciding to prosecute 100% them. Including those seeking asylum.The result of said prosecution is separation. This was not the case six weeks ago.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you weren't listening to Cecilie, go read her posts again.


----------



## kaz

forkup said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.
> 
> 
> 
> So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should never have been allowed to reproduce, simply because you're pig-stupid enough to compare crossing the street (presumably at an intersection, but given your shocking level of brain damage, I won't assume anything) with entering the country illegally.
> 
> Your post is invalid, your presumption of functional intelligence is invalid, your existence is invalid.  Maybe you should send your kid in to debate on your behalf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
Click to expand...


"So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."

Dude, you were very clear.  If you're not comparing them, this has no point.

I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling

Sometimes you take risks for your kids!  

That sentence is entirely context driven.  Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't


----------



## Cecilie1200

Hutch Starskey said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this all you can say? Are you so wrapped up in emotion you're willing to claim someone supports child abuse purely because they disagree with you politically?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly aren't  in opposition in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha. Of what? Child abuse? That's weaksauce man.
> 
> My father was a victim of child abuse,  he routinely told me horror stories. He was molested by his brother and beaten with a crossiron. He was starved, and his father tried to kill him.
> 
> No. Don't you dare insinuate that I support child abuse. None of what our President does to these children comes remotely close to that level of child abuse. Nor does it rise to the level of child abuse at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Causing mental and emotional harm to children over prolonged periods of time is certainly child abuse. Especially when done when discrestion allows for altenatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then perhaps their parents shouldn't do it.
> 
> And we all know about your "discretion allows for alternatives", otherwise known as "just stop enforcing the border!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then perhaps their parents shouldn't do it.
> 
> And we all know about your "discretion allows for alternatives", otherwise known as "just stop enforcing the border!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The parents aren't doing it. The govt is.
> 
> Discretion as in prosecutorial discretion, dope.
> 
> All of the people will be dealt with. Those who don't qualify or apply for asylum are deported immediately.  Those who qualify are processed. Those granted asylum can stay and those denied are immediately deported.
> 
> Where is there "no enforcement" in that?
Click to expand...


Oh, the government is going to their countries, dragging them up here, and shoving them across the border illegally?  Is that what's happening?

"Prosecutorial discretion" = "do we prosecute or not?"  DOPE.

"No enforcement" would be in the "You CAN'T put kids in foster care while their parents are locked up!" which leads to "You MUST release the parents with the children so they can be together", which is the same as not bothering to enforce the borders at all.

It's not that I don't think you're plenty stupid enough to really believe the garbage you're shoveling; it's just that I don't happen to think that's what's at play here.


----------



## Pop23

Flopper said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can apply and 40% of applicants are granted asylum. Prosecuting them is not required. It is done as a matter of policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice conflation.  How many of those applicants went about it the proper way, and how many swarmed across the border first chance they got, and only mentioned asylum when they got caught and arrested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no conflation. Asylum seekers were not prosecuted prior to thle implementation of this new policy.
> Zero tolerance, meaning 100% prosecutions, is a new policy, fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they aren't now if they present themselves at a border crossing.
> 
> Glad I could be here to inform you of something you should google before posting.
> 
> Thank me later
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump admin discussed splitting moms, kids to prevent asylum in Feb. 2017
> WASHINGTON — The idea of separating migrant children from their mothers was discussed during the earliest days of the Trump administration *as a way to deter asylum-seekers,* according to notes from a closed-door DHS meeting.
> 
> BC News has found that some women *are separated from their children even if they are legally claiming asylum* and not being referred for prosecution. In those cases, the children are kept in the same facility, *but they are still separated for days without being told whether they will be reunited.*
> 
> Former USCIS Director Leon Rodriguez, who served under the Obama administration, said families who presented themselves for asylum between ports of entry were not previously prosecuted.
> 
> "We understood that the border had to have integrity," Rodriguez said. "But we also had a pretty deep awareness of why people were coming. There were deep humanitarian issues that were driving them here."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *During the Obama administration after successful making it thru the first interview, asylum seekers were housed in family detention centers if they did not have a visa.  Families were separated in cases where there was no room available.  Interviews and investigations typically took about 3 to 6 mos. About 40% of those that that made it thru the first interview were accepted.   There is no law that requires that families be separated or kept together.  It is policy which is always subject to change.*
Click to expand...


Asylum seekers that cross at a Boarder Crossing are not separated from their parent or legal guardians


----------



## Cecilie1200

Hutch Starskey said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, we need to cut through the rhetorical bullshit one more time.
> 
> 1)  The rules about detaining children HAVE NOT changed.  Trump IS NOT doing anything new in regards to detaining children.  The government has been required to release children from detention within 20 days ever since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals extended the Flores Consent Decree (aka the Flores Settlement) to include accompanied minors in 2016.  What Trump has changed is how we deal with adults.  Where Obama used the Flores Settlement and the accompanying Ninth Circuit ruling as an excuse to give adults a free pass if they could claim to be part of a family unit, Trump is insisting on treating those adults like the criminals they are.
> 
> 2)  Separation of children from adults happens only in three cases:  if the adult is not the child's parent, if the adult is a threat to the child, or if the adult is put into criminal proceedings.  In other words, the exact same circumstances under which a child would be taken from an adult even among our own citizenry.
> 
> 3)  When an illegal is prosecuted, he is taken into custody by the US Marshals.  The US Marshals do not, EVER, take care of the children of people they take into custody, no matter who that person is or what they're being arrested for.  Just as with anyone in this situation, the children are taken custody of by HHS, which cares for them in temporary shelters until they know whether the adult will be deported or will apply for asylum.
> 
> 4)  Assuming the illegal has not committed another crime, the criminal proceedings are short.  Usually, the illegal pleads guilty, they are sentenced to time served, and they are returned to ICE.  This typically happens in one day.  At that point, the adult is reunited with the child, and the whole kit and kaboodle are deported back to where they came from.  If the adult is truly concerned about being separated from the child, they can easily put an end to it.
> 
> 5)  The separation only becomes extended if the illegal immigrant himself chooses to make it so by applying for asylum.  THAT procedure pretty much always takes longer than the government is allowed, by law, to hold the child.  When that time limit is reached, the child is placed with a responsible party.  Quite often, that is a relative or friend of the illegal immigrant, because illegal immigrants often have connections to people who are already in the country.
> 
> 6)  If the adult is held while their asylum claim is processed, it is likely to go through the system much more quickly, a couple of months as opposed to dragging on for years.  If the adult is released into the population, he is highly unlikely to return for his court dates.  We know this from experience.
> 
> 7)  There is no reason whatsoever for someone who is legitimately looking for asylum to cross the border illegally.  They have only to approach a port of entry and state their desire for asylum.  They are NOT arrested when they do this, and not separated from their children.  The fact that border crossings dried up at the beginning of the Trump administration and only started again when rumors went around that the policy on the border had not changed indicates that the vast majority of these people are NOT refugees fleeing persecution, but simply prefer the economic benefits of being in the US.
> 
> 8)  In April, the _New York Times_ reported:
> 
> _Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.
> 
> Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing._
> 
> "It is common to have parents entrust their children to a smuggler as a favor or for profit.” - azcentral.com
> 
> But since our policies have favored family units over single adults, we have created an incentive to put children in peril.  How can anyone who claims to care about the well-being of these children advocate policies which encourage their endangerment?
> 
> 9)  Congress has the power to change all of this by one simple vote.  They can pass a law overruling the Flores Settlement; they can pass a law mandating family detention, and providing funding to make it possible.  So why is it that the only bill that has been introduced in Congress to address this situation has come from the Republicans, who are being vilified, and the Democrats are too busy grandstanding for the media to propose anything at all?
> 
> 
> 
> *Lots of good information but the fact remains there is no law that requires Trump to separate the kids from their parents at the border.  This is policy which can be changed at the discretion of the president.  Claiming the law made me do it is just bullshit.  He clearly feels separating the kids from the parents is a determent so why doesn't he admit it.  I'm sure most of his supporters would agree. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact remains that there ARE laws that require it.  I realize that you think the President can just pick and choose what laws to obey and how to do so, but don't think for a second that I believe you wouldn't be screaming about "imperial Presidency" if Trump started acting like Obama.
> 
> It is the law that crossing the border without permission is a criminal act.  It is the law that the President is required to enforce the law.  And it is the law that children cannot be held longer than 20 days.
> 
> It is not President Trump's job to make law, or to ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains that there ARE laws that require it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only after the parents are prosecuted which is the new policy, fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, dumbshit, the law requires that if the parents are arrested, the children cannot be detained for longer than 20 days.  Period.  End of discussion.  You can say, "Trump can just sign an order to ignore that" and force me to say it for 100 more times on top of the 100 you've done it so far, but the answer will remain the same.
> 
> The only fool here is the one who deliberately forgets what he's told five seconds after it's said, because he REALLY wants to believe he can wish the world different.
> 
> Let me save you some time.
> 
> The law requires that children whose parents have been arrested MUST not be detained longer than 20 days.
> 
> "Trump could just issue and executive order and change that."
> 
> The President does not have the legal authority to ignore or change the law unilaterally.  Congress could change it, but I notice you're not spending ANY time excoriating the people who have that power, and ALL your time blaming someone who doesn't.
> 
> Until I hear you say something about "Why doesn't Congress do something?" you lack all moral credibility on this subject, and have summarily lost the debate.
> 
> There.  Now copy and paste that somewhere, and stop chasing your tail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, dumbshit, the law requires that *if* the parents are arrested, the children cannot be detained for longer than 20 days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "If"
> 
> The new policy changed that to "when".
> 
> The separation is the result of their zero tolerance, 100% prosecution policy, dope.
> 
> There's  no getting around that.
Click to expand...


Damned right it did, and if you're looking for us to be ashamed that people breaking the law are being arrested, you're barking up the wrong tree.

The separation is the result of people trying to break our laws and game our system, DOPE.

There's no getting around THAT.


----------



## Pop23

forkup said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is just abusing children.  No big deal to his base.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one child slipped through, and ended up dead or trafficed as a sex slave, because we did not find out DEFINITIVELY that the adult was the child's parent, you would cry foul on the administration.
> 
> How proud that must make you, getting your cake and eating it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How proud you must be supporting a policy that tears children from their parents arms WITHOUT regard.  Stop pretending it has anything to do with stopping trafficking, you and I both know it doent and that is directky from the mouths of those who impmemented it as a deterrant.  At least have the integrity to be honest about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------  i don't care about the TRAFFICKING .  I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law  Coyote .   ---------------------  just a comment .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Scare them?  You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation.   Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates.  Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes how insanely irresponsible off parents to try to go to the US when they so obviously live in paradise. You should definitely punish parents like that and send them on their way minus the children. After all they deserve no better. (I hope I laid on the sarcasm thick enough)
Click to expand...


If it's that much hell, a few days separation should be a walk in the park. So what the hell is the problem?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Hutch Starskey said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> 
> 
> I see. This is only if you
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By that logic everybody who ever emigrated with kids should all lose their parental rights. See the only way your argument works is, if you see parents who try to cross the border as reckless and not desperate. By the way I love how you so studiously used air quotes when saying people. So you didn't have to use parents. Like taking away parents from their children because of something that is even by law a simple misdemeanor is not by it's very nature immoral and makes them undeserving of raising a kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is of course much better than the situation they're fleeing.
> 
> There's an old saying regarding the actions of refugees. " Parents only put their children in a boat whe the land is no longer safe."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a load of horseshit.  I realize you want to pretend that every single one of these people is fleeing horrible persecution, but the fact is that most of them just want to take advantage of our standard of living.  Which is understandable, but it's also not my fucking problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to pretend anything. We have a process that determines that. It's you pretending that is not the case.
Click to expand...


That's right, we do.  And that system says if you want asylum, you take your happy ass to a port of entry and tell them so.  If you choose instead to cross the border between ports of entry, the system THEN says that your ass is a criminal and gets arrested.

It's YOU pretending that that's somehow "outrageous" or "eeeeevil" or "shocking".  The only thing outrageous and evil and shocking here is how the last thing on your mind is the protection of your own fucking country.


----------



## Cecilie1200

forkup said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is separating parents from kids because they committed a misdemeanor. That being the case, you had better not exceed the speed limit in your state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't exceed the speed limit, anyway.  But yeah, you definitely shouldn't do anything in a car, with your kids present, that gets you arrested.  You shouldn't do anything AT ALL that carries with it the chance of being arrested when you have your kids with you, because they will ALWAYS be taken away from you while you're in the pokey.  I have no idea why it's a shock to you that kids aren't jailed along with their parents.
> 
> But this really cuts to the heart of the matter.  You leftists keep yabbling mindlessly about "just a misdemeanor", when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The difference is in most traffic violations you don't go to jail and if you do, you can request bail.
> 
> And yes, our immigration laws do consider a first time offense of crossing the boarder illegally a misdemeanor, a minor wrongdoing by definition.  A first time offense carries a maximum of 6 mos in jail which is rarely used.  To give you an idea how minor the offense is, Misdemeanor Trespassing carries a heavier penalty in most states and it wasn't until  the 1996 immigration reform law that there was any legal penalty at all.
> 
> The first step in fixing the immigration system is to fix the law.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is another difference. If they take away your kids for speeding, unlikely but I'll accept it. You have an actual idea were they are, and you can be certain that you will get them back after you get out of the "pokey" as you so colorfully said, providing that's the only thing you did, not only that you will have the benefit of assured legal representation. The people who get caught here have none of these assurances.
Click to expand...


Unless you decide to keep trying to game the system by claiming, "Oh, I just wanted asylum, and thought you got that by sneaking into the country", you DO know where your kids are, and you get them back as soon as your case is processed.  Better yet, if you ACTUALLY want asylum, you go to a port of entry and declare that fact, and the kids are never taken at all.

The first step in fixing immigration is to make it clear that we HAVE laws, and we demand that they be respected, and we aren't interested in having people in our country whose first act IN this country is to spit on it.

Guilt trip over how hard breaking the law makes a person's life?  Keep it for yourself, because I'm not accepting delivery.


----------



## forkup

kaz said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should never have been allowed to reproduce, simply because you're pig-stupid enough to compare crossing the street (presumably at an intersection, but given your shocking level of brain damage, I won't assume anything) with entering the country illegally.
> 
> Your post is invalid, your presumption of functional intelligence is invalid, your existence is invalid.  Maybe you should send your kid in to debate on your behalf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."
> 
> Dude, you were very clear.  If you're not comparing them, this has no point.
> 
> I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
> I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
> I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling
> 
> Sometimes you take risks for your kids!
> 
> That sentence is entirely context driven.  Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't
Click to expand...

Hence me clearly stating that I used hyperbole to emphasize my point. Hyperbole by it's nature is an exaggeration. I do not think they are similar but as such it did serve to emphasize that in the case of parents crossing the border they feel the risks they take are justified.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Hutch Starskey said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is separating parents from kids because they committed a misdemeanor. That being the case, you had better not exceed the speed limit in your state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't exceed the speed limit, anyway.  But yeah, you definitely shouldn't do anything in a car, with your kids present, that gets you arrested.  You shouldn't do anything AT ALL that carries with it the chance of being arrested when you have your kids with you, because they will ALWAYS be taken away from you while you're in the pokey.  I have no idea why it's a shock to you that kids aren't jailed along with their parents.
> 
> But this really cuts to the heart of the matter.  You leftists keep yabbling mindlessly about "just a misdemeanor", when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. What we really mean is there are ways to deal with this without separation being a result. Trump knows this. Separation was always their intention.
> 
> From march of 17. Video in link.
> 
> "Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly says the Trump administration is considering separating children from their parents to deter families from trying to enter the United States illegally"
> 
> Kelly: Separating families under consideration - CNN Video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what you really mean is that unrestricted, unregulated immigration was always your intention.  There is a way to deal with this, but it runs through Congress, not the President.
> 
> I don't give a tin shit what stupid stuff Kelly spewed out.  People are always saying dumb things, and unlike you, I don't focus my whole life around people and personalities and who-said-what.  Every single bit of my argument is based on the actual laws, and you have yet to dispute a one of them.
> 
> Dispute my points, or admit defeat.  Trying to move the goalposts is the same as admitting defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, what you really mean is that unrestricted, unregulated immigration was always your intention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what I mean at all and I've told you that several times now, dope.
> 
> Obviously the process for determining eligibility for asylum is neither unresricted nor unregulated.
> 
> I've disputed and debunked your argument each time.
> 
> It is their policy to separate families as a deterrent. Period.
> If you won't  take the word of the then DHS secretary, then you're truly lost.
Click to expand...


I don't give a rat's ass what you TELL me you want.  You have obviously mistaken yourself for someone I respect or trust.  I'm following the logic chain; you'd have to be able to think to comprehend that.

Saying, "No, no, no, that's not true!" is not "disputing" anything.  You have yet to actually disprove a damned thing I've said.  Again, the fact that you SAY something is true is worth less than a fart in a wind tunnel to me.

It is their policy to prosecute all criminals as criminals.  Period.

If you won't take historical record as fact, then you're truly stupid . . . which we've already established.

Can you "dispute" that the President is charged by the Constitution with enforcing the laws?  Can you dispute that the President has zero legal power to make or change laws?  Can you dispute that laws are passed by Congress, and that Congress could pass a law today changing this whole situation, but hasn't?  (Hint:  if you're going to tackle the actual facts on this, you're gonna have to FINALLY read the Constitution.)

Can you "dispute" that the Flores Settlement made it legally binding on the federal government to release unaccompanied minors after no more than 20 days LONG before Trump became President?  Can you dispute that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the Flores Settlement had to be applied to accompanied minors as well, ALSO long before Trump became President?  Can you dispute that it was the ACLU and other leftist groups who argued for both of those decisions because family detention was "inhumane"?  And can you dispute that the Obama administration responded to those legal restrictions with "catch-and-release"?

'Cause I can document every damned thing I just said.  All Trump has done is prosecute criminals for their crimes, instead of blowing them off.  If all you've got is "Well, someone said something dumb, so that erases ALL the history!" then we're done here, and you can go find someone else to bother.


----------



## forkup

Cecilie1200 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is separating parents from kids because they committed a misdemeanor. That being the case, you had better not exceed the speed limit in your state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't exceed the speed limit, anyway.  But yeah, you definitely shouldn't do anything in a car, with your kids present, that gets you arrested.  You shouldn't do anything AT ALL that carries with it the chance of being arrested when you have your kids with you, because they will ALWAYS be taken away from you while you're in the pokey.  I have no idea why it's a shock to you that kids aren't jailed along with their parents.
> 
> But this really cuts to the heart of the matter.  You leftists keep yabbling mindlessly about "just a misdemeanor", when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The difference is in most traffic violations you don't go to jail and if you do, you can request bail.
> 
> And yes, our immigration laws do consider a first time offense of crossing the boarder illegally a misdemeanor, a minor wrongdoing by definition.  A first time offense carries a maximum of 6 mos in jail which is rarely used.  To give you an idea how minor the offense is, Misdemeanor Trespassing carries a heavier penalty in most states and it wasn't until  the 1996 immigration reform law that there was any legal penalty at all.
> 
> The first step in fixing the immigration system is to fix the law.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is another difference. If they take away your kids for speeding, unlikely but I'll accept it. You have an actual idea were they are, and you can be certain that you will get them back after you get out of the "pokey" as you so colorfully said, providing that's the only thing you did, not only that you will have the benefit of assured legal representation. The people who get caught here have none of these assurances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you decide to keep trying to game the system by claiming, "Oh, I just wanted asylum, and thought you got that by sneaking into the country", you DO know where your kids are, and you get them back as soon as your case is processed.  Better yet, if you ACTUALLY want asylum, you go to a port of entry and declare that fact, and the kids are never taken at all.
> 
> The first step in fixing immigration is to make it clear that we HAVE laws, and we demand that they be respected, and we aren't interested in having people in our country whose first act IN this country is to spit on it.
> 
> Guilt trip over how hard breaking the law makes a person's life?  Keep it for yourself, because I'm not accepting delivery.
Click to expand...

‘Hopefully, they’ll get you to her’: Texas judge can’t promise migrant families they’ll be reunited
This judge doesn't seem to agree with your stating of facts.


----------



## Cecilie1200

forkup said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is just abusing children.  No big deal to his base.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one child slipped through, and ended up dead or trafficed as a sex slave, because we did not find out DEFINITIVELY that the adult was the child's parent, you would cry foul on the administration.
> 
> How proud that must make you, getting your cake and eating it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How proud you must be supporting a policy that tears children from their parents arms WITHOUT regard.  Stop pretending it has anything to do with stopping trafficking, you and I both know it doent and that is directky from the mouths of those who impmemented it as a deterrant.  At least have the integrity to be honest about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------  i don't care about the TRAFFICKING .  I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law  Coyote .   ---------------------  just a comment .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Scare them?  You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation.   Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates.  Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes how insanely irresponsible off parents to try to go to the US when they so obviously live in paradise. You should definitely punish parents like that and send them on their way minus the children. After all they deserve no better. (I hope I laid on the sarcasm thick enough)
Click to expand...


"My life sucks, so I'm going to break the law, and I'm going to drag my kid along while I do it so that I can use him to get out of being punished."  Yup, that's insanely irresponsible, and they deserve exactly what they get for it.

Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children".  Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.


----------



## Flopper

Pop23 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is just abusing children.  No big deal to his base.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one child slipped through, and ended up dead or trafficed as a sex slave, because we did not find out DEFINITIVELY that the adult was the child's parent, you would cry foul on the administration.
> 
> How proud that must make you, getting your cake and eating it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How proud you must be supporting a policy that tears children from their parents arms WITHOUT regard.  Stop pretending it has anything to do with stopping trafficking, you and I both know it doent and that is directky from the mouths of those who impmemented it as a deterrant.  At least have the integrity to be honest about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------  i don't care about the TRAFFICKING .  I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law  Coyote .   ---------------------  just a comment .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Scare them?  You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation.   Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates.  Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the same thugs would think nothing of abducting a child and crossing our border with them.
> 
> Think about that
Click to expand...

*Child traffickers and victims posing as families are easily identified by law enforcement when apprehended.  Victims almost universally show relief when questioned by law enforcement.  The most common methods of transporting victims is as cargo in trucks and boats, not walking across the desert.*


----------



## forkup

Cecilie1200 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one child slipped through, and ended up dead or trafficed as a sex slave, because we did not find out DEFINITIVELY that the adult was the child's parent, you would cry foul on the administration.
> 
> How proud that must make you, getting your cake and eating it too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How proud you must be supporting a policy that tears children from their parents arms WITHOUT regard.  Stop pretending it has anything to do with stopping trafficking, you and I both know it doent and that is directky from the mouths of those who impmemented it as a deterrant.  At least have the integrity to be honest about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------  i don't care about the TRAFFICKING .  I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law  Coyote .   ---------------------  just a comment .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Scare them?  You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation.   Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates.  Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes how insanely irresponsible off parents to try to go to the US when they so obviously live in paradise. You should definitely punish parents like that and send them on their way minus the children. After all they deserve no better. (I hope I laid on the sarcasm thick enough)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "My life sucks, so I'm going to break the law, and I'm going to drag my kid along while I do it so that I can use him to get out of being punished."  Yup, that's insanely irresponsible, and they deserve exactly what they get for it.
> 
> Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children".  Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.
Click to expand...

See link posted above.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Hutch Starskey said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The parents aren't doing it. The govt is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Do you think these children suddenly developed a sudden societal and environmental awareness and decided to come here on their own? No. The parents chose to send them here, alone. Adults claiming to be parents smuggled them here, only to leave them alone when they were detained for crossing illegally. You are so damned ignorant that you can't see these people are taking advantage of our system. That system must be changed. With or without your help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The govt, through policy, is deciding to prosecute 100% them. Including those seeking asylum.The result of said prosecution is separation. This was not the case six weeks ago.
Click to expand...


No, the government is prosecuting 100% of the people who COME HERE ILLEGALLY.  If they request asylum, then that request is processed, but until it's granted - IF it's granted - they're still guilty of committing a crime, and THAT is what they're being prosecuted for.

And yes, being prosecuted for a crime results in being separated from your children.  Works that way for everyone who gets prosecuted for a crime.  Do I feel guilty about that?  I'M not the one who broke the law, so no.  And if it was not the case six weeks ago that we treated criminals like criminals, then that just means it took too fucking long to pull our heads out of our asses.

Once again, there is only one solution, and you have YET to say a word about it.  Which tells me - far louder than any of the lies and propaganda and memes spewing from your mouth like sewage from a broken septic tank - that what you REALLY want is an outcome that has nothing to do with obeying the law.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Hutch Starskey said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both are important, especially if you are the race the Democrats want to wipe out.
> 
> 
> 
> Just admit that for you, it's all about keeping brown people out of America.
> Don't be a pussy and stop dancing around that point you so desperately are trying to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /———/ Ahhh the good old race card has been dealt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^Another cowardly denier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /—-/ When all else fails call your opponent a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never used that word but feel free to explain why you feel these people would make America a "shithole".
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ It’s better than the democRAT Policy of Turing America into a shythole.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Well, apparently the LAST country they lived in was a shithole, so they have a bit of a track record.


----------



## Cecilie1200

forkup said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.
> 
> 
> 
> So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should never have been allowed to reproduce, simply because you're pig-stupid enough to compare crossing the street (presumably at an intersection, but given your shocking level of brain damage, I won't assume anything) with entering the country illegally.
> 
> Your post is invalid, your presumption of functional intelligence is invalid, your existence is invalid.  Maybe you should send your kid in to debate on your behalf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
Click to expand...


"Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".

Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb.  Always assuming you have that capability.

FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.


----------



## Seawytch

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children".  Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.



Yeah, they are.
 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/us/immigration-deported-parents.html


----------



## Cecilie1200

kaz said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should never have been allowed to reproduce, simply because you're pig-stupid enough to compare crossing the street (presumably at an intersection, but given your shocking level of brain damage, I won't assume anything) with entering the country illegally.
> 
> Your post is invalid, your presumption of functional intelligence is invalid, your existence is invalid.  Maybe you should send your kid in to debate on your behalf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."
> 
> Dude, you were very clear.  If you're not comparing them, this has no point.
> 
> I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
> I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
> I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling
> 
> Sometimes you take risks for your kids!
> 
> That sentence is entirely context driven.  Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't
Click to expand...


I don't know about anyone else, but the riskiest situations I put my kids in is sending them to a play group with other kids who MIGHT have germs.  I most assuredly would not ever CONSIDER putting them anywhere near the evil filth in human form that is a coyote (someone who smuggles people across the border, for those of you who don't live in this area), or trekking across pretty much ANY country in Central America, or hiking through the Arizona desert (or Texas or New Mexico or California, for that matter).


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children".  Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they are.
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/us/immigration-deported-parents.html
Click to expand...

Why did she try to drag her son on an illegal activity?


----------



## Cecilie1200

forkup said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should never have been allowed to reproduce, simply because you're pig-stupid enough to compare crossing the street (presumably at an intersection, but given your shocking level of brain damage, I won't assume anything) with entering the country illegally.
> 
> Your post is invalid, your presumption of functional intelligence is invalid, your existence is invalid.  Maybe you should send your kid in to debate on your behalf.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."
> 
> Dude, you were very clear.  If you're not comparing them, this has no point.
> 
> I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
> I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
> I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling
> 
> Sometimes you take risks for your kids!
> 
> That sentence is entirely context driven.  Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hence me clearly stating that I used hyperbole to emphasize my point. Hyperbole by it's nature is an exaggeration. I do not think they are similar but as such it did serve to emphasize that in the case of parents crossing the border they feel the risks they take are justified.
Click to expand...


Hence me clearly stating that your "point" and its overblown melodrama was deserving of exactly the response it got.

"I don't think they're similar, but I thought it made my point to draw false analogies."  Uh huh.  Remember me saying you should never have been allowed to enter the gene pool?


----------



## Cellblock2429

Hutch Starskey said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The parents aren't doing it. The govt is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Do you think these children suddenly developed a sudden societal and environmental awareness and decided to come here on their own? No. The parents chose to send them here, alone. Adults claiming to be parents smuggled them here, only to leave them alone when they were detained for crossing illegally. You are so damned ignorant that you can't see these people are taking advantage of our system. That system must be changed. With or without your help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The govt, through policy, is deciding to prosecute 100% them. Including those seeking asylum.The result of said prosecution is separation. This was not the case six weeks ago.
Click to expand...

/——/ Good. It’s about time. Trump is sending a message. Respect our borders.


----------



## Flopper

Cecilie1200 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one child slipped through, and ended up dead or trafficed as a sex slave, because we did not find out DEFINITIVELY that the adult was the child's parent, you would cry foul on the administration.
> 
> How proud that must make you, getting your cake and eating it too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How proud you must be supporting a policy that tears children from their parents arms WITHOUT regard.  Stop pretending it has anything to do with stopping trafficking, you and I both know it doent and that is directky from the mouths of those who impmemented it as a deterrant.  At least have the integrity to be honest about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------  i don't care about the TRAFFICKING .  I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law  Coyote .   ---------------------  just a comment .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Scare them?  You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation.   Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates.  Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes how insanely irresponsible off parents to try to go to the US when they so obviously live in paradise. You should definitely punish parents like that and send them on their way minus the children. After all they deserve no better. (I hope I laid on the sarcasm thick enough)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "My life sucks, so I'm going to break the law, and I'm going to drag my kid along while I do it so that I can use him to get out of being punished."  Yup, that's insanely irresponsible, and they deserve exactly what they get for it.
> 
> Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children".  Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.
Click to expand...

*Yes, that would be insane if that were the situation.  However, it's a bit far fetched to believe parents would leave their kids to become victims of gangs and cartels  while they embarked on a journey of over a thousand miles, crossing 2 or 3 boarders illegally, and often treacherous terrain to do what? Pick strawberries and visit uncle Jose.  Now that would be really truly insane, not to mention that they couldn't apply for asylum for family members left at home.*


----------



## Cecilie1200

forkup said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is separating parents from kids because they committed a misdemeanor. That being the case, you had better not exceed the speed limit in your state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't exceed the speed limit, anyway.  But yeah, you definitely shouldn't do anything in a car, with your kids present, that gets you arrested.  You shouldn't do anything AT ALL that carries with it the chance of being arrested when you have your kids with you, because they will ALWAYS be taken away from you while you're in the pokey.  I have no idea why it's a shock to you that kids aren't jailed along with their parents.
> 
> But this really cuts to the heart of the matter.  You leftists keep yabbling mindlessly about "just a misdemeanor", when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The difference is in most traffic violations you don't go to jail and if you do, you can request bail.
> 
> And yes, our immigration laws do consider a first time offense of crossing the boarder illegally a misdemeanor, a minor wrongdoing by definition.  A first time offense carries a maximum of 6 mos in jail which is rarely used.  To give you an idea how minor the offense is, Misdemeanor Trespassing carries a heavier penalty in most states and it wasn't until  the 1996 immigration reform law that there was any legal penalty at all.
> 
> The first step in fixing the immigration system is to fix the law.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is another difference. If they take away your kids for speeding, unlikely but I'll accept it. You have an actual idea were they are, and you can be certain that you will get them back after you get out of the "pokey" as you so colorfully said, providing that's the only thing you did, not only that you will have the benefit of assured legal representation. The people who get caught here have none of these assurances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you decide to keep trying to game the system by claiming, "Oh, I just wanted asylum, and thought you got that by sneaking into the country", you DO know where your kids are, and you get them back as soon as your case is processed.  Better yet, if you ACTUALLY want asylum, you go to a port of entry and declare that fact, and the kids are never taken at all.
> 
> The first step in fixing immigration is to make it clear that we HAVE laws, and we demand that they be respected, and we aren't interested in having people in our country whose first act IN this country is to spit on it.
> 
> Guilt trip over how hard breaking the law makes a person's life?  Keep it for yourself, because I'm not accepting delivery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ‘Hopefully, they’ll get you to her’: Texas judge can’t promise migrant families they’ll be reunited
> This judge doesn't seem to agree with your stating of facts.
Click to expand...


Okay, first things first.  Citing Politico as a fact source?  You already lost the argument, and I am now pissing on your pitiful excuse for intelligence.

Second thing:  you should really try reading the article for context, rather than just pouncing on the headline.

"Magistrate Judge J. Scott Hacker, presiding over the hearing in Texas federal court, could tell her only that reunification with her child was out of his hands."  That's quite true, since that's not his job.  Does the fact that it's not the judge's job mean it's never going to happen?  Uh duhhhh.

"“Hopefully, they’ll get you to her,” Hacker told the woman, who was communicating through a translator, before sentencing her to time served in detention and paving the way for her likely deportation."  Again, all this tells us is that the judge is a gormless doof who shouldn't be allowed to speak extemporaneously.  Says not one damned factual thing about anything else.

“I can’t promise you anything,” Hacker told a father asking about his son before receiving a sentence of time served. “That’s all up to another part of the government.”"  Second part of the statement explains the first part.  He CAN'T promise anything, 'cause that's not his job.  Again, does that say anything at all about the people whose job it IS?  Only if you're a drooling fool.

"All but 16 of the migrants whose cases the court heard on Monday were sentenced to time served in custody, and all but five had been apprehended since Thursday. "  I guess that'd be that "prolonged, traumatic period of time" you leftist twats keep yabbling on about.

If you can find one thing in that article that is an actual, hard fact contradicting anything I've said, that'll be a pretty neat trick, 'cause it's not there.


----------



## forkup

Cecilie1200 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should never have been allowed to reproduce, simply because you're pig-stupid enough to compare crossing the street (presumably at an intersection, but given your shocking level of brain damage, I won't assume anything) with entering the country illegally.
> 
> Your post is invalid, your presumption of functional intelligence is invalid, your existence is invalid.  Maybe you should send your kid in to debate on your behalf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".
> 
> Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb.  Always assuming you have that capability.
> 
> FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.
Click to expand...

How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.


----------



## Cecilie1200

forkup said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> How proud you must be supporting a policy that tears children from their parents arms WITHOUT regard.  Stop pretending it has anything to do with stopping trafficking, you and I both know it doent and that is directky from the mouths of those who impmemented it as a deterrant.  At least have the integrity to be honest about it.
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------  i don't care about the TRAFFICKING .  I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law  Coyote .   ---------------------  just a comment .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Scare them?  You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation.   Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates.  Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes how insanely irresponsible off parents to try to go to the US when they so obviously live in paradise. You should definitely punish parents like that and send them on their way minus the children. After all they deserve no better. (I hope I laid on the sarcasm thick enough)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "My life sucks, so I'm going to break the law, and I'm going to drag my kid along while I do it so that I can use him to get out of being punished."  Yup, that's insanely irresponsible, and they deserve exactly what they get for it.
> 
> Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children".  Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See link posted above.
Click to expand...


I'll take that as an "I have nothing".


----------



## koshergrl

Cecilie1200 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------  i don't care about the TRAFFICKING .  I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law  Coyote .   ---------------------  just a comment .
> 
> 
> 
> *Scare them?  You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation.   Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates.  Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes how insanely irresponsible off parents to try to go to the US when they so obviously live in paradise. You should definitely punish parents like that and send them on their way minus the children. After all they deserve no better. (I hope I laid on the sarcasm thick enough)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "My life sucks, so I'm going to break the law, and I'm going to drag my kid along while I do it so that I can use him to get out of being punished."  Yup, that's insanely irresponsible, and they deserve exactly what they get for it.
> 
> Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children".  Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See link posted above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take that as an "I have nothing".
Click to expand...

I take it he's related to that other cretin..what was his name...who kept saying "I already posted the verification" and "Multiple threads have links in them that I posted that support what I'm saying in this thread now"...

that was just the other day...who the hell was that...

anyway I think he's this guy's sock.


----------



## forkup

Cecilie1200 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------  i don't care about the TRAFFICKING .  I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law  Coyote .   ---------------------  just a comment .
> 
> 
> 
> *Scare them?  You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation.   Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates.  Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes how insanely irresponsible off parents to try to go to the US when they so obviously live in paradise. You should definitely punish parents like that and send them on their way minus the children. After all they deserve no better. (I hope I laid on the sarcasm thick enough)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "My life sucks, so I'm going to break the law, and I'm going to drag my kid along while I do it so that I can use him to get out of being punished."  Yup, that's insanely irresponsible, and they deserve exactly what they get for it.
> 
> Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children".  Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See link posted above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take that as an "I have nothing".
Click to expand...

I"ll take that as" I'm to chickenshit to click a link that directly contradicts what I'm claiming"


----------



## koshergrl

forkup said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Scare them?  You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation.   Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates.  Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Yes how insanely irresponsible off parents to try to go to the US when they so obviously live in paradise. You should definitely punish parents like that and send them on their way minus the children. After all they deserve no better. (I hope I laid on the sarcasm thick enough)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "My life sucks, so I'm going to break the law, and I'm going to drag my kid along while I do it so that I can use him to get out of being punished."  Yup, that's insanely irresponsible, and they deserve exactly what they get for it.
> 
> Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children".  Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See link posted above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take that as an "I have nothing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I"ll take that as" I'm to chickenshit to click a link that directly contradicts what I'm claiming"
Click to expand...


I'll take that as you admitting  you can't actually iterate how the link supports your comments.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should never have been allowed to reproduce, simply because you're pig-stupid enough to compare crossing the street (presumably at an intersection, but given your shocking level of brain damage, I won't assume anything) with entering the country illegally.
> 
> Your post is invalid, your presumption of functional intelligence is invalid, your existence is invalid.  Maybe you should send your kid in to debate on your behalf.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."
> 
> Dude, you were very clear.  If you're not comparing them, this has no point.
> 
> I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
> I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
> I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling
> 
> Sometimes you take risks for your kids!
> 
> That sentence is entirely context driven.  Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about anyone else, but the riskiest situations I put my kids in is sending them to a play group with other kids who MIGHT have germs.  I most assuredly would not ever CONSIDER putting them anywhere near the evil filth in human form that is a coyote (someone who smuggles people across the border, for those of you who don't live in this area), or trekking across pretty much ANY country in Central America, or hiking through the Arizona desert (or Texas or New Mexico or California, for that matter).
Click to expand...


Your fortunate entitled butt has never lived in a country where your children were ever in serious danger on a daily basis.  You can thank your lucky hyperventilating hormonal ass you weren't born in Guatamala, Hondoras or El Salvadore because it is only by accident of birth you are here to smugly criticize their parenting skills.

In Gang-Ridden Honduras, Violence and Corruption Mean Few Grow Old


----------



## Flopper

TemplarKormac said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote
> 
> If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.
> 
> Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.
> 
> So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.
> 
> How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, _separates_, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?
> 
> Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred?
> 
> Why all the emotion and no solution?
> 
> 
> 
> *If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act.  However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have  some documentation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First... I can contend that the exact opposite is true. You can't assume that all of these adults with minors are in fact families.
> 
> Second,  these people had no rights in America (constitutional or otherwise) before they crossed the border illegally, why should they suddenly attain them when they do? If you aren't a citizen, you should not be entitled to constitutional rights until you go through the proper channels. Period. Full stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there are no basic human rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want compassion to overrule the law. I want the law to stand sacrosanct against emotional arguments like yours. Too much emotion and compassion can erode the rule of law. You can have your basic human rights, but you surrender all others when you commit a crime against justly enacted law. That's what _you_ fail to understand.
> 
> I'm beginning to think people like you and Coyote hold no respect for the law. Otherwise you would demand that it be enforced. But you want the law to be selectively applied.
> 
> I SAID _NOTHING_ ABOUT DENYING THEM THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.
Click to expand...

*No, you do not surrender rights by a committing crime.  The accused certainly has constitutional rights, even non-citizens.*


----------



## kaz

forkup said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should never have been allowed to reproduce, simply because you're pig-stupid enough to compare crossing the street (presumably at an intersection, but given your shocking level of brain damage, I won't assume anything) with entering the country illegally.
> 
> Your post is invalid, your presumption of functional intelligence is invalid, your existence is invalid.  Maybe you should send your kid in to debate on your behalf.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."
> 
> Dude, you were very clear.  If you're not comparing them, this has no point.
> 
> I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
> I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
> I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling
> 
> Sometimes you take risks for your kids!
> 
> That sentence is entirely context driven.  Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hence me clearly stating that I used hyperbole to emphasize my point. Hyperbole by it's nature is an exaggeration. I do not think they are similar but as such it did serve to emphasize that in the case of parents crossing the border they feel the risks they take are justified.
Click to expand...


So mothers who rob banks to send their kids to better preschools shouldn't lose their kids because "they feel the risks they take are justified."  That's what you think


----------



## Cecilie1200

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children".  Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they are.
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/us/immigration-deported-parents.html
Click to expand...


I'm no more interested in the Times' wailing melodrama than I am yours.  Get off the train tracks, Nell Fenwick; Snidely Whiplash is nowhere in sight.

And I'd give this "hard reporting" a D- in any journalism class.  That "reporter" should be ashamed.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Flopper said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote
> 
> If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.
> 
> Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.
> 
> So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.
> 
> How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, _separates_, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?
> 
> Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred?
> 
> Why all the emotion and no solution?
> 
> 
> 
> *If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act.  However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have  some documentation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First... I can contend that the exact opposite is true. You can't assume that all of these adults with minors are in fact families.
> 
> Second,  these people had no rights in America (constitutional or otherwise) before they crossed the border illegally, why should they suddenly attain them when they do? If you aren't a citizen, you should not be entitled to constitutional rights until you go through the proper channels. Period. Full stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there are no basic human rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want compassion to overrule the law. I want the law to stand sacrosanct against emotional arguments like yours. Too much emotion and compassion can erode the rule of law. You can have your basic human rights, but you surrender all others when you commit a crime against justly enacted law. That's what _you_ fail to understand.
> 
> I'm beginning to think people like you and Coyote hold no respect for the law. Otherwise you would demand that it be enforced. But you want the law to be selectively applied.
> 
> I SAID _NOTHING_ ABOUT DENYING THEM THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, you do not surrender rights by a committing crime.  The accused certainly has constitutional rights, even non-citizens.*
Click to expand...

You're missing the point entirely. It makes zero sense to say that any illegal who sets foot on American soil gains constitutional rights when they do. 

I believe in reciprocal punishment. If you violate the rights of others by committing a crime, you should lose yours. You have forfeited them because you had no respect for the rights of others. Due process is guaranteed, but the rest of your rights go bye bye.


----------



## forkup

koshergrl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Scare them?  You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation.   Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates.  Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Yes how insanely irresponsible off parents to try to go to the US when they so obviously live in paradise. You should definitely punish parents like that and send them on their way minus the children. After all they deserve no better. (I hope I laid on the sarcasm thick enough)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "My life sucks, so I'm going to break the law, and I'm going to drag my kid along while I do it so that I can use him to get out of being punished."  Yup, that's insanely irresponsible, and they deserve exactly what they get for it.
> 
> Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children".  Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See link posted above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take that as an "I have nothing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I take it he's related to that other cretin..what was his name...who kept saying "I already posted the verification" and "Multiple threads have links in them that I posted that support what I'm saying in this thread now"...
> 
> that was just the other day...who the hell was that...
> 
> anyway I think he's this guy's sock.
Click to expand...




koshergrl said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes how insanely irresponsible off parents to try to go to the US when they so obviously live in paradise. You should definitely punish parents like that and send them on their way minus the children. After all they deserve no better. (I hope I laid on the sarcasm thick enough)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "My life sucks, so I'm going to break the law, and I'm going to drag my kid along while I do it so that I can use him to get out of being punished."  Yup, that's insanely irresponsible, and they deserve exactly what they get for it.
> 
> Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children".  Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See link posted above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take that as an "I have nothing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I"ll take that as" I'm to chickenshit to click a link that directly contradicts what I'm claiming"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take that as you admitting  you can't actually iterate how the link supports your comments.
Click to expand...




forkup said:


> ‘Hopefully, they’ll get you to her’: Texas judge can’t promise migrant families they’ll be reunited
> This judge doesn't seem to agree with your stating of facts.


Literately the post above hers.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't exceed the speed limit, anyway.  But yeah, you definitely shouldn't do anything in a car, with your kids present, that gets you arrested.  You shouldn't do anything AT ALL that carries with it the chance of being arrested when you have your kids with you, because they will ALWAYS be taken away from you while you're in the pokey.  I have no idea why it's a shock to you that kids aren't jailed along with their parents.
> 
> But this really cuts to the heart of the matter.  You leftists keep yabbling mindlessly about "just a misdemeanor", when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".
> 
> 
> 
> *The difference is in most traffic violations you don't go to jail and if you do, you can request bail.
> 
> And yes, our immigration laws do consider a first time offense of crossing the boarder illegally a misdemeanor, a minor wrongdoing by definition.  A first time offense carries a maximum of 6 mos in jail which is rarely used.  To give you an idea how minor the offense is, Misdemeanor Trespassing carries a heavier penalty in most states and it wasn't until  the 1996 immigration reform law that there was any legal penalty at all.
> 
> The first step in fixing the immigration system is to fix the law.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is another difference. If they take away your kids for speeding, unlikely but I'll accept it. You have an actual idea were they are, and you can be certain that you will get them back after you get out of the "pokey" as you so colorfully said, providing that's the only thing you did, not only that you will have the benefit of assured legal representation. The people who get caught here have none of these assurances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you decide to keep trying to game the system by claiming, "Oh, I just wanted asylum, and thought you got that by sneaking into the country", you DO know where your kids are, and you get them back as soon as your case is processed.  Better yet, if you ACTUALLY want asylum, you go to a port of entry and declare that fact, and the kids are never taken at all.
> 
> The first step in fixing immigration is to make it clear that we HAVE laws, and we demand that they be respected, and we aren't interested in having people in our country whose first act IN this country is to spit on it.
> 
> Guilt trip over how hard breaking the law makes a person's life?  Keep it for yourself, because I'm not accepting delivery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ‘Hopefully, they’ll get you to her’: Texas judge can’t promise migrant families they’ll be reunited
> This judge doesn't seem to agree with your stating of facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, first things first.  Citing Politico as a fact source?  You already lost the argument, and I am now pissing on your pitiful excuse for intelligence.
> 
> Second thing:  you should really try reading the article for context, rather than just pouncing on the headline.
> 
> "Magistrate Judge J. Scott Hacker, presiding over the hearing in Texas federal court, could tell her only that reunification with her child was out of his hands."  That's quite true, since that's not his job.  Does the fact that it's not the judge's job mean it's never going to happen?  Uh duhhhh.
> 
> "“Hopefully, they’ll get you to her,” Hacker told the woman, who was communicating through a translator, before sentencing her to time served in detention and paving the way for her likely deportation."  Again, all this tells us is that the judge is a gormless doof who shouldn't be allowed to speak extemporaneously.  Says not one damned factual thing about anything else.
> 
> “I can’t promise you anything,” Hacker told a father asking about his son before receiving a sentence of time served. “That’s all up to another part of the government.”"  Second part of the statement explains the first part.  He CAN'T promise anything, 'cause that's not his job.  Again, does that say anything at all about the people whose job it IS?  Only if you're a drooling fool.
> 
> "All but 16 of the migrants whose cases the court heard on Monday were sentenced to time served in custody, and all but five had been apprehended since Thursday. "  I guess that'd be that "prolonged, traumatic period of time" you leftist twats keep yabbling on about.
> 
> If you can find one thing in that article that is an actual, hard fact contradicting anything I've said, that'll be a pretty neat trick, 'cause it's not there.
Click to expand...


‘I Can’t Go Without My Son,’ a Mother Pleaded as She Was Deported to Guatemala

The Government Has No Plan for Reuniting the Immigrant Families It Is Tearing Apart


----------



## Flopper

Pop23 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is just abusing children.  No big deal to his base.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one child slipped through, and ended up dead or trafficed as a sex slave, because we did not find out DEFINITIVELY that the adult was the child's parent, you would cry foul on the administration.
> 
> How proud that must make you, getting your cake and eating it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How proud you must be supporting a policy that tears children from their parents arms WITHOUT regard.  Stop pretending it has anything to do with stopping trafficking, you and I both know it doent and that is directky from the mouths of those who impmemented it as a deterrant.  At least have the integrity to be honest about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------  i don't care about the TRAFFICKING .  I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law  Coyote .   ---------------------  just a comment .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Scare them?  You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation.   Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates.  Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the same thugs would think nothing of abducting a child and crossing our border with them.
> 
> Think about that
Click to expand...

*Immigration officials are required to interview all detainees regardless of age.  Do you really think kidnap victims are not going to speak up?  

These families came seeking asylum.  You can not apply for asylum with out complete documentation of all family members.
Think about that.*


----------



## HappyJoy

kaz said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."
> 
> Dude, you were very clear.  If you're not comparing them, this has no point.
> 
> I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
> I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
> I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling
> 
> Sometimes you take risks for your kids!
> 
> That sentence is entirely context driven.  Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hence me clearly stating that I used hyperbole to emphasize my point. Hyperbole by it's nature is an exaggeration. I do not think they are similar but as such it did serve to emphasize that in the case of parents crossing the border they feel the risks they take are justified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So mothers who rob banks to send their kids to better preschools shouldn't lose their kids because "they feel the risks they take are justified."  That's what you think
Click to expand...


Not even remotely in the same universe. Are we so privileged that we compare getting into private school to actual survival? Not to mention comparing armed robbery to a misdemeanor.


----------



## kaz

forkup said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should never have been allowed to reproduce, simply because you're pig-stupid enough to compare crossing the street (presumably at an intersection, but given your shocking level of brain damage, I won't assume anything) with entering the country illegally.
> 
> Your post is invalid, your presumption of functional intelligence is invalid, your existence is invalid.  Maybe you should send your kid in to debate on your behalf.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".
> 
> Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb.  Always assuming you have that capability.
> 
> FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.
Click to expand...


We're talking about illegal immigration, not immigration, moron.  The people on the Mayflower didn't endanger their kids during the commission of a crime


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one child slipped through, and ended up dead or trafficed as a sex slave, because we did not find out DEFINITIVELY that the adult was the child's parent, you would cry foul on the administration.
> 
> How proud that must make you, getting your cake and eating it too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How proud you must be supporting a policy that tears children from their parents arms WITHOUT regard.  Stop pretending it has anything to do with stopping trafficking, you and I both know it doent and that is directky from the mouths of those who impmemented it as a deterrant.  At least have the integrity to be honest about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------  i don't care about the TRAFFICKING .  I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law  Coyote .   ---------------------  just a comment .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Scare them?  You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation.   Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates.  Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the same thugs would think nothing of abducting a child and crossing our border with them.
> 
> Think about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Immigration officials are required to interview all detainees regardless of age.  Do you really think kidnap victims are not going to speak up?
> 
> These families came seeking asylum.  You can not apply for asylum with out complete documentation of all family members.
> Think about that.*
Click to expand...


Poor children from third world countries who are being abused and threatened and told the American will kill them?  Of course they could lie.  And you're saying keep them in the abuser's hands to keep doing that


----------



## forkup

kaz said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."
> 
> Dude, you were very clear.  If you're not comparing them, this has no point.
> 
> I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
> I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
> I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling
> 
> Sometimes you take risks for your kids!
> 
> That sentence is entirely context driven.  Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hence me clearly stating that I used hyperbole to emphasize my point. Hyperbole by it's nature is an exaggeration. I do not think they are similar but as such it did serve to emphasize that in the case of parents crossing the border they feel the risks they take are justified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So mothers who rob banks to send their kids to better preschools shouldn't lose their kids because "they feel the risks they take are justified."  That's what you think
Click to expand...

Don't look now, but I do believe you are using hyperbole. And the answer is no. That's why I said "In the end, *sometimes* as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."


----------



## Coyote

kaz said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".
> 
> Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb.  Always assuming you have that capability.
> 
> FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal immigration, not immigration, moron.  The people on the Mayflower didn't endanger their kids during the commission of a crime
Click to expand...

They took their kids to invade another land.  I doubt it was legal.


----------



## Cecilie1200

forkup said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should never have been allowed to reproduce, simply because you're pig-stupid enough to compare crossing the street (presumably at an intersection, but given your shocking level of brain damage, I won't assume anything) with entering the country illegally.
> 
> Your post is invalid, your presumption of functional intelligence is invalid, your existence is invalid.  Maybe you should send your kid in to debate on your behalf.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".
> 
> Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb.  Always assuming you have that capability.
> 
> FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.
Click to expand...


You're comparing criminals sneaking into our country to the Pilgrims?  Seriously?

I hope you won't be too surprised that I'm not even going to bother reading this puddle of rancid piss.


----------



## Cecilie1200

koshergrl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Scare them?  You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation.   Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates.  Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Yes how insanely irresponsible off parents to try to go to the US when they so obviously live in paradise. You should definitely punish parents like that and send them on their way minus the children. After all they deserve no better. (I hope I laid on the sarcasm thick enough)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "My life sucks, so I'm going to break the law, and I'm going to drag my kid along while I do it so that I can use him to get out of being punished."  Yup, that's insanely irresponsible, and they deserve exactly what they get for it.
> 
> Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children".  Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See link posted above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take that as an "I have nothing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I take it he's related to that other cretin..what was his name...who kept saying "I already posted the verification" and "Multiple threads have links in them that I posted that support what I'm saying in this thread now"...
> 
> that was just the other day...who the hell was that...
> 
> anyway I think he's this guy's sock.
Click to expand...


You know I make no effort to remember the names of the peons I crush beneath my booted heel.


----------



## forkup

kaz said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".
> 
> Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb.  Always assuming you have that capability.
> 
> FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal immigration, not immigration, moron.  The people on the Mayflower didn't endanger their kids during the commission of a crime
Click to expand...

No they risked Their children's life legally, I guess that made the fatalities less death.


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."
> 
> Dude, you were very clear.  If you're not comparing them, this has no point.
> 
> I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
> I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
> I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling
> 
> Sometimes you take risks for your kids!
> 
> That sentence is entirely context driven.  Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about anyone else, but the riskiest situations I put my kids in is sending them to a play group with other kids who MIGHT have germs.  I most assuredly would not ever CONSIDER putting them anywhere near the evil filth in human form that is a coyote (someone who smuggles people across the border, for those of you who don't live in this area), or trekking across pretty much ANY country in Central America, or hiking through the Arizona desert (or Texas or New Mexico or California, for that matter).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your fortunate entitled butt has never lived in a country where your children were ever in serious danger on a daily basis.  You can thank your lucky hyperventilating hormonal ass you weren't born in Guatamala, Hondoras or El Salvadore because it is only by accident of birth you are here to smugly criticize their parenting skills.
> 
> In Gang-Ridden Honduras, Violence and Corruption Mean Few Grow Old
Click to expand...


And the only think you're willing to do about it is bring their children here.  If you really believe that, you are admitting you're selfish scum


----------



## HappyJoy

Cecilie1200 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".
> 
> Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb.  Always assuming you have that capability.
> 
> FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're comparing criminals sneaking into our country to the Pilgrims?  Seriously?
> 
> I hope you won't be too surprised that I'm not even going to bother reading this puddle of rancid piss.
Click to expand...


It's a valid comparison if you say these refugees are bad parents for taking their kids on a dangerous trip. No wonder you won't answer it, coward.


----------



## kaz

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> 
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."
> 
> Dude, you were very clear.  If you're not comparing them, this has no point.
> 
> I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
> I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
> I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling
> 
> Sometimes you take risks for your kids!
> 
> That sentence is entirely context driven.  Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hence me clearly stating that I used hyperbole to emphasize my point. Hyperbole by it's nature is an exaggeration. I do not think they are similar but as such it did serve to emphasize that in the case of parents crossing the border they feel the risks they take are justified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So mothers who rob banks to send their kids to better preschools shouldn't lose their kids because "they feel the risks they take are justified."  That's what you think
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not even remotely in the same universe. Are we so privileged that we compare getting into private school to actual survival? Not to mention comparing armed robbery to a misdemeanor.
Click to expand...


OK, so you're admitting that it's only a valid comparison if they are compatible, which was my point.  He was equating crossing the street with illegal immigration.

It's hilarious you thought you were contradicting my point when you agreed with it ...


----------



## Cecilie1200

forkup said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Scare them?  You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation.   Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates.  Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Yes how insanely irresponsible off parents to try to go to the US when they so obviously live in paradise. You should definitely punish parents like that and send them on their way minus the children. After all they deserve no better. (I hope I laid on the sarcasm thick enough)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "My life sucks, so I'm going to break the law, and I'm going to drag my kid along while I do it so that I can use him to get out of being punished."  Yup, that's insanely irresponsible, and they deserve exactly what they get for it.
> 
> Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children".  Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See link posted above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take that as an "I have nothing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I"ll take that as" I'm to chickenshit to click a link that directly contradicts what I'm claiming"
Click to expand...


More like I don't respect you enough to bother scrolling back that far.  If it ain't in the post right above where I'm typing, it ain't worth it.  The only fear you engender in me is the possibility of you drooling on my shoes.

You have something to say, say it.  You don't, then we're done here.


----------



## Coyote

Mlll.


TemplarKormac said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act.  However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have  some documentation.*
> 
> 
> 
> First... I can contend that the exact opposite is true. You can't assume that all of these adults with minors are in fact families.
> 
> Second,  these people had no rights in America (constitutional or otherwise) before they crossed the border illegally, why should they suddenly attain them when they do? If you aren't a citizen, you should not be entitled to constitutional rights until you go through the proper channels. Period. Full stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there are no basic human rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want compassion to overrule the law. I want the law to stand sacrosanct against emotional arguments like yours. Too much emotion and compassion can erode the rule of law. You can have your basic human rights, but you surrender all others when you commit a crime against justly enacted law. That's what _you_ fail to understand.
> 
> I'm beginning to think people like you and Coyote hold no respect for the law. Otherwise you would demand that it be enforced. But you want the law to be selectively applied.
> 
> I SAID _NOTHING_ ABOUT DENYING THEM THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, you do not surrender rights by a committing crime.  The accused certainly has constitutional rights, even non-citizens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing the point entirely. It makes zero sense to say that any illegal who sets foot on American soil gains constitutional rights when they do.
> 
> I believe in reciprocal punishment. If you violate the rights of others by committing a crime, you should lose yours. You have forfeited them because you had no respect for the rights of others. Due process is guaranteed, but the rest of your rights go bye bye.
Click to expand...

Who's rights were violated?


----------



## kaz

forkup said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> 
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."
> 
> Dude, you were very clear.  If you're not comparing them, this has no point.
> 
> I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
> I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
> I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling
> 
> Sometimes you take risks for your kids!
> 
> That sentence is entirely context driven.  Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hence me clearly stating that I used hyperbole to emphasize my point. Hyperbole by it's nature is an exaggeration. I do not think they are similar but as such it did serve to emphasize that in the case of parents crossing the border they feel the risks they take are justified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So mothers who rob banks to send their kids to better preschools shouldn't lose their kids because "they feel the risks they take are justified."  That's what you think
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't look now, but I do believe you are using hyperbole. And the answer is no. That's why I said "In the end, *sometimes* as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."
Click to expand...


Yes, I was getting you to admit that you equated crossing the street with illegal immigration, and you did just confirm it.  When I gave you an alternate choice that was of a different scope, you came back with that they aren't the same!  It's a different scope!

You people are just not bright


----------



## HappyJoy

kaz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."
> 
> Dude, you were very clear.  If you're not comparing them, this has no point.
> 
> I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
> I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
> I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling
> 
> Sometimes you take risks for your kids!
> 
> That sentence is entirely context driven.  Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hence me clearly stating that I used hyperbole to emphasize my point. Hyperbole by it's nature is an exaggeration. I do not think they are similar but as such it did serve to emphasize that in the case of parents crossing the border they feel the risks they take are justified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So mothers who rob banks to send their kids to better preschools shouldn't lose their kids because "they feel the risks they take are justified."  That's what you think
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not even remotely in the same universe. Are we so privileged that we compare getting into private school to actual survival? Not to mention comparing armed robbery to a misdemeanor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, so you're admitting that it's only a valid comparison if they are compatible, which was my point.  He was equating crossing the street with illegal immigration.
> 
> It's hilarious you thought you were contradicting my point when you agreed with it ...
Click to expand...


Jay walking is a minor crime, so is crossing the border, especially with the intent of turning themselves in. I'm sorry, you're argument still sucks and at least you stopped making it (hopefully).


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."
> 
> Dude, you were very clear.  If you're not comparing them, this has no point.
> 
> I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
> I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
> I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling
> 
> Sometimes you take risks for your kids!
> 
> That sentence is entirely context driven.  Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about anyone else, but the riskiest situations I put my kids in is sending them to a play group with other kids who MIGHT have germs.  I most assuredly would not ever CONSIDER putting them anywhere near the evil filth in human form that is a coyote (someone who smuggles people across the border, for those of you who don't live in this area), or trekking across pretty much ANY country in Central America, or hiking through the Arizona desert (or Texas or New Mexico or California, for that matter).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your fortunate entitled butt has never lived in a country where your children were ever in serious danger on a daily basis.  You can thank your lucky hyperventilating hormonal ass you weren't born in Guatamala, Hondoras or El Salvadore because it is only by accident of birth you are here to smugly criticize their parenting skills.
> 
> In Gang-Ridden Honduras, Violence and Corruption Mean Few Grow Old
Click to expand...


Explain to me why, if illegals sneaking across our border is ALL about refugees fleeing mortal danger, they mysteriously stopped coming right after Trump was elected, and only started up again recently.  Was there some miraculous temporary peace in those countries that I somehow missed on the nightly news?  Or is it because the vast majority of border crossing is strictly economics-driven, ie. they just prefer our standard of living to their own?


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> 
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".
> 
> Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb.  Always assuming you have that capability.
> 
> FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal immigration, not immigration, moron.  The people on the Mayflower didn't endanger their kids during the commission of a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They took their kids to invade another land.  I doubt it was legal.
Click to expand...


So the Mayflower were criminals.  Got it.  I have to believe there's a line of looking stupid you wouldn't go below.  But damned if I can find that line ...


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote
> 
> If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.
> 
> Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.
> 
> So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.
> 
> How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, _separates_, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?
> 
> Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred?
> 
> Why all the emotion and no solution?
> 
> 
> 
> *If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act.  However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have  some documentation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First... I can contend that the exact opposite is true. You can't assume that all of these adults with minors are in fact families.
> 
> Second,  these people had no rights in America (constitutional or otherwise) before they crossed the border illegally, why should they suddenly attain them when they do? If you aren't a citizen, you should not be entitled to constitutional rights until you go through the proper channels. Period. Full stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there are no basic human rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want compassion to overrule the law. I want the law to stand sacrosanct against emotional arguments like yours. Too much emotion and compassion can erode the rule of law. You can have your basic human rights, but you surrender all others when you commit a crime against justly enacted law. That's what _you_ fail to understand.
> 
> I'm beginning to think people like you and Coyote hold no respect for the law. Otherwise you would demand that it be enforced. But you want the law to be selectively applied.
> 
> I SAID _NOTHING_ ABOUT DENYING THEM THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, you do not surrender rights by a committing crime.  The accused certainly has constitutional rights, even non-citizens.*
Click to expand...


And not a fucking one of them is "stay out of jail by using my kids as bargaining chips".


----------



## Flopper

Cecilie1200 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should never have been allowed to reproduce, simply because you're pig-stupid enough to compare crossing the street (presumably at an intersection, but given your shocking level of brain damage, I won't assume anything) with entering the country illegally.
> 
> Your post is invalid, your presumption of functional intelligence is invalid, your existence is invalid.  Maybe you should send your kid in to debate on your behalf.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."
> 
> Dude, you were very clear.  If you're not comparing them, this has no point.
> 
> I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
> I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
> I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling
> 
> Sometimes you take risks for your kids!
> 
> That sentence is entirely context driven.  Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about anyone else, but the riskiest situations I put my kids in is sending them to a play group with other kids who MIGHT have germs.  I most assuredly would not ever CONSIDER putting them anywhere near the evil filth in human form that is a coyote (someone who smuggles people across the border, for those of you who don't live in this area), or trekking across pretty much ANY country in Central America, or hiking through the Arizona desert (or Texas or New Mexico or California, for that matter).
Click to expand...

*In Guatemala, you do not sent your kids to a playground because there's a good chance you will never see them again.  If your oldest son was run down in front of you by cartel members because he wouldn't work for them and a 7 year old across the street was raped and murdered by a local  gang and the police refused to even investigate, I think you would do what is needed to get the fuck out. *


----------



## Cecilie1200

forkup said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes how insanely irresponsible off parents to try to go to the US when they so obviously live in paradise. You should definitely punish parents like that and send them on their way minus the children. After all they deserve no better. (I hope I laid on the sarcasm thick enough)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "My life sucks, so I'm going to break the law, and I'm going to drag my kid along while I do it so that I can use him to get out of being punished."  Yup, that's insanely irresponsible, and they deserve exactly what they get for it.
> 
> Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children".  Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See link posted above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take that as an "I have nothing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I take it he's related to that other cretin..what was his name...who kept saying "I already posted the verification" and "Multiple threads have links in them that I posted that support what I'm saying in this thread now"...
> 
> that was just the other day...who the hell was that...
> 
> anyway I think he's this guy's sock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "My life sucks, so I'm going to break the law, and I'm going to drag my kid along while I do it so that I can use him to get out of being punished."  Yup, that's insanely irresponsible, and they deserve exactly what they get for it.
> 
> Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children".  Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See link posted above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take that as an "I have nothing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I"ll take that as" I'm to chickenshit to click a link that directly contradicts what I'm claiming"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take that as you admitting  you can't actually iterate how the link supports your comments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ‘Hopefully, they’ll get you to her’: Texas judge can’t promise migrant families they’ll be reunited
> This judge doesn't seem to agree with your stating of facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Literately the post above hers.
Click to expand...


Yeah, already addressed that.  You should really keep up.

Oh, and "literately"?


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act.  However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have  some documentation.*
> 
> 
> 
> First... I can contend that the exact opposite is true. You can't assume that all of these adults with minors are in fact families.
> 
> Second,  these people had no rights in America (constitutional or otherwise) before they crossed the border illegally, why should they suddenly attain them when they do? If you aren't a citizen, you should not be entitled to constitutional rights until you go through the proper channels. Period. Full stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there are no basic human rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want compassion to overrule the law. I want the law to stand sacrosanct against emotional arguments like yours. Too much emotion and compassion can erode the rule of law. You can have your basic human rights, but you surrender all others when you commit a crime against justly enacted law. That's what _you_ fail to understand.
> 
> I'm beginning to think people like you and Coyote hold no respect for the law. Otherwise you would demand that it be enforced. But you want the law to be selectively applied.
> 
> I SAID _NOTHING_ ABOUT DENYING THEM THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, you do not surrender rights by a committing crime.  The accused certainly has constitutional rights, even non-citizens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing the point entirely. It makes zero sense to say that any illegal who sets foot on American soil gains constitutional rights when they do.
> 
> I believe in reciprocal punishment. If you violate the rights of others by committing a crime, you should lose yours. You have forfeited them because you had no respect for the rights of others. Due process is guaranteed, but the rest of your rights go bye bye.
Click to expand...

They do have some Constitutional rights.

Do undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights?


----------



## kaz

forkup said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> 
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".
> 
> Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb.  Always assuming you have that capability.
> 
> FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal immigration, not immigration, moron.  The people on the Mayflower didn't endanger their kids during the commission of a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they risked Their children's life legally, I guess that made the fatalities less death.
Click to expand...


So the Mayflower was the same as illegal aliens

Risking your children's lives while committing crimes is the same as risking them not committing a crime.

You people are just endless fountains of wisdom


----------



## koshergrl

forkup said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes how insanely irresponsible off parents to try to go to the US when they so obviously live in paradise. You should definitely punish parents like that and send them on their way minus the children. After all they deserve no better. (I hope I laid on the sarcasm thick enough)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "My life sucks, so I'm going to break the law, and I'm going to drag my kid along while I do it so that I can use him to get out of being punished."  Yup, that's insanely irresponsible, and they deserve exactly what they get for it.
> 
> Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children".  Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See link posted above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take that as an "I have nothing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I take it he's related to that other cretin..what was his name...who kept saying "I already posted the verification" and "Multiple threads have links in them that I posted that support what I'm saying in this thread now"...
> 
> that was just the other day...who the hell was that...
> 
> anyway I think he's this guy's sock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "My life sucks, so I'm going to break the law, and I'm going to drag my kid along while I do it so that I can use him to get out of being punished."  Yup, that's insanely irresponsible, and they deserve exactly what they get for it.
> 
> Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children".  Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See link posted above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take that as an "I have nothing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I"ll take that as" I'm to chickenshit to click a link that directly contradicts what I'm claiming"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take that as you admitting  you can't actually iterate how the link supports your comments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ‘Hopefully, they’ll get you to her’: Texas judge can’t promise migrant families they’ll be reunited
> This judge doesn't seem to agree with your stating of facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Literately the post above hers.
Click to expand...

They aren't being *sent on their way without their children* . Your link proves that in fact they are criminals who are convicted and JAILED. 

So do you think all people who are convicted of a crime should have their children placed with them in jail?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The difference is in most traffic violations you don't go to jail and if you do, you can request bail.
> 
> And yes, our immigration laws do consider a first time offense of crossing the boarder illegally a misdemeanor, a minor wrongdoing by definition.  A first time offense carries a maximum of 6 mos in jail which is rarely used.  To give you an idea how minor the offense is, Misdemeanor Trespassing carries a heavier penalty in most states and it wasn't until  the 1996 immigration reform law that there was any legal penalty at all.
> 
> The first step in fixing the immigration system is to fix the law.*
> 
> 
> 
> There is another difference. If they take away your kids for speeding, unlikely but I'll accept it. You have an actual idea were they are, and you can be certain that you will get them back after you get out of the "pokey" as you so colorfully said, providing that's the only thing you did, not only that you will have the benefit of assured legal representation. The people who get caught here have none of these assurances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you decide to keep trying to game the system by claiming, "Oh, I just wanted asylum, and thought you got that by sneaking into the country", you DO know where your kids are, and you get them back as soon as your case is processed.  Better yet, if you ACTUALLY want asylum, you go to a port of entry and declare that fact, and the kids are never taken at all.
> 
> The first step in fixing immigration is to make it clear that we HAVE laws, and we demand that they be respected, and we aren't interested in having people in our country whose first act IN this country is to spit on it.
> 
> Guilt trip over how hard breaking the law makes a person's life?  Keep it for yourself, because I'm not accepting delivery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ‘Hopefully, they’ll get you to her’: Texas judge can’t promise migrant families they’ll be reunited
> This judge doesn't seem to agree with your stating of facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, first things first.  Citing Politico as a fact source?  You already lost the argument, and I am now pissing on your pitiful excuse for intelligence.
> 
> Second thing:  you should really try reading the article for context, rather than just pouncing on the headline.
> 
> "Magistrate Judge J. Scott Hacker, presiding over the hearing in Texas federal court, could tell her only that reunification with her child was out of his hands."  That's quite true, since that's not his job.  Does the fact that it's not the judge's job mean it's never going to happen?  Uh duhhhh.
> 
> "“Hopefully, they’ll get you to her,” Hacker told the woman, who was communicating through a translator, before sentencing her to time served in detention and paving the way for her likely deportation."  Again, all this tells us is that the judge is a gormless doof who shouldn't be allowed to speak extemporaneously.  Says not one damned factual thing about anything else.
> 
> “I can’t promise you anything,” Hacker told a father asking about his son before receiving a sentence of time served. “That’s all up to another part of the government.”"  Second part of the statement explains the first part.  He CAN'T promise anything, 'cause that's not his job.  Again, does that say anything at all about the people whose job it IS?  Only if you're a drooling fool.
> 
> "All but 16 of the migrants whose cases the court heard on Monday were sentenced to time served in custody, and all but five had been apprehended since Thursday. "  I guess that'd be that "prolonged, traumatic period of time" you leftist twats keep yabbling on about.
> 
> If you can find one thing in that article that is an actual, hard fact contradicting anything I've said, that'll be a pretty neat trick, 'cause it's not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ‘I Can’t Go Without My Son,’ a Mother Pleaded as She Was Deported to Guatemala
> 
> The Government Has No Plan for Reuniting the Immigrant Families It Is Tearing Apart
Click to expand...


Clearly, I need to repeat myself.

Your wailing melodrama and overacting interest me not at all, and that goes double for wailing melodrama and overacting masquerading as journalism.

Talk to me when you have something other than hyperemotional opinion pieces.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Mlll.
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> First... I can contend that the exact opposite is true. You can't assume that all of these adults with minors are in fact families.
> 
> Second,  these people had no rights in America (constitutional or otherwise) before they crossed the border illegally, why should they suddenly attain them when they do? If you aren't a citizen, you should not be entitled to constitutional rights until you go through the proper channels. Period. Full stop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So there are no basic human rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want compassion to overrule the law. I want the law to stand sacrosanct against emotional arguments like yours. Too much emotion and compassion can erode the rule of law. You can have your basic human rights, but you surrender all others when you commit a crime against justly enacted law. That's what _you_ fail to understand.
> 
> I'm beginning to think people like you and Coyote hold no respect for the law. Otherwise you would demand that it be enforced. But you want the law to be selectively applied.
> 
> I SAID _NOTHING_ ABOUT DENYING THEM THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, you do not surrender rights by a committing crime.  The accused certainly has constitutional rights, even non-citizens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing the point entirely. It makes zero sense to say that any illegal who sets foot on American soil gains constitutional rights when they do.
> 
> I believe in reciprocal punishment. If you violate the rights of others by committing a crime, you should lose yours. You have forfeited them because you had no respect for the rights of others. Due process is guaranteed, but the rest of your rights go bye bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's rights were violated?
Click to expand...

Seriously?

The people who are going through this process legally. People who come here legally and are born here legally to legal parents. The people who lost their lives because we chose to have compassion on the lawbreaker instead of the victim (think Kate Steinle). 

I could go on if you want. This is why I don't have any compassion right now. Nobody seems to want the consequences to be applied. Nobody. 

Instead of offering a solution, Democrats choose to wear their feelings on their sleeve.


----------



## Flash

The best thing to do is send Apache gun ships to the border and use them to mow down a few of the Illegals.

It would not take many before the rest got the message and that Illegal crap would be stopped.

I suspect that the number of deaths of Illegals from the gunship attacks would probably be less than the number of deaths that uncontrolled borders would create in criminal activity by them being in the US.  

To me that would be acceptable losses.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> 
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".
> 
> Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb.  Always assuming you have that capability.
> 
> FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal immigration, not immigration, moron.  The people on the Mayflower didn't endanger their kids during the commission of a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They took their kids to invade another land.  I doubt it was legal.
Click to expand...


Really?  Perhaps you could cite for me the laws they were violating.


----------



## Coyote

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."
> 
> Dude, you were very clear.  If you're not comparing them, this has no point.
> 
> I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
> I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
> I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling
> 
> Sometimes you take risks for your kids!
> 
> That sentence is entirely context driven.  Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about anyone else, but the riskiest situations I put my kids in is sending them to a play group with other kids who MIGHT have germs.  I most assuredly would not ever CONSIDER putting them anywhere near the evil filth in human form that is a coyote (someone who smuggles people across the border, for those of you who don't live in this area), or trekking across pretty much ANY country in Central America, or hiking through the Arizona desert (or Texas or New Mexico or California, for that matter).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In Guatemala, you do not sent your kids to a playground because there's a good chance you will never see them again.  If your oldest son was run down in front of you by cartel members because he wouldn't work for them and a 7 year old across the street was raped and murdered by a local  gang and the police refused to even investigate, I think you would do what is needed to get the fuck out. *
Click to expand...

Only if you are a bad parent apparently.


----------



## HappyJoy

kaz said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".
> 
> Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb.  Always assuming you have that capability.
> 
> FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal immigration, not immigration, moron.  The people on the Mayflower didn't endanger their kids during the commission of a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They took their kids to invade another land.  I doubt it was legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the Mayflower were criminals.  Got it.  I have to believe there's a line of looking stupid you wouldn't go below.  But damned if I can find that line ...
Click to expand...


You do know that there were criminals on the Mayflower, right?


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".
> 
> Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb.  Always assuming you have that capability.
> 
> FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal immigration, not immigration, moron.  The people on the Mayflower didn't endanger their kids during the commission of a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They took their kids to invade another land.  I doubt it was legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Perhaps you could cite for me the laws they were violating.
Click to expand...

you need to ask the native tribes.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> First... I can contend that the exact opposite is true. You can't assume that all of these adults with minors are in fact families.
> 
> Second,  these people had no rights in America (constitutional or otherwise) before they crossed the border illegally, why should they suddenly attain them when they do? If you aren't a citizen, you should not be entitled to constitutional rights until you go through the proper channels. Period. Full stop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So there are no basic human rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want compassion to overrule the law. I want the law to stand sacrosanct against emotional arguments like yours. Too much emotion and compassion can erode the rule of law. You can have your basic human rights, but you surrender all others when you commit a crime against justly enacted law. That's what _you_ fail to understand.
> 
> I'm beginning to think people like you and Coyote hold no respect for the law. Otherwise you would demand that it be enforced. But you want the law to be selectively applied.
> 
> I SAID _NOTHING_ ABOUT DENYING THEM THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, you do not surrender rights by a committing crime.  The accused certainly has constitutional rights, even non-citizens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing the point entirely. It makes zero sense to say that any illegal who sets foot on American soil gains constitutional rights when they do.
> 
> I believe in reciprocal punishment. If you violate the rights of others by committing a crime, you should lose yours. You have forfeited them because you had no respect for the rights of others. Due process is guaranteed, but the rest of your rights go bye bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do have some Constitutional rights.
> 
> Do undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights?
Click to expand...


I never said they didn't. I said they _shouldn't_.


----------



## Cecilie1200

HappyJoy said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> 
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".
> 
> Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb.  Always assuming you have that capability.
> 
> FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're comparing criminals sneaking into our country to the Pilgrims?  Seriously?
> 
> I hope you won't be too surprised that I'm not even going to bother reading this puddle of rancid piss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a valid comparison if you say these refugees are bad parents for taking their kids on a dangerous trip. No wonder you won't answer it, coward.
Click to expand...


And now I've gone from ignoring a puddle of rancid piss to ignoring a puddle of festering vomit.


----------



## kaz

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> "So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."
> 
> Dude, you were very clear.  If you're not comparing them, this has no point.
> 
> I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
> I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
> I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling
> 
> Sometimes you take risks for your kids!
> 
> That sentence is entirely context driven.  Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't
> 
> 
> 
> Hence me clearly stating that I used hyperbole to emphasize my point. Hyperbole by it's nature is an exaggeration. I do not think they are similar but as such it did serve to emphasize that in the case of parents crossing the border they feel the risks they take are justified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So mothers who rob banks to send their kids to better preschools shouldn't lose their kids because "they feel the risks they take are justified."  That's what you think
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not even remotely in the same universe. Are we so privileged that we compare getting into private school to actual survival? Not to mention comparing armed robbery to a misdemeanor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, so you're admitting that it's only a valid comparison if they are compatible, which was my point.  He was equating crossing the street with illegal immigration.
> 
> It's hilarious you thought you were contradicting my point when you agreed with it ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jay walking is a minor crime, so is crossing the border, especially with the intent of turning themselves in. I'm sorry, you're argument still sucks and at least you stopped making it (hopefully).
Click to expand...


Of course you consider it a minor crime.  You want it to happen.   The more Democrat voters the better.  You want to award prizes for coming here illegally.  I mean literal prizes.  Welfare, free education, free medical care.  We'll house Mexico's prison population for them.  It's not a minor crime for you at all, it's a major victory!


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mlll.
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So there are no basic human rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want compassion to overrule the law. I want the law to stand sacrosanct against emotional arguments like yours. Too much emotion and compassion can erode the rule of law. You can have your basic human rights, but you surrender all others when you commit a crime against justly enacted law. That's what _you_ fail to understand.
> 
> I'm beginning to think people like you and Coyote hold no respect for the law. Otherwise you would demand that it be enforced. But you want the law to be selectively applied.
> 
> I SAID _NOTHING_ ABOUT DENYING THEM THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, you do not surrender rights by a committing crime.  The accused certainly has constitutional rights, even non-citizens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing the point entirely. It makes zero sense to say that any illegal who sets foot on American soil gains constitutional rights when they do.
> 
> I believe in reciprocal punishment. If you violate the rights of others by committing a crime, you should lose yours. You have forfeited them because you had no respect for the rights of others. Due process is guaranteed, but the rest of your rights go bye bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's rights were violated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> The people who are going through this process legally. People who come here legally and are born here legally to legal parents. The people who lost their lives because we chose to have compassion on the lawbreaker instead of the victim (think Kate Steinle).
> 
> I could go on if you want. This is why I don't have any compassion right now. Nobody seems to want the consequences to be applied. Nobody.
> 
> Instead of offering a solution, Democrats choose to wear their feelings on their sleeve.
Click to expand...

What rights are they violating?

It isnt the Dems responsibility to clean up Trump's mess.

In terms of victims such as Steinle the only perspn who violatrd her rights was was the one who killed her.  No one else.


----------



## HappyJoy

Cecilie1200 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".
> 
> Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb.  Always assuming you have that capability.
> 
> FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're comparing criminals sneaking into our country to the Pilgrims?  Seriously?
> 
> I hope you won't be too surprised that I'm not even going to bother reading this puddle of rancid piss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a valid comparison if you say these refugees are bad parents for taking their kids on a dangerous trip. No wonder you won't answer it, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now I've gone from ignoring a puddle of rancid piss to ignoring a puddle of festering vomit.
Click to expand...



You're ignoring a valid point in an argument is what you're doing.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."
> 
> Dude, you were very clear.  If you're not comparing them, this has no point.
> 
> I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
> I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
> I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling
> 
> Sometimes you take risks for your kids!
> 
> That sentence is entirely context driven.  Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about anyone else, but the riskiest situations I put my kids in is sending them to a play group with other kids who MIGHT have germs.  I most assuredly would not ever CONSIDER putting them anywhere near the evil filth in human form that is a coyote (someone who smuggles people across the border, for those of you who don't live in this area), or trekking across pretty much ANY country in Central America, or hiking through the Arizona desert (or Texas or New Mexico or California, for that matter).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In Guatemala, you do not sent your kids to a playground because there's a good chance you will never see them again.  If your oldest son was run down in front of you by cartel members because he wouldn't work for them and a 7 year old across the street was raped and murdered by a local  gang and the police refused to even investigate, I think you would do what is needed to get the fuck out. *
Click to expand...


Oh my god the DRAMA!  Oooooohhhh!  Where are my smelling salts?!  Where's Lifetime Network, 'cause this should be a Movie of the Week!

Do we have an emoji of collapsing on a fainting couch?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".
> 
> Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb.  Always assuming you have that capability.
> 
> FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.
> 
> 
> 
> How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal immigration, not immigration, moron.  The people on the Mayflower didn't endanger their kids during the commission of a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They took their kids to invade another land.  I doubt it was legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Perhaps you could cite for me the laws they were violating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you need to ask the native tribes.
Click to expand...


In other words, there was no sovereign nation here, no laws to speak of, and you were just going for the emotional "Gotcha!" and failed miserably.

Thank you.  Piss off.  NEXT!


----------



## HappyJoy

kaz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence me clearly stating that I used hyperbole to emphasize my point. Hyperbole by it's nature is an exaggeration. I do not think they are similar but as such it did serve to emphasize that in the case of parents crossing the border they feel the risks they take are justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So mothers who rob banks to send their kids to better preschools shouldn't lose their kids because "they feel the risks they take are justified."  That's what you think
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not even remotely in the same universe. Are we so privileged that we compare getting into private school to actual survival? Not to mention comparing armed robbery to a misdemeanor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, so you're admitting that it's only a valid comparison if they are compatible, which was my point.  He was equating crossing the street with illegal immigration.
> 
> It's hilarious you thought you were contradicting my point when you agreed with it ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jay walking is a minor crime, so is crossing the border, especially with the intent of turning themselves in. I'm sorry, you're argument still sucks and at least you stopped making it (hopefully).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you consider it a minor crime.  You want it to happen.
Click to expand...


No, I don't want illegal immigration, however I do want more legal immigration and I want the United States to help these refugees.



> The more Democrat voters the better.  You want to award prizes for coming here illegally.  I mean literal prizes.  Welfare, free education, free medical care.  We'll house Mexico's prison population for them.  It's not a minor crime for you at all, it's a major victory!



No, none of this is true.

Just the same, crossing the border is not a major crime. Unless you're a hysterical xenophobe of course.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

TemplarKormac said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The parents aren't doing it. The govt is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Do you think these children suddenly developed a sudden societal and environmental awareness and decided to come here on their own? No. The parents chose to send them here, alone. Adults claiming to be parents smuggled them here, only to leave them alone when they were detained for crossing illegally. You are so damned ignorant that you can't see these people are taking advantage of our system. That system must be changed. With or without your help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The govt, through policy, is deciding to prosecute 100% them. Including those seeking asylum.The result of said prosecution is separation. This was not the case six weeks ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you weren't listening to Cecilie, go read her posts again.
Click to expand...


I wasn't listening at all, dope. I read it.


Cecile is dishonestly suggesting that every child is smuggled into the country rather than arriving with their parents. I chose not to address that but rather stick to the point.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So there are no basic human rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want compassion to overrule the law. I want the law to stand sacrosanct against emotional arguments like yours. Too much emotion and compassion can erode the rule of law. You can have your basic human rights, but you surrender all others when you commit a crime against justly enacted law. That's what _you_ fail to understand.
> 
> I'm beginning to think people like you and Coyote hold no respect for the law. Otherwise you would demand that it be enforced. But you want the law to be selectively applied.
> 
> I SAID _NOTHING_ ABOUT DENYING THEM THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, you do not surrender rights by a committing crime.  The accused certainly has constitutional rights, even non-citizens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing the point entirely. It makes zero sense to say that any illegal who sets foot on American soil gains constitutional rights when they do.
> 
> I believe in reciprocal punishment. If you violate the rights of others by committing a crime, you should lose yours. You have forfeited them because you had no respect for the rights of others. Due process is guaranteed, but the rest of your rights go bye bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do have some Constitutional rights.
> 
> Do undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said they didn't. I said they _shouldn't_.
Click to expand...

why shouldnt they?  Everyone in this country citizen or not has some Constitutional protections, esp due process.  It is whst seperates us from barberic rwgimes that can throw you in jsil for fictitous chsrges.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mlll.
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want compassion to overrule the law. I want the law to stand sacrosanct against emotional arguments like yours. Too much emotion and compassion can erode the rule of law. You can have your basic human rights, but you surrender all others when you commit a crime against justly enacted law. That's what _you_ fail to understand.
> 
> I'm beginning to think people like you and Coyote hold no respect for the law. Otherwise you would demand that it be enforced. But you want the law to be selectively applied.
> 
> I SAID _NOTHING_ ABOUT DENYING THEM THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.
> 
> 
> 
> *No, you do not surrender rights by a committing crime.  The accused certainly has constitutional rights, even non-citizens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing the point entirely. It makes zero sense to say that any illegal who sets foot on American soil gains constitutional rights when they do.
> 
> I believe in reciprocal punishment. If you violate the rights of others by committing a crime, you should lose yours. You have forfeited them because you had no respect for the rights of others. Due process is guaranteed, but the rest of your rights go bye bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's rights were violated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> The people who are going through this process legally. People who come here legally and are born here legally to legal parents. The people who lost their lives because we chose to have compassion on the lawbreaker instead of the victim (think Kate Steinle).
> 
> I could go on if you want. This is why I don't have any compassion right now. Nobody seems to want the consequences to be applied. Nobody.
> 
> Instead of offering a solution, Democrats choose to wear their feelings on their sleeve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What rights are they violating?
> 
> It isnt the Dems responsibility to clean up Trump's mess.
> 
> In terms of victims such as Steinle the only perspn who violatrd her rights was was the one who killed her.  No one else.
Click to expand...


It isn't the Dems' responsibility?  Excuse me, who makes the laws in this country?  That'd be Congress, right?  Some members of which are Dems?  So wouldn't that mean that making laws to correct a situation they don't like IS their responsibility?  Otherwise, what the fuck are we paying them for?  I myself don't consider "viewing with alarm" and grandstanding in front of the cameras to be a valuable public service I'm willing to pay my tax money for.

At what point do you go from, "This is wrong!  This is horrible!  Quick, everyone hate Trump!" to calling for something that is actually productive and meaningful to solving the alleged problem, such as . . . just off the top of my head here . . . a law that changes it?!  'Cause I'm still waiting for you to call for a solution that addresses the situation.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> It isnt the Dems responsibility to clean up Trump's mess.



It wasn't Trump's mess to begin with. I didn't see you wailing about this four years ago when these images came along:
































Leaked Images Reveal Children Warehoused in Crowded U.S. Cells, Border Patrol Overwhelmed | Breitbart

But hey, this was Trump's fault.


----------



## HappyJoy

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isnt the Dems responsibility to clean up Trump's mess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't Trump's mess to begin with. I didn't see you wailing about this four years ago when these images came along:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leaked Images Reveal Children Warehoused in Crowded U.S. Cells, Border Patrol Overwhelmed | Breitbart
> 
> But hey, this was Trump's fault.
Click to expand...


Those were children that crossed over on their own. Not ripped apart by government.


----------



## Cecilie1200

HappyJoy said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".
> 
> Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb.  Always assuming you have that capability.
> 
> FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.
> 
> 
> 
> How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're comparing criminals sneaking into our country to the Pilgrims?  Seriously?
> 
> I hope you won't be too surprised that I'm not even going to bother reading this puddle of rancid piss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a valid comparison if you say these refugees are bad parents for taking their kids on a dangerous trip. No wonder you won't answer it, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now I've gone from ignoring a puddle of rancid piss to ignoring a puddle of festering vomit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're ignoring a valid point in an argument is what you're doing.
Click to expand...


No, I'm ignoring a point a blithering lackwit like YOU thinks is valid, because intelligent people recognize it as utter drivel.

Let me put this more clearly for you, since you seem to not be grasping the English:

Comparing criminals to the Pilgrims is ludicrous.  It is an attempt at analogy so lame a third-grader would be embarrassed to try it.  There is no amount of you screaming, "It's valid!  No, it IS!  You HAVE to accept it as valid!" that's going to make it worthy of me taking it seriously and responding to it.

Furthermore, the fact that you're championing it is just proof that I'm right to spit on it and walk away.

Now then, do let me know if any of this is still unclear, won't you?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want compassion to overrule the law. I want the law to stand sacrosanct against emotional arguments like yours. Too much emotion and compassion can erode the rule of law. You can have your basic human rights, but you surrender all others when you commit a crime against justly enacted law. That's what _you_ fail to understand.
> 
> I'm beginning to think people like you and Coyote hold no respect for the law. Otherwise you would demand that it be enforced. But you want the law to be selectively applied.
> 
> I SAID _NOTHING_ ABOUT DENYING THEM THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.
> 
> 
> 
> *No, you do not surrender rights by a committing crime.  The accused certainly has constitutional rights, even non-citizens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing the point entirely. It makes zero sense to say that any illegal who sets foot on American soil gains constitutional rights when they do.
> 
> I believe in reciprocal punishment. If you violate the rights of others by committing a crime, you should lose yours. You have forfeited them because you had no respect for the rights of others. Due process is guaranteed, but the rest of your rights go bye bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do have some Constitutional rights.
> 
> Do undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said they didn't. I said they _shouldn't_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why shouldnt they?  Everyone in this country citizen or not has some Constitutional protections, esp due process.  It is whst seperates us from barberic rwgimes that can throw you in jsil for fictitous chsrges.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but by allowing everyone to cross our border willy nilly like you apparently want them to do, we become inseparate from those barbaric regimes, by allowing that barbarity to permeate our society. Because not every person who crosses our border illegally is an angel.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cecilie1200 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly aren't  in opposition in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha. Of what? Child abuse? That's weaksauce man.
> 
> My father was a victim of child abuse,  he routinely told me horror stories. He was molested by his brother and beaten with a crossiron. He was starved, and his father tried to kill him.
> 
> No. Don't you dare insinuate that I support child abuse. None of what our President does to these children comes remotely close to that level of child abuse. Nor does it rise to the level of child abuse at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Causing mental and emotional harm to children over prolonged periods of time is certainly child abuse. Especially when done when discrestion allows for altenatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then perhaps their parents shouldn't do it.
> 
> And we all know about your "discretion allows for alternatives", otherwise known as "just stop enforcing the border!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then perhaps their parents shouldn't do it.
> 
> And we all know about your "discretion allows for alternatives", otherwise known as "just stop enforcing the border!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The parents aren't doing it. The govt is.
> 
> Discretion as in prosecutorial discretion, dope.
> 
> All of the people will be dealt with. Those who don't qualify or apply for asylum are deported immediately.  Those who qualify are processed. Those granted asylum can stay and those denied are immediately deported.
> 
> Where is there "no enforcement" in that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, the government is going to their countries, dragging them up here, and shoving them across the border illegally?  Is that what's happening?
> 
> "Prosecutorial discretion" = "do we prosecute or not?"  DOPE.
> 
> "No enforcement" would be in the "You CAN'T put kids in foster care while their parents are locked up!" which leads to "You MUST release the parents with the children so they can be together", which is the same as not bothering to enforce the borders at all.
> 
> It's not that I don't think you're plenty stupid enough to really believe the garbage you're shoveling; it's just that I don't happen to think that's what's at play here.
Click to expand...


What did they do seven weeks ago and for the last year, dope? They didn't prosecute those applying for asylum who crossed illegally and therefore did not have to separate them. It is done now by choice. By policy. By prosecutorial discretion, dope.

You are again attempting to dishonestly suggest that there is no enforcement without
this zero tolerance policy. The truth is, all of these people who were apprehended will be processed. That would be true even if there were no new policy.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Hutch Starskey said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The parents aren't doing it. The govt is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Do you think these children suddenly developed a sudden societal and environmental awareness and decided to come here on their own? No. The parents chose to send them here, alone. Adults claiming to be parents smuggled them here, only to leave them alone when they were detained for crossing illegally. You are so damned ignorant that you can't see these people are taking advantage of our system. That system must be changed. With or without your help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The govt, through policy, is deciding to prosecute 100% them. Including those seeking asylum.The result of said prosecution is separation. This was not the case six weeks ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you weren't listening to Cecilie, go read her posts again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't listening at all, dope. I read it.
> 
> 
> Cecile is dishonestly suggesting that every child is smuggled into the country rather than arriving with their parents. I chose not to address that but rather stick to the point.
Click to expand...


No, shitstain.  This just demonstrates how very little you actually know about the border and illegal immigration, you armchair Einstein.  

I never once said all children smuggled into the country arrive without their parents.  NO ONE has ever said that.  The fact that you assume it's a binary either/or choice is evidence that you're pontificating on a subject you know less about than I do about quantum physics.

Let me guess, ass napkin.  You didn't realize that coyotes ALSO smuggle adults and family groups across the border, as well as unaccompanied children?


----------



## Cecilie1200

HappyJoy said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isnt the Dems responsibility to clean up Trump's mess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't Trump's mess to begin with. I didn't see you wailing about this four years ago when these images came along:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leaked Images Reveal Children Warehoused in Crowded U.S. Cells, Border Patrol Overwhelmed | Breitbart
> 
> But hey, this was Trump's fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those were children that crossed over on their own. Not ripped apart by government.
Click to expand...


Hey, now the government is "ripping children apart", according to Brain Trust here.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Cecilie1200 said:


> 'Cause I'm still waiting for you to call for a solution that addresses the situation.



Heh, I think I remember saying something to that effect yesterday.  But alas, emotions and bleeding hearts rule the day, not the rule of law. 

As the old saying goes, people who don't like a law as it currently stands should strive towards changing it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Hutch Starskey said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha. Of what? Child abuse? That's weaksauce man.
> 
> My father was a victim of child abuse,  he routinely told me horror stories. He was molested by his brother and beaten with a crossiron. He was starved, and his father tried to kill him.
> 
> No. Don't you dare insinuate that I support child abuse. None of what our President does to these children comes remotely close to that level of child abuse. Nor does it rise to the level of child abuse at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Causing mental and emotional harm to children over prolonged periods of time is certainly child abuse. Especially when done when discrestion allows for altenatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then perhaps their parents shouldn't do it.
> 
> And we all know about your "discretion allows for alternatives", otherwise known as "just stop enforcing the border!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then perhaps their parents shouldn't do it.
> 
> And we all know about your "discretion allows for alternatives", otherwise known as "just stop enforcing the border!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The parents aren't doing it. The govt is.
> 
> Discretion as in prosecutorial discretion, dope.
> 
> All of the people will be dealt with. Those who don't qualify or apply for asylum are deported immediately.  Those who qualify are processed. Those granted asylum can stay and those denied are immediately deported.
> 
> Where is there "no enforcement" in that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, the government is going to their countries, dragging them up here, and shoving them across the border illegally?  Is that what's happening?
> 
> "Prosecutorial discretion" = "do we prosecute or not?"  DOPE.
> 
> "No enforcement" would be in the "You CAN'T put kids in foster care while their parents are locked up!" which leads to "You MUST release the parents with the children so they can be together", which is the same as not bothering to enforce the borders at all.
> 
> It's not that I don't think you're plenty stupid enough to really believe the garbage you're shoveling; it's just that I don't happen to think that's what's at play here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did they do seven weeks ago and for the last year, dope? They didn't prosecute those applying for asylum who crossed illegally and therefore did not have to separate them. It is done now by choice. By policy. By prosecutorial discretion, dope.
> 
> You are again attempting to dishonestly suggest that there is no enforcement without
> this zero tolerance policy. The truth is, all of these people who were apprehended will be processed. That would be true even if there were no new policy.
Click to expand...


Catch and release (term) - Wikipedia

Next time, look it up your own lazy self.  DOPE.

If it's so "dishonest" to suggest there's no enforcement without the zero tolerance policy, then why don't YOU tell me what they did seven weeks ago that was so much better?


----------



## HappyJoy

Cecilie1200 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're comparing criminals sneaking into our country to the Pilgrims?  Seriously?
> 
> I hope you won't be too surprised that I'm not even going to bother reading this puddle of rancid piss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a valid comparison if you say these refugees are bad parents for taking their kids on a dangerous trip. No wonder you won't answer it, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now I've gone from ignoring a puddle of rancid piss to ignoring a puddle of festering vomit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're ignoring a valid point in an argument is what you're doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm ignoring a point a blithering lackwit like YOU thinks is valid, because intelligent people recognize it as utter drivel.
> 
> Let me put this more clearly for you, since you seem to not be grasping the English:
Click to expand...


¿Que?



> Comparing criminals to the Pilgrims is ludicrous.  It is an attempt at analogy so lame a third-grader would be embarrassed to try it.  There is no amount of you screaming, "It's valid!  No, it IS!  You HAVE to accept it as valid!" that's going to make it worthy of me taking it seriously and responding to it.



Unclench your nuts. The question is about the moral decision to travel with children on a risky trip, nothing more.



> Furthermore, the fact that you're championing it is just proof that I'm right to spit on it and walk away.
> 
> Now then, do let me know if any of this is still unclear, won't you?



So, answer the question, why are parents who put their children on a boat and then a foreign land where many died a good parental decision and those running away from rape, murder, forced prostitution and other perils an example of bad parenting?

I mean, other than your need to delegitimize these people.


----------



## Kondor3

It's time to begin redefining "due process" for Illegal Aliens who are caught on our side of the border, and fast-walking Illegals through what's left after redefinition.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cecilie1200 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Lots of good information but the fact remains there is no law that requires Trump to separate the kids from their parents at the border.  This is policy which can be changed at the discretion of the president.  Claiming the law made me do it is just bullshit.  He clearly feels separating the kids from the parents is a determent so why doesn't he admit it.  I'm sure most of his supporters would agree. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains that there ARE laws that require it.  I realize that you think the President can just pick and choose what laws to obey and how to do so, but don't think for a second that I believe you wouldn't be screaming about "imperial Presidency" if Trump started acting like Obama.
> 
> It is the law that crossing the border without permission is a criminal act.  It is the law that the President is required to enforce the law.  And it is the law that children cannot be held longer than 20 days.
> 
> It is not President Trump's job to make law, or to ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains that there ARE laws that require it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only after the parents are prosecuted which is the new policy, fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, dumbshit, the law requires that if the parents are arrested, the children cannot be detained for longer than 20 days.  Period.  End of discussion.  You can say, "Trump can just sign an order to ignore that" and force me to say it for 100 more times on top of the 100 you've done it so far, but the answer will remain the same.
> 
> The only fool here is the one who deliberately forgets what he's told five seconds after it's said, because he REALLY wants to believe he can wish the world different.
> 
> Let me save you some time.
> 
> The law requires that children whose parents have been arrested MUST not be detained longer than 20 days.
> 
> "Trump could just issue and executive order and change that."
> 
> The President does not have the legal authority to ignore or change the law unilaterally.  Congress could change it, but I notice you're not spending ANY time excoriating the people who have that power, and ALL your time blaming someone who doesn't.
> 
> Until I hear you say something about "Why doesn't Congress do something?" you lack all moral credibility on this subject, and have summarily lost the debate.
> 
> There.  Now copy and paste that somewhere, and stop chasing your tail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, dumbshit, the law requires that *if* the parents are arrested, the children cannot be detained for longer than 20 days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "If"
> 
> The new policy changed that to "when".
> 
> The separation is the result of their zero tolerance, 100% prosecution policy, dope.
> 
> There's  no getting around that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damned right it did, and if you're looking for us to be ashamed that people breaking the law are being arrested, you're barking up the wrong tree.
> 
> The separation is the result of people trying to break our laws and game our system, DOPE.
> 
> There's no getting around THAT.
Click to expand...


So now you admit it's the policy? Nice flop, loser.

It is the policy of this president that is unnecessarily bringing pain and suffering to children for nothing more than bolstering his support from his loser base.

These people have been processed for decades without any such deplorable measures.


----------



## MikeK

HappyJoy said:


> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?


Unnecessary?  Why is it _unnecessary?"_ 

If someone perpetrates a burglary while accompanied by his/her two year-old.  If you are a cop, or a sentencing judge, what do you do?


----------



## HappyJoy

Cecilie1200 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isnt the Dems responsibility to clean up Trump's mess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't Trump's mess to begin with. I didn't see you wailing about this four years ago when these images came along:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leaked Images Reveal Children Warehoused in Crowded U.S. Cells, Border Patrol Overwhelmed | Breitbart
> 
> But hey, this was Trump's fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those were children that crossed over on their own. Not ripped apart by government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, now the government is "ripping children apart", according to Brain Trust here.
Click to expand...


From their families, idiot.


----------



## TemplarKormac

HappyJoy said:


> Unclench your nuts. The question is about the moral decision to travel with children on a risky trip, nothing more.



You don't have the right to lecture anyone on morals when you let the decisions of parents who send their children on dangerous journeys alone to pass without so much as a whimper on your part. No. Willfully exposing a child to danger is perhaps the most immoral thing one can think of.


----------



## HappyJoy

MikeK said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> 
> 
> Unnecessary?  Why is it _unnecessary?"_
> 
> If someone perpetrates a burglary while accompanied by his/her two year-old.  If you are a cop, or a sentencing judge, what do you do?
Click to expand...


These people didn't perpetrate a burglary, they sought asylum. At worst they committed a misdemeanor.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cecilie1200 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see. This is only if you
> By that logic everybody who ever emigrated with kids should all lose their parental rights. See the only way your argument works is, if you see parents who try to cross the border as reckless and not desperate. By the way I love how you so studiously used air quotes when saying people. So you didn't have to use parents. Like taking away parents from their children because of something that is even by law a simple misdemeanor is not by it's very nature immoral and makes them undeserving of raising a kid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is of course much better than the situation they're fleeing.
> 
> There's an old saying regarding the actions of refugees. " Parents only put their children in a boat whe the land is no longer safe."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a load of horseshit.  I realize you want to pretend that every single one of these people is fleeing horrible persecution, but the fact is that most of them just want to take advantage of our standard of living.  Which is understandable, but it's also not my fucking problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to pretend anything. We have a process that determines that. It's you pretending that is not the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right, we do.  And that system says if you want asylum, you take your happy ass to a port of entry and tell them so.  If you choose instead to cross the border between ports of entry, the system THEN says that your ass is a criminal and gets arrested.
> 
> It's YOU pretending that that's somehow "outrageous" or "eeeeevil" or "shocking".  The only thing outrageous and evil and shocking here is how the last thing on your mind is the protection of your own fucking country.
Click to expand...


We've managed to process those claims for decades without these measures. Trump has taken us down to the level of dictators.

Protection? These people are all already in custody, dope. Prosecuting them and separating families does noting to change that.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> In terms of victims such as Steinle the only perspn who violatrd her rights was was the one who killed her. No one else.



You're being naive. With all due respect. 

Do you reeeeeallly think that he is the only one of his kind to cross the border illegally?


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cecilie1200 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is separating parents from kids because they committed a misdemeanor. That being the case, you had better not exceed the speed limit in your state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't exceed the speed limit, anyway.  But yeah, you definitely shouldn't do anything in a car, with your kids present, that gets you arrested.  You shouldn't do anything AT ALL that carries with it the chance of being arrested when you have your kids with you, because they will ALWAYS be taken away from you while you're in the pokey.  I have no idea why it's a shock to you that kids aren't jailed along with their parents.
> 
> But this really cuts to the heart of the matter.  You leftists keep yabbling mindlessly about "just a misdemeanor", when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The difference is in most traffic violations you don't go to jail and if you do, you can request bail.
> 
> And yes, our immigration laws do consider a first time offense of crossing the boarder illegally a misdemeanor, a minor wrongdoing by definition.  A first time offense carries a maximum of 6 mos in jail which is rarely used.  To give you an idea how minor the offense is, Misdemeanor Trespassing carries a heavier penalty in most states and it wasn't until  the 1996 immigration reform law that there was any legal penalty at all.
> 
> The first step in fixing the immigration system is to fix the law.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is another difference. If they take away your kids for speeding, unlikely but I'll accept it. You have an actual idea were they are, and you can be certain that you will get them back after you get out of the "pokey" as you so colorfully said, providing that's the only thing you did, not only that you will have the benefit of assured legal representation. The people who get caught here have none of these assurances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you decide to keep trying to game the system by claiming, "Oh, I just wanted asylum, and thought you got that by sneaking into the country", you DO know where your kids are, and you get them back as soon as your case is processed.  Better yet, if you ACTUALLY want asylum, you go to a port of entry and declare that fact, and the kids are never taken at all.
> 
> The first step in fixing immigration is to make it clear that we HAVE laws, and we demand that they be respected, and we aren't interested in having people in our country whose first act IN this country is to spit on it.
> 
> Guilt trip over how hard breaking the law makes a person's life?  Keep it for yourself, because I'm not accepting delivery.
Click to expand...


They're not gaming anything, dope They still need to qualify for asylum or they're deported. They are in custody and will be processed.


----------



## HappyJoy

TemplarKormac said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unclench your nuts. The question is about the moral decision to travel with children on a risky trip, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have the right to lecture anyone on morals when you let the decisions of parents who send their children on dangerous journeys alone to pass without so much as a whimper on your part. No. Willfully exposing a child to danger is perhaps the most immoral thing one can think of.
Click to expand...


A couple of things here.

For starters most of us are referring to families traveling together seeking asylum and then being separated. Or at least that is what my posts are addressing.

However, when it comes to kids leaving separately there are probably a lot of reasons. Like the kid leaves on their own, the family maybe can only afford to send their kids and they feel the journey is safer than if the child stayed. Now, it could be that some of those unaccompanied minors are unwanted, my solution would be to take them in and help them. Where as you would do what? Send them back to the dangers they escaped from?  Probably would, so don't lecture me.


----------



## TemplarKormac

HappyJoy said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".
> 
> Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb.  Always assuming you have that capability.
> 
> FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.
> 
> 
> 
> How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're comparing criminals sneaking into our country to the Pilgrims?  Seriously?
> 
> I hope you won't be too surprised that I'm not even going to bother reading this puddle of rancid piss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a valid comparison if you say these refugees are bad parents for taking their kids on a dangerous trip. No wonder you won't answer it, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now I've gone from ignoring a puddle of rancid piss to ignoring a puddle of festering vomit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're ignoring a valid point in an argument is what you're doing.
Click to expand...

A point isn't valid just because you say it is.


----------



## bodecea

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mlll.
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No, you do not surrender rights by a committing crime.  The accused certainly has constitutional rights, even non-citizens.*
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point entirely. It makes zero sense to say that any illegal who sets foot on American soil gains constitutional rights when they do.
> 
> I believe in reciprocal punishment. If you violate the rights of others by committing a crime, you should lose yours. You have forfeited them because you had no respect for the rights of others. Due process is guaranteed, but the rest of your rights go bye bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's rights were violated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> The people who are going through this process legally. People who come here legally and are born here legally to legal parents. The people who lost their lives because we chose to have compassion on the lawbreaker instead of the victim (think Kate Steinle).
> 
> I could go on if you want. This is why I don't have any compassion right now. Nobody seems to want the consequences to be applied. Nobody.
> 
> Instead of offering a solution, Democrats choose to wear their feelings on their sleeve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What rights are they violating?
> 
> It isnt the Dems responsibility to clean up Trump's mess.
> 
> In terms of victims such as Steinle the only perspn who violatrd her rights was was the one who killed her.  No one else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't the Dems' responsibility?  Excuse me, who makes the laws in this country?  That'd be Congress, right?  Some members of which are Dems?  So wouldn't that mean that making laws to correct a situation they don't like IS their responsibility?  Otherwise, what the fuck are we paying them for?  I myself don't consider "viewing with alarm" and grandstanding in front of the cameras to be a valuable public service I'm willing to pay my tax money for.
> 
> At what point do you go from, "This is wrong!  This is horrible!  Quick, everyone hate Trump!" to calling for something that is actually productive and meaningful to solving the alleged problem, such as . . . just off the top of my head here . . . a law that changes it?!  'Cause I'm still waiting for you to call for a solution that addresses the situation.
Click to expand...

Who controls both Houses of Congress?  Who has the Chair of all the Committees?


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of victims such as Steinle the only perspn who violatrd her rights was was the one who killed her. No one else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're being naive. With all due respect.
> 
> Do you reeeeeallly think that he is the only one of his kind to cross the border illegally?
Click to expand...

What is "his kind"?

He is the only one who killed her.  Not all other illegal immigrants. Him. No one else violate her rights did they?


----------



## HappyJoy

TemplarKormac said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're comparing criminals sneaking into our country to the Pilgrims?  Seriously?
> 
> I hope you won't be too surprised that I'm not even going to bother reading this puddle of rancid piss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a valid comparison if you say these refugees are bad parents for taking their kids on a dangerous trip. No wonder you won't answer it, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now I've gone from ignoring a puddle of rancid piss to ignoring a puddle of festering vomit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're ignoring a valid point in an argument is what you're doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A point isn't valid just because you say it is.
Click to expand...


You're right and I explained why it's valid in another post, maybe try reading it.


----------



## bodecea

HappyJoy said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> 
> 
> Unnecessary?  Why is it _unnecessary?"_
> 
> If someone perpetrates a burglary while accompanied by his/her two year-old.  If you are a cop, or a sentencing judge, what do you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These people didn't perpetrate a burglary, they sought asylum. At worst they committed a misdemeanor.
Click to expand...

You heard it from the trumpanzees...they now have the expectation that the children of burglars will be put in cages.


----------



## bodecea

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of victims such as Steinle the only perspn who violatrd her rights was was the one who killed her. No one else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're being naive. With all due respect.
> 
> Do you reeeeeallly think that he is the only one of his kind to cross the border illegally?
Click to expand...

What about his kind>>>‘I love you all and I’m sorry I failed you.’ Father who killed his 3 kids breaks down


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mlll.
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No, you do not surrender rights by a committing crime.  The accused certainly has constitutional rights, even non-citizens.*
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point entirely. It makes zero sense to say that any illegal who sets foot on American soil gains constitutional rights when they do.
> 
> I believe in reciprocal punishment. If you violate the rights of others by committing a crime, you should lose yours. You have forfeited them because you had no respect for the rights of others. Due process is guaranteed, but the rest of your rights go bye bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's rights were violated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> The people who are going through this process legally. People who come here legally and are born here legally to legal parents. The people who lost their lives because we chose to have compassion on the lawbreaker instead of the victim (think Kate Steinle).
> 
> I could go on if you want. This is why I don't have any compassion right now. Nobody seems to want the consequences to be applied. Nobody.
> 
> Instead of offering a solution, Democrats choose to wear their feelings on their sleeve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What rights are they violating?
> 
> It isnt the Dems responsibility to clean up Trump's mess.
> 
> In terms of victims such as Steinle the only perspn who violatrd her rights was was the one who killed her.  No one else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't the Dems' responsibility?  Excuse me, who makes the laws in this country?  That'd be Congress, right?  Some members of which are Dems?  So wouldn't that mean that making laws to correct a situation they don't like IS their responsibility?  Otherwise, what the fuck are we paying them for?  I myself don't consider "viewing with alarm" and grandstanding in front of the cameras to be a valuable public service I'm willing to pay my tax money for.
> 
> At what point do you go from, "This is wrong!  This is horrible!  Quick, everyone hate Trump!" to calling for something that is actually productive and meaningful to solving the alleged problem, such as . . . just off the top of my head here . . . a law that changes it?!  'Cause I'm still waiting for you to call for a solution that addresses the situation.
Click to expand...


Most of your blather is just that. Blather.

When did this policy come into effect?
Who formulated it?
Who implemented it?

Why don't you Trumpets FOR ONCE grow up and tske responsibility for your crappy policies instead of blaming every one but....yourselves.


----------



## HappyJoy

bodecea said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> 
> 
> Unnecessary?  Why is it _unnecessary?"_
> 
> If someone perpetrates a burglary while accompanied by his/her two year-old.  If you are a cop, or a sentencing judge, what do you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These people didn't perpetrate a burglary, they sought asylum. At worst they committed a misdemeanor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You heard it from the trumpanzees...they now have the expectation that the children of burglars will be put in cages.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I don't think they realize what they are asking for. I guess according to Mike that 2 year old gets locked up too, just have to make sure it's not with their parents. Seems extraordinarily cruel but I guess this is Trump's America.


----------



## TemplarKormac

HappyJoy said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unclench your nuts. The question is about the moral decision to travel with children on a risky trip, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have the right to lecture anyone on morals when you let the decisions of parents who send their children on dangerous journeys alone to pass without so much as a whimper on your part. No. Willfully exposing a child to danger is perhaps the most immoral thing one can think of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A couple of things here.
> 
> For starters most of us are referring to families traveling together seeking asylum and then being separated. Or at least that is what my posts are addressing.
> 
> However, when it comes to kids leaving separately there are probably a lot of reasons. Like the kid leaves on their own, the family maybe can only afford to send their kids and they feel the journey is safer than if the child stayed. Now, it could be that some of those unaccompanied minors are unwanted, my solution would be to take them in and help them. Where as you would do what? Send them back to the dangers they escaped from?  Probably would, so don't lecture me.
Click to expand...


Always an excuse, isn't there?

Hey, here's an idea, Joy, open up your house and home, take in as many of these children as your heart desires. Then you can lecture the rest of us about morality. Until we give these children refuge from that danger, they will remain in danger. That danger, Joy, is not of our making. They were exposed to that danger by their parents.

Not even in my most desperate hour would I abandon my child to the dangers of the world. My guidance and protection would be their greatest weapon. But you? Oh, it is an act of "compassion" to do something so despicable.


----------



## Coyote

Hutch Starskey said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is separating parents from kids because they committed a misdemeanor. That being the case, you had better not exceed the speed limit in your state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't exceed the speed limit, anyway.  But yeah, you definitely shouldn't do anything in a car, with your kids present, that gets you arrested.  You shouldn't do anything AT ALL that carries with it the chance of being arrested when you have your kids with you, because they will ALWAYS be taken away from you while you're in the pokey.  I have no idea why it's a shock to you that kids aren't jailed along with their parents.
> 
> But this really cuts to the heart of the matter.  You leftists keep yabbling mindlessly about "just a misdemeanor", when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The difference is in most traffic violations you don't go to jail and if you do, you can request bail.
> 
> And yes, our immigration laws do consider a first time offense of crossing the boarder illegally a misdemeanor, a minor wrongdoing by definition.  A first time offense carries a maximum of 6 mos in jail which is rarely used.  To give you an idea how minor the offense is, Misdemeanor Trespassing carries a heavier penalty in most states and it wasn't until  the 1996 immigration reform law that there was any legal penalty at all.
> 
> The first step in fixing the immigration system is to fix the law.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is another difference. If they take away your kids for speeding, unlikely but I'll accept it. You have an actual idea were they are, and you can be certain that you will get them back after you get out of the "pokey" as you so colorfully said, providing that's the only thing you did, not only that you will have the benefit of assured legal representation. The people who get caught here have none of these assurances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you decide to keep trying to game the system by claiming, "Oh, I just wanted asylum, and thought you got that by sneaking into the country", you DO know where your kids are, and you get them back as soon as your case is processed.  Better yet, if you ACTUALLY want asylum, you go to a port of entry and declare that fact, and the kids are never taken at all.
> 
> The first step in fixing immigration is to make it clear that we HAVE laws, and we demand that they be respected, and we aren't interested in having people in our country whose first act IN this country is to spit on it.
> 
> Guilt trip over how hard breaking the law makes a person's life?  Keep it for yourself, because I'm not accepting delivery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're not gaming anything, dope They still need to qualify for asylum or they're deported. They are in custody and will be processed.
Click to expand...

And MOST requests for asylum are rejected.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cecilie1200 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is separating parents from kids because they committed a misdemeanor. That being the case, you had better not exceed the speed limit in your state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't exceed the speed limit, anyway.  But yeah, you definitely shouldn't do anything in a car, with your kids present, that gets you arrested.  You shouldn't do anything AT ALL that carries with it the chance of being arrested when you have your kids with you, because they will ALWAYS be taken away from you while you're in the pokey.  I have no idea why it's a shock to you that kids aren't jailed along with their parents.
> 
> But this really cuts to the heart of the matter.  You leftists keep yabbling mindlessly about "just a misdemeanor", when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. What we really mean is there are ways to deal with this without separation being a result. Trump knows this. Separation was always their intention.
> 
> From march of 17. Video in link.
> 
> "Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly says the Trump administration is considering separating children from their parents to deter families from trying to enter the United States illegally"
> 
> Kelly: Separating families under consideration - CNN Video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what you really mean is that unrestricted, unregulated immigration was always your intention.  There is a way to deal with this, but it runs through Congress, not the President.
> 
> I don't give a tin shit what stupid stuff Kelly spewed out.  People are always saying dumb things, and unlike you, I don't focus my whole life around people and personalities and who-said-what.  Every single bit of my argument is based on the actual laws, and you have yet to dispute a one of them.
> 
> Dispute my points, or admit defeat.  Trying to move the goalposts is the same as admitting defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, what you really mean is that unrestricted, unregulated immigration was always your intention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what I mean at all and I've told you that several times now, dope.
> 
> Obviously the process for determining eligibility for asylum is neither unresricted nor unregulated.
> 
> I've disputed and debunked your argument each time.
> 
> It is their policy to separate families as a deterrent. Period.
> If you won't  take the word of the then DHS secretary, then you're truly lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a rat's ass what you TELL me you want.  You have obviously mistaken yourself for someone I respect or trust.  I'm following the logic chain; you'd have to be able to think to comprehend that.
> 
> Saying, "No, no, no, that's not true!" is not "disputing" anything.  You have yet to actually disprove a damned thing I've said.  Again, the fact that you SAY something is true is worth less than a fart in a wind tunnel to me.
> 
> It is their policy to prosecute all criminals as criminals.  Period.
> 
> If you won't take historical record as fact, then you're truly stupid . . . which we've already established.
> 
> Can you "dispute" that the President is charged by the Constitution with enforcing the laws?  Can you dispute that the President has zero legal power to make or change laws?  Can you dispute that laws are passed by Congress, and that Congress could pass a law today changing this whole situation, but hasn't?  (Hint:  if you're going to tackle the actual facts on this, you're gonna have to FINALLY read the Constitution.)
> 
> Can you "dispute" that the Flores Settlement made it legally binding on the federal government to release unaccompanied minors after no more than 20 days LONG before Trump became President?  Can you dispute that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the Flores Settlement had to be applied to accompanied minors as well, ALSO long before Trump became President?  Can you dispute that it was the ACLU and other leftist groups who argued for both of those decisions because family detention was "inhumane"?  And can you dispute that the Obama administration responded to those legal restrictions with "catch-and-release"?
> 
> 'Cause I can document every damned thing I just said.  All Trump has done is prosecute criminals for their crimes, instead of blowing them off.  If all you've got is "Well, someone said something dumb, so that erases ALL the history!" then we're done here, and you can go find someone else to bother.
Click to expand...


Lol.
I've  dismantled your talking points repeatedly. Hell, I even have you agreeing it's  their policy now.

The flores settlement is only valid because Trump chose to prosecute the parents, dope.
But that was the plan all along. To make the process so horrible that no one would attempt it. 

No one is " blown off", dope. They are in custody and will be processed.


----------



## TemplarKormac

bodecea said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of victims such as Steinle the only perspn who violatrd her rights was was the one who killed her. No one else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're being naive. With all due respect.
> 
> Do you reeeeeallly think that he is the only one of his kind to cross the border illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about his kind>>>‘I love you all and I’m sorry I failed you.’ Father who killed his 3 kids breaks down
Click to expand...


That "kind" is what I call a non sequitur. 

Next.


----------



## koshergrl

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."
> 
> Dude, you were very clear.  If you're not comparing them, this has no point.
> 
> I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
> I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
> I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling
> 
> Sometimes you take risks for your kids!
> 
> That sentence is entirely context driven.  Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about anyone else, but the riskiest situations I put my kids in is sending them to a play group with other kids who MIGHT have germs.  I most assuredly would not ever CONSIDER putting them anywhere near the evil filth in human form that is a coyote (someone who smuggles people across the border, for those of you who don't live in this area), or trekking across pretty much ANY country in Central America, or hiking through the Arizona desert (or Texas or New Mexico or California, for that matter).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In Guatemala, you do not sent your kids to a playground because there's a good chance you will never see them again.  If your oldest son was run down in front of you by cartel members because he wouldn't work for them and a 7 year old across the street was raped and murdered by a local  gang and the police refused to even investigate, I think you would do what is needed to get the fuck out. *
Click to expand...

If they are at our border, they aren't in Guatemala.


----------



## TemplarKormac

HappyJoy said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're comparing criminals sneaking into our country to the Pilgrims?  Seriously?
> 
> I hope you won't be too surprised that I'm not even going to bother reading this puddle of rancid piss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a valid comparison if you say these refugees are bad parents for taking their kids on a dangerous trip. No wonder you won't answer it, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now I've gone from ignoring a puddle of rancid piss to ignoring a puddle of festering vomit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're ignoring a valid point in an argument is what you're doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A point isn't valid just because you say it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right and I explained why it's valid in another post, maybe try reading it.
Click to expand...


I think I'll repeat myself. Saying it's "valid" in one word or many words does not make your point valid.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Flopper said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one child slipped through, and ended up dead or trafficed as a sex slave, because we did not find out DEFINITIVELY that the adult was the child's parent, you would cry foul on the administration.
> 
> How proud that must make you, getting your cake and eating it too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How proud you must be supporting a policy that tears children from their parents arms WITHOUT regard.  Stop pretending it has anything to do with stopping trafficking, you and I both know it doent and that is directky from the mouths of those who impmemented it as a deterrant.  At least have the integrity to be honest about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------  i don't care about the TRAFFICKING .  I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law  Coyote .   ---------------------  just a comment .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Scare them?  You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation.   Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates.  Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the same thugs would think nothing of abducting a child and crossing our border with them.
> 
> Think about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Child traffickers and victims posing as families are easily identified by law enforcement when apprehended.  Victims almost universally show relief when questioned by law enforcement.  The most common methods of transporting victims is as cargo in trucks and boats, not walking across the desert.*
Click to expand...


Yes and our very savvy and well experienced professionals are no doubt very adept at sorting through these claims.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of victims such as Steinle the only perspn who violatrd her rights was was the one who killed her. No one else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're being naive. With all due respect.
> 
> Do you reeeeeallly think that he is the only one of his kind to cross the border illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is "his kind"?
> 
> He is the only one who killed her.  Not all other illegal immigrants. Him. No one else violate her rights did they?
Click to expand...


Don't be dense.

There are many other illegal immigrants out there just like him. They were criminals in their own country, and they willingly continue that pattern here. That puts my right to reasonable safety at risk.


----------



## koshergrl

HappyJoy said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isnt the Dems responsibility to clean up Trump's mess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't Trump's mess to begin with. I didn't see you wailing about this four years ago when these images came along:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leaked Images Reveal Children Warehoused in Crowded U.S. Cells, Border Patrol Overwhelmed | Breitbart
> 
> But hey, this was Trump's fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those were children that crossed over on their own. Not ripped apart by government.
Click to expand...


Victims of human traffickers. 

They removed them from the people victimizing them. Who are not their parents. Who are not their *families*. 

And the MS13 who show up to *pick them up* are not their *family* either, no matter how hard Hillary tries to convince retards like you that they are.


----------



## HappyJoy

TemplarKormac said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unclench your nuts. The question is about the moral decision to travel with children on a risky trip, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have the right to lecture anyone on morals when you let the decisions of parents who send their children on dangerous journeys alone to pass without so much as a whimper on your part. No. Willfully exposing a child to danger is perhaps the most immoral thing one can think of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A couple of things here.
> 
> For starters most of us are referring to families traveling together seeking asylum and then being separated. Or at least that is what my posts are addressing.
> 
> However, when it comes to kids leaving separately there are probably a lot of reasons. Like the kid leaves on their own, the family maybe can only afford to send their kids and they feel the journey is safer than if the child stayed. Now, it could be that some of those unaccompanied minors are unwanted, my solution would be to take them in and help them. Where as you would do what? Send them back to the dangers they escaped from?  Probably would, so don't lecture me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Always an excuse, isn't there?
> 
> Hey, here's an idea, Joy, open up your house and home, take in as many of these children as your heart desires. Then you can lecture the rest of us about morality. Until we give these children refuge from that danger, they will remain in danger. That danger, Joy, is not of our making. They were exposed to that danger by their parents.
Click to expand...


I'll take in all of those kids if you take in all those unborn, unwanted fetuses, OK, buddy? Problem is I'm ill equipped to take care of 2000 kids let alone one and I don't your fish tank will hold a couple million zygotes. This is a job for government...well, it should be but it's obviously coming up short right now.



> Not even in my most desperate hour would I abandon my child to the dangers of the world. My guidance and protection would be their greatest weapon. But you? Oh, it is an act of "compassion" to do something so despicable.



I still think you're confused about families coming here and being split apart (the reason this is in the news) with kids coming here unaccompanied. You can make whatever argument you want about those parents in the latter, I'm more interested in helping those kids. You know, the ones you want your government to ignore, deport get rid of while lecturing me that I don't care. Are you serious?


----------



## TemplarKormac

HappyJoy said:


> I'll take in all of those kids if you take in all those unborn, unwanted fetuses, OK, buddy?



I would, if you wouldn't abort them all, you blithering idiot.


----------



## TemplarKormac

HappyJoy said:


> I'm more interested in helping those kids.



(smiles)

No, you're not. You're only interested in using them as political tools.


----------



## Flopper

TemplarKormac said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act.  However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have  some documentation.*
> 
> 
> 
> First... I can contend that the exact opposite is true. You can't assume that all of these adults with minors are in fact families.
> 
> Second,  these people had no rights in America (constitutional or otherwise) before they crossed the border illegally, why should they suddenly attain them when they do? If you aren't a citizen, you should not be entitled to constitutional rights until you go through the proper channels. Period. Full stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there are no basic human rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want compassion to overrule the law. I want the law to stand sacrosanct against emotional arguments like yours. Too much emotion and compassion can erode the rule of law. You can have your basic human rights, but you surrender all others when you commit a crime against justly enacted law. That's what _you_ fail to understand.
> 
> I'm beginning to think people like you and Coyote hold no respect for the law. Otherwise you would demand that it be enforced. But you want the law to be selectively applied.
> 
> I SAID _NOTHING_ ABOUT DENYING THEM THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, you do not surrender rights by a committing crime.  The accused certainly has constitutional rights, even non-citizens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing the point entirely. It makes zero sense to say that any illegal who sets foot on American soil gains constitutional rights when they do.
> 
> I believe in reciprocal punishment. If you violate the rights of others by committing a crime, you should lose yours. You have forfeited them because you had no respect for the rights of others. Due process is guaranteed, but the rest of your rights go bye bye.
Click to expand...

*When you say commit a crime I suppose you mean found guilty of the crime.

A convicted felon does lose rights such as:*

*Voting*
*Traveling abroad*
*The right to bear arms or own guns*
*Jury service*
*Employment in certain fields*
*Public social benefits and housing*
*Parental benefits*
*However, they retains all their basic constitutional rights and I think they should.*


----------



## HappyJoy

koshergrl said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isnt the Dems responsibility to clean up Trump's mess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't Trump's mess to begin with. I didn't see you wailing about this four years ago when these images came along:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leaked Images Reveal Children Warehoused in Crowded U.S. Cells, Border Patrol Overwhelmed | Breitbart
> 
> But hey, this was Trump's fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those were children that crossed over on their own. Not ripped apart by government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Victims of human traffickers.
> 
> They removed them from the people victimizing them. Who are not their parents. Who are not their *families*.
> 
> And the MS13 who show up to *pick them up* are not their *family* either, no matter how hard Hillary tries to convince retards like you that they are.
Click to expand...


Let me guess, you think Clinton was advocating for street gangs. Silly.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cecilie1200 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The parents aren't doing it. The govt is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Do you think these children suddenly developed a sudden societal and environmental awareness and decided to come here on their own? No. The parents chose to send them here, alone. Adults claiming to be parents smuggled them here, only to leave them alone when they were detained for crossing illegally. You are so damned ignorant that you can't see these people are taking advantage of our system. That system must be changed. With or without your help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The govt, through policy, is deciding to prosecute 100% them. Including those seeking asylum.The result of said prosecution is separation. This was not the case six weeks ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the government is prosecuting 100% of the people who COME HERE ILLEGALLY.  If they request asylum, then that request is processed, but until it's granted - IF it's granted - they're still guilty of committing a crime, and THAT is what they're being prosecuted for.
> 
> And yes, being prosecuted for a crime results in being separated from your children.  Works that way for everyone who gets prosecuted for a crime.  Do I feel guilty about that?  I'M not the one who broke the law, so no.  And if it was not the case six weeks ago that we treated criminals like criminals, then that just means it took too fucking long to pull our heads out of our asses.
> 
> Once again, there is only one solution, and you have YET to say a word about it.  Which tells me - far louder than any of the lies and propaganda and memes spewing from your mouth like sewage from a broken septic tank - that what you REALLY want is an outcome that has nothing to do with obeying the law.
Click to expand...


Why prosecute them? Its unnecessarily punative. They're already in custody and their asylum claims will be judged to be valid or not. If their claim is valid, the anguish caused by the separation was for what?


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of victims such as Steinle the only perspn who violatrd her rights was was the one who killed her. No one else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're being naive. With all due respect.
> 
> Do you reeeeeallly think that he is the only one of his kind to cross the border illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is "his kind"?
> 
> He is the only one who killed her.  Not all other illegal immigrants. Him. No one else violate her rights did they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be dense.
> 
> There are many other illegal immigrants out there just like him. They were criminals in their own country, and they willingly continue that pattern here. That puts my right to reasonable safety at risk.
Click to expand...


And thete are many legal citizens just like him out there even more likely to put your rights at risk.  Which of your rights have ilkegal immigrants violated?  None really.  Individuals violate rights not broad groups


----------



## TemplarKormac

HappyJoy said:


> You know, the ones you want your government to ignore, deport get rid of while lecturing me that I don't care. Are you serious?



If they weren't sent here illegally, if they weren't brought here illegally, they wouldn't be our problem to ignore.

Solution:

Respect our borders and our laws. 

And no, you don't care.


----------



## Coyote

Hutch Starskey said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The parents aren't doing it. The govt is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Do you think these children suddenly developed a sudden societal and environmental awareness and decided to come here on their own? No. The parents chose to send them here, alone. Adults claiming to be parents smuggled them here, only to leave them alone when they were detained for crossing illegally. You are so damned ignorant that you can't see these people are taking advantage of our system. That system must be changed. With or without your help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The govt, through policy, is deciding to prosecute 100% them. Including those seeking asylum.The result of said prosecution is separation. This was not the case six weeks ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the government is prosecuting 100% of the people who COME HERE ILLEGALLY.  If they request asylum, then that request is processed, but until it's granted - IF it's granted - they're still guilty of committing a crime, and THAT is what they're being prosecuted for.
> 
> And yes, being prosecuted for a crime results in being separated from your children.  Works that way for everyone who gets prosecuted for a crime.  Do I feel guilty about that?  I'M not the one who broke the law, so no.  And if it was not the case six weeks ago that we treated criminals like criminals, then that just means it took too fucking long to pull our heads out of our asses.
> 
> Once again, there is only one solution, and you have YET to say a word about it.  Which tells me - far louder than any of the lies and propaganda and memes spewing from your mouth like sewage from a broken septic tank - that what you REALLY want is an outcome that has nothing to do with obeying the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why prosecute them? Its unnecessarily punative. They're already in custody and their asylum claims will be judged to be valid or not. If their claim is valid, the anguish caused by the separation was for what?
Click to expand...

Exactly.


----------



## HappyJoy

TemplarKormac said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take in all of those kids if you take in all those unborn, unwanted fetuses, OK, buddy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would, if you wouldn't abort them all, you blithering idiot.
Click to expand...


Stay gold, Pony Boy, stay gold.


----------



## HappyJoy

TemplarKormac said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more interested in helping those kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (smiles)
> 
> No, you're not. You're only interested in using them as political tools.
Click to expand...


How so? I wasn't even referring to unaccompanied minors until you brought them up and I still think you are conflating those kids with the separation of families.


----------



## Billo_Really

pismoe said:


> ---------------------------------------------------   i like yer last line , now get your azz out there and divide the 'dems' up into multiple parties  Billo !!


Republicans are liars; Democrats are pussies.  They're flip-sides of the same coin.


----------



## TemplarKormac

HappyJoy said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take in all of those kids if you take in all those unborn, unwanted fetuses, OK, buddy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would, if you wouldn't abort them all, you blithering idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stay gold, Pony Boy, stay gold.
Click to expand...


You know, I don't respond well to sarcasm. And your insults show just how degenerative your argument is.


----------



## HappyJoy

TemplarKormac said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, the ones you want your government to ignore, deport get rid of while lecturing me that I don't care. Are you serious?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they weren't sent here illegally, if they weren't brought here illegally, they wouldn't be our problem to ignore.
> 
> Solution:
> 
> Respect our borders and our laws.
> 
> And no, you don't care.
Click to expand...


But they are here, what do you do with the ones here? And if they seek asylum they are respecting our borders, they are trying to go about this the right way.


----------



## TemplarKormac

HappyJoy said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more interested in helping those kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (smiles)
> 
> No, you're not. You're only interested in using them as political tools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so? I wasn't even referring to unaccompanied minors until you brought them up and I still think you are conflating those kids with the separation of families.
Click to expand...


No, you are ignoring unaccompanied minors for the sake of the families. For them, the separation has already occurred. But not one ounce of outrage from you.

No, you don't care, and I will continue to contend as much.


----------



## Pop23

Hutch Starskey said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> How proud you must be supporting a policy that tears children from their parents arms WITHOUT regard.  Stop pretending it has anything to do with stopping trafficking, you and I both know it doent and that is directky from the mouths of those who impmemented it as a deterrant.  At least have the integrity to be honest about it.
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------  i don't care about the TRAFFICKING .  I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law  Coyote .   ---------------------  just a comment .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Scare them?  You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation.   Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates.  Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the same thugs would think nothing of abducting a child and crossing our border with them.
> 
> Think about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Child traffickers and victims posing as families are easily identified by law enforcement when apprehended.  Victims almost universally show relief when questioned by law enforcement.  The most common methods of transporting victims is as cargo in trucks and boats, not walking across the desert.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and our very savvy and well experienced professionals are no doubt very adept at sorting through these claims.
Click to expand...


Most teen girls are deceived as to why they are being smuggled. Told they were going to get good jobs. They don’t know different until it’s too late and do not turn their smugglers in, they believe them. 

You are simply Naive.


----------



## koshergrl

HappyJoy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isnt the Dems responsibility to clean up Trump's mess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't Trump's mess to begin with. I didn't see you wailing about this four years ago when these images came along:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leaked Images Reveal Children Warehoused in Crowded U.S. Cells, Border Patrol Overwhelmed | Breitbart
> 
> But hey, this was Trump's fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those were children that crossed over on their own. Not ripped apart by government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Victims of human traffickers.
> 
> They removed them from the people victimizing them. Who are not their parents. Who are not their *families*.
> 
> And the MS13 who show up to *pick them up* are not their *family* either, no matter how hard Hillary tries to convince retards like you that they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess, you think Clinton was advocating for street gangs. Silly.
Click to expand...


I think she's broadening the definition of *family* in order to allow them access to children.
It's kind of like calling illegal aliens and murderers on the lam from other countries "immigrants". 
Or calling a baby a *fetus* if you want to kill it.


----------



## Pop23

HappyJoy said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, the ones you want your government to ignore, deport get rid of while lecturing me that I don't care. Are you serious?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they weren't sent here illegally, if they weren't brought here illegally, they wouldn't be our problem to ignore.
> 
> Solution:
> 
> Respect our borders and our laws.
> 
> And no, you don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they are here, what do you do with the ones here? And if they seek asylum they are respecting our borders, they are trying to go about this the right way.
Click to expand...


Asylum seekers must present at a border crossing. When they do the families are not separated.


----------



## TemplarKormac

HappyJoy said:


> And if they seek asylum they are respecting our borders, they are trying to go about this the right way.



And how many of those claims do you think are made in good faith? Hmm? Do you really think that all of these people are concerned with following proper procedure?


----------



## HappyJoy

TemplarKormac said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take in all of those kids if you take in all those unborn, unwanted fetuses, OK, buddy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would, if you wouldn't abort them all, you blithering idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stay gold, Pony Boy, stay gold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, I don't respond well to sarcasm. And your insults show just how degenerative your argument is.
Click to expand...


Now your feelings are hurt because I called you Pony Boy? I'm going to call you a snowflake now.


----------



## Flopper

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> How proud you must be supporting a policy that tears children from their parents arms WITHOUT regard.  Stop pretending it has anything to do with stopping trafficking, you and I both know it doent and that is directky from the mouths of those who impmemented it as a deterrant.  At least have the integrity to be honest about it.
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------  i don't care about the TRAFFICKING .  I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law  Coyote .   ---------------------  just a comment .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Scare them?  You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation.   Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates.  Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the same thugs would think nothing of abducting a child and crossing our border with them.
> 
> Think about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Immigration officials are required to interview all detainees regardless of age.  Do you really think kidnap victims are not going to speak up?
> 
> These families came seeking asylum.  You can not apply for asylum with out complete documentation of all family members.
> Think about that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor children from third world countries who are being abused and threatened and told the American will kill them?  Of course they could lie.  And you're saying keep them in the abuser's hands to keep doing that
Click to expand...

*I'm saying you don't presume that a family is human traffickers and victims without evidence any more than you would presume that a man carrying a briefcase walking out of a bank is a bank robber.  *


----------



## koshergrl

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------  i don't care about the TRAFFICKING .  I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law  Coyote .   ---------------------  just a comment .
> 
> 
> 
> *Scare them?  You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation.   Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates.  Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the same thugs would think nothing of abducting a child and crossing our border with them.
> 
> Think about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Immigration officials are required to interview all detainees regardless of age.  Do you really think kidnap victims are not going to speak up?
> 
> These families came seeking asylum.  You can not apply for asylum with out complete documentation of all family members.
> Think about that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor children from third world countries who are being abused and threatened and told the American will kill them?  Of course they could lie.  And you're saying keep them in the abuser's hands to keep doing that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I'm saying you don't presume that a family is human traffickers and victims without evidence any more than you would presume that a man carrying a briefcase walking out of a bank is a bank robber.  *
Click to expand...


When you stop a criminal at the border who has a kid that isn't his with him...you think that we should allow the kid to stay with that criminal in jail?

Because that's what you fools are advocating.


----------



## Mike473

QUOTE]*In Guatemala, you do not sent your kids to a playground because there's a good chance you will never see them again.  If your oldest son was run down in front of you by cartel members because he wouldn't work for them and a 7 year old across the street was raped and murdered by a local  gang and the police refused to even investigate, I think you would do what is needed to get the fuck out. *[/QUOTE]



Who can blame the families trying to escape from that kind of life?

The problem is not with those people trying to come to the United States, or Donald Trump for that matter. Why not focus on the countries and governments that are so bad that people risk their families lives to escape them?


----------



## Pop23

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------  i don't care about the TRAFFICKING .  I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law  Coyote .   ---------------------  just a comment .
> 
> 
> 
> *Scare them?  You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation.   Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates.  Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the same thugs would think nothing of abducting a child and crossing our border with them.
> 
> Think about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Immigration officials are required to interview all detainees regardless of age.  Do you really think kidnap victims are not going to speak up?
> 
> These families came seeking asylum.  You can not apply for asylum with out complete documentation of all family members.
> Think about that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor children from third world countries who are being abused and threatened and told the American will kill them?  Of course they could lie.  And you're saying keep them in the abuser's hands to keep doing that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I'm saying you don't presume that a family is human traffickers and victims without evidence any more than you would presume that a man carrying a briefcase walking out of a bank is a bank robber.  *
Click to expand...


You presume ANYONE WITHOUT DOCUMENTS ARE WITHOUT DOCUMENTS FOR A REASON.


----------



## koshergrl

Useful idiots. You know I love them. 

I love them especially after their heroes eliminate them.


----------



## koshergrl

Mike473 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."
> 
> Dude, you were very clear.  If you're not comparing them, this has no point.
> 
> I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
> I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
> I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling
> 
> Sometimes you take risks for your kids!
> 
> That sentence is entirely context driven.  Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about anyone else, but the riskiest situations I put my kids in is sending them to a play group with other kids who MIGHT have germs.  I most assuredly would not ever CONSIDER putting them anywhere near the evil filth in human form that is a coyote (someone who smuggles people across the border, for those of you who don't live in this area), or trekking across pretty much ANY country in Central America, or hiking through the Arizona desert (or Texas or New Mexico or California, for that matter).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In Guatemala, you do not sent your kids to a playground because there's a good chance you will never see them again.  If your oldest son was run down in front of you by cartel members because he wouldn't work for them and a 7 year old across the street was raped and murdered by a local  gang and the police refused to even investigate, I think you would do what is needed to get the fuck out. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who can blame the families trying to escape from that kind of life?
> 
> The problem is not with those people trying to come to the United States, or Donald Trump for that matter. Why not focus on the countries and governments that are so bad that people risk their families lives to escape them?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You need to fix that quote, skippy. I didn't say that.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of victims such as Steinle the only perspn who violatrd her rights was was the one who killed her. No one else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're being naive. With all due respect.
> 
> Do you reeeeeallly think that he is the only one of his kind to cross the border illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is "his kind"?
> 
> He is the only one who killed her.  Not all other illegal immigrants. Him. No one else violate her rights did they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be dense.
> 
> There are many other illegal immigrants out there just like him. They were criminals in their own country, and they willingly continue that pattern here. That puts my right to reasonable safety at risk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And thete are many legal citizens just like him out there even more likely to put your rights at risk.  Which of your rights have ilkegal immigrants violated?  None really.  Individuals violate rights not broad groups
Click to expand...


Here's the thing, there's a broad group of illegal immigrants out there who are the scum of the earth. They belong to gangs, they murder people, they rape women, sell drugs, traffic children... not all of them are "law abiding" for lack of a better phrase. When they are in our midst, the danger to our rights is real. 

Heh, I'd rather not be complacent.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more interested in helping those kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (smiles)
> 
> No, you're not. You're only interested in using them as political tools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so? I wasn't even referring to unaccompanied minors until you brought them up and I still think you are conflating those kids with the separation of families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are ignoring unaccompanied minors for the sake of the families. For them, the separation has already occurred. But not one ounce of outrage from you.
> 
> No, you don't care, and I will continue to contend as much.
Click to expand...

I think this a deflection because it really is a different issue.  Unaccompanied minors are treated differently because the authories have to try to locate relatives or find a gusrdian.  I am not clear on what outrage you are demanding on their behalf.  As far as seperation, there is a difference between voluntary and forced.


----------



## Billo_Really

candycorn said:


> If the Democrats just showed up at the polls, they would win.  Independents do not favor the draconian measures that we are using on kids at the borders though they probably do abhor illegal immigration.  Independents do not favor the tactics we’re taking with our allies in terms of trade.  They sure do not favor the behavior of the president; the sleaze, the legal issues, the idea that he could self-pardon….
> 
> If the Dems show up at the polls, they win in the general election.


And Democrats don't favor progressives.  Big mistake.  The Dems need to go full liberal if they have any hopes of getting back some seats.  Not only that, they need a platform people can buy in to.  Right now, they have none.


----------



## TemplarKormac

HappyJoy said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take in all of those kids if you take in all those unborn, unwanted fetuses, OK, buddy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would, if you wouldn't abort them all, you blithering idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stay gold, Pony Boy, stay gold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, I don't respond well to sarcasm. And your insults show just how degenerative your argument is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now your feelings are hurt because I called you Pony Boy? I'm going to call you a snowflake now.
Click to expand...


That's ICE GIANT to you.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cecilie1200 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should never have been allowed to reproduce, simply because you're pig-stupid enough to compare crossing the street (presumably at an intersection, but given your shocking level of brain damage, I won't assume anything) with entering the country illegally.
> 
> Your post is invalid, your presumption of functional intelligence is invalid, your existence is invalid.  Maybe you should send your kid in to debate on your behalf.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."
> 
> Dude, you were very clear.  If you're not comparing them, this has no point.
> 
> I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
> I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
> I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling
> 
> Sometimes you take risks for your kids!
> 
> That sentence is entirely context driven.  Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about anyone else, but the riskiest situations I put my kids in is sending them to a play group with other kids who MIGHT have germs.  I most assuredly would not ever CONSIDER putting them anywhere near the evil filth in human form that is a coyote (someone who smuggles people across the border, for those of you who don't live in this area), or trekking across pretty much ANY country in Central America, or hiking through the Arizona desert (or Texas or New Mexico or California, for that matter).
Click to expand...


Because your and your childrens' lives and safety aren't constantly in jeopardy. Why do you begrudge others for their problems? You can't judge them by the standard of your experience.


----------



## HappyJoy

TemplarKormac said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more interested in helping those kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (smiles)
> 
> No, you're not. You're only interested in using them as political tools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so? I wasn't even referring to unaccompanied minors until you brought them up and I still think you are conflating those kids with the separation of families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are ignoring unaccompanied minors for the sake of the families. For them, the separation has already occurred. But not one ounce of outrage from you.
Click to expand...


What the hell are you talking about? For unaccompanied minors we should do what we can to help them. Whether that means they immigrate through our system as asylum seekers if that's appropriate or maybe even help them resettle in another country, say Mexico but something like that would require a productive relationship with them and we don't really have that right now.

Or are you somehow referring to the families that arrive here and then are separated? I'm still not quite sure what you are talking about and I don't think you know either.



> No, you don't care, and I will continue to contend as much.



Neat, that's the least important thing. Right now it's what do we do to/for these families that arrive intact and if you want to include the unaccompanied children we could talk about them to. My understanding is you don't want government to do anything, but you do want to blame me because I'm the one who doesn't care about them? 

Do I have that right because your argument is either ironic or hypocritical, possibly both.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> I think this a deflection because it really is a different issue.



No. It's not. You're too concerned about families being ripped apart by our government to notice the families that ripped themselves apart in order to send an innocent child across our border.


----------



## HappyJoy

TemplarKormac said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take in all of those kids if you take in all those unborn, unwanted fetuses, OK, buddy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would, if you wouldn't abort them all, you blithering idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stay gold, Pony Boy, stay gold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, I don't respond well to sarcasm. And your insults show just how degenerative your argument is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now your feelings are hurt because I called you Pony Boy? I'm going to call you a snowflake now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's ICE GIANT to you.
Click to expand...


Oh, shit...I mean sh*t, I didn't realize I was arguing with a 12 year old. Sorry, little guy I had no idea.


----------



## TemplarKormac

But I've had enough. This entire issue is wrought with emotion. And I, too am being drawn into it. 

I don't want families to be separated, but I don't want the law to be disobeyed. This is all I should have said from the beginning. 

I'll be going now. I harbor no ill will toward anyone.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of victims such as Steinle the only perspn who violatrd her rights was was the one who killed her. No one else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're being naive. With all due respect.
> 
> Do you reeeeeallly think that he is the only one of his kind to cross the border illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is "his kind"?
> 
> He is the only one who killed her.  Not all other illegal immigrants. Him. No one else violate her rights did they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be dense.
> 
> There are many other illegal immigrants out there just like him. They were criminals in their own country, and they willingly continue that pattern here. That puts my right to reasonable safety at risk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And thete are many legal citizens just like him out there even more likely to put your rights at risk.  Which of your rights have ilkegal immigrants violated?  None really.  Individuals violate rights not broad groups
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the thing, there's a broad group of illegal immigrants out there who are the scum of the earth. They belong to gangs, they murder people, they rape women, sell drugs, traffic children... not all of them are "law abiding" for lack of a better phrase. When they are in our midst, the danger to our rights is real.
> 
> Heh, I'd rather not be complacent.
Click to expand...

Msybe it would be better framed as a broad group of people...because nany of those people arent even illegal immigrants.  MS13 was born in the US. The vast majority of violent are commited by our home boys.

If we start going after entire groups because some individuals have violated our rights where does that leave anyone's rights?

It is like saying that illegal immigrants are horrible parents for bringing their children when the question ought to be:  what situation could be so terrible that a parent would risk their children to flee?


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> But I've had enough. This entire issue is wrought with emotion. And I, too am being drawn into it.
> 
> I don't want families to be separated, but I don't want the law to be disobeyed. This is all I should have said from the beginning.
> 
> I'll be going now. I harbor no ill will toward anyone.


It is a highly charged topic for us all


----------



## Hutch Starskey

HappyJoy said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".
> 
> Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb.  Always assuming you have that capability.
> 
> FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.
> 
> 
> 
> How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're comparing criminals sneaking into our country to the Pilgrims?  Seriously?
> 
> I hope you won't be too surprised that I'm not even going to bother reading this puddle of rancid piss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a valid comparison if you say these refugees are bad parents for taking their kids on a dangerous trip. No wonder you won't answer it, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now I've gone from ignoring a puddle of rancid piss to ignoring a puddle of festering vomit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're ignoring a valid point in an argument is what you're doing.
Click to expand...


Her specialty.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> If we start going after entire groups because some individuals have violated our rights where does that leave anyone's rights?




Curious, illegal immigrants don't police themselves, do they? That's why you must treat them all the same. It's not a matter of perception, it's a matter of trust.


----------



## Pop23

HappyJoy said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more interested in helping those kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (smiles)
> 
> No, you're not. You're only interested in using them as political tools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so? I wasn't even referring to unaccompanied minors until you brought them up and I still think you are conflating those kids with the separation of families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are ignoring unaccompanied minors for the sake of the families. For them, the separation has already occurred. But not one ounce of outrage from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell are you talking about? For unaccompanied minors we should do what we can to help them. Whether that means they immigrate through our system as asylum seekers if that's appropriate or maybe even help them resettle in another country, say Mexico but something like that would require a productive relationship with them and we don't really have that right now.
> 
> Or are you somehow referring to the families that arrive here and then are separated? I'm still not quite sure what you are talking about and I don't think you know either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't care, and I will continue to contend as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neat, that's the least important thing. Right now it's what do we do to/for these families that arrive intact and if you want to include the unaccompanied children we could talk about them to. My understanding is you don't want government to do anything, but you do want to blame me because I'm the one who doesn't care about them?
> 
> Do I have that right because your argument is either ironic or hypocritical, possibly both.
Click to expand...


How about this?








RETURN THEM TO THEIR FAMILIES THAT THEY RAN AWAY FROM?


----------



## Hutch Starskey

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No, you do not surrender rights by a committing crime.  The accused certainly has constitutional rights, even non-citizens.*
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point entirely. It makes zero sense to say that any illegal who sets foot on American soil gains constitutional rights when they do.
> 
> I believe in reciprocal punishment. If you violate the rights of others by committing a crime, you should lose yours. You have forfeited them because you had no respect for the rights of others. Due process is guaranteed, but the rest of your rights go bye bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do have some Constitutional rights.
> 
> Do undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said they didn't. I said they _shouldn't_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why shouldnt they?  Everyone in this country citizen or not has some Constitutional protections, esp due process.  It is whst seperates us from barberic rwgimes that can throw you in jsil for fictitous chsrges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but by allowing everyone to cross our border willy nilly like you apparently want them to do, we become inseparate from those barbaric regimes, by allowing that barbarity to permeate our society. Because not every person who crosses our border illegally is an angel.
Click to expand...


We're talking about people who were apprehended and how they're being treated.
That's  not crossing willy nilly.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we start going after entire groups because some individuals have violated our rights where does that leave anyone's rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Curious, illegal immigrants don't police themselves, do they? That's why you must treat them all the same. It's not a matter of perception, it's a matter of trust.
Click to expand...

I dont see how you can make that sort of broad generalization.  They arent even a homogenious cultural group.  They arw simply a group of people from all around the world who have only one thing in common: immigration ststus.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cecilie1200 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The parents aren't doing it. The govt is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Do you think these children suddenly developed a sudden societal and environmental awareness and decided to come here on their own? No. The parents chose to send them here, alone. Adults claiming to be parents smuggled them here, only to leave them alone when they were detained for crossing illegally. You are so damned ignorant that you can't see these people are taking advantage of our system. That system must be changed. With or without your help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The govt, through policy, is deciding to prosecute 100% them. Including those seeking asylum.The result of said prosecution is separation. This was not the case six weeks ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you weren't listening to Cecilie, go read her posts again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't listening at all, dope. I read it.
> 
> 
> Cecile is dishonestly suggesting that every child is smuggled into the country rather than arriving with their parents. I chose not to address that but rather stick to the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, shitstain.  This just demonstrates how very little you actually know about the border and illegal immigration, you armchair Einstein.
> 
> I never once said all children smuggled into the country arrive without their parents.  NO ONE has ever said that.  The fact that you assume it's a binary either/or choice is evidence that you're pontificating on a subject you know less about than I do about quantum physics.
> 
> Let me guess, ass napkin.  You didn't realize that coyotes ALSO smuggle adults and family groups across the border, as well as unaccompanied children?
Click to expand...




Cecilie1200 said:


> I never once said all children smuggled into the country arrive without their parents. NO ONE has ever said that.



Open the quote boxes in this post, dope.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Cecilie1200 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Causing mental and emotional harm to children over prolonged periods of time is certainly child abuse. Especially when done when discrestion allows for altenatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then perhaps their parents shouldn't do it.
> 
> And we all know about your "discretion allows for alternatives", otherwise known as "just stop enforcing the border!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then perhaps their parents shouldn't do it.
> 
> And we all know about your "discretion allows for alternatives", otherwise known as "just stop enforcing the border!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The parents aren't doing it. The govt is.
> 
> Discretion as in prosecutorial discretion, dope.
> 
> All of the people will be dealt with. Those who don't qualify or apply for asylum are deported immediately.  Those who qualify are processed. Those granted asylum can stay and those denied are immediately deported.
> 
> Where is there "no enforcement" in that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, the government is going to their countries, dragging them up here, and shoving them across the border illegally?  Is that what's happening?
> 
> "Prosecutorial discretion" = "do we prosecute or not?"  DOPE.
> 
> "No enforcement" would be in the "You CAN'T put kids in foster care while their parents are locked up!" which leads to "You MUST release the parents with the children so they can be together", which is the same as not bothering to enforce the borders at all.
> 
> It's not that I don't think you're plenty stupid enough to really believe the garbage you're shoveling; it's just that I don't happen to think that's what's at play here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did they do seven weeks ago and for the last year, dope? They didn't prosecute those applying for asylum who crossed illegally and therefore did not have to separate them. It is done now by choice. By policy. By prosecutorial discretion, dope.
> 
> You are again attempting to dishonestly suggest that there is no enforcement without
> this zero tolerance policy. The truth is, all of these people who were apprehended will be processed. That would be true even if there were no new policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Catch and release (term) - Wikipedia
> 
> Next time, look it up your own lazy self.  DOPE.
> 
> If it's so "dishonest" to suggest there's no enforcement without the zero tolerance policy, then why don't YOU tell me what they did seven weeks ago that was so much better?
Click to expand...


I know what that is, dope. I didn't ask for it. Nice dodge.

People were apprehended and processed seven weeks ago. The entire first year of the Trump admin as well. 

The better question is, what makes this policy not so much better but so much more effective?


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Pop23 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------  i don't care about the TRAFFICKING .  I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law  Coyote .   ---------------------  just a comment .
> 
> 
> 
> *Scare them?  You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation.   Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates.  Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the same thugs would think nothing of abducting a child and crossing our border with them.
> 
> Think about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Child traffickers and victims posing as families are easily identified by law enforcement when apprehended.  Victims almost universally show relief when questioned by law enforcement.  The most common methods of transporting victims is as cargo in trucks and boats, not walking across the desert.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and our very savvy and well experienced professionals are no doubt very adept at sorting through these claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most teen girls are deceived as to why they are being smuggled. Told they were going to get good jobs. They don’t know different until it’s too late and do not turn their smugglers in, they believe them.
> 
> You are simply Naive.
Click to expand...


Yes, that's it. All govt employees are incompetent and in no way gain experience when processing thousands of cases anually.

But I'm naive.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mlll.
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point entirely. It makes zero sense to say that any illegal who sets foot on American soil gains constitutional rights when they do.
> 
> I believe in reciprocal punishment. If you violate the rights of others by committing a crime, you should lose yours. You have forfeited them because you had no respect for the rights of others. Due process is guaranteed, but the rest of your rights go bye bye.
> 
> 
> 
> Who's rights were violated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> The people who are going through this process legally. People who come here legally and are born here legally to legal parents. The people who lost their lives because we chose to have compassion on the lawbreaker instead of the victim (think Kate Steinle).
> 
> I could go on if you want. This is why I don't have any compassion right now. Nobody seems to want the consequences to be applied. Nobody.
> 
> Instead of offering a solution, Democrats choose to wear their feelings on their sleeve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What rights are they violating?
> 
> It isnt the Dems responsibility to clean up Trump's mess.
> 
> In terms of victims such as Steinle the only perspn who violatrd her rights was was the one who killed her.  No one else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't the Dems' responsibility?  Excuse me, who makes the laws in this country?  That'd be Congress, right?  Some members of which are Dems?  So wouldn't that mean that making laws to correct a situation they don't like IS their responsibility?  Otherwise, what the fuck are we paying them for?  I myself don't consider "viewing with alarm" and grandstanding in front of the cameras to be a valuable public service I'm willing to pay my tax money for.
> 
> At what point do you go from, "This is wrong!  This is horrible!  Quick, everyone hate Trump!" to calling for something that is actually productive and meaningful to solving the alleged problem, such as . . . just off the top of my head here . . . a law that changes it?!  'Cause I'm still waiting for you to call for a solution that addresses the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of your blather is just that. Blather.
> 
> When did this policy come into effect?
> Who formulated it?
> Who implemented it?
> 
> Why don't you Trumpets FOR ONCE grow up and tske responsibility for your crappy policies instead of blaming every one but....yourselves.
Click to expand...


Hate to break it to you, but sneering at someone as a "Trumpette" does not constitute a valid defense.  I have never liked or supported Trump, but if I had, I certainly wouldn't be embarrassed and shamed because trash like you thought I shouldn't have.

As for your interrogation, when you answer my questions, I'll answer yours.  Until then, I will assume you're trying to change the subject because you can't answer mine.


----------



## Cecilie1200

HappyJoy said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> 
> 
> Unnecessary?  Why is it _unnecessary?"_
> 
> If someone perpetrates a burglary while accompanied by his/her two year-old.  If you are a cop, or a sentencing judge, what do you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These people didn't perpetrate a burglary, they sought asylum. At worst they committed a misdemeanor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You heard it from the trumpanzees...they now have the expectation that the children of burglars will be put in cages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't think they realize what they are asking for. I guess according to Mike that 2 year old gets locked up too, just have to make sure it's not with their parents. Seems extraordinarily cruel but I guess this is Trump's America.
Click to expand...


Let me get this straight.  BEFORE, you were bitching about kids being released from detention without their parents, and how they should remain locked up in order to be with their parents (despite the fact that it was LEFTISTS who insisted on the policy of releasing them).  NOW you're pissing and moaning about them being "locked up".

Could you possibly locate whatever passes for your mind and make it up?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're being naive. With all due respect.
> 
> Do you reeeeeallly think that he is the only one of his kind to cross the border illegally?
> 
> 
> 
> What is "his kind"?
> 
> He is the only one who killed her.  Not all other illegal immigrants. Him. No one else violate her rights did they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be dense.
> 
> There are many other illegal immigrants out there just like him. They were criminals in their own country, and they willingly continue that pattern here. That puts my right to reasonable safety at risk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And thete are many legal citizens just like him out there even more likely to put your rights at risk.  Which of your rights have ilkegal immigrants violated?  None really.  Individuals violate rights not broad groups
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the thing, there's a broad group of illegal immigrants out there who are the scum of the earth. They belong to gangs, they murder people, they rape women, sell drugs, traffic children... not all of them are "law abiding" for lack of a better phrase. When they are in our midst, the danger to our rights is real.
> 
> Heh, I'd rather not be complacent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Msybe it would be better framed as a broad group of people...because nany of those people arent even illegal immigrants.  MS13 was born in the US. The vast majority of violent are commited by our home boys.
> 
> If we start going after entire groups because some individuals have violated our rights where does that leave anyone's rights?
> 
> It is like saying that illegal immigrants are horrible parents for bringing their children when the question ought to be:  what situation could be so terrible that a parent would risk their children to flee?
Click to expand...


I think the better question is if they live in such a horrible place, why did they have children in the first place?  If it's because they are just plain dumb, then what we have is a breeding ground where the families will just relocate to the US when they finally decide their country is not good enough for their children.


----------



## koshergrl

HappyJoy said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would, if you wouldn't abort them all, you blithering idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stay gold, Pony Boy, stay gold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, I don't respond well to sarcasm. And your insults show just how degenerative your argument is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now your feelings are hurt because I called you Pony Boy? I'm going to call you a snowflake now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's ICE GIANT to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, shit...I mean sh*t, I didn't realize I was arguing with a 12 year old. Sorry, little guy I had no idea.
Click to expand...

Only in your dreams, HJ.


----------



## koshergrl




----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Democrats just showed up at the polls, they would win.  Independents do not favor the draconian measures that we are using on kids at the borders though they probably do abhor illegal immigration.  Independents do not favor the tactics we’re taking with our allies in terms of trade.  They sure do not favor the behavior of the president; the sleaze, the legal issues, the idea that he could self-pardon….
> 
> If the Dems show up at the polls, they win in the general election.
> 
> 
> 
> And Democrats don't favor progressives.  Big mistake.  The Dems need to go full liberal if they have any hopes of getting back some seats.  Not only that, they need a platform people can buy in to.  Right now, they have none.
Click to expand...


For once you and I agree: let the Democrat party go full liberal, even socialist or Communist.  That will teach us Republicans.


----------



## Slyhunter




----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> For once you and I agree: let the Democrat party go full liberal, even socialist or Communist.  That will teach us Republicans.


I don't think Republicans have the ability to learn.


----------



## HappyJoy

Pop23 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more interested in helping those kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (smiles)
> 
> No, you're not. You're only interested in using them as political tools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so? I wasn't even referring to unaccompanied minors until you brought them up and I still think you are conflating those kids with the separation of families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are ignoring unaccompanied minors for the sake of the families. For them, the separation has already occurred. But not one ounce of outrage from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell are you talking about? For unaccompanied minors we should do what we can to help them. Whether that means they immigrate through our system as asylum seekers if that's appropriate or maybe even help them resettle in another country, say Mexico but something like that would require a productive relationship with them and we don't really have that right now.
> 
> Or are you somehow referring to the families that arrive here and then are separated? I'm still not quite sure what you are talking about and I don't think you know either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't care, and I will continue to contend as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neat, that's the least important thing. Right now it's what do we do to/for these families that arrive intact and if you want to include the unaccompanied children we could talk about them to. My understanding is you don't want government to do anything, but you do want to blame me because I'm the one who doesn't care about them?
> 
> Do I have that right because your argument is either ironic or hypocritical, possibly both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RETURN THEM TO THEIR FAMILIES THAT THEY RAN AWAY FROM?
Click to expand...


That could be one solution, not necessarily for all, especially if we know their country of origin is in crisis.


----------



## HappyJoy

Cecilie1200 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> 
> 
> Unnecessary?  Why is it _unnecessary?"_
> 
> If someone perpetrates a burglary while accompanied by his/her two year-old.  If you are a cop, or a sentencing judge, what do you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These people didn't perpetrate a burglary, they sought asylum. At worst they committed a misdemeanor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You heard it from the trumpanzees...they now have the expectation that the children of burglars will be put in cages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't think they realize what they are asking for. I guess according to Mike that 2 year old gets locked up too, just have to make sure it's not with their parents. Seems extraordinarily cruel but I guess this is Trump's America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight.  BEFORE, you were bitching about kids being released from detention without their parents,
Click to expand...


No. When did I say that?



> and how they should remain locked up in order to be with their parents (despite the fact that it was LEFTISTS who insisted on the policy of releasing them).  NOW you're pissing and moaning about them being "locked up".
> 
> Could you possibly locate whatever passes for your mind and make it up?



I think the families should be released, short of that they should be housed together.


----------



## HappyJoy

koshergrl said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stay gold, Pony Boy, stay gold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I don't respond well to sarcasm. And your insults show just how degenerative your argument is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now your feelings are hurt because I called you Pony Boy? I'm going to call you a snowflake now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's ICE GIANT to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, shit...I mean sh*t, I didn't realize I was arguing with a 12 year old. Sorry, little guy I had no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in your dreams, HJ.
Click to expand...


What does that mean?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> For once you and I agree: let the Democrat party go full liberal, even socialist or Communist.  That will teach us Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Republicans have the ability to learn.
Click to expand...


We don't?  The left has been promoting immigration, promoting the right as racist, sexist, homophobe.  Your last candidate referred to us as deplorables.  But we don't have the ability to learn?  

You people have been losing power the last ten years, yet you think your decades old strategy is working just fine.


----------



## MikeK

bodecea said:


> You heard it from the trumpanzees...they now have the expectation that the children of burglars will be put in cages.


Not what I wrote! 

Do you consciously and deliberately distort by altering the framework of a comment, or is doing that your natural, pre-conscious inclination?  To unlawfully enter and inhabit the U.S. (or any other country) is a crime. 

If you commit the crime of illegal migration while accompanied by your children, should you be absolved of punishment to avoid subjecting your children to it?  If so it doesn't require a genius IQ to anticipate the outcome of such self-defeating stupidity exercised in the name of kindness.


----------



## Pop23

Hutch Starskey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Scare them?  You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation.   Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates.  Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the same thugs would think nothing of abducting a child and crossing our border with them.
> 
> Think about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Child traffickers and victims posing as families are easily identified by law enforcement when apprehended.  Victims almost universally show relief when questioned by law enforcement.  The most common methods of transporting victims is as cargo in trucks and boats, not walking across the desert.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and our very savvy and well experienced professionals are no doubt very adept at sorting through these claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most teen girls are deceived as to why they are being smuggled. Told they were going to get good jobs. They don’t know different until it’s too late and do not turn their smugglers in, they believe them.
> 
> You are simply Naive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's it. All govt employees are incompetent and in no way gain experience when processing thousands of cases anually.
> 
> But I'm naive.
Click to expand...


They’ve been doing this for decades chump. Your side says just take the adults word for it. Makes the smugglers jobs a bit easier i’d Say. 

So yes, Naive is the word


----------



## Ame®icano

candycorn said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing with you, just as most of you on the left is that when can explain your reasoning or give an argument, you pull out the race card. Reason is simple, you don't have an argument, and race card is all you have left. Just like a ketchup, you're stick it to anything.
> 
> You wanna call it an insult, than call it an insult. Still, it's not racial slur, period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its an insult based on skin color….hence racial slur.  I’m sure that Trumpians like yourself aren’t interested in the fine distinctions between Hondurans, Nicaraguans, Mexicans, etc…..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not.
> 
> You wishing it's a racial slur doesn't make it one. It's a derisive term which refers to Mexicans, and it's based on country of origin.
> 
> By the way, since you mentioned, what skin color Mexicans have, please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that is funny…
> 
> Yeah…someone like you who calls people “beaners” as a sign of affection makes a distinction between Mexicans and other latinos.  Riiiight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone like me?
> Nope, I did not call anyone a beaner, I joined the conversation to explain to you that beaner is not a racial slur.
> Now, since you do know the distinction, why don't you answer the question: What skin color Mexicans have?
> Or you gonna act dumb and dodge it again...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you/will you  gone/go  into a chicano bar and called the bartender a beaner and shown how much you love the race?
> 
> Are you going to dodge the question or answer it?
Click to expand...


I recall I asked you question several times that you did provided answer to. 

You don't get to ask me anything until you do so. Capisce?


----------



## Ame®icano

candycorn said:


> I guess he’s out dodging the question….



Nope. Some of us work for a living.

Beside, you've been asked question that you haven't answered, but you demand I answer yours.

I'm not playing your leftist game, so it's not gonna happen until you do so.


----------



## Ame®icano

Flopper said:


> *Lots of good information but the fact remains there is no law that requires Trump to separate the kids from their parents at the border.  This is policy which can be changed at the discretion of the president.  Claiming the law made me do it is just bullshit.  He clearly feels separating the kids from the parents is a determent so why doesn't he admit it.  I'm sure most of his supporters would agree. *



If you say so. Was there a law to separate kids from parents while Barry was president? Was there law like that while Dubya was president? Both of them were doing it, but only now it's somehow not acceptable. 

Policy hasn't changed, laws neither. Border patrol and DHS are doing their jobs by the book, and if Congress doesn't like the law, than they should change the law.


----------



## Ame®icano

Flopper said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, we need to cut through the rhetorical bullshit one more time.
> 
> 1)  The rules about detaining children HAVE NOT changed.  Trump IS NOT doing anything new in regards to detaining children.  The government has been required to release children from detention within 20 days ever since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals extended the Flores Consent Decree (aka the Flores Settlement) to include accompanied minors in 2016.  What Trump has changed is how we deal with adults.  Where Obama used the Flores Settlement and the accompanying Ninth Circuit ruling as an excuse to give adults a free pass if they could claim to be part of a family unit, Trump is insisting on treating those adults like the criminals they are.
> 
> 2)  Separation of children from adults happens only in three cases:  if the adult is not the child's parent, if the adult is a threat to the child, or if the adult is put into criminal proceedings.  In other words, the exact same circumstances under which a child would be taken from an adult even among our own citizenry.
> 
> 3)  When an illegal is prosecuted, he is taken into custody by the US Marshals.  The US Marshals do not, EVER, take care of the children of people they take into custody, no matter who that person is or what they're being arrested for.  Just as with anyone in this situation, the children are taken custody of by HHS, which cares for them in temporary shelters until they know whether the adult will be deported or will apply for asylum.
> 
> 4)  Assuming the illegal has not committed another crime, the criminal proceedings are short.  Usually, the illegal pleads guilty, they are sentenced to time served, and they are returned to ICE.  This typically happens in one day.  At that point, the adult is reunited with the child, and the whole kit and kaboodle are deported back to where they came from.  If the adult is truly concerned about being separated from the child, they can easily put an end to it.
> 
> 5)  The separation only becomes extended if the illegal immigrant himself chooses to make it so by applying for asylum.  THAT procedure pretty much always takes longer than the government is allowed, by law, to hold the child.  When that time limit is reached, the child is placed with a responsible party.  Quite often, that is a relative or friend of the illegal immigrant, because illegal immigrants often have connections to people who are already in the country.
> 
> 6)  If the adult is held while their asylum claim is processed, it is likely to go through the system much more quickly, a couple of months as opposed to dragging on for years.  If the adult is released into the population, he is highly unlikely to return for his court dates.  We know this from experience.
> 
> 7)  There is no reason whatsoever for someone who is legitimately looking for asylum to cross the border illegally.  They have only to approach a port of entry and state their desire for asylum.  They are NOT arrested when they do this, and not separated from their children.  The fact that border crossings dried up at the beginning of the Trump administration and only started again when rumors went around that the policy on the border had not changed indicates that the vast majority of these people are NOT refugees fleeing persecution, but simply prefer the economic benefits of being in the US.
> 
> 8)  In April, the _New York Times_ reported:
> 
> _Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.
> 
> Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing._
> 
> "It is common to have parents entrust their children to a smuggler as a favor or for profit.” - azcentral.com
> 
> But since our policies have favored family units over single adults, we have created an incentive to put children in peril.  How can anyone who claims to care about the well-being of these children advocate policies which encourage their endangerment?
> 
> 9)  Congress has the power to change all of this by one simple vote.  They can pass a law overruling the Flores Settlement; they can pass a law mandating family detention, and providing funding to make it possible.  So why is it that the only bill that has been introduced in Congress to address this situation has come from the Republicans, who are being vilified, and the Democrats are too busy grandstanding for the media to propose anything at all?
> 
> 
> 
> *Lots of good information but the fact remains there is no law that requires Trump to separate the kids from their parents at the border.  This is policy which can be changed at the discretion of the president.  Claiming the law made me do it is just bullshit.  He clearly feels separating the kids from the parents is a determent so why doesn't he admit it.  I'm sure most of his supporters would agree. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they don’t change the policy,
> Do you think we can/we should send in a 3rd party monitor like the International Red Cross to  observe the conditions?  Like they did in POW camps?
> 
> Prisoners of the First World War | International Committee of the Red Cross - Index
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump would never allow that.  He wouldn't even let reporters take pictures of the cages he keeps them in. Since he believes their animals, maybe he feels he has the right to treat them as such.*
Click to expand...


Those are the same cages Barry was using for eight years. Have you protested while he was doing it?


----------



## Ame®icano

Ray From Cleveland said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.
> 
> 
> 
> I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
> BTW, Jackson _WAS_ A Democrat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
Click to expand...


Trump is doing nothing at the border differently from his predecessor. In fact, everything is done by the law. 

Instead of changing the law, Democrats demand that officials ignore the law they created together with Republicans.


----------



## Ame®icano

candycorn said:


> If the Democrats just showed up at the polls, they would win.  Independents do not favor the draconian measures that we are using on kids at the borders though they probably do abhor illegal immigration.  Independents do not favor the tactics we’re taking with our allies in terms of trade.  They sure do not favor the behavior of the president; the sleaze, the legal issues, the idea that he could self-pardon….
> 
> If the Dems show up at the polls, they win in the general election.


----------



## oreo

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​



It has been the failure of Republicans over the last 8 years to come up with a comprehensive immigration reform bill.  It is the sole responsibility of congress to write immigration laws, and they have failed miserably.  Every single immigration bill that has come down the pipeline is met with a swift NO.  Marco Rubio had a bill that he introduced and it didn't even make into committee.

 It's because Republicans are terrified of their right wing base, who cheer on the rhetoric of the Ass Clown that  sits in the oval office, who has spread a lot of hateful rhetoric and fear toward Latino's in this country.  Trump even did away with Obama's executive order that protected children that were raised and educated in this country from being deported, the dreamers act aka DACA.
*Trump admin's gyrating story on separating families at the border insults our intelligence*

These right wing Republicans are a hateful group, and just judging from their comments they remain hateful, a could give a rats ass if a toddler is crying for their mom's and dad's.


This is no longer the Republican party of Lincoln or Reagan.  It is now the party of Trump.  Stuffed full of hate,fear, anger, bigotry, misogyny & ignorance.  I don't know how moderates stay in this party any  longer.  I left this party as soon as they made this Ass Clown the poster boy of it, and have no intentions whatsoever of ever going back.





*Laura Bush pens scathing column on child separation as part of immigration policy - CNNPolitics*
*Laura Bush blasts Trump migrant policy as 'cruel' and 'immoral'*

Drown'em this coming November.


----------



## forkup

Cecilie1200 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes how insanely irresponsible off parents to try to go to the US when they so obviously live in paradise. You should definitely punish parents like that and send them on their way minus the children. After all they deserve no better. (I hope I laid on the sarcasm thick enough)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "My life sucks, so I'm going to break the law, and I'm going to drag my kid along while I do it so that I can use him to get out of being punished."  Yup, that's insanely irresponsible, and they deserve exactly what they get for it.
> 
> Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children".  Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See link posted above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take that as an "I have nothing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I"ll take that as" I'm to chickenshit to click a link that directly contradicts what I'm claiming"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More like I don't respect you enough to bother scrolling back that far.  If it ain't in the post right above where I'm typing, it ain't worth it.  The only fear you engender in me is the possibility of you drooling on my shoes.
> 
> You have something to say, say it.  You don't, then we're done here.
Click to expand...

I hope I'll be able to live my life without having to have earned your respect. I guess I'll just have to life with the emptiness of not having your highly developed intellect enlighten me about why it's justified to separate parents from children because them wanting a better life for their kids.


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> We don't?  The left has been promoting immigration, promoting the right as racist, sexist, homophobe.  Your last candidate referred to us as deplorables.  But we don't have the ability to learn?


That's right.  Makes sense to me.  However, you forgot inhuman liars.  You fuckers are inhuman liars, who deserve a major beat down, politically speaking.



Ray From Cleveland said:


> You people have been losing power the last ten years, yet you think your decades old strategy is working just fine.


You mean your strategy of illegal and un-Constitutional gerrymandering?  You have more in common with the Weimar Republic, than you do with the American republic.

Thanks to you people, we are now constructing internment camps.  It's canvas today; when do you start installing the ovens?


----------



## Cellblock2429

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


/——-/ Bad News Libtards. You thought you had Trump this time but he’s working to fix yet another Obozo screw up. In a month this will be forgotten. 
 The White House announced that President Trump had endorsed legislation negotiated between GOP leaders and moderate Republicans that promises to "solve the border crisis and family separation issue by allowing for family detention and removal."


----------



## JoeB131

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——-/ Bad News Libtards. You thought you had Trump this time but he’s working to fix yet another Obozo screw up. In a month this will be forgotten.
> The White House announced that President Trump had endorsed legislation negotiated between GOP leaders and moderate Republicans that promises to "solve the border crisis and family separation issue by allowing for family detention and removal."



again, you don't get credit for fixing a problem you created...


----------



## Billo_Really

Trump immigration policy theme song...


----------



## candycorn

Ame®icano said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its an insult based on skin color….hence racial slur.  I’m sure that Trumpians like yourself aren’t interested in the fine distinctions between Hondurans, Nicaraguans, Mexicans, etc…..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not.
> 
> You wishing it's a racial slur doesn't make it one. It's a derisive term which refers to Mexicans, and it's based on country of origin.
> 
> By the way, since you mentioned, what skin color Mexicans have, please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that is funny…
> 
> Yeah…someone like you who calls people “beaners” as a sign of affection makes a distinction between Mexicans and other latinos.  Riiiight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone like me?
> Nope, I did not call anyone a beaner, I joined the conversation to explain to you that beaner is not a racial slur.
> Now, since you do know the distinction, why don't you answer the question: What skin color Mexicans have?
> Or you gonna act dumb and dodge it again...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you/will you  gone/go  into a chicano bar and called the bartender a beaner and shown how much you love the race?
> 
> Are you going to dodge the question or answer it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recall I asked you question several times that you did provided answer to.
> 
> You don't get to ask me anything until you do so. Capisce?
Click to expand...


Cmon...beaner is a term of endearment right?

Sack up, find some manhood and call a Mexican a beaner to his face.  Then get ready for a nice warm hug.....


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."
> 
> Dude, you were very clear.  If you're not comparing them, this has no point.
> 
> I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
> I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
> I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling
> 
> Sometimes you take risks for your kids!
> 
> That sentence is entirely context driven.  Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about anyone else, but the riskiest situations I put my kids in is sending them to a play group with other kids who MIGHT have germs.  I most assuredly would not ever CONSIDER putting them anywhere near the evil filth in human form that is a coyote (someone who smuggles people across the border, for those of you who don't live in this area), or trekking across pretty much ANY country in Central America, or hiking through the Arizona desert (or Texas or New Mexico or California, for that matter).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In Guatemala, you do not sent your kids to a playground because there's a good chance you will never see them again.  If your oldest son was run down in front of you by cartel members because he wouldn't work for them and a 7 year old across the street was raped and murdered by a local  gang and the police refused to even investigate, I think you would do what is needed to get the fuck out. *
Click to expand...


Remember what a dick you were about Trump calling those shit hole countries?


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration.  Read your post, dumb ass
> 
> 
> 
> Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."
> 
> Dude, you were very clear.  If you're not comparing them, this has no point.
> 
> I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
> I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
> I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling
> 
> Sometimes you take risks for your kids!
> 
> That sentence is entirely context driven.  Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about anyone else, but the riskiest situations I put my kids in is sending them to a play group with other kids who MIGHT have germs.  I most assuredly would not ever CONSIDER putting them anywhere near the evil filth in human form that is a coyote (someone who smuggles people across the border, for those of you who don't live in this area), or trekking across pretty much ANY country in Central America, or hiking through the Arizona desert (or Texas or New Mexico or California, for that matter).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In Guatemala, you do not sent your kids to a playground because there's a good chance you will never see them again.  If your oldest son was run down in front of you by cartel members because he wouldn't work for them and a 7 year old across the street was raped and murdered by a local  gang and the police refused to even investigate, I think you would do what is needed to get the fuck out. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you are a bad parent apparently.
Click to expand...


In no way does that make logical sense.  It's just you being snotty


----------



## kaz

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".
> 
> Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb.  Always assuming you have that capability.
> 
> FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.
> 
> 
> 
> How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal immigration, not immigration, moron.  The people on the Mayflower didn't endanger their kids during the commission of a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They took their kids to invade another land.  I doubt it was legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the Mayflower were criminals.  Got it.  I have to believe there's a line of looking stupid you wouldn't go below.  But damned if I can find that line ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know that there were criminals on the Mayflower, right?
Click to expand...


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".
> 
> Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb.  Always assuming you have that capability.
> 
> FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.
> 
> 
> 
> How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal immigration, not immigration, moron.  The people on the Mayflower didn't endanger their kids during the commission of a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They took their kids to invade another land.  I doubt it was legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Perhaps you could cite for me the laws they were violating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you need to ask the native tribes.
Click to expand...


----------



## kaz

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So mothers who rob banks to send their kids to better preschools shouldn't lose their kids because "they feel the risks they take are justified."  That's what you think
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not even remotely in the same universe. Are we so privileged that we compare getting into private school to actual survival? Not to mention comparing armed robbery to a misdemeanor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, so you're admitting that it's only a valid comparison if they are compatible, which was my point.  He was equating crossing the street with illegal immigration.
> 
> It's hilarious you thought you were contradicting my point when you agreed with it ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jay walking is a minor crime, so is crossing the border, especially with the intent of turning themselves in. I'm sorry, you're argument still sucks and at least you stopped making it (hopefully).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you consider it a minor crime.  You want it to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't want illegal immigration, however I do want more legal immigration and I want the United States to help these refugees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more Democrat voters the better.  You want to award prizes for coming here illegally.  I mean literal prizes.  Welfare, free education, free medical care.  We'll house Mexico's prison population for them.  It's not a minor crime for you at all, it's a major victory!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, none of this is true.
> 
> Just the same, crossing the border is not a major crime. Unless you're a hysterical xenophobe of course.
Click to expand...


Right, and that's been the Republican position.  Cut illegal immigration THEN increase legal.  How do we increase legal immigration when we're importing 1.8 million illegals a year between border crossings and visa overstays?

And if we did that, would you support actually stopping illegals with real means like walls and jail sentences?   Of course not


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------  i don't care about the TRAFFICKING .  I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law  Coyote .   ---------------------  just a comment .
> 
> 
> 
> *Scare them?  You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation.   Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates.  Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the same thugs would think nothing of abducting a child and crossing our border with them.
> 
> Think about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Immigration officials are required to interview all detainees regardless of age.  Do you really think kidnap victims are not going to speak up?
> 
> These families came seeking asylum.  You can not apply for asylum with out complete documentation of all family members.
> Think about that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor children from third world countries who are being abused and threatened and told the American will kill them?  Of course they could lie.  And you're saying keep them in the abuser's hands to keep doing that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I'm saying you don't presume that a family is human traffickers and victims without evidence any more than you would presume that a man carrying a briefcase walking out of a bank is a bank robber.  *
Click to expand...


No , you presume they're not and allow human traffickers to keep their victims.  Human trafficking is a huge and growing problem.  Turning the other way to servitude and sex slavery is a small price to pay for more Democrats in office though, huh?

We aren't going into Mexico and taking children as you idiots like to make it sound.  They all committed crimes with children in tow.  Hell yeah, we need to figure out what's going on


----------



## kaz

koshergrl said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Scare them?  You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation.   Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates.  Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the same thugs would think nothing of abducting a child and crossing our border with them.
> 
> Think about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Immigration officials are required to interview all detainees regardless of age.  Do you really think kidnap victims are not going to speak up?
> 
> These families came seeking asylum.  You can not apply for asylum with out complete documentation of all family members.
> Think about that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor children from third world countries who are being abused and threatened and told the American will kill them?  Of course they could lie.  And you're saying keep them in the abuser's hands to keep doing that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I'm saying you don't presume that a family is human traffickers and victims without evidence any more than you would presume that a man carrying a briefcase walking out of a bank is a bank robber.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you stop a criminal at the border who has a kid that isn't his with him...you think that we should allow the kid to stay with that criminal in jail?
> 
> Because that's what you fools are advocating.
Click to expand...


More Democrats in office, it's worth it to them


----------



## kaz

Mike473 said:


> *In Guatemala, you do not sent your kids to a playground because there's a good chance you will never see them again.  If your oldest son was run down in front of you by cartel members because he wouldn't work for them and a 7 year old across the street was raped and murdered by a local  gang and the police refused to even investigate, I think you would do what is needed to get the fuck out. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who can blame the families trying to escape from that kind of life?
> 
> The problem is not with those people trying to come to the United States, or Donald Trump for that matter. Why not focus on the countries and governments that are so bad that people risk their families lives to escape them?
Click to expand...


Yep.  These humanitarian Democrats describe hell on earth, then want to do nothing to help them other than allow them to come here.  If that were really their view and they had a soul, they would want to help rescue all those people from their criminal governments and do it there.

But unless they come here, they can't vote for Democrats.  So that doesn't interest the left


----------



## Slyhunter

Can someone direct me to the thread about us leaving the UN Humane bullshit group and pulling all financing for them. 
You know there is other news out there.
Mass murder in NJ.
IG report that the FBI is full of Hillary lovers and biased against Trump.
10 FBI agents suspended or fired yesterday.


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/ Bad News Libtards. You thought you had Trump this time but he’s working to fix yet another Obozo screw up. In a month this will be forgotten.
> The White House announced that President Trump had endorsed legislation negotiated between GOP leaders and moderate Republicans that promises to "solve the border crisis and family separation issue by allowing for family detention and removal."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, you don't get credit for fixing a problem you created...
Click to expand...

/------/ You can get credit for fixing someone else's screwup: Here Are Horrifying Photos Of Obama’s Illegal Alien Facilities The Media Refuses To Show You


----------



## Cellblock2429

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


/----/It seems to be working: 
Migrants Hesitate At Border, Fearing For Their Children


----------



## pismoe

Cellblock2429 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> /----/It seems to be working:
> Migrants Hesitate At Border, Fearing For Their Children
Click to expand...

-----------------------------------------------   thanks .   Yeah , the plan seems to be working fine and is getting the desired results   Cellblock .


----------



## Cellblock2429

pismoe said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> /----/It seems to be working:
> Migrants Hesitate At Border, Fearing For Their Children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------------------------   thanks .   Yeah , the plan seems to be working fine and is getting the desired results   Cellblock .
Click to expand...

/----/ Dems worse nightmare, Trump's plan is working.


----------



## pismoe

plus this info , looks to me like The TRUMP and Sessions Zero Tolerance plan is working well and scaring the heck out of some illegal aliens as it makes 'geraldo' cry  Cellblock .  ---   For Migrant Families in Mexico, Threat of Separation Puts Plans in Doubt   ---


----------



## HappyJoy

kaz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not even remotely in the same universe. Are we so privileged that we compare getting into private school to actual survival? Not to mention comparing armed robbery to a misdemeanor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so you're admitting that it's only a valid comparison if they are compatible, which was my point.  He was equating crossing the street with illegal immigration.
> 
> It's hilarious you thought you were contradicting my point when you agreed with it ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jay walking is a minor crime, so is crossing the border, especially with the intent of turning themselves in. I'm sorry, you're argument still sucks and at least you stopped making it (hopefully).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you consider it a minor crime.  You want it to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't want illegal immigration, however I do want more legal immigration and I want the United States to help these refugees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more Democrat voters the better.  You want to award prizes for coming here illegally.  I mean literal prizes.  Welfare, free education, free medical care.  We'll house Mexico's prison population for them.  It's not a minor crime for you at all, it's a major victory!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, none of this is true.
> 
> Just the same, crossing the border is not a major crime. Unless you're a hysterical xenophobe of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and that's been the Republican position.  Cut illegal immigration THEN increase legal.  How do we increase legal immigration when we're importing 1.8 million illegals a year between border crossings and visa overstays?
> 
> And if we did that, would you support actually stopping illegals with real means like walls and jail sentences?   Of course not
Click to expand...


Illegal immigration has already been cut, it's been low for quite some time and those that get caught are usually deported. So, now it's time to open up legal immigration and no, I don't believe in walls and don't see much of a point in holding those caught for a first time in our jails, deport them.


----------



## HappyJoy

kaz said:


> Mike473 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In Guatemala, you do not sent your kids to a playground because there's a good chance you will never see them again.  If your oldest son was run down in front of you by cartel members because he wouldn't work for them and a 7 year old across the street was raped and murdered by a local  gang and the police refused to even investigate, I think you would do what is needed to get the fuck out. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who can blame the families trying to escape from that kind of life?
> 
> The problem is not with those people trying to come to the United States, or Donald Trump for that matter. Why not focus on the countries and governments that are so bad that people risk their families lives to escape them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  These humanitarian Democrats describe hell on earth, then want to do nothing to help them other than allow them to come here.  If that were really their view and they had a soul, they would want to help rescue all those people from their criminal governments and do it there.
Click to expand...


Can you expand on this? What do you want our government to do 'over there' exactly? 



> But unless they come here, they can't vote for Democrats.  So that doesn't interest the left



The last thing anyone cares about is who refugees, who wouldn't become citizens if at all for many, many years is going to vote for. It'd be best if we could eventually relocate them back to their homes though I'm not against them staying either as we need more legal immigration anyway.


----------



## pismoe

i want to see ALL Importation of ALL third worlders Stopped  HappyJoy .   ---------------  Actually STOP ALL importation of everyone .    Why does the USA with a population number of 310 million and not counting illegals need more people for  HJoy ?? just saying and asking HJoy !!


----------



## pismoe

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike473 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In Guatemala, you do not sent your kids to a playground because there's a good chance you will never see them again.  If your oldest son was run down in front of you by cartel members because he wouldn't work for them and a 7 year old across the street was raped and murdered by a local  gang and the police refused to even investigate, I think you would do what is needed to get the fuck out. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who can blame the families trying to escape from that kind of life?
> 
> The problem is not with those people trying to come to the United States, or Donald Trump for that matter. Why not focus on the countries and governments that are so bad that people risk their families lives to escape them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  These humanitarian Democrats describe hell on earth, then want to do nothing to help them other than allow them to come here.  If that were really their view and they had a soul, they would want to help rescue all those people from their criminal governments and do it there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you expand on this? What do you want our government to do 'over there' exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But unless they come here, they can't vote for Democrats.  So that doesn't interest the left
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last thing anyone cares about is who refugees, who wouldn't become citizens if at all for many, many years is going to vote for. It'd be best if we could eventually relocate them back to their homes though I'm not against them staying either as we need more legal immigration anyway.
Click to expand...

---------------------------------------   existing AMERICAN kids don't need more ignorant and uneducated non English speaking FOREIGN kids in their classrooms   HappyJoy !!


----------



## pismoe

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike473 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In Guatemala, you do not sent your kids to a playground because there's a good chance you will never see them again.  If your oldest son was run down in front of you by cartel members because he wouldn't work for them and a 7 year old across the street was raped and murdered by a local  gang and the police refused to even investigate, I think you would do what is needed to get the fuck out. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who can blame the families trying to escape from that kind of life?
> 
> The problem is not with those people trying to come to the United States, or Donald Trump for that matter. Why not focus on the countries and governments that are so bad that people risk their families lives to escape them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  These humanitarian Democrats describe hell on earth, then want to do nothing to help them other than allow them to come here.  If that were really their view and they had a soul, they would want to help rescue all those people from their criminal governments and do it there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you expand on this? What do you want our government to do 'over there' exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But unless they come here, they can't vote for Democrats.  So that doesn't interest the left
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last thing anyone cares about is who refugees, who wouldn't become citizens if at all for many, many years is going to vote for. It'd be best if we could eventually relocate them back to their homes though I'm not against them staying either as we need more legal immigration anyway.
Click to expand...

---------------------------------------------   you ASSUME lots of inaccurate info eh  Happy Joy .


----------



## HappyJoy

pismoe said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike473 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In Guatemala, you do not sent your kids to a playground because there's a good chance you will never see them again.  If your oldest son was run down in front of you by cartel members because he wouldn't work for them and a 7 year old across the street was raped and murdered by a local  gang and the police refused to even investigate, I think you would do what is needed to get the fuck out. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who can blame the families trying to escape from that kind of life?
> 
> The problem is not with those people trying to come to the United States, or Donald Trump for that matter. Why not focus on the countries and governments that are so bad that people risk their families lives to escape them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  These humanitarian Democrats describe hell on earth, then want to do nothing to help them other than allow them to come here.  If that were really their view and they had a soul, they would want to help rescue all those people from their criminal governments and do it there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you expand on this? What do you want our government to do 'over there' exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But unless they come here, they can't vote for Democrats.  So that doesn't interest the left
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last thing anyone cares about is who refugees, who wouldn't become citizens if at all for many, many years is going to vote for. It'd be best if we could eventually relocate them back to their homes though I'm not against them staying either as we need more legal immigration anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---------------------------------------   existing AMERICAN kids don't need more ignorant and uneducated non English speaking FOREIGN kids in their classrooms   HappyJoy !!
Click to expand...


What holds kids back is lack of adequate schooling and poverty, I'd be way more concerned about those things than whether the kid sitting next to yours has double the vocabulary.


----------



## HappyJoy

pismoe said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike473 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In Guatemala, you do not sent your kids to a playground because there's a good chance you will never see them again.  If your oldest son was run down in front of you by cartel members because he wouldn't work for them and a 7 year old across the street was raped and murdered by a local  gang and the police refused to even investigate, I think you would do what is needed to get the fuck out. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who can blame the families trying to escape from that kind of life?
> 
> The problem is not with those people trying to come to the United States, or Donald Trump for that matter. Why not focus on the countries and governments that are so bad that people risk their families lives to escape them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  These humanitarian Democrats describe hell on earth, then want to do nothing to help them other than allow them to come here.  If that were really their view and they had a soul, they would want to help rescue all those people from their criminal governments and do it there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you expand on this? What do you want our government to do 'over there' exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But unless they come here, they can't vote for Democrats.  So that doesn't interest the left
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last thing anyone cares about is who refugees, who wouldn't become citizens if at all for many, many years is going to vote for. It'd be best if we could eventually relocate them back to their homes though I'm not against them staying either as we need more legal immigration anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---------------------------------------------   you ASSUME lots of inaccurate info eh  Happy Joy .
Click to expand...


Neat, now point to me where the Democrats are trying to make instant citizens out of immigrants. Short of that, you're lying.

Odd though that in a thread about separating families you are throwing the kitchen sink into the pit.


----------



## pismoe

HappyJoy said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike473 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In Guatemala, you do not sent your kids to a playground because there's a good chance you will never see them again.  If your oldest son was run down in front of you by cartel members because he wouldn't work for them and a 7 year old across the street was raped and murdered by a local  gang and the police refused to even investigate, I think you would do what is needed to get the fuck out. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who can blame the families trying to escape from that kind of life?
> 
> The problem is not with those people trying to come to the United States, or Donald Trump for that matter. Why not focus on the countries and governments that are so bad that people risk their families lives to escape them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  These humanitarian Democrats describe hell on earth, then want to do nothing to help them other than allow them to come here.  If that were really their view and they had a soul, they would want to help rescue all those people from their criminal governments and do it there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you expand on this? What do you want our government to do 'over there' exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But unless they come here, they can't vote for Democrats.  So that doesn't interest the left
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last thing anyone cares about is who refugees, who wouldn't become citizens if at all for many, many years is going to vote for. It'd be best if we could eventually relocate them back to their homes though I'm not against them staying either as we need more legal immigration anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---------------------------------------   existing AMERICAN kids don't need more ignorant and uneducated non English speaking FOREIGN kids in their classrooms   HappyJoy !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What holds kids back is lack of adequate schooling and poverty, I'd be way more concerned about those things than whether the kid sitting next to yours has double the vocabulary.
Click to expand...

------------------------------------------------   well thats yer concern but not mine.   There is no need to put American kids in contact with these uneducated third worlders   HJoy .


----------



## Cellblock2429

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so you're admitting that it's only a valid comparison if they are compatible, which was my point.  He was equating crossing the street with illegal immigration.
> 
> It's hilarious you thought you were contradicting my point when you agreed with it ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jay walking is a minor crime, so is crossing the border, especially with the intent of turning themselves in. I'm sorry, you're argument still sucks and at least you stopped making it (hopefully).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you consider it a minor crime.  You want it to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't want illegal immigration, however I do want more legal immigration and I want the United States to help these refugees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more Democrat voters the better.  You want to award prizes for coming here illegally.  I mean literal prizes.  Welfare, free education, free medical care.  We'll house Mexico's prison population for them.  It's not a minor crime for you at all, it's a major victory!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, none of this is true.
> 
> Just the same, crossing the border is not a major crime. Unless you're a hysterical xenophobe of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and that's been the Republican position.  Cut illegal immigration THEN increase legal.  How do we increase legal immigration when we're importing 1.8 million illegals a year between border crossings and visa overstays?
> 
> And if we did that, would you support actually stopping illegals with real means like walls and jail sentences?   Of course not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal immigration has already been cut, it's been low for quite some time and those that get caught are usually deported. So, now it's time to open up legal immigration and no, I don't believe in walls and don't see much of a point in holding those caught for a first time in our jails, deport them.
Click to expand...

/----/ Really? 
*Surge in Children Separated at Border Floods Facility for ...*
www.nbcboston.com/.../Children-Border-Facility-Undocumented-Immigrants-485539...
6 days ago - The biggest licensed child care facility in the United States for undocumented immigrant children, Casa Padre, houses nearly 1500 boys ...


----------



## kaz

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike473 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In Guatemala, you do not sent your kids to a playground because there's a good chance you will never see them again.  If your oldest son was run down in front of you by cartel members because he wouldn't work for them and a 7 year old across the street was raped and murdered by a local  gang and the police refused to even investigate, I think you would do what is needed to get the fuck out. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who can blame the families trying to escape from that kind of life?
> 
> The problem is not with those people trying to come to the United States, or Donald Trump for that matter. Why not focus on the countries and governments that are so bad that people risk their families lives to escape them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  These humanitarian Democrats describe hell on earth, then want to do nothing to help them other than allow them to come here.  If that were really their view and they had a soul, they would want to help rescue all those people from their criminal governments and do it there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you expand on this? What do you want our government to do 'over there' exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But unless they come here, they can't vote for Democrats.  So that doesn't interest the left
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last thing anyone cares about is who refugees, who wouldn't become citizens if at all for many, many years is going to vote for. It'd be best if we could eventually relocate them back to their homes though I'm not against them staying either as we need more legal immigration anyway.
Click to expand...


You were melting down about guatamala, not me.  What is your plan?


----------



## HappyJoy

pismoe said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike473 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who can blame the families trying to escape from that kind of life?
> 
> The problem is not with those people trying to come to the United States, or Donald Trump for that matter. Why not focus on the countries and governments that are so bad that people risk their families lives to escape them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  These humanitarian Democrats describe hell on earth, then want to do nothing to help them other than allow them to come here.  If that were really their view and they had a soul, they would want to help rescue all those people from their criminal governments and do it there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you expand on this? What do you want our government to do 'over there' exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But unless they come here, they can't vote for Democrats.  So that doesn't interest the left
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last thing anyone cares about is who refugees, who wouldn't become citizens if at all for many, many years is going to vote for. It'd be best if we could eventually relocate them back to their homes though I'm not against them staying either as we need more legal immigration anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---------------------------------------   existing AMERICAN kids don't need more ignorant and uneducated non English speaking FOREIGN kids in their classrooms   HappyJoy !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What holds kids back is lack of adequate schooling and poverty, I'd be way more concerned about those things than whether the kid sitting next to yours has double the vocabulary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ------------------------------------------------   well thats yer concern but not mine.   There is no need to put American kids in contact with these uneducated third worlders   HJoy .
Click to expand...


I know, you want kids today to live a sheltered and mayonnaise life just like you.  Too late.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


/——/ Libtards seething  with rage as they lose yet another talking point: 
*Trump says he's going to sign a 'preemptive' measure to keep migrant families together*


----------



## HappyJoy

Cellblock2429 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jay walking is a minor crime, so is crossing the border, especially with the intent of turning themselves in. I'm sorry, you're argument still sucks and at least you stopped making it (hopefully).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you consider it a minor crime.  You want it to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't want illegal immigration, however I do want more legal immigration and I want the United States to help these refugees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more Democrat voters the better.  You want to award prizes for coming here illegally.  I mean literal prizes.  Welfare, free education, free medical care.  We'll house Mexico's prison population for them.  It's not a minor crime for you at all, it's a major victory!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, none of this is true.
> 
> Just the same, crossing the border is not a major crime. Unless you're a hysterical xenophobe of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and that's been the Republican position.  Cut illegal immigration THEN increase legal.  How do we increase legal immigration when we're importing 1.8 million illegals a year between border crossings and visa overstays?
> 
> And if we did that, would you support actually stopping illegals with real means like walls and jail sentences?   Of course not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal immigration has already been cut, it's been low for quite some time and those that get caught are usually deported. So, now it's time to open up legal immigration and no, I don't believe in walls and don't see much of a point in holding those caught for a first time in our jails, deport them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Really?
> *Surge in Children Separated at Border Floods Facility for ...*
> www.nbcboston.com/.../Children-Border-Facility-Undocumented-Immigrants-485539...
> 6 days ago - The biggest licensed child care facility in the United States for undocumented immigrant children, Casa Padre, houses nearly 1500 boys ...
Click to expand...


Wow, you're not bright. You're article isn't about a surge in immigration it's about a surge in children filling a child care facility because of this specific change in policy by the Trump administration.

See for yourself:

_Children are automatically separated from parents referred for criminal prosecution, and it's led to a surge in children filling the center above its legal capacity. Now, officials in Washington are scrambling to open temporary tent cities around the country. _

Please read your own links and understand your links and sources before using them, retard.

It also demonstrates they are breaking the law since they are above legal capacity, but I bet you 'law & order' types don't care about that, hypocrites.


----------



## pismoe

naw , i want them to be American but really don't care as they will be YOUR kids.   Anyway ,  I'm  an old guy and i have my personal curse for you guys that you get what you deserve .   Already many of YOU liberals are still living in your parent basements , riding skateboards , begging for healthcare and the paltry 15 dollars an hour as you flip burgers .    Anyway , things are working as i expect they will for YOU guys and your kids   HJoy ??


----------



## HappyJoy

kaz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike473 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In Guatemala, you do not sent your kids to a playground because there's a good chance you will never see them again.  If your oldest son was run down in front of you by cartel members because he wouldn't work for them and a 7 year old across the street was raped and murdered by a local  gang and the police refused to even investigate, I think you would do what is needed to get the fuck out. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who can blame the families trying to escape from that kind of life?
> 
> The problem is not with those people trying to come to the United States, or Donald Trump for that matter. Why not focus on the countries and governments that are so bad that people risk their families lives to escape them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  These humanitarian Democrats describe hell on earth, then want to do nothing to help them other than allow them to come here.  If that were really their view and they had a soul, they would want to help rescue all those people from their criminal governments and do it there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you expand on this? What do you want our government to do 'over there' exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But unless they come here, they can't vote for Democrats.  So that doesn't interest the left
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last thing anyone cares about is who refugees, who wouldn't become citizens if at all for many, many years is going to vote for. It'd be best if we could eventually relocate them back to their homes though I'm not against them staying either as we need more legal immigration anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were melting down about guatamala, not me.  What is your plan?
Click to expand...


Get rid of this policy and go back to what we had. Employ more immigration judges so that they can get through this back log quicker. Did you know that currently children as young as 4 and 5 are going to court alone and facing our legal system? Pretty sick.

We also need more legal immigration and these people need a home, many of them probably meet our standards so I'm not against letting many stay, then again, I'm not afraid of taco trucks or whatever keeps you dolts shaking under the covers.

I'd also work with Mexico to take on many of these refugees, but that would require us having a working relationship with them, not sure we have that now.


----------



## pismoe

and its YOU younger hip hop types that are helicopter parents with fat kids playing video games .   I was walking in the woods with my own guns at 10 - 11 years old and fishing in the creek at 7 years old  HJoy  !!


----------



## HappyJoy

pismoe said:


> and its YOU younger hip hop types that are helicopter parents with fat kids playing video games .   I was walking in the woods with my own guns at 10 - 11 years old and fishing in the creek at 7 years old  HJoy  !!



Go find a cloud to yell at, Goober, the world is moving on without you.

Hip hop types, what are you 150 years old?


----------



## pismoe

yep , you hip hopper types are going to get what YOU and your kids deserve .   Begging for nasty healthcare , and the paltry 15 dollars an hour , living in parents basement and riding skateboards and watching your fat widdle kids when they aren't in daycare  HJoy .


----------



## pismoe

Cellblock2429 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Libtards seething  with rage as they lose yet another talking point:
> *Trump says he's going to sign a 'preemptive' measure to keep migrant families together*
Click to expand...

-----------------   well , probably smart , tweak it a TINY bit so it still tweaks the libs like HJoy but tweak it for the elections .


----------



## pismoe

just hearing on El Rushbo that there is nothing that The TRUMP can LEGALLY do about this widdle baby mexican issue and i of course hope that The RUSH is correct .


----------



## kaz

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike473 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In Guatemala, you do not sent your kids to a playground because there's a good chance you will never see them again.  If your oldest son was run down in front of you by cartel members because he wouldn't work for them and a 7 year old across the street was raped and murdered by a local  gang and the police refused to even investigate, I think you would do what is needed to get the fuck out. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who can blame the families trying to escape from that kind of life?
> 
> The problem is not with those people trying to come to the United States, or Donald Trump for that matter. Why not focus on the countries and governments that are so bad that people risk their families lives to escape them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  These humanitarian Democrats describe hell on earth, then want to do nothing to help them other than allow them to come here.  If that were really their view and they had a soul, they would want to help rescue all those people from their criminal governments and do it there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you expand on this? What do you want our government to do 'over there' exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But unless they come here, they can't vote for Democrats.  So that doesn't interest the left
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last thing anyone cares about is who refugees, who wouldn't become citizens if at all for many, many years is going to vote for. It'd be best if we could eventually relocate them back to their homes though I'm not against them staying either as we need more legal immigration anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were melting down about guatamala, not me.  What is your plan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get rid of this policy and go back to what we had. Employ more immigration judges so that they can get through this back log quicker. Did you know that currently children as young as 4 and 5 are going to court alone and facing our legal system? Pretty sick.
> 
> We also need more legal immigration and these people need a home, many of them probably meet our standards so I'm not against letting many stay, then again, I'm not afraid of taco trucks or whatever keeps you dolts shaking under the covers.
> 
> I'd also work with Mexico to take on many of these refugees, but that would require us having a working relationship with them, not sure we have that now.
Click to expand...

So you want to do nothing for the people in guatamala.  Just help the ones you want to vote for Democrats


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ray From Cleveland said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.
> 
> 
> 
> I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
> BTW, Jackson _WAS_ A Democrat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt  since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.
> 
> I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.
Click to expand...


That's also IF we let leftists get away with ignoring the history of the situation and pretending that this all just mysteriously happened since Trump took office.

Ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote
> 
> If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.
> 
> Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.
> 
> So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.
> 
> How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, _separates_, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?
> 
> Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred?
> 
> Why all the emotion and no solution?
> 
> 
> 
> *If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act.  However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have  some documentation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First... I can contend that the exact opposite is true. You can't assume that all of these adults with minors are in fact families.
> 
> Second,  these people had no rights in America (constitutional or otherwise) before they crossed the border illegally, why should they suddenly attain them when they do? If you aren't a citizen, you should not be entitled to constitutional rights until you go through the proper channels. Period. Full stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there are no basic human rights?
Click to expand...


Of course.  We aren't shooting them on sight, we aren't selling them into slavery, we aren't starving or torturing them.  Even in jail, they're housed in better quarters than they had back where they came from.  They're fed regularly.  They're provided clothing if they need it.  They're provided with the speediest processing through the legal system we can manage.

I think the problem here is that you have no clue what a "basic human right" is, and think it means "whatever I want to demand at the moment".


----------



## Cecilie1200

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike473 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In Guatemala, you do not sent your kids to a playground because there's a good chance you will never see them again.  If your oldest son was run down in front of you by cartel members because he wouldn't work for them and a 7 year old across the street was raped and murdered by a local  gang and the police refused to even investigate, I think you would do what is needed to get the fuck out. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who can blame the families trying to escape from that kind of life?
> 
> The problem is not with those people trying to come to the United States, or Donald Trump for that matter. Why not focus on the countries and governments that are so bad that people risk their families lives to escape them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  These humanitarian Democrats describe hell on earth, then want to do nothing to help them other than allow them to come here.  If that were really their view and they had a soul, they would want to help rescue all those people from their criminal governments and do it there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you expand on this? What do you want our government to do 'over there' exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But unless they come here, they can't vote for Democrats.  So that doesn't interest the left
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last thing anyone cares about is who refugees, who wouldn't become citizens if at all for many, many years is going to vote for. It'd be best if we could eventually relocate them back to their homes though I'm not against them staying either as we need more legal immigration anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were melting down about guatamala, not me.  What is your plan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get rid of this policy and go back to what we had. Employ more immigration judges so that they can get through this back log quicker. Did you know that currently children as young as 4 and 5 are going to court alone and facing our legal system? Pretty sick.
> 
> We also need more legal immigration and these people need a home, many of them probably meet our standards so I'm not against letting many stay, then again, I'm not afraid of taco trucks or whatever keeps you dolts shaking under the covers.
> 
> I'd also work with Mexico to take on many of these refugees, but that would require us having a working relationship with them, not sure we have that now.
Click to expand...


No.  We will not go back to catch-and-release.  Not gonna happen.


----------



## HappyJoy

Cecilie1200 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike473 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who can blame the families trying to escape from that kind of life?
> 
> The problem is not with those people trying to come to the United States, or Donald Trump for that matter. Why not focus on the countries and governments that are so bad that people risk their families lives to escape them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  These humanitarian Democrats describe hell on earth, then want to do nothing to help them other than allow them to come here.  If that were really their view and they had a soul, they would want to help rescue all those people from their criminal governments and do it there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you expand on this? What do you want our government to do 'over there' exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But unless they come here, they can't vote for Democrats.  So that doesn't interest the left
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last thing anyone cares about is who refugees, who wouldn't become citizens if at all for many, many years is going to vote for. It'd be best if we could eventually relocate them back to their homes though I'm not against them staying either as we need more legal immigration anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were melting down about guatamala, not me.  What is your plan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get rid of this policy and go back to what we had. Employ more immigration judges so that they can get through this back log quicker. Did you know that currently children as young as 4 and 5 are going to court alone and facing our legal system? Pretty sick.
> 
> We also need more legal immigration and these people need a home, many of them probably meet our standards so I'm not against letting many stay, then again, I'm not afraid of taco trucks or whatever keeps you dolts shaking under the covers.
> 
> I'd also work with Mexico to take on many of these refugees, but that would require us having a working relationship with them, not sure we have that now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  We will not go back to catch-and-release.  Not gonna happen.
Click to expand...


We probably will.


----------



## candycorn

Cecilie1200 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote
> 
> If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.
> 
> Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.
> 
> So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.
> 
> How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, _separates_, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?
> 
> Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred?
> 
> Why all the emotion and no solution?
> 
> 
> 
> *If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act.  However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have  some documentation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First... I can contend that the exact opposite is true. You can't assume that all of these adults with minors are in fact families.
> 
> Second,  these people had no rights in America (constitutional or otherwise) before they crossed the border illegally, why should they suddenly attain them when they do? If you aren't a citizen, you should not be entitled to constitutional rights until you go through the proper channels. Period. Full stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there are no basic human rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course.  We aren't shooting them on sight, we aren't selling them into slavery, we aren't starving or torturing them.  Even in jail, they're housed in better quarters than they had back where they came from.  They're fed regularly.  They're provided clothing if they need it.  They're provided with the speediest processing through the legal system we can manage.
> 
> I think the problem here is that you have no clue what a "basic human right" is, and think it means "whatever I want to demand at the moment".
Click to expand...


“these people had no rights in America (constitutional or otherwise)”

Your problem is that you are not contradicting what I said… It is what TK said.


----------



## Cecilie1200

pismoe said:


> just hearing on El Rushbo that there is nothing that The TRUMP can LEGALLY do about this widdle baby mexican issue and i of course hope that The RUSH is correct .



I have no idea what Rush said, but Trump does NOT have the legal power to change it.  Congress does, and it's high time these leftists start acting like they care about this issue the way they pretend and yank their Congressmembers out from in front of the media cameras and make them do their jobs.


----------



## Cecilie1200

HappyJoy said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  These humanitarian Democrats describe hell on earth, then want to do nothing to help them other than allow them to come here.  If that were really their view and they had a soul, they would want to help rescue all those people from their criminal governments and do it there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you expand on this? What do you want our government to do 'over there' exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But unless they come here, they can't vote for Democrats.  So that doesn't interest the left
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last thing anyone cares about is who refugees, who wouldn't become citizens if at all for many, many years is going to vote for. It'd be best if we could eventually relocate them back to their homes though I'm not against them staying either as we need more legal immigration anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were melting down about guatamala, not me.  What is your plan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get rid of this policy and go back to what we had. Employ more immigration judges so that they can get through this back log quicker. Did you know that currently children as young as 4 and 5 are going to court alone and facing our legal system? Pretty sick.
> 
> We also need more legal immigration and these people need a home, many of them probably meet our standards so I'm not against letting many stay, then again, I'm not afraid of taco trucks or whatever keeps you dolts shaking under the covers.
> 
> I'd also work with Mexico to take on many of these refugees, but that would require us having a working relationship with them, not sure we have that now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  We will not go back to catch-and-release.  Not gonna happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We probably will.
Click to expand...


No, we really won't.  You vastly overestimate how much moral authority you have - none - and how much people care about the good opinions of leftists - we don't.

Trump was elected to enforce immigration law.  It was the primary issue in his campaign and subsequent election win.  You need to figure out that you're not on the majority side on this issue, and learn to live with the fact that you can't stamp your feet and demand the world change itself to suit you.


----------



## Flopper

koshergrl said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Scare them?  You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation.   Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates.  Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the same thugs would think nothing of abducting a child and crossing our border with them.
> 
> Think about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Immigration officials are required to interview all detainees regardless of age.  Do you really think kidnap victims are not going to speak up?
> 
> These families came seeking asylum.  You can not apply for asylum with out complete documentation of all family members.
> Think about that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor children from third world countries who are being abused and threatened and told the American will kill them?  Of course they could lie.  And you're saying keep them in the abuser's hands to keep doing that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I'm saying you don't presume that a family is human traffickers and victims without evidence any more than you would presume that a man carrying a briefcase walking out of a bank is a bank robber.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you stop a criminal at the border who has a kid that isn't his with him...you think that we should allow the kid to stay with that criminal in jail?
> 
> Because that's what you fools are advocating.
Click to expand...

*A person stopped at the boarder, is not a criminal until he or she crosses the border and a court of law declares him guilty of improper entry, a criminal misdemeanor.  Accompanying children are not assumed to be victims of human trafficking without any evidence.  This is called due process, a concept you may find strange.*


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the same thugs would think nothing of abducting a child and crossing our border with them.
> 
> Think about that
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigration officials are required to interview all detainees regardless of age.  Do you really think kidnap victims are not going to speak up?
> 
> These families came seeking asylum.  You can not apply for asylum with out complete documentation of all family members.
> Think about that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor children from third world countries who are being abused and threatened and told the American will kill them?  Of course they could lie.  And you're saying keep them in the abuser's hands to keep doing that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I'm saying you don't presume that a family is human traffickers and victims without evidence any more than you would presume that a man carrying a briefcase walking out of a bank is a bank robber.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you stop a criminal at the border who has a kid that isn't his with him...you think that we should allow the kid to stay with that criminal in jail?
> 
> Because that's what you fools are advocating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A person stopped at the boarder, is not a criminal until he or she crosses the boarder and a court of law declares him guilty of improper entry, a criminal misdemeanor.  Accompanying children are not assumed to be victims of human trafficking without any evidence.  This is called due process, a concept you may find strange.*
Click to expand...


Chuckles, we don't stop them UNTIL they've crossed the border.  They can wander around on the Mexican side all they like, as far as we're concerned.

And yes, they are criminals.  We've discussed this before.  Your inability to comprehend right and wrong, guilty and innocent, moral and immoral, has no impact whatsoever on reality.

Accompanying children are assumed to be in the company of someone caught in the act of breaking the law.  Whether or not that person is the child's parent can be assessed later, but the operative point on the spot is that the adult is being arrested.


----------



## Cecilie1200

forkup said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "My life sucks, so I'm going to break the law, and I'm going to drag my kid along while I do it so that I can use him to get out of being punished."  Yup, that's insanely irresponsible, and they deserve exactly what they get for it.
> 
> Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children".  Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> See link posted above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take that as an "I have nothing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I"ll take that as" I'm to chickenshit to click a link that directly contradicts what I'm claiming"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More like I don't respect you enough to bother scrolling back that far.  If it ain't in the post right above where I'm typing, it ain't worth it.  The only fear you engender in me is the possibility of you drooling on my shoes.
> 
> You have something to say, say it.  You don't, then we're done here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope I'll be able to live my life without having to have earned your respect. I guess I'll just have to life with the emptiness of not having your highly developed intellect enlighten me about why it's justified to separate parents from children because them wanting a better life for their kids.
Click to expand...


I could not possibly care less if you live your life or not.  Just so long as you understand that YOUR opinion has no impact whatsoever on what the law is, what the proper procedure for changing the law is, and whether or not having a good sob story that appeals to simpletons like you somehow changes the law.


----------



## pismoe

Cecilie1200 said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> just hearing on El Rushbo that there is nothing that The TRUMP can LEGALLY do about this widdle baby mexican issue and i of course hope that The RUSH is correct .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what Rush said, but Trump does NOT have the legal power to change it.  Congress does, and it's high time these leftists start acting like they care about this issue the way they pretend and yank their Congressmembers out from in front of the media cameras and make them do their jobs.
Click to expand...

----------------------------  course all i want to see is zero tolerance and the separation that has been happening .


----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## Flopper

Ame®icano said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Lots of good information but the fact remains there is no law that requires Trump to separate the kids from their parents at the border.  This is policy which can be changed at the discretion of the president.  Claiming the law made me do it is just bullshit.  He clearly feels separating the kids from the parents is a determent so why doesn't he admit it.  I'm sure most of his supporters would agree. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you say so. Was there a law to separate kids from parents while Barry was president? Was there law like that while Dubya was president? Both of them were doing it, but only now it's somehow not acceptable.
> 
> Policy hasn't changed, laws neither. Border patrol and DHS are doing their jobs by the book, and if Congress doesn't like the law, than they should change the law.
Click to expand...

*Changing the law to prevent the separation of families during detention means taking the option away from the administration to separate families.  I doubt that congress had ever imagined a president would use children as a pawn to expedite deportation.  Previous administration have separated families when family detention centers were full and when officials felt families should be separated to protect the children.   *


----------



## Cecilie1200

Cellblock2429 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Libtards seething  with rage as they lose yet another talking point:
> *Trump says he's going to sign a 'preemptive' measure to keep migrant families together*
Click to expand...


We shall see whether or not I approve after the document has been drafted.  So long as he stays within all the limits imposed by our actual laws, we're good.  I am encouraged that he appears to be working with Kirstjen Nielsen, who seems to be quite levelheaded and sensible on the subject, and with members of Congress, whose job it ACTUALLY is to fix this long-term.  I am also encouraged that he stated, "I'll be doing something that's somewhat pre-emptive and *ultimately will be matched by legislation* I'm sure."  I don't necessarily have a lot of faith and trust in Trump as a rule, but for the time being, he seems to be within my parameters of acceptability.


----------



## Flopper

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so you're admitting that it's only a valid comparison if they are compatible, which was my point.  He was equating crossing the street with illegal immigration.
> 
> It's hilarious you thought you were contradicting my point when you agreed with it ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jay walking is a minor crime, so is crossing the border, especially with the intent of turning themselves in. I'm sorry, you're argument still sucks and at least you stopped making it (hopefully).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you consider it a minor crime.  You want it to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't want illegal immigration, however I do want more legal immigration and I want the United States to help these refugees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more Democrat voters the better.  You want to award prizes for coming here illegally.  I mean literal prizes.  Welfare, free education, free medical care.  We'll house Mexico's prison population for them.  It's not a minor crime for you at all, it's a major victory!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, none of this is true.
> 
> Just the same, crossing the border is not a major crime. Unless you're a hysterical xenophobe of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and that's been the Republican position.  Cut illegal immigration THEN increase legal.  How do we increase legal immigration when we're importing 1.8 million illegals a year between border crossings and visa overstays?
> 
> And if we did that, would you support actually stopping illegals with real means like walls and jail sentences?   Of course not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal immigration has already been cut, it's been low for quite some time and those that get caught are usually deported. So, now it's time to open up legal immigration and no, I don't believe in walls and don't see much of a point in holding those caught for a first time in our jails, deport them.
Click to expand...

*Yes, illegal immigration has been decreasing ever since Mexico recovered from the recession and border security was increased. In 2000, there was an estimated 1 million people attempted to cross the our southern border, 700,000 in 2006.  In 2016, there were 170,000 arrested at the border and ICE estimates that they're stopping more than 50% attempting to cross.

This trend makes it really tough for Trump because he just doesn't have enough illegal crossings to match deportation figures of previous presidents, even by using expedited deportation, trial in criminal court, and separating families.  It also makes his wall across the southern boarder less important.  

At some point Trump is going to have to concentrate on interior arrests, more that 50 miles from the boarder.  This is where most illegal immigrants live, those that did not enter the country illegally.  It's also where most long term immigrants are found and where expedited deportation can't be use and undocumented immigrants must be heard in immigration court not criminal court.     *


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jay walking is a minor crime, so is crossing the border, especially with the intent of turning themselves in. I'm sorry, you're argument still sucks and at least you stopped making it (hopefully).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you consider it a minor crime.  You want it to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't want illegal immigration, however I do want more legal immigration and I want the United States to help these refugees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more Democrat voters the better.  You want to award prizes for coming here illegally.  I mean literal prizes.  Welfare, free education, free medical care.  We'll house Mexico's prison population for them.  It's not a minor crime for you at all, it's a major victory!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, none of this is true.
> 
> Just the same, crossing the border is not a major crime. Unless you're a hysterical xenophobe of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and that's been the Republican position.  Cut illegal immigration THEN increase legal.  How do we increase legal immigration when we're importing 1.8 million illegals a year between border crossings and visa overstays?
> 
> And if we did that, would you support actually stopping illegals with real means like walls and jail sentences?   Of course not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal immigration has already been cut, it's been low for quite some time and those that get caught are usually deported. So, now it's time to open up legal immigration and no, I don't believe in walls and don't see much of a point in holding those caught for a first time in our jails, deport them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, illegal immigration has been decreasing ever since Mexico recovered from the recession and boarder security was increased. In 2000, there was an estimated 1 million people attempted to cross the our southern boarder, 700,000 in 2006.  In 2016, there were 170,000 arrested at the boarder and ICE estimates that they stopping more than 50% attempting to cross.
> 
> This trend makes it really tough for Trump because he just doesn't have enough illegal crossings to match deportation figures of previous presidents.  It also makes his wall across the southern boarder less important.
> 
> At some point Trump is going to have to concentrate on interior arrests, more that 50 miles from the boarder.  This is where most illegal immigrants live, those that did not enter the country illegally.  It's also where most long term immigrants are found and where expedited deportation can't be use and undocumented immigrants must be heard in immigration court not criminal court.     *
Click to expand...


Okay, dude, seriously.  I generally ignore people's functional illiteracy on the Internet, but do you have any idea how difficult it is to think you're anything but a clueless moron on this subject when you can't even spell "border" correctly?  How in the hell is anyone supposed to answer you as though you're a rational, thinking adult like this?

A "border" is a line separating two political or geographical areas, especially countries.  A "boarder" is a person who receives regular meals when staying somewhere, in return for payment or services.  Just because they sound alike doesn't make them the same word.  English is, presumably, your mother tongue.  PLEASE learn to communicate in it.


----------



## AZGAL

Should asylum seekers heading to the U.S. stay in Mexico?
...
Asylum seekers are not obligated to ask for protection in the first country they enter that is not their own, said immigration attorney Tammy Lin.

“Many countries don’t have a system in place and don’t accept asylum seekers,” Lin said. “Most of the places — if we’re just talking Central Americans — that they’re coming up to don’t have a good system set up, and even if they did go that way, they hardly ever approve anyone.”

She has had clients from the Middle East who lived for periods of time in Jordan or Lebanon before seeking asylum in the U.S. They were able to request asylum here because they were never offered permanent status in those countries.

Canada is the only country that the U.S. has an agreement with regarding “safe third country” designation...


Lin said that having an agreement with Mexico would mean expecting Mexico to have an infrastructure similar enough to the U.S. to process asylum seekers.

“Canada is a first-world country,” Lin said. “It’s not much different from the U.S. They have a good mechanism in place, and they’ve had a system in place for asylum seekers for so long. To require Mexico to do it, they’d have to build it up.”

In 2016, 8,788 people applied for asylum in Mexico, according to a Human Rights First report. Canada received 23,930 asylum applications that year, according to government data. Between asylum applications to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and asylum applications filed in immigration court, the U.S. received more than 180,000 asylum applications in fiscal 2016....


----------



## Cellblock2429

Cecilie1200 said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Libtards seething  with rage as they lose yet another talking point:
> *Trump says he's going to sign a 'preemptive' measure to keep migrant families together*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We shall see whether or not I approve after the document has been drafted.  So long as he stays within all the limits imposed by our actual laws, we're good.  I am encouraged that he appears to be working with Kirstjen Nielsen, who seems to be quite levelheaded and sensible on the subject, and with members of Congress, whose job it ACTUALLY is to fix this long-term.  I am also encouraged that he stated, "I'll be doing something that's somewhat pre-emptive and *ultimately will be matched by legislation* I'm sure."  I don't necessarily have a lot of faith and trust in Trump as a rule, but for the time being, he seems to be within my parameters of acceptability.
Click to expand...

/----/ *"We shall see whether or not I approve "  * Well the country is waiting with baited breath to see if YOU approve.  Rest assure the Leftards need to keep this narrative open so any action by the President will be met with lawsuits and leftist Judges over rulings and might even include democRATs calling for Trump's impeachment for an EO violating a Congressional Bill that yesterday democRATs said didn't exist.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Cellblock2429 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Libtards seething  with rage as they lose yet another talking point:
> *Trump says he's going to sign a 'preemptive' measure to keep migrant families together*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We shall see whether or not I approve after the document has been drafted.  So long as he stays within all the limits imposed by our actual laws, we're good.  I am encouraged that he appears to be working with Kirstjen Nielsen, who seems to be quite levelheaded and sensible on the subject, and with members of Congress, whose job it ACTUALLY is to fix this long-term.  I am also encouraged that he stated, "I'll be doing something that's somewhat pre-emptive and *ultimately will be matched by legislation* I'm sure."  I don't necessarily have a lot of faith and trust in Trump as a rule, but for the time being, he seems to be within my parameters of acceptability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ *"We shall see whether or not I approve "  * Well the country is waiting with baited breath to see if YOU approve.  Rest assure the Leftards need to keep this narrative open so any action by the President will be met with lawsuits and leftist Judges over rulings and might even include democRATs calling for Trump's impeachment for an EO violating a Congressional Bill that yesterday democRATs said didn't exist.
Click to expand...


The country SHOULD be waiting with baited breath to see if I approve, given that my approval is based on what the actual law is, and whether or not it's followed.

Why do I get the feeling that you read only the first line, and then kneejerked to "It MUST be an attack on Trump!  It's a leftist!  Aaaahhhhh!  Return fire!!!!"?

I'm fairly certain that any resolution to this problem which is not a complete revocation of all border enforcement will be rejected by leftists, followed by an hysterically emotional attempt to force the administration to provide the aforementioned revocation of border enforcement.


----------



## Flopper

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike473 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In Guatemala, you do not sent your kids to a playground because there's a good chance you will never see them again.  If your oldest son was run down in front of you by cartel members because he wouldn't work for them and a 7 year old across the street was raped and murdered by a local  gang and the police refused to even investigate, I think you would do what is needed to get the fuck out. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who can blame the families trying to escape from that kind of life?
> 
> The problem is not with those people trying to come to the United States, or Donald Trump for that matter. Why not focus on the countries and governments that are so bad that people risk their families lives to escape them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  These humanitarian Democrats describe hell on earth, then want to do nothing to help them other than allow them to come here.  If that were really their view and they had a soul, they would want to help rescue all those people from their criminal governments and do it there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you expand on this? What do you want our government to do 'over there' exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But unless they come here, they can't vote for Democrats.  So that doesn't interest the left
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last thing anyone cares about is who refugees, who wouldn't become citizens if at all for many, many years is going to vote for. It'd be best if we could eventually relocate them back to their homes though I'm not against them staying either as we need more legal immigration anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were melting down about guatamala, not me.  What is your plan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get rid of this policy and go back to what we had. Employ more immigration judges so that they can get through this back log quicker. Did you know that currently children as young as 4 and 5 are going to court alone and facing our legal system? Pretty sick.
> 
> We also need more legal immigration and these people need a home, many of them probably meet our standards so I'm not against letting many stay, then again, I'm not afraid of taco trucks or whatever keeps you dolts shaking under the covers.
> 
> I'd also work with Mexico to take on many of these refugees, but that would require us having a working relationship with them, not sure we have that now.
Click to expand...

*The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is to persuade the parents to waive a trial and plead guilty. Once they plead guilty, their deportation can be expedited and they will be united with their children in few days or weeks.  If they ask for their day in court, they won't see their children for months, or up to 1 year and they are told this.*


----------



## AZGAL

Migrating North, but to Mexico, Not the U.S.

By Kirk Semple
Feb. 12, 2017

SALTILLO, Mexico — Wendy no longer worries that when her sons leave the apartment in the morning, they may never make it to school. Memories of the gangs that haunted their lives in Honduras are slowly receding into the past.

The family fled its home last year after gang members tried to recruit the boys, threatening them with death if they did not join. They received asylum in Mexico, making them among the country’s newest residents.

“It’s not easy — as you can imagine — starting again,” Wendy said in an interview in this small city in northeastern Mexico, where the family decided to settle. “But we are better here because we are safer.”

The United States has long been the dream destination for many Latin American migrants, whether fleeing poverty, political unrest, natural disaster or violence. But now a growing number of migrants are putting down roots in Mexico, legally or illegally, instead of using it as a thruway to the United States.


----------



## Dragonlady

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the law, dope and we don't  have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.
> 
> Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
> What the approval process is?
> What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
> Is that number trending up or down over time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does any of that make?  We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.
> 
> However they come here anyway, why?  Because of people like you.  If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.
> 
> Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders?  They would quit coming here.  This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really have no idea how much I'm laughing every time you parrot "ripping out of the arms of their parents".  At the point where it became literally impossible for you to use any phrase BUT that, it became farce.
> 
> You leftists are 100% responsible for this happening.  It was YOUR law; YOU insisted on it.  YOU screamed and hollered that it was "the only humane thing to do".  Now you flip on a dime and the complete opposite is "the only humane thing to do".  And you really, genuinely expect us all to gasp in horror on cue, because you're too piss-stupid to realize how obviously you've overplayed your hand.
> 
> Traumatize this, twerp.    No one gives a shit about your melodramatic hyperbole any more.
> 
> The parents are criminals, they're in jail pending hearing, and they're staying in jail pending hearing.  Period.  You can clutch your pearls and screech and wail to your heart's content; no one cares.
Click to expand...


This is the classic conservative gamesmanship whereby they create a crisis in order to be seen as solving it. 

Trump said today he didn’t want to look “weak”. Too late. Nothing makes a grown man look weaker than abusing children to get his way. Nothing makes him look weaker than heaping abuse on asylum seekers. 

A strong leader doesn’t abuse the weakest among you. Trump has revealed himself to be a coward and a weakling. 

Pathetic and deplorable.


----------



## Flopper

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you consider it a minor crime.  You want it to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't want illegal immigration, however I do want more legal immigration and I want the United States to help these refugees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more Democrat voters the better.  You want to award prizes for coming here illegally.  I mean literal prizes.  Welfare, free education, free medical care.  We'll house Mexico's prison population for them.  It's not a minor crime for you at all, it's a major victory!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, none of this is true.
> 
> Just the same, crossing the border is not a major crime. Unless you're a hysterical xenophobe of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and that's been the Republican position.  Cut illegal immigration THEN increase legal.  How do we increase legal immigration when we're importing 1.8 million illegals a year between border crossings and visa overstays?
> 
> And if we did that, would you support actually stopping illegals with real means like walls and jail sentences?   Of course not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal immigration has already been cut, it's been low for quite some time and those that get caught are usually deported. So, now it's time to open up legal immigration and no, I don't believe in walls and don't see much of a point in holding those caught for a first time in our jails, deport them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, illegal immigration has been decreasing ever since Mexico recovered from the recession and boarder security was increased. In 2000, there was an estimated 1 million people attempted to cross the our southern boarder, 700,000 in 2006.  In 2016, there were 170,000 arrested at the boarder and ICE estimates that they stopping more than 50% attempting to cross.
> 
> This trend makes it really tough for Trump because he just doesn't have enough illegal crossings to match deportation figures of previous presidents.  It also makes his wall across the southern boarder less important.
> 
> At some point Trump is going to have to concentrate on interior arrests, more that 50 miles from the boarder.  This is where most illegal immigrants live, those that did not enter the country illegally.  It's also where most long term immigrants are found and where expedited deportation can't be use and undocumented immigrants must be heard in immigration court not criminal court.     *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, dude, seriously.  I generally ignore people's functional illiteracy on the Internet, but do you have any idea how difficult it is to think you're anything but a clueless moron on this subject when you can't even spell "border" correctly?  How in the hell is anyone supposed to answer you as though you're a rational, thinking adult like this?
> 
> A "border" is a line separating two political or geographical areas, especially countries.  A "boarder" is a person who receives regular meals when staying somewhere, in return for payment or services.  Just because they sound alike doesn't make them the same word.  English is, presumably, your mother tongue.  PLEASE learn to communicate in it.
Click to expand...

*Typographical errors are you're response?  That's pretty lame as well as being irrelevant.*


----------



## AZGAL

The centers for the children are run well and run by Hispanics in Texas...


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the same thugs would think nothing of abducting a child and crossing our border with them.
> 
> Think about that
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigration officials are required to interview all detainees regardless of age.  Do you really think kidnap victims are not going to speak up?
> 
> These families came seeking asylum.  You can not apply for asylum with out complete documentation of all family members.
> Think about that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor children from third world countries who are being abused and threatened and told the American will kill them?  Of course they could lie.  And you're saying keep them in the abuser's hands to keep doing that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I'm saying you don't presume that a family is human traffickers and victims without evidence any more than you would presume that a man carrying a briefcase walking out of a bank is a bank robber.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you stop a criminal at the border who has a kid that isn't his with him...you think that we should allow the kid to stay with that criminal in jail?
> 
> Because that's what you fools are advocating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A person stopped at the boarder, is not a criminal until he or she crosses the border and a court of law declares him guilty of improper entry, a criminal misdemeanor.  Accompanying children are not assumed to be victims of human trafficking without any evidence.  This is called due process, a concept you may find strange.*
Click to expand...

Slavery and sex trafficking not a concern, huh?


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jay walking is a minor crime, so is crossing the border, especially with the intent of turning themselves in. I'm sorry, you're argument still sucks and at least you stopped making it (hopefully).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you consider it a minor crime.  You want it to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't want illegal immigration, however I do want more legal immigration and I want the United States to help these refugees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more Democrat voters the better.  You want to award prizes for coming here illegally.  I mean literal prizes.  Welfare, free education, free medical care.  We'll house Mexico's prison population for them.  It's not a minor crime for you at all, it's a major victory!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, none of this is true.
> 
> Just the same, crossing the border is not a major crime. Unless you're a hysterical xenophobe of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and that's been the Republican position.  Cut illegal immigration THEN increase legal.  How do we increase legal immigration when we're importing 1.8 million illegals a year between border crossings and visa overstays?
> 
> And if we did that, would you support actually stopping illegals with real means like walls and jail sentences?   Of course not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal immigration has already been cut, it's been low for quite some time and those that get caught are usually deported. So, now it's time to open up legal immigration and no, I don't believe in walls and don't see much of a point in holding those caught for a first time in our jails, deport them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, illegal immigration has been decreasing ever since Mexico recovered from the recession and border security was increased. In 2000, there was an estimated 1 million people attempted to cross the our southern border, 700,000 in 2006.  In 2016, there were 170,000 arrested at the border and ICE estimates that they're stopping more than 50% attempting to cross.
> 
> This trend makes it really tough for Trump because he just doesn't have enough illegal crossings to match deportation figures of previous presidents, even by using expedited deportation, trial in criminal court, and separating families.  It also makes his wall across the southern boarder less important.
> 
> At some point Trump is going to have to concentrate on interior arrests, more that 50 miles from the boarder.  This is where most illegal immigrants live, those that did not enter the country illegally.  It's also where most long term immigrants are found and where expedited deportation can't be use and undocumented immigrants must be heard in immigration court not criminal court.     *
Click to expand...

Exaggerating, but even so, hundreds of thousands is meh?  Yeah, right


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike473 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who can blame the families trying to escape from that kind of life?
> 
> The problem is not with those people trying to come to the United States, or Donald Trump for that matter. Why not focus on the countries and governments that are so bad that people risk their families lives to escape them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  These humanitarian Democrats describe hell on earth, then want to do nothing to help them other than allow them to come here.  If that were really their view and they had a soul, they would want to help rescue all those people from their criminal governments and do it there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you expand on this? What do you want our government to do 'over there' exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But unless they come here, they can't vote for Democrats.  So that doesn't interest the left
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last thing anyone cares about is who refugees, who wouldn't become citizens if at all for many, many years is going to vote for. It'd be best if we could eventually relocate them back to their homes though I'm not against them staying either as we need more legal immigration anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were melting down about guatamala, not me.  What is your plan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get rid of this policy and go back to what we had. Employ more immigration judges so that they can get through this back log quicker. Did you know that currently children as young as 4 and 5 are going to court alone and facing our legal system? Pretty sick.
> 
> We also need more legal immigration and these people need a home, many of them probably meet our standards so I'm not against letting many stay, then again, I'm not afraid of taco trucks or whatever keeps you dolts shaking under the covers.
> 
> I'd also work with Mexico to take on many of these refugees, but that would require us having a working relationship with them, not sure we have that now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is to persuade the parents to waive a trial and plead guilty. Once they plead guilty, their deportation can be expedited and they will be united with their children in few days or weeks.  If they ask for their day in court, they won't see their children for months, or up to 1 year and they are told this.*
Click to expand...


Good plan.  Dont commit crimes with your kids


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike473 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who can blame the families trying to escape from that kind of life?
> 
> The problem is not with those people trying to come to the United States, or Donald Trump for that matter. Why not focus on the countries and governments that are so bad that people risk their families lives to escape them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  These humanitarian Democrats describe hell on earth, then want to do nothing to help them other than allow them to come here.  If that were really their view and they had a soul, they would want to help rescue all those people from their criminal governments and do it there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you expand on this? What do you want our government to do 'over there' exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But unless they come here, they can't vote for Democrats.  So that doesn't interest the left
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last thing anyone cares about is who refugees, who wouldn't become citizens if at all for many, many years is going to vote for. It'd be best if we could eventually relocate them back to their homes though I'm not against them staying either as we need more legal immigration anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were melting down about guatamala, not me.  What is your plan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get rid of this policy and go back to what we had. Employ more immigration judges so that they can get through this back log quicker. Did you know that currently children as young as 4 and 5 are going to court alone and facing our legal system? Pretty sick.
> 
> We also need more legal immigration and these people need a home, many of them probably meet our standards so I'm not against letting many stay, then again, I'm not afraid of taco trucks or whatever keeps you dolts shaking under the covers.
> 
> I'd also work with Mexico to take on many of these refugees, but that would require us having a working relationship with them, not sure we have that now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is to persuade the parents to waive a trial and plead guilty. Once they plead guilty, their deportation can be expedited and they will be united with their children in few days or weeks.  If they ask for their day in court, they won't see their children for months, or up to 1 year and they are told this.*
Click to expand...


No, it's not.  Most of them plead guilty anyway, because what the hell else can they do?  They've been caught dead to rights.

The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is that the law demands that the kids not be detained.  I realize that the concept of obeying laws is alien to you, but that's YOUR problem.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does any of that make?  We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.
> 
> However they come here anyway, why?  Because of people like you.  If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.
> 
> Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders?  They would quit coming here.  This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum is a "right way", dope.
> 
> Applying for asylum is not a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.
> 
> This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.
> 
> Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really have no idea how much I'm laughing every time you parrot "ripping out of the arms of their parents".  At the point where it became literally impossible for you to use any phrase BUT that, it became farce.
> 
> You leftists are 100% responsible for this happening.  It was YOUR law; YOU insisted on it.  YOU screamed and hollered that it was "the only humane thing to do".  Now you flip on a dime and the complete opposite is "the only humane thing to do".  And you really, genuinely expect us all to gasp in horror on cue, because you're too piss-stupid to realize how obviously you've overplayed your hand.
> 
> Traumatize this, twerp.    No one gives a shit about your melodramatic hyperbole any more.
> 
> The parents are criminals, they're in jail pending hearing, and they're staying in jail pending hearing.  Period.  You can clutch your pearls and screech and wail to your heart's content; no one cares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the classic conservative gamesmanship whereby they create a crisis in order to be seen as solving it.
> 
> Trump said today he didn’t want to look “weak”. Too late. Nothing makes a grown man look weaker than abusing children to get his way. Nothing makes him look weaker than heaping abuse on asylum seekers.
> 
> A strong leader doesn’t abuse the weakest among you. Trump has revealed himself to be a coward and a weakling.
> 
> Pathetic and deplorable.
Click to expand...


This is the classic leftist gamesmanship, projecting your own bad behavior onto others.

Trump didn't create any of this.  If actually enforcing the laws on the books is a problem, it's because LEFTISTS insist on shit laws so that they can hide their real agenda goals behind them.

Nothing makes a leftist look more laughable than hysterical, melodramatic lies.

A strong argument doesn't require wild emotional appeals.

Pathetic and deplorable.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't want illegal immigration, however I do want more legal immigration and I want the United States to help these refugees.
> 
> No, none of this is true.
> 
> Just the same, crossing the border is not a major crime. Unless you're a hysterical xenophobe of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, and that's been the Republican position.  Cut illegal immigration THEN increase legal.  How do we increase legal immigration when we're importing 1.8 million illegals a year between border crossings and visa overstays?
> 
> And if we did that, would you support actually stopping illegals with real means like walls and jail sentences?   Of course not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal immigration has already been cut, it's been low for quite some time and those that get caught are usually deported. So, now it's time to open up legal immigration and no, I don't believe in walls and don't see much of a point in holding those caught for a first time in our jails, deport them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, illegal immigration has been decreasing ever since Mexico recovered from the recession and boarder security was increased. In 2000, there was an estimated 1 million people attempted to cross the our southern boarder, 700,000 in 2006.  In 2016, there were 170,000 arrested at the boarder and ICE estimates that they stopping more than 50% attempting to cross.
> 
> This trend makes it really tough for Trump because he just doesn't have enough illegal crossings to match deportation figures of previous presidents.  It also makes his wall across the southern boarder less important.
> 
> At some point Trump is going to have to concentrate on interior arrests, more that 50 miles from the boarder.  This is where most illegal immigrants live, those that did not enter the country illegally.  It's also where most long term immigrants are found and where expedited deportation can't be use and undocumented immigrants must be heard in immigration court not criminal court.     *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, dude, seriously.  I generally ignore people's functional illiteracy on the Internet, but do you have any idea how difficult it is to think you're anything but a clueless moron on this subject when you can't even spell "border" correctly?  How in the hell is anyone supposed to answer you as though you're a rational, thinking adult like this?
> 
> A "border" is a line separating two political or geographical areas, especially countries.  A "boarder" is a person who receives regular meals when staying somewhere, in return for payment or services.  Just because they sound alike doesn't make them the same word.  English is, presumably, your mother tongue.  PLEASE learn to communicate in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Typographical errors are you're response?  That's pretty lame as well as being irrelevant.*
Click to expand...


No, dipshit, my responses are my response.  Just because you're afraid to acknowledge my posts doesn't mean they aren't there.  Go find them, and quit looking to excuse and deflect from the fact that you argue like an incoherent moron.

THIS is just pointing out that your functional illiteracy makes you look like someone who doesn't deserve the respect of serious answers, and also that reading your illiterate posts is like having sand in my swimsuit.


----------



## Hutch Starskey




----------



## AZGAL

...*This is how MSNBC lies and lies and lies. This spoiled "journalist" probably NEVER has even served soup in an L.A. homeless shelter...
MR. "NATIVE ANGELENO":

@jacobsoboroff  
@MSNBC correspondent. Native Angeleno. Instagram & Snapchat: jacobsoboroff
Los Angeles, CA
Jacob Soboroff‏Verified account @jacobsoboroff Jun 13 


Here are some photos of the boys in the cafeteria. This is not a school cafeteria. Hundreds called to eat at a time on rotating shifts. When I told **@chrislhayes** it felt like a prison or jail, I was thinking about this. 

 *


----------



## AZGAL

*MEANWHILE Homeless Families in L.A.  

 
John and Ken
Rodents and bedbugs keeping homeless out of LA shelters 
posted by Arianna Elwess -                              


With around 43,000 people sleeping on the streets of LA every night, the homeless shelters in the city should be filled. The shelters funded by The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) are at a 78 percent utilization rate in contrast to the 90 percent they are supposed to be at according to their contracts. 

The emptiness could be attributed to a number of things but out of the homeless people surveyed by KPCC, most agreed that the unsanitary conditions and vermin were to blame for the empty beds. 

Homeless man, Craig Aslin, told KPCC he tried The House of Hope, a boarding home in Jefferson Park but says "it sucked, I got eaten up by bedbugs." In 2017, a public health inspector for The House of Hope did not find any bedbugs but did find 17 other health code violations, including evidence of rats, roaches, suspected mold and issues with waste storage and disposal.

The public health department said it does follow-up inspections and sends compliance letters to shelters. It does not, however, shut shelters down.

L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti has proposed funneling $20 million in city funds into creating “temporary” homeless shelters in each of the city’s 15 council districts with the hope that the brand new housing will entice the homeless with promises of clean sheets and better security to help get them back on their feet. *

*listen to the homeless...they know evidence of bedbugs...

*


----------



## Cecilie1200

AZGAL said:


> ...*This is how MSNBC lies and lies and lies. This spoiled "journalist" probably NEVER has even served soup in an L.A. homeless shelter...
> MR. "NATIVE ANGELENO":
> 
> @jacobsoboroff
> @MSNBC correspondent. Native Angeleno. Instagram & Snapchat: jacobsoboroff
> Los Angeles, CA
> Jacob Soboroff‏Verified account @jacobsoboroff Jun 13
> 
> 
> Here are some photos of the boys in the cafeteria. This is not a school cafeteria. Hundreds called to eat at a time on rotating shifts. When I told **@chrislhayes** it felt like a prison or jail, I was thinking about this. View attachment 199903 *



That dimwit's obviously never eaten at a school cafeteria, either.  What does he think happens, a waiter comes to your table and takes your order?  School cafeterias are ALSO "hundreds called to eat at a time on rotating shifts", and standing in line, and the whole deal.  What effing planet is this fool from?


----------



## AZGAL

FCK OFF HOGG BREATH

*Peter Henry Fonda* Retweeted


 *David Hogg*‏Verified account @*davidhogg111* Jun 18

Human beings are not illegal Human beings are not illegal Human beings are not illegal Human beings are not illegal Human beings are not illegal Human beings are one thing, human just like you and me of the same flesh, blood and tears. RT if you agree


----------



## AZGAL

*Calais Jungle*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*Calais Jungle
Jungle de Calais*
Migrant camp




The *Calais Jungle* was a refugee and migrant encampment in the vicinity of Calais, France, in use from January 2015 to October 2016. This camp is a particular example of the ongoing issue of Migrants around Calais, who attempt to enter the United Kingdom via the Port of Calais or the Eurotunnel by stowing away on lorries, ferries, cars, or trains travelling to the UK.[2] The camp gained global attention during the peak of the European migrant crisis in 2015 when the population of the camp rapidly grew and French authorities began carrying out evictions. Some 6,400 migrants were evacuated from the encampment in 170 buses in October 2016, with the intent of resettling them in different regions of France.[3] On 26 October 2016, French authorities announced that the camp had been cleared. As of 26 July 2017 Human Rights Watch has published a report called "Like Living Hell" documenting the continuing human rights abuses by the police against children and adult migrants in the region.

*USA CAMP:
 *


----------



## danielpalos

Let's build cities, over there, so they won't need to come, over here.


----------



## HappyJoy

AZGAL said:


> ...*This is how MSNBC lies and lies and lies. This spoiled "journalist" probably NEVER has even served soup in an L.A. homeless shelter...
> MR. "NATIVE ANGELENO":
> 
> @jacobsoboroff
> @MSNBC correspondent. Native Angeleno. Instagram & Snapchat: jacobsoboroff
> Los Angeles, CA
> Jacob Soboroff‏Verified account @jacobsoboroff Jun 13
> 
> 
> Here are some photos of the boys in the cafeteria. This is not a school cafeteria. Hundreds called to eat at a time on rotating shifts. When I told **@chrislhayes** it felt like a prison or jail, I was thinking about this. View attachment 199903 *



You can leave a shelter, right?


----------



## Cecilie1200

HappyJoy said:


> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...*This is how MSNBC lies and lies and lies. This spoiled "journalist" probably NEVER has even served soup in an L.A. homeless shelter...
> MR. "NATIVE ANGELENO":
> 
> @jacobsoboroff
> @MSNBC correspondent. Native Angeleno. Instagram & Snapchat: jacobsoboroff
> Los Angeles, CA
> Jacob Soboroff‏Verified account @jacobsoboroff Jun 13
> 
> 
> Here are some photos of the boys in the cafeteria. This is not a school cafeteria. Hundreds called to eat at a time on rotating shifts. When I told **@chrislhayes** it felt like a prison or jail, I was thinking about this. View attachment 199903 *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can leave a shelter, right?
Click to expand...


Tell me, if you're REALLY so upset about all this, and REALLY want the problem fixed, how many Democrat Congressmembers have you personally called and lobbied to have them vote on any or all of the legislation being proposed this week?


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Perhaps the answer is for the United States to invade and occupy one of these failed states,  Guatemala maybe and settle all the migrants there under US supervision.


----------



## AZGAL

"You can leave a shelter, right?"* YES, LEGALLY, MAYBE NOT/NO ON A PRACTICAL LEVEL...*


----------



## HappyJoy

Cecilie1200 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...*This is how MSNBC lies and lies and lies. This spoiled "journalist" probably NEVER has even served soup in an L.A. homeless shelter...
> MR. "NATIVE ANGELENO":
> 
> @jacobsoboroff
> @MSNBC correspondent. Native Angeleno. Instagram & Snapchat: jacobsoboroff
> Los Angeles, CA
> Jacob Soboroff‏Verified account @jacobsoboroff Jun 13
> 
> 
> Here are some photos of the boys in the cafeteria. This is not a school cafeteria. Hundreds called to eat at a time on rotating shifts. When I told **@chrislhayes** it felt like a prison or jail, I was thinking about this. View attachment 199903 *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can leave a shelter, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me, if you're REALLY so upset about all this, and REALLY want the problem fixed, how many Democrat Congressmembers have you personally called and lobbied to have them vote on any or all of the legislation being proposed this week?
Click to expand...


I gave a large (to me anyway) donation to a few immigration advocacy groups who are providing legal council to many of these refugees, especially children who show up in court without their parents for which they have been separated from.

Trump is currently caving and at least these kids are now going to be detained with their parents. Not an ideal solution but at least for now a compromise.

What are you doing?


----------



## Cecilie1200

HappyJoy said:


> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...*This is how MSNBC lies and lies and lies. This spoiled "journalist" probably NEVER has even served soup in an L.A. homeless shelter...
> MR. "NATIVE ANGELENO":
> 
> @jacobsoboroff
> @MSNBC correspondent. Native Angeleno. Instagram & Snapchat: jacobsoboroff
> Los Angeles, CA
> Jacob Soboroff‏Verified account @jacobsoboroff Jun 13
> 
> 
> Here are some photos of the boys in the cafeteria. This is not a school cafeteria. Hundreds called to eat at a time on rotating shifts. When I told **@chrislhayes** it felt like a prison or jail, I was thinking about this. View attachment 199903 *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can leave a shelter, right?
Click to expand...


Children aren't, no.  You do get that they're minors, and as such have to remain under adult supervision while in government care, yes?


----------



## AZGAL

*THE LYIN' MEDIA...*


----------



## Cecilie1200

HappyJoy said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...*This is how MSNBC lies and lies and lies. This spoiled "journalist" probably NEVER has even served soup in an L.A. homeless shelter...
> MR. "NATIVE ANGELENO":
> 
> @jacobsoboroff
> @MSNBC correspondent. Native Angeleno. Instagram & Snapchat: jacobsoboroff
> Los Angeles, CA
> Jacob Soboroff‏Verified account @jacobsoboroff Jun 13
> 
> 
> Here are some photos of the boys in the cafeteria. This is not a school cafeteria. Hundreds called to eat at a time on rotating shifts. When I told **@chrislhayes** it felt like a prison or jail, I was thinking about this. View attachment 199903 *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can leave a shelter, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me, if you're REALLY so upset about all this, and REALLY want the problem fixed, how many Democrat Congressmembers have you personally called and lobbied to have them vote on any or all of the legislation being proposed this week?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave a large (to me anyway) donation to a few immigration advocacy groups who are providing legal council to many of these refugees, especially children who show up in court without their parents for which they have been separated from.
> 
> Trump is currently caving and at least these kids are now going to be detained with their parents. Not an ideal solution but at least for now a compromise.
> 
> What are you doing?
Click to expand...


Wow, I didn't ask any of that, so thank you for sharing utterly useless and unsolicited info in an attempt to avoid the question.

When you give a REAL answer, you may ask a question of your own.

Trump has not "caved" at all.  He's been calling for legislative changes on this policy the whole time.  Your determined oblivious state means nothing.

And don't give me "at least NOW they'll be with their parents", as though it wasn't the LEFTISTS who insisted it was "inhumane" to detain the kids with their parents in the first place.


----------



## HappyJoy

Cecilie1200 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...*This is how MSNBC lies and lies and lies. This spoiled "journalist" probably NEVER has even served soup in an L.A. homeless shelter...
> MR. "NATIVE ANGELENO":
> 
> @jacobsoboroff
> @MSNBC correspondent. Native Angeleno. Instagram & Snapchat: jacobsoboroff
> Los Angeles, CA
> Jacob Soboroff‏Verified account @jacobsoboroff Jun 13
> 
> 
> Here are some photos of the boys in the cafeteria. This is not a school cafeteria. Hundreds called to eat at a time on rotating shifts. When I told **@chrislhayes** it felt like a prison or jail, I was thinking about this. View attachment 199903 *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can leave a shelter, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children aren't, no.  You do get that they're minors, and as such have to remain under adult supervision while in government care, yes?
Click to expand...


Then it's not like a shelter now is it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

HappyJoy said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...*This is how MSNBC lies and lies and lies. This spoiled "journalist" probably NEVER has even served soup in an L.A. homeless shelter...
> MR. "NATIVE ANGELENO":
> 
> @jacobsoboroff
> @MSNBC correspondent. Native Angeleno. Instagram & Snapchat: jacobsoboroff
> Los Angeles, CA
> Jacob Soboroff‏Verified account @jacobsoboroff Jun 13
> 
> 
> Here are some photos of the boys in the cafeteria. This is not a school cafeteria. Hundreds called to eat at a time on rotating shifts. When I told **@chrislhayes** it felt like a prison or jail, I was thinking about this. View attachment 199903 *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can leave a shelter, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children aren't, no.  You do get that they're minors, and as such have to remain under adult supervision while in government care, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it's not like a shelter now is it.
Click to expand...


Try to understand English.  Children who are under government care are not allowed to wander away from that care.  ANY children, including the ones in shelters.  So yeah, it's like a shelter.

Effing illiterate leftist boobs.


----------



## HappyJoy

Cecilie1200 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...*This is how MSNBC lies and lies and lies. This spoiled "journalist" probably NEVER has even served soup in an L.A. homeless shelter...
> MR. "NATIVE ANGELENO":
> 
> @jacobsoboroff
> @MSNBC correspondent. Native Angeleno. Instagram & Snapchat: jacobsoboroff
> Los Angeles, CA
> Jacob Soboroff‏Verified account @jacobsoboroff Jun 13
> 
> 
> Here are some photos of the boys in the cafeteria. This is not a school cafeteria. Hundreds called to eat at a time on rotating shifts. When I told **@chrislhayes** it felt like a prison or jail, I was thinking about this. View attachment 199903 *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can leave a shelter, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children aren't, no.  You do get that they're minors, and as such have to remain under adult supervision while in government care, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it's not like a shelter now is it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to understand English.  Children who are under government care are not allowed to wander away from that care.  ANY children, including the ones in shelters.  So yeah, it's like a shelter.
> 
> Effing illiterate leftists boobs.
Click to expand...


Let's not call them shelters then.


----------



## Thinker101

HappyJoy said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...*This is how MSNBC lies and lies and lies. This spoiled "journalist" probably NEVER has even served soup in an L.A. homeless shelter...
> MR. "NATIVE ANGELENO":
> 
> @jacobsoboroff
> @MSNBC correspondent. Native Angeleno. Instagram & Snapchat: jacobsoboroff
> Los Angeles, CA
> Jacob Soboroff‏Verified account @jacobsoboroff Jun 13
> 
> 
> Here are some photos of the boys in the cafeteria. This is not a school cafeteria. Hundreds called to eat at a time on rotating shifts. When I told **@chrislhayes** it felt like a prison or jail, I was thinking about this. View attachment 199903 *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can leave a shelter, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children aren't, no.  You do get that they're minors, and as such have to remain under adult supervision while in government care, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it's not like a shelter now is it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to understand English.  Children who are under government care are not allowed to wander away from that care.  ANY children, including the ones in shelters.  So yeah, it's like a shelter.
> 
> Effing illiterate leftists boobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not call them shelters then.
Click to expand...


What difference does it make, we already know liberals are notorious for eliminating words and/or adding different words....trying to tell us what it really means.


----------



## HappyJoy

Thinker101 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can leave a shelter, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Children aren't, no.  You do get that they're minors, and as such have to remain under adult supervision while in government care, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it's not like a shelter now is it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to understand English.  Children who are under government care are not allowed to wander away from that care.  ANY children, including the ones in shelters.  So yeah, it's like a shelter.
> 
> Effing illiterate leftists boobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not call them shelters then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What difference does it make, we already know liberals are notorious for eliminating words and/or adding different words....trying to tell us what it really means.
Click to expand...


I suggest people read your post in a valley girl accent. Trust me, it works perfectly.


----------



## Cecilie1200

HappyJoy said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...*This is how MSNBC lies and lies and lies. This spoiled "journalist" probably NEVER has even served soup in an L.A. homeless shelter...
> MR. "NATIVE ANGELENO":
> 
> @jacobsoboroff
> @MSNBC correspondent. Native Angeleno. Instagram & Snapchat: jacobsoboroff
> Los Angeles, CA
> Jacob Soboroff‏Verified account @jacobsoboroff Jun 13
> 
> 
> Here are some photos of the boys in the cafeteria. This is not a school cafeteria. Hundreds called to eat at a time on rotating shifts. When I told **@chrislhayes** it felt like a prison or jail, I was thinking about this. View attachment 199903 *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can leave a shelter, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children aren't, no.  You do get that they're minors, and as such have to remain under adult supervision while in government care, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it's not like a shelter now is it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to understand English.  Children who are under government care are not allowed to wander away from that care.  ANY children, including the ones in shelters.  So yeah, it's like a shelter.
> 
> Effing illiterate leftists boobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not call them shelters then.
Click to expand...


Riiiiight.  They're like shelters, so that means we shouldn't call them that.

Makes perfect sense . . . if you're a leftwing lunatic with oatmeal for brains.


----------



## HappyJoy

Cecilie1200 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can leave a shelter, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Children aren't, no.  You do get that they're minors, and as such have to remain under adult supervision while in government care, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it's not like a shelter now is it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to understand English.  Children who are under government care are not allowed to wander away from that care.  ANY children, including the ones in shelters.  So yeah, it's like a shelter.
> 
> Effing illiterate leftists boobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not call them shelters then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riiiiight.  They're like shelters, so that means we shouldn't call them that.
> 
> Makes perfect sense . . . if you're a leftwing lunatic with oatmeal for brains.
Click to expand...


They aren't shelters.


----------



## Cecilie1200

HappyJoy said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children aren't, no.  You do get that they're minors, and as such have to remain under adult supervision while in government care, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's not like a shelter now is it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to understand English.  Children who are under government care are not allowed to wander away from that care.  ANY children, including the ones in shelters.  So yeah, it's like a shelter.
> 
> Effing illiterate leftists boobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not call them shelters then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riiiiight.  They're like shelters, so that means we shouldn't call them that.
> 
> Makes perfect sense . . . if you're a leftwing lunatic with oatmeal for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't shelters.
Click to expand...


By the way, HOW many Congressmembers did you say you had called to demand legislation on this VERY serious problem that you care SO MUCH about?


----------



## HappyJoy

Cecilie1200 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's not like a shelter now is it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try to understand English.  Children who are under government care are not allowed to wander away from that care.  ANY children, including the ones in shelters.  So yeah, it's like a shelter.
> 
> Effing illiterate leftists boobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not call them shelters then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riiiiight.  They're like shelters, so that means we shouldn't call them that.
> 
> Makes perfect sense . . . if you're a leftwing lunatic with oatmeal for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't shelters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the way, HOW many Congressmembers did you say you had called to demand legislation on this VERY serious problem that you care SO MUCH about?
Click to expand...


There's already legislation up that every Democrat in the senate has signed onto that I agree with. 

Have you called the White House and begged them to stop caving yet?


----------



## Cecilie1200

HappyJoy said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to understand English.  Children who are under government care are not allowed to wander away from that care.  ANY children, including the ones in shelters.  So yeah, it's like a shelter.
> 
> Effing illiterate leftists boobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not call them shelters then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riiiiight.  They're like shelters, so that means we shouldn't call them that.
> 
> Makes perfect sense . . . if you're a leftwing lunatic with oatmeal for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't shelters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the way, HOW many Congressmembers did you say you had called to demand legislation on this VERY serious problem that you care SO MUCH about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's already legislation up that every Democrat in the senate has signed onto that I agree with.
> 
> Have you called the White House and begged them to stop caving yet?
Click to expand...


Really?  Specifically, what legislation have the Democrats given us to solve this problem?  And why didn't they pass it back when they were in control of Congress?

Since they haven't "caved", no.

Again, there's no amount of lying you can do which will change the facts.  Your steadfast determination to ignore everything Trump has said on this subject doesn't mean he didn't say it.


----------



## HappyJoy

Cecilie1200 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not call them shelters then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiight.  They're like shelters, so that means we shouldn't call them that.
> 
> Makes perfect sense . . . if you're a leftwing lunatic with oatmeal for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't shelters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the way, HOW many Congressmembers did you say you had called to demand legislation on this VERY serious problem that you care SO MUCH about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's already legislation up that every Democrat in the senate has signed onto that I agree with.
> 
> Have you called the White House and begged them to stop caving yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Specifically, what legislation have the Democrats given us to solve this problem?  And why didn't they pass it back when they were in control of Congress?
Click to expand...


There wasn't a policy of separating all families until Trump started it. Anyway, it's Diane Feinstein's bill, it's made news in the normal world, I guess it hasn't hit Alex Jones or Fox News or Zero Hedge, whatever shithole you get your news from.



> Since they haven't "caved", no.



Apparently they are going to stop separating families, did you miss that too? Or were you against it now all along?



> Again, there's no amount of lying you can do which will change the facts.  Your steadfast determination to ignore everything Trump has said on this subject doesn't mean he didn't say it.



Haven't lied one bit.


----------



## AZGAL

...So, "Happy Joy" Your word games will not change anything at all.  You argue semantics, not truth. THE PLACES that these immigrant children are going to temporarily are DECENT by any means. MOST LIKELY these children have never had it this good, right, since they have been on a long, arduous road through Mexico, and left undesirable conditions elsewhere. My point is that THIS IS OUR COUNTRY and many of our citizens are SUFFERING in deplorable conditions in USA shelters. NO ONE CARES if they can leave or not. WHY did they fall into these awful cracks in the USA? No, it is not all their fault. IT IS THE COMPARISON of rotten "shelters" for our own citizens (that many look away from the sad reality of this suffering) WITH pretty decent conditions in the "shelters" for the newly arrived immigrant children. The sadness in separating from parents is EMOTIONAL, yet brief, and THE LYIN' MEDIA are out there filming what looks to most people like a RELIEF for these children in a WELCOMING WAY. The media is calling one thing another and misrepresenting the situation in a highly irresponsible manner.


----------



## Cecilie1200

HappyJoy said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiight.  They're like shelters, so that means we shouldn't call them that.
> 
> Makes perfect sense . . . if you're a leftwing lunatic with oatmeal for brains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't shelters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the way, HOW many Congressmembers did you say you had called to demand legislation on this VERY serious problem that you care SO MUCH about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's already legislation up that every Democrat in the senate has signed onto that I agree with.
> 
> Have you called the White House and begged them to stop caving yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Specifically, what legislation have the Democrats given us to solve this problem?  And why didn't they pass it back when they were in control of Congress?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There wasn't a policy of separating all families until Trump started it. Anyway, it's Diane Feinstein's bill, it's made news in the normal world, I guess it hasn't hit Alex Jones or Fox News or Zero Hedge, whatever shithole you get your news from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since they haven't "caved", no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently they are going to stop separating families, did you miss that too? Or were you against it now all along?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, there's no amount of lying you can do which will change the facts.  Your steadfast determination to ignore everything Trump has said on this subject doesn't mean he didn't say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haven't lied one bit.
Click to expand...


No, there wasn't a policy of enforcing illegal immigration law until Trump started it.

Anyway, it's amazing how you're such a big fan of this bill, but can't actually tell me what it is.

It's a lie to say Trump "caved", or that he started a policy of separating families, or to pretend that he hasn't been calling for this law you pretend doesn't exist to be changed all along.  Come to think of it, it's also a lie for you to pretend the Flores Settlement and the Ninth Circuit ruling regarding it don't exist.


----------



## Flopper

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, and that's been the Republican position.  Cut illegal immigration THEN increase legal.  How do we increase legal immigration when we're importing 1.8 million illegals a year between border crossings and visa overstays?
> 
> And if we did that, would you support actually stopping illegals with real means like walls and jail sentences?   Of course not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal immigration has already been cut, it's been low for quite some time and those that get caught are usually deported. So, now it's time to open up legal immigration and no, I don't believe in walls and don't see much of a point in holding those caught for a first time in our jails, deport them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, illegal immigration has been decreasing ever since Mexico recovered from the recession and boarder security was increased. In 2000, there was an estimated 1 million people attempted to cross the our southern boarder, 700,000 in 2006.  In 2016, there were 170,000 arrested at the boarder and ICE estimates that they stopping more than 50% attempting to cross.
> 
> This trend makes it really tough for Trump because he just doesn't have enough illegal crossings to match deportation figures of previous presidents.  It also makes his wall across the southern boarder less important.
> 
> At some point Trump is going to have to concentrate on interior arrests, more that 50 miles from the boarder.  This is where most illegal immigrants live, those that did not enter the country illegally.  It's also where most long term immigrants are found and where expedited deportation can't be use and undocumented immigrants must be heard in immigration court not criminal court.     *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, dude, seriously.  I generally ignore people's functional illiteracy on the Internet, but do you have any idea how difficult it is to think you're anything but a clueless moron on this subject when you can't even spell "border" correctly?  How in the hell is anyone supposed to answer you as though you're a rational, thinking adult like this?
> 
> A "border" is a line separating two political or geographical areas, especially countries.  A "boarder" is a person who receives regular meals when staying somewhere, in return for payment or services.  Just because they sound alike doesn't make them the same word.  English is, presumably, your mother tongue.  PLEASE learn to communicate in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Typographical errors are you're response?  That's pretty lame as well as being irrelevant.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, dipshit, my responses are my response.  Just because you're afraid to acknowledge my posts doesn't mean they aren't there.  Go find them, and quit looking to excuse and deflect from the fact that you argue like an incoherent moron.
> 
> THIS is just pointing out that your functional illiteracy makes you look like someone who doesn't deserve the respect of serious answers, and also that reading your illiterate posts is like having sand in my swimsuit.
Click to expand...


Oh bull
Separating the family is now a mute point since the orange clown just caved in under pressure from the party. He added that no one has had the "political courage" to take care of the issue which he claims has gone on for over 60 years. Wow, what a clown.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal immigration has already been cut, it's been low for quite some time and those that get caught are usually deported. So, now it's time to open up legal immigration and no, I don't believe in walls and don't see much of a point in holding those caught for a first time in our jails, deport them.
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, illegal immigration has been decreasing ever since Mexico recovered from the recession and boarder security was increased. In 2000, there was an estimated 1 million people attempted to cross the our southern boarder, 700,000 in 2006.  In 2016, there were 170,000 arrested at the boarder and ICE estimates that they stopping more than 50% attempting to cross.
> 
> This trend makes it really tough for Trump because he just doesn't have enough illegal crossings to match deportation figures of previous presidents.  It also makes his wall across the southern boarder less important.
> 
> At some point Trump is going to have to concentrate on interior arrests, more that 50 miles from the boarder.  This is where most illegal immigrants live, those that did not enter the country illegally.  It's also where most long term immigrants are found and where expedited deportation can't be use and undocumented immigrants must be heard in immigration court not criminal court.     *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, dude, seriously.  I generally ignore people's functional illiteracy on the Internet, but do you have any idea how difficult it is to think you're anything but a clueless moron on this subject when you can't even spell "border" correctly?  How in the hell is anyone supposed to answer you as though you're a rational, thinking adult like this?
> 
> A "border" is a line separating two political or geographical areas, especially countries.  A "boarder" is a person who receives regular meals when staying somewhere, in return for payment or services.  Just because they sound alike doesn't make them the same word.  English is, presumably, your mother tongue.  PLEASE learn to communicate in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Typographical errors are you're response?  That's pretty lame as well as being irrelevant.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, dipshit, my responses are my response.  Just because you're afraid to acknowledge my posts doesn't mean they aren't there.  Go find them, and quit looking to excuse and deflect from the fact that you argue like an incoherent moron.
> 
> THIS is just pointing out that your functional illiteracy makes you look like someone who doesn't deserve the respect of serious answers, and also that reading your illiterate posts is like having sand in my swimsuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh bull
> Separating the family is now a mute point since the orange clown just caved in under pressure from the party. He added that no one has had the "political courage" to take care of the issue which he claims has gone on for over 60 years. Wow, what a clown.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


MOOT point.  It's a MOOT point.

Jesus, who the fuck did you learn English from?

"The orange clown" has been calling for a change in the law the whole time.  If you didn't know that, that's your problem, no one else's.


----------



## AZGAL

*Migrant Caravan Heading To US Border Puts Mexico In Tough Spot With Trump*
* Local officials have offered lodging and arranged transport for the migrants, in a journey organized by immigrant advocacy group Pueblo Sin Fronteras. *
World | Reuters | Updated: April 03, 2018 11:43 IST
    by Taboola 
 
Central American migrants participating in a caravan heading to the US take rest in Matias

*MEXICO/EDINBURGH: * In some of the Mexican towns playing host to a "caravan" of more than 1,200 Central American migrants heading to the U.S. border, the welcome mat has been rolled out despite President Donald Trump's call for Mexican authorities to stop them.

Local officials have offered lodging in town squares and empty warehouses or arranged transport for the migrants, participants in a journey organized by the immigrant advocacy group Pueblo Sin Fronteras. The officials have conscripted buses, cars, ambulances and police trucks. But the help may not be entirely altruistic.

"The authorities want us to leave their cities," said Rodrigo Abeja, an organizer from Pueblo Sin Fronteras. "They've been helping us, in part to speed the massive group out of their jurisdictions."

At some point this spring, the caravan's 2,000-mile (3,200-km) journey that began at Tapachula near the Guatemalan border on March 25 will end at the U.S. border, where some of its members will apply for asylum, while others will attempt to sneak into the United States.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Since Happy couldn't actually cite the bill he claims to be SUCH a fan of, I went and found it myself.  Thought you all might like to hear Dianne Feinstein's idea of "fixing" the problem.

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pu...EAD252B3F78.keeping-families-together-act.pdf

You'll have to read it yourselves, because the way it's formatted doesn't lend itself to cutting-and-pasting very well.  Just a hint:  doesn't actually change a damned thing, because Feinstein refuses to admit that a law actually exists that needs to be changed.


----------



## AZGAL

This is the Caravan at a Mexico stop. Do our "shelters" look horrible?


----------



## Flopper

Cecilie1200 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't shelters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, HOW many Congressmembers did you say you had called to demand legislation on this VERY serious problem that you care SO MUCH about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's already legislation up that every Democrat in the senate has signed onto that I agree with.
> 
> Have you called the White House and begged them to stop caving yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Specifically, what legislation have the Democrats given us to solve this problem?  And why didn't they pass it back when they were in control of Congress?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There wasn't a policy of separating all families until Trump started it. Anyway, it's Diane Feinstein's bill, it's made news in the normal world, I guess it hasn't hit Alex Jones or Fox News or Zero Hedge, whatever shithole you get your news from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since they haven't "caved", no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently they are going to stop separating families, did you miss that too? Or were you against it now all along?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, there's no amount of lying you can do which will change the facts.  Your steadfast determination to ignore everything Trump has said on this subject doesn't mean he didn't say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haven't lied one bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there wasn't a policy of enforcing illegal immigration law until Trump started it.
> 
> Anyway, it's amazing how you're such a big fan of this bill, but can't actually tell me what it is.
> 
> It's a lie to say Trump "caved", or that he started a policy of separating families, or to pretend that he hasn't been calling for this law you pretend doesn't exist to be changed all along.  Come to think of it, it's also a lie for you to pretend the Flores Settlement and the Ninth Circuit ruling regarding it don't exist.
Click to expand...


Yes it was because he really cared about these kids, not the fact that the party was’t behind him and only 17 percent of the public approved. He’s just big softy. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AZGAL

SEE THE CONVERTED WALMART IDEA in THE USA: View attachment 199958


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, HOW many Congressmembers did you say you had called to demand legislation on this VERY serious problem that you care SO MUCH about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's already legislation up that every Democrat in the senate has signed onto that I agree with.
> 
> Have you called the White House and begged them to stop caving yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Specifically, what legislation have the Democrats given us to solve this problem?  And why didn't they pass it back when they were in control of Congress?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There wasn't a policy of separating all families until Trump started it. Anyway, it's Diane Feinstein's bill, it's made news in the normal world, I guess it hasn't hit Alex Jones or Fox News or Zero Hedge, whatever shithole you get your news from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since they haven't "caved", no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently they are going to stop separating families, did you miss that too? Or were you against it now all along?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, there's no amount of lying you can do which will change the facts.  Your steadfast determination to ignore everything Trump has said on this subject doesn't mean he didn't say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haven't lied one bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there wasn't a policy of enforcing illegal immigration law until Trump started it.
> 
> Anyway, it's amazing how you're such a big fan of this bill, but can't actually tell me what it is.
> 
> It's a lie to say Trump "caved", or that he started a policy of separating families, or to pretend that he hasn't been calling for this law you pretend doesn't exist to be changed all along.  Come to think of it, it's also a lie for you to pretend the Flores Settlement and the Ninth Circuit ruling regarding it don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it was because he really cared about these kids, not the fact that the party was’t behind him and only 17 percent of the public approved. He’s just big softy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


At least as believable as leftists caring about these kids, when they haven't done a fucking thing to change the situation.


----------



## AZGAL

Latin America
*Desperation In Puerto Rican Town Where 60 Percent Are Now Homeless* 
September 25, 2017 4:31 PM ET
Heard on All Things Considered

*The Two-Way *
* 'You Have To Try': Puerto Ricans, Without Power, Find Ways Forward*
Although there's food provided at the shelter, there is no running water. At night, she says, with no power residents are left in the dark and are awakened sometimes by the sound of gunshots nearby. But for Rivera and many others at the shelter, their biggest worry is health care.

"My husband is a kidney transplant survivor," Rivera says, her voice trembling with emotion. "He's diabetic and we don't have ice to store his insulin." She opens a blue plastic cooler where she's trying to keep her husband's insulin cold. The medicines are inside a white plastic bag floating in water. "We desperately need ice," she says.

Carmen Huerta, 67, has a hard time walking. Her health, too, is compromised. "I suffer from sleep apnea, diabetes ... high blood pressure, poor blood circulation and arthritis," she says, adding that her 74-year-old husband is not well either. She says he has Alzheimer's, anxiety and prostate cancer.

The couple are sitting in a scorching classroom on the ground level at the shelter. The pungent odor of sewage is overpowering. They came to the shelter on Tuesday before the storm. Huerta pulls her long skirt up and shows her red, bursting ankles. "See how swollen they are," she says, adding that she spent four days "sitting on my walker" until a brown lazy chair was donated. She says she wants to go home to the Barriada de Juana Matos area of Cataño. With her eyes filling with tears she says, "They treat me well here, but I'm very uncomfortable."


----------



## HappyJoy

Cecilie1200 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't shelters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, HOW many Congressmembers did you say you had called to demand legislation on this VERY serious problem that you care SO MUCH about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's already legislation up that every Democrat in the senate has signed onto that I agree with.
> 
> Have you called the White House and begged them to stop caving yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Specifically, what legislation have the Democrats given us to solve this problem?  And why didn't they pass it back when they were in control of Congress?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There wasn't a policy of separating all families until Trump started it. Anyway, it's Diane Feinstein's bill, it's made news in the normal world, I guess it hasn't hit Alex Jones or Fox News or Zero Hedge, whatever shithole you get your news from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since they haven't "caved", no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently they are going to stop separating families, did you miss that too? Or were you against it now all along?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, there's no amount of lying you can do which will change the facts.  Your steadfast determination to ignore everything Trump has said on this subject doesn't mean he didn't say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haven't lied one bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there wasn't a policy of enforcing illegal immigration law until Trump started it.
Click to expand...


That's just a stupid statement right there. 



> Anyway, it's amazing how you're such a big fan of this bill, but can't actually tell me what it is.



I've already posted it elsewhere. Here it is, ignore it at your leisure.

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pu...EAD252B3F78.keeping-families-together-act.pdf



> It's a lie to say Trump "caved", or that he started a policy of separating families, or to pretend that he hasn't been calling for this law you pretend doesn't exist to be changed all along.  Come to think of it, it's also a lie for you to pretend the Flores Settlement and the Ninth Circuit ruling regarding it don't exist.



What law requires all families to be separated? It doesn't exist. And yes, Trump is caving, he's going to stop separating families. Catch up.

Damn, why are you so angry anyway? It's like someone took your mommy away.


----------



## AZGAL

*What Honduras

 needs is medical teams and mission trip people. *


----------



## AZGAL

FROM
*Amid booming economy, homelessness soars on US West Coast*
*
By GILLIAN FLACCUS and GEOFF MULVIHILL * Associated Press
November 8, 2017 — 6:20pm

"A recent count in Los Angeles, for example, found that those ages 18 to 24 were the fastest-growing homeless group by age, up 64 percent, followed by those under 18. Los Angeles and other cities have made a concerted effort to improve their tallies of homeless youth, which likely accounts for some of the increase.

One of the reasons is the combined cost of housing and tuition, said Will Lehman, policy supervisor at Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority. A recent study by the University of Wisconsin found that one in five Los Angeles Community College District students is homeless, he said.

"They can pay for books, for classes but just can't afford an apartment. They're choosing to prioritize going to school," Lehman said. "They don't choose their situation."


----------



## AZGAL

*The first Banana Republic is Honduras
  *


----------



## AZGAL

_TEXAS TRIBUNE_
*U.S. Justice Department won't fight Texas' efforts to end DACA*

The U.S. Justice Department said late Friday it agrees the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program should be terminated. That court filing came after Texas and six other states filed a lawsuit last month to end the 2012 program.

by Julián Aguilar June 9, 2018 11 AM


----------



## AZGAL

_TEXAS TRIBUNE_
*Donald Trump reverses course, signs an executive order to stop separating families*

Meanwhile, members of Congress are working on legislation to address the issue.

by Emma Platoff and Claire Parker June 20, 2018 Updated: 3 hours ago


----------



## AZGAL




----------



## Thinker101

HappyJoy said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children aren't, no.  You do get that they're minors, and as such have to remain under adult supervision while in government care, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's not like a shelter now is it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to understand English.  Children who are under government care are not allowed to wander away from that care.  ANY children, including the ones in shelters.  So yeah, it's like a shelter.
> 
> Effing illiterate leftists boobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not call them shelters then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What difference does it make, we already know liberals are notorious for eliminating words and/or adding different words....trying to tell us what it really means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest people read your post in a valley girl accent. Trust me, it works perfectly.
Click to expand...


If nothing else, how about a Hillary accent for the first part....dumbass.


----------



## HappyJoy

Thinker101 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's not like a shelter now is it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try to understand English.  Children who are under government care are not allowed to wander away from that care.  ANY children, including the ones in shelters.  So yeah, it's like a shelter.
> 
> Effing illiterate leftists boobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not call them shelters then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What difference does it make, we already know liberals are notorious for eliminating words and/or adding different words....trying to tell us what it really means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest people read your post in a valley girl accent. Trust me, it works perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If nothing else, how about a Hillary accent for the first part....dumbass.
Click to expand...


Cringe. Get over her already.


----------



## Thinker101

HappyJoy said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to understand English.  Children who are under government care are not allowed to wander away from that care.  ANY children, including the ones in shelters.  So yeah, it's like a shelter.
> 
> Effing illiterate leftists boobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not call them shelters then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What difference does it make, we already know liberals are notorious for eliminating words and/or adding different words....trying to tell us what it really means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest people read your post in a valley girl accent. Trust me, it works perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If nothing else, how about a Hillary accent for the first part....dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cringe. Get over her already.
Click to expand...


You bet.  Hey, you might like this one:
And the Hillary plot thickens....


----------



## Flopper

HappyJoy said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, HOW many Congressmembers did you say you had called to demand legislation on this VERY serious problem that you care SO MUCH about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's already legislation up that every Democrat in the senate has signed onto that I agree with.
> 
> Have you called the White House and begged them to stop caving yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Specifically, what legislation have the Democrats given us to solve this problem?  And why didn't they pass it back when they were in control of Congress?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There wasn't a policy of separating all families until Trump started it. Anyway, it's Diane Feinstein's bill, it's made news in the normal world, I guess it hasn't hit Alex Jones or Fox News or Zero Hedge, whatever shithole you get your news from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since they haven't "caved", no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently they are going to stop separating families, did you miss that too? Or were you against it now all along?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, there's no amount of lying you can do which will change the facts.  Your steadfast determination to ignore everything Trump has said on this subject doesn't mean he didn't say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haven't lied one bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there wasn't a policy of enforcing illegal immigration law until Trump started it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just a stupid statement right there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, it's amazing how you're such a big fan of this bill, but can't actually tell me what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already posted it elsewhere. Here it is, ignore it at your leisure.
> 
> https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pu...EAD252B3F78.keeping-families-together-act.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a lie to say Trump "caved", or that he started a policy of separating families, or to pretend that he hasn't been calling for this law you pretend doesn't exist to be changed all along.  Come to think of it, it's also a lie for you to pretend the Flores Settlement and the Ninth Circuit ruling regarding it don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What law requires all families to be separated? It doesn't exist. And yes, Trump is caving, he's going to stop separating families. Catch up.
> 
> Damn, why are you so angry anyway? It's like someone took your mommy away.
Click to expand...

*You don't understand the Trump magic.  Just yesterday, Trump had to separate the kids from their parents because the law required it. Then the magic, the law today no longer requires separation.   However, Trump says the family can only be united for 20 days and then it becomes illegal again to keep them together.           *


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> Remember what a dick you were about Trump calling those shit hole countries?



Because it was a racist and inhumane thing to say... that's why we gave him shit. 



kaz said:


> Yep. These humanitarian Democrats describe hell on earth, then want to do nothing to help them other than allow them to come here. If that were really their view and they had a soul, they would want to help rescue all those people from their criminal governments and do it there.



Um, no we wouldn't want to do that because we'd just fuck it up.  Besides that, they aren't standing on top of any oil.  

Here's where I'll criticize a Democrat. Bill Clinton tried to stem the flow of refugees from  Haiti by toppling their government and putting a better one in charge. It didn't work. 

So, um, yeah, we should take refugees because that's what we have always done, throughout our history....


----------



## IM2

Thinker101 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not call them shelters then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does it make, we already know liberals are notorious for eliminating words and/or adding different words....trying to tell us what it really means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest people read your post in a valley girl accent. Trust me, it works perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If nothing else, how about a Hillary accent for the first part....dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cringe. Get over her already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You bet.  Hey, you might like this one:
> And the Hillary plot thickens....
Click to expand...


What plot?


----------



## JoeB131

Cellblock2429 said:


> /------/ You can get credit for fixing someone else's screwup: Here Are Horrifying Photos Of Obama’s Illegal Alien Facilities The Media Refuses To Show You



You mean ones from 2014 when we had a flood of unaccompanied minors and we had to find places for them all?  We didn't yank them from their parents because their parents didn't come with them. 

CONTEXT, buddy.  It's all about CONTEXT.  Trump and Sessions tried to intimidate these people by being cruel to them.  It backfired in their face.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's already legislation up that every Democrat in the senate has signed onto that I agree with.
> 
> Have you called the White House and begged them to stop caving yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Specifically, what legislation have the Democrats given us to solve this problem?  And why didn't they pass it back when they were in control of Congress?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There wasn't a policy of separating all families until Trump started it. Anyway, it's Diane Feinstein's bill, it's made news in the normal world, I guess it hasn't hit Alex Jones or Fox News or Zero Hedge, whatever shithole you get your news from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since they haven't "caved", no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently they are going to stop separating families, did you miss that too? Or were you against it now all along?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, there's no amount of lying you can do which will change the facts.  Your steadfast determination to ignore everything Trump has said on this subject doesn't mean he didn't say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haven't lied one bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there wasn't a policy of enforcing illegal immigration law until Trump started it.
> 
> Anyway, it's amazing how you're such a big fan of this bill, but can't actually tell me what it is.
> 
> It's a lie to say Trump "caved", or that he started a policy of separating families, or to pretend that he hasn't been calling for this law you pretend doesn't exist to be changed all along.  Come to think of it, it's also a lie for you to pretend the Flores Settlement and the Ninth Circuit ruling regarding it don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it was because he really cared about these kids, not the fact that the party was’t behind him and only 17 percent of the public approved. He’s just big softy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least as believable as leftists caring about these kids, when they haven't done a fucking thing to change the situation.
Click to expand...


Why would they change it?  It's working in their favor.  The MSM, the moderate right like Medved and Hewitt, the women are all on board with the destruction of this country by not providing deterrents to come here.  The invaders are winning to the point Trump is even giving in.  

I'd hate to be alive in this country 50 years or so from today; a socialist, communist nightmare that the folks are creating today.  But like the frog in the pot of cold water on the stove....................


----------



## IM2

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Specifically, what legislation have the Democrats given us to solve this problem?  And why didn't they pass it back when they were in control of Congress?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There wasn't a policy of separating all families until Trump started it. Anyway, it's Diane Feinstein's bill, it's made news in the normal world, I guess it hasn't hit Alex Jones or Fox News or Zero Hedge, whatever shithole you get your news from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since they haven't "caved", no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently they are going to stop separating families, did you miss that too? Or were you against it now all along?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, there's no amount of lying you can do which will change the facts.  Your steadfast determination to ignore everything Trump has said on this subject doesn't mean he didn't say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haven't lied one bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there wasn't a policy of enforcing illegal immigration law until Trump started it.
> 
> Anyway, it's amazing how you're such a big fan of this bill, but can't actually tell me what it is.
> 
> It's a lie to say Trump "caved", or that he started a policy of separating families, or to pretend that he hasn't been calling for this law you pretend doesn't exist to be changed all along.  Come to think of it, it's also a lie for you to pretend the Flores Settlement and the Ninth Circuit ruling regarding it don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it was because he really cared about these kids, not the fact that the party was’t behind him and only 17 percent of the public approved. He’s just big softy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least as believable as leftists caring about these kids, when they haven't done a fucking thing to change the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would they change it?  It's working in their favor.  The MSM, the moderate right like Medved and Hewitt, the women are all on board with the destruction of this country by not providing deterrents to come here.  The invaders are winning to the point Trump is even giving in.
> 
> I'd hate to be alive in this country 50 years or so from today; a socialist, communist nightmare that the folks are creating today.  But like the frog in the pot of cold water on the stove....................
Click to expand...


You are supporting a dictator who is ruining our country right now.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

IM2 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There wasn't a policy of separating all families until Trump started it. Anyway, it's Diane Feinstein's bill, it's made news in the normal world, I guess it hasn't hit Alex Jones or Fox News or Zero Hedge, whatever shithole you get your news from.
> 
> Apparently they are going to stop separating families, did you miss that too? Or were you against it now all along?
> 
> Haven't lied one bit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there wasn't a policy of enforcing illegal immigration law until Trump started it.
> 
> Anyway, it's amazing how you're such a big fan of this bill, but can't actually tell me what it is.
> 
> It's a lie to say Trump "caved", or that he started a policy of separating families, or to pretend that he hasn't been calling for this law you pretend doesn't exist to be changed all along.  Come to think of it, it's also a lie for you to pretend the Flores Settlement and the Ninth Circuit ruling regarding it don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it was because he really cared about these kids, not the fact that the party was’t behind him and only 17 percent of the public approved. He’s just big softy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least as believable as leftists caring about these kids, when they haven't done a fucking thing to change the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would they change it?  It's working in their favor.  The MSM, the moderate right like Medved and Hewitt, the women are all on board with the destruction of this country by not providing deterrents to come here.  The invaders are winning to the point Trump is even giving in.
> 
> I'd hate to be alive in this country 50 years or so from today; a socialist, communist nightmare that the folks are creating today.  But like the frog in the pot of cold water on the stove....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are supporting a dictator who is ruining our country right now.
Click to expand...


Nope, he's trying to save it.  That's why we voted him in.  All we can do now is hope he devises new and stronger border protections TO save this country.  Next budget, the wall should not be negotiable.  Let the commies shutdown the government if they want.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Why would they change it? It's working in their favor. The MSM, the moderate right like Medved and Hewitt, the women are all on board with the destruction of this country by not providing deterrents to come here. The invaders are winning to the point Trump is even giving in.
> 
> I'd hate to be alive in this country 50 years or so from today; a socialist, communist nightmare that the folks are creating today. But like the frog in the pot of cold water on the stove....................



Again- 50 years ago, some asshole like you said that about the Poles. 
100 years ago, some asshole like you said that about the Germans and Italians. 
150 years ago, some asshole like you said that about the Irish.  

If you want to create a real deterent to coming here, go after the rich white people who are violating the rules by hiring them to start with.  Scoop up a bunch of the Yuppie Spawn and their illegal nannies in the park.  Do some raids on some factories were they hire day laborers.  

The reality is, we have immigration because we NEED immigration. White people aren't even reproducing at replacement rates. (More of us are dying than being born.) With all these old white folks retiring, we need some brown people to do the work we don't want to do.


----------



## Picaro

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Specifically, what legislation have the Democrats given us to solve this problem?  And why didn't they pass it back when they were in control of Congress?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There wasn't a policy of separating all families until Trump started it. Anyway, it's Diane Feinstein's bill, it's made news in the normal world, I guess it hasn't hit Alex Jones or Fox News or Zero Hedge, whatever shithole you get your news from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since they haven't "caved", no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently they are going to stop separating families, did you miss that too? Or were you against it now all along?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, there's no amount of lying you can do which will change the facts.  Your steadfast determination to ignore everything Trump has said on this subject doesn't mean he didn't say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haven't lied one bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there wasn't a policy of enforcing illegal immigration law until Trump started it.
> 
> Anyway, it's amazing how you're such a big fan of this bill, but can't actually tell me what it is.
> 
> It's a lie to say Trump "caved", or that he started a policy of separating families, or to pretend that he hasn't been calling for this law you pretend doesn't exist to be changed all along.  Come to think of it, it's also a lie for you to pretend the Flores Settlement and the Ninth Circuit ruling regarding it don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it was because he really cared about these kids, not the fact that the party was’t behind him and only 17 percent of the public approved. He’s just big softy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least as believable as leftists caring about these kids, when they haven't done a fucking thing to change the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would they change it?  It's working in their favor.  The MSM, the moderate right like Medved and Hewitt, the women are all on board with the destruction of this country by not providing deterrents to come here.  The invaders are winning to the point Trump is even giving in.
> 
> I'd hate to be alive in this country 50 years or so from today; a socialist, communist nightmare that the folks are creating today.  But like the frog in the pot of cold water on the stove....................
Click to expand...



We can laugh as we watch the people they 'helped' slice them up for fun and loot their houses, like the police in Mexico's cities do. Those drone cameras are pretty handy for that. Then, after they loot this place and turn it into San Salvador, they go for Canada. Then they have nobody left to steal from and blame for their self-inflicted idiocy, and they regress back to the Aztec era and all that wonderfullness.

Or so they think; the fact is they're too stupid to conquer anybody even 10% of their own numbers, and they will just start killing each other, themselves being the easiest pickings, which is why MS-13 and the Mexican cartels tend to stay in brown neighborhoods and plunder them, all with La Raza guidance and legal advice, of course.


----------



## IM2

Ray From Cleveland said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there wasn't a policy of enforcing illegal immigration law until Trump started it.
> 
> Anyway, it's amazing how you're such a big fan of this bill, but can't actually tell me what it is.
> 
> It's a lie to say Trump "caved", or that he started a policy of separating families, or to pretend that he hasn't been calling for this law you pretend doesn't exist to be changed all along.  Come to think of it, it's also a lie for you to pretend the Flores Settlement and the Ninth Circuit ruling regarding it don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was because he really cared about these kids, not the fact that the party was’t behind him and only 17 percent of the public approved. He’s just big softy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least as believable as leftists caring about these kids, when they haven't done a fucking thing to change the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would they change it?  It's working in their favor.  The MSM, the moderate right like Medved and Hewitt, the women are all on board with the destruction of this country by not providing deterrents to come here.  The invaders are winning to the point Trump is even giving in.
> 
> I'd hate to be alive in this country 50 years or so from today; a socialist, communist nightmare that the folks are creating today.  But like the frog in the pot of cold water on the stove....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are supporting a dictator who is ruining our country right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, he's trying to save it.  That's why we voted him in.  All we can do now is hope he devises new and stronger border protections TO save this country.  Next budget, the wall should not be negotiable.  Let the commies shutdown the government if they want.
Click to expand...


You're out of you mind.


----------



## IM2

Picaro said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There wasn't a policy of separating all families until Trump started it. Anyway, it's Diane Feinstein's bill, it's made news in the normal world, I guess it hasn't hit Alex Jones or Fox News or Zero Hedge, whatever shithole you get your news from.
> 
> Apparently they are going to stop separating families, did you miss that too? Or were you against it now all along?
> 
> Haven't lied one bit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there wasn't a policy of enforcing illegal immigration law until Trump started it.
> 
> Anyway, it's amazing how you're such a big fan of this bill, but can't actually tell me what it is.
> 
> It's a lie to say Trump "caved", or that he started a policy of separating families, or to pretend that he hasn't been calling for this law you pretend doesn't exist to be changed all along.  Come to think of it, it's also a lie for you to pretend the Flores Settlement and the Ninth Circuit ruling regarding it don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it was because he really cared about these kids, not the fact that the party was’t behind him and only 17 percent of the public approved. He’s just big softy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least as believable as leftists caring about these kids, when they haven't done a fucking thing to change the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would they change it?  It's working in their favor.  The MSM, the moderate right like Medved and Hewitt, the women are all on board with the destruction of this country by not providing deterrents to come here.  The invaders are winning to the point Trump is even giving in.
> 
> I'd hate to be alive in this country 50 years or so from today; a socialist, communist nightmare that the folks are creating today.  But like the frog in the pot of cold water on the stove....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We can laugh as we watch the people they 'helped' slice them up for fun and loot their houses, like the police in Mexico's cities do. Those drone cameras are pretty handy for that. Then, after they loot this place and turn it into San Salvador, they go for Canada. Then they have nobody left to steal from and blame for their self-inflicted idiocy, and they regress back to the Aztec era and all that wonderfullness.
> 
> Or so they think; the fact is they're too stupid to conquer anybody even 10% of their own numbers, and they will just start killing each other, themselves being the easiest pickings, which is why MS-13 and the Mexican cartels tend to stay in brown neighborhoods and plunder them, all with La Raza guidance and legal advice, of course.
Click to expand...


Another nut.


----------



## kaz

IM2 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was because he really cared about these kids, not the fact that the party was’t behind him and only 17 percent of the public approved. He’s just big softy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least as believable as leftists caring about these kids, when they haven't done a fucking thing to change the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would they change it?  It's working in their favor.  The MSM, the moderate right like Medved and Hewitt, the women are all on board with the destruction of this country by not providing deterrents to come here.  The invaders are winning to the point Trump is even giving in.
> 
> I'd hate to be alive in this country 50 years or so from today; a socialist, communist nightmare that the folks are creating today.  But like the frog in the pot of cold water on the stove....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are supporting a dictator who is ruining our country right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, he's trying to save it.  That's why we voted him in.  All we can do now is hope he devises new and stronger border protections TO save this country.  Next budget, the wall should not be negotiable.  Let the commies shutdown the government if they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're out of you mind.
Click to expand...


He's out of his mind because he thinks that we should have a southern border.  You're out of your mind


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember what a dick you were about Trump calling those shit hole countries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it was a racist and inhumane thing to say... that's why we gave him shit.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. These humanitarian Democrats describe hell on earth, then want to do nothing to help them other than allow them to come here. If that were really their view and they had a soul, they would want to help rescue all those people from their criminal governments and do it there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no we wouldn't want to do that because we'd just fuck it up.  Besides that, they aren't standing on top of any oil.
> 
> Here's where I'll criticize a Democrat. Bill Clinton tried to stem the flow of refugees from  Haiti by toppling their government and putting a better one in charge. It didn't work.
> 
> So, um, yeah, we should take refugees because that's what we have always done, throughout our history....
Click to expand...


Yep, they can't vote if they're not here.  You know exactly what you're doing.

Duh, you know, dude, we're 5% of the world, but anyone who lives in the world under a bad government, they just come here!  Yeah, that's the way it's always been.  Drool.   Rad, man

Idiot


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /------/ You can get credit for fixing someone else's screwup: Here Are Horrifying Photos Of Obama’s Illegal Alien Facilities The Media Refuses To Show You
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean ones from 2014 when we had a flood of unaccompanied minors and we had to find places for them all?  We didn't yank them from their parents because their parents didn't come with them.
> 
> CONTEXT, buddy.  It's all about CONTEXT.  Trump and Sessions tried to intimidate these people by being cruel to them.  It backfired in their face.
Click to expand...

/----/ The Liberal Immigration Policy
Step one: Let the poor kids in for goodness sake.
Step 2: Let the poor kids' parents in to care for them for goodness sake.
Step 3: Let the poor kids grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters in to keep the family intact *and vote Democrat* for goodness sake.


----------



## kaz

Cellblock2429 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /------/ You can get credit for fixing someone else's screwup: Here Are Horrifying Photos Of Obama’s Illegal Alien Facilities The Media Refuses To Show You
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean ones from 2014 when we had a flood of unaccompanied minors and we had to find places for them all?  We didn't yank them from their parents because their parents didn't come with them.
> 
> CONTEXT, buddy.  It's all about CONTEXT.  Trump and Sessions tried to intimidate these people by being cruel to them.  It backfired in their face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ The Liberal Immigration Policy
> Step one: Let the poor kids in for goodness sake.
> Step 2: Let the poor kids' parents in to care for them for goodness sake.
> Step 3: Let the poor kids grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters in to keep the family intact *and vote Democrat* for goodness sake.
> View attachment 200061
Click to expand...


Yep.  They know exactly what they are doing.  Every position they take on illegal immigration is designed for more Democrat voters.  Every position is consistent with that


----------



## IM2

kaz said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least as believable as leftists caring about these kids, when they haven't done a fucking thing to change the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they change it?  It's working in their favor.  The MSM, the moderate right like Medved and Hewitt, the women are all on board with the destruction of this country by not providing deterrents to come here.  The invaders are winning to the point Trump is even giving in.
> 
> I'd hate to be alive in this country 50 years or so from today; a socialist, communist nightmare that the folks are creating today.  But like the frog in the pot of cold water on the stove....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are supporting a dictator who is ruining our country right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, he's trying to save it.  That's why we voted him in.  All we can do now is hope he devises new and stronger border protections TO save this country.  Next budget, the wall should not be negotiable.  Let the commies shutdown the government if they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're out of you mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's out of his mind because he thinks that we should have a southern border.  You're out of your mind
Click to expand...


We have a southern border. Complete with a fence. The number one problem relative to illegal immigration is visa overstays.  But we must all be overly concerned with a southern border. And we all know why that is.


----------



## IM2

kaz said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember what a dick you were about Trump calling those shit hole countries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it was a racist and inhumane thing to say... that's why we gave him shit.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. These humanitarian Democrats describe hell on earth, then want to do nothing to help them other than allow them to come here. If that were really their view and they had a soul, they would want to help rescue all those people from their criminal governments and do it there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no we wouldn't want to do that because we'd just fuck it up.  Besides that, they aren't standing on top of any oil.
> 
> Here's where I'll criticize a Democrat. Bill Clinton tried to stem the flow of refugees from  Haiti by toppling their government and putting a better one in charge. It didn't work.
> 
> So, um, yeah, we should take refugees because that's what we have always done, throughout our history....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, they can't vote if they're not here.  You know exactly what you're doing.
> 
> Duh, you know, dude, we're 5% of the world, but anyone who lives in the world under a bad government, they just come here!  Yeah, that's the way it's always been.  Drool.   Rad, man
> 
> Idiot
Click to expand...


Since we made most of those governments bad.....


----------



## IM2

Cellblock2429 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /------/ You can get credit for fixing someone else's screwup: Here Are Horrifying Photos Of Obama’s Illegal Alien Facilities The Media Refuses To Show You
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean ones from 2014 when we had a flood of unaccompanied minors and we had to find places for them all?  We didn't yank them from their parents because their parents didn't come with them.
> 
> CONTEXT, buddy.  It's all about CONTEXT.  Trump and Sessions tried to intimidate these people by being cruel to them.  It backfired in their face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ The Liberal Immigration Policy
> Step one: Let the poor kids in for goodness sake.
> Step 2: Let the poor kids' parents in to care for them for goodness sake.
> Step 3: Let the poor kids grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters in to keep the family intact *and vote Democrat* for goodness sake.
> View attachment 200061
Click to expand...






None of that is true.


----------



## kaz

IM2 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they change it?  It's working in their favor.  The MSM, the moderate right like Medved and Hewitt, the women are all on board with the destruction of this country by not providing deterrents to come here.  The invaders are winning to the point Trump is even giving in.
> 
> I'd hate to be alive in this country 50 years or so from today; a socialist, communist nightmare that the folks are creating today.  But like the frog in the pot of cold water on the stove....................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are supporting a dictator who is ruining our country right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, he's trying to save it.  That's why we voted him in.  All we can do now is hope he devises new and stronger border protections TO save this country.  Next budget, the wall should not be negotiable.  Let the commies shutdown the government if they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're out of you mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's out of his mind because he thinks that we should have a southern border.  You're out of your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a southern border. Complete with a fence. The number one problem relative to illegal immigration is visa overstays.  But we must all be overly concerned with a southern border. And we all know why that is.
Click to expand...


You claim to be a researcher, yet you just told a flat out lie.  More people cross the border than VISA overstays.

And wow, how stupid is that we get to pick one thing and one thing only and it must solve all problems.  Leftists never offer that on any issue, yet you demand it on every issue.  We want to deal with border crossings AND VISA overstays.  Two things???  Blows your mind, huh?


----------



## kaz

IM2 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember what a dick you were about Trump calling those shit hole countries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it was a racist and inhumane thing to say... that's why we gave him shit.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. These humanitarian Democrats describe hell on earth, then want to do nothing to help them other than allow them to come here. If that were really their view and they had a soul, they would want to help rescue all those people from their criminal governments and do it there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no we wouldn't want to do that because we'd just fuck it up.  Besides that, they aren't standing on top of any oil.
> 
> Here's where I'll criticize a Democrat. Bill Clinton tried to stem the flow of refugees from  Haiti by toppling their government and putting a better one in charge. It didn't work.
> 
> So, um, yeah, we should take refugees because that's what we have always done, throughout our history....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, they can't vote if they're not here.  You know exactly what you're doing.
> 
> Duh, you know, dude, we're 5% of the world, but anyone who lives in the world under a bad government, they just come here!  Yeah, that's the way it's always been.  Drool.   Rad, man
> 
> Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since we made most of those governments bad.....
Click to expand...


Yes, we're the cause of all problems in the world.  Got it.  You just made me literally laugh out loud at you


----------



## IM2

kaz said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember what a dick you were about Trump calling those shit hole countries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it was a racist and inhumane thing to say... that's why we gave him shit.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. These humanitarian Democrats describe hell on earth, then want to do nothing to help them other than allow them to come here. If that were really their view and they had a soul, they would want to help rescue all those people from their criminal governments and do it there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no we wouldn't want to do that because we'd just fuck it up.  Besides that, they aren't standing on top of any oil.
> 
> Here's where I'll criticize a Democrat. Bill Clinton tried to stem the flow of refugees from  Haiti by toppling their government and putting a better one in charge. It didn't work.
> 
> So, um, yeah, we should take refugees because that's what we have always done, throughout our history....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, they can't vote if they're not here.  You know exactly what you're doing.
> 
> Duh, you know, dude, we're 5% of the world, but anyone who lives in the world under a bad government, they just come here!  Yeah, that's the way it's always been.  Drool.   Rad, man
> 
> Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since we made most of those governments bad.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we're the cause of all problems in the world.  Got it.  You just made me literally laugh out loud at you
Click to expand...


Keep laughing fool, because I'm right.


----------



## kaz

IM2 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember what a dick you were about Trump calling those shit hole countries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it was a racist and inhumane thing to say... that's why we gave him shit.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. These humanitarian Democrats describe hell on earth, then want to do nothing to help them other than allow them to come here. If that were really their view and they had a soul, they would want to help rescue all those people from their criminal governments and do it there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no we wouldn't want to do that because we'd just fuck it up.  Besides that, they aren't standing on top of any oil.
> 
> Here's where I'll criticize a Democrat. Bill Clinton tried to stem the flow of refugees from  Haiti by toppling their government and putting a better one in charge. It didn't work.
> 
> So, um, yeah, we should take refugees because that's what we have always done, throughout our history....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, they can't vote if they're not here.  You know exactly what you're doing.
> 
> Duh, you know, dude, we're 5% of the world, but anyone who lives in the world under a bad government, they just come here!  Yeah, that's the way it's always been.  Drool.   Rad, man
> 
> Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since we made most of those governments bad.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we're the cause of all problems in the world.  Got it.  You just made me literally laugh out loud at you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep laughing fool, because I'm right.
Click to expand...


I'll keep laughing at the fool who thinks he's right.

You're just a hater.

What about foot fungus?  The United States caused that, didn't we?  I always suspected that we did


----------



## Cecilie1200

IM2 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There wasn't a policy of separating all families until Trump started it. Anyway, it's Diane Feinstein's bill, it's made news in the normal world, I guess it hasn't hit Alex Jones or Fox News or Zero Hedge, whatever shithole you get your news from.
> 
> Apparently they are going to stop separating families, did you miss that too? Or were you against it now all along?
> 
> Haven't lied one bit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there wasn't a policy of enforcing illegal immigration law until Trump started it.
> 
> Anyway, it's amazing how you're such a big fan of this bill, but can't actually tell me what it is.
> 
> It's a lie to say Trump "caved", or that he started a policy of separating families, or to pretend that he hasn't been calling for this law you pretend doesn't exist to be changed all along.  Come to think of it, it's also a lie for you to pretend the Flores Settlement and the Ninth Circuit ruling regarding it don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it was because he really cared about these kids, not the fact that the party was’t behind him and only 17 percent of the public approved. He’s just big softy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least as believable as leftists caring about these kids, when they haven't done a fucking thing to change the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would they change it?  It's working in their favor.  The MSM, the moderate right like Medved and Hewitt, the women are all on board with the destruction of this country by not providing deterrents to come here.  The invaders are winning to the point Trump is even giving in.
> 
> I'd hate to be alive in this country 50 years or so from today; a socialist, communist nightmare that the folks are creating today.  But like the frog in the pot of cold water on the stove....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are supporting a dictator who is ruining our country right now.
Click to expand...


Really?  You're pissing and moaning about him being "a dictator" at the same time that leftists are demanding that he just "fix it with his pen" instead of asking the legislature to do its damned job and legislate?

If you had any brains at all, you'd see the inconsistency there.


----------



## Cecilie1200

kaz said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are supporting a dictator who is ruining our country right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, he's trying to save it.  That's why we voted him in.  All we can do now is hope he devises new and stronger border protections TO save this country.  Next budget, the wall should not be negotiable.  Let the commies shutdown the government if they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're out of you mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's out of his mind because he thinks that we should have a southern border.  You're out of your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a southern border. Complete with a fence. The number one problem relative to illegal immigration is visa overstays.  But we must all be overly concerned with a southern border. And we all know why that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim to be a researcher, yet you just told a flat out lie.  More people cross the border than VISA overstays.
> 
> And wow, how stupid is that we get to pick one thing and one thing only and it must solve all problems.  Leftists never offer that on any issue, yet you demand it on every issue.  We want to deal with border crossings AND VISA overstays.  Two things???  Blows your mind, huh?
Click to expand...


That's because leftists find it hard to walk and breathe at the same time.


----------



## IM2

Cecilie1200 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there wasn't a policy of enforcing illegal immigration law until Trump started it.
> 
> Anyway, it's amazing how you're such a big fan of this bill, but can't actually tell me what it is.
> 
> It's a lie to say Trump "caved", or that he started a policy of separating families, or to pretend that he hasn't been calling for this law you pretend doesn't exist to be changed all along.  Come to think of it, it's also a lie for you to pretend the Flores Settlement and the Ninth Circuit ruling regarding it don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was because he really cared about these kids, not the fact that the party was’t behind him and only 17 percent of the public approved. He’s just big softy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least as believable as leftists caring about these kids, when they haven't done a fucking thing to change the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would they change it?  It's working in their favor.  The MSM, the moderate right like Medved and Hewitt, the women are all on board with the destruction of this country by not providing deterrents to come here.  The invaders are winning to the point Trump is even giving in.
> 
> I'd hate to be alive in this country 50 years or so from today; a socialist, communist nightmare that the folks are creating today.  But like the frog in the pot of cold water on the stove....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are supporting a dictator who is ruining our country right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You're pissing and moaning about him being "a dictator" at the same time that leftists are demanding that he just "fix it with his pen" instead of asking the legislature to do its damned job and legislate?
> 
> If you had any brains at all, you'd see the inconsistency there.
Click to expand...


----------



## IM2

Cecilie1200 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, he's trying to save it.  That's why we voted him in.  All we can do now is hope he devises new and stronger border protections TO save this country.  Next budget, the wall should not be negotiable.  Let the commies shutdown the government if they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're out of you mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's out of his mind because he thinks that we should have a southern border.  You're out of your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a southern border. Complete with a fence. The number one problem relative to illegal immigration is visa overstays.  But we must all be overly concerned with a southern border. And we all know why that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim to be a researcher, yet you just told a flat out lie.  More people cross the border than VISA overstays.
> 
> And wow, how stupid is that we get to pick one thing and one thing only and it must solve all problems.  Leftists never offer that on any issue, yet you demand it on every issue.  We want to deal with border crossings AND VISA overstays.  Two things???  Blows your mind, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because leftists find it hard to walk and breathe at the same time.
Click to expand...


Nope. Visa overstays are the number 1 problem.


----------



## IM2

kaz said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it was a racist and inhumane thing to say... that's why we gave him shit.
> 
> Um, no we wouldn't want to do that because we'd just fuck it up.  Besides that, they aren't standing on top of any oil.
> 
> Here's where I'll criticize a Democrat. Bill Clinton tried to stem the flow of refugees from  Haiti by toppling their government and putting a better one in charge. It didn't work.
> 
> So, um, yeah, we should take refugees because that's what we have always done, throughout our history....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they can't vote if they're not here.  You know exactly what you're doing.
> 
> Duh, you know, dude, we're 5% of the world, but anyone who lives in the world under a bad government, they just come here!  Yeah, that's the way it's always been.  Drool.   Rad, man
> 
> Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since we made most of those governments bad.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we're the cause of all problems in the world.  Got it.  You just made me literally laugh out loud at you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep laughing fool, because I'm right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll keep laughing at the fool who thinks he's right.
> 
> You're just a hater.
> 
> What about foot fungus?  The United States caused that, didn't we?  I always suspected that we did
Click to expand...


You fit the profile of the Trump supporter. White and dumb.


----------



## Cecilie1200

IM2 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was because he really cared about these kids, not the fact that the party was’t behind him and only 17 percent of the public approved. He’s just big softy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least as believable as leftists caring about these kids, when they haven't done a fucking thing to change the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would they change it?  It's working in their favor.  The MSM, the moderate right like Medved and Hewitt, the women are all on board with the destruction of this country by not providing deterrents to come here.  The invaders are winning to the point Trump is even giving in.
> 
> I'd hate to be alive in this country 50 years or so from today; a socialist, communist nightmare that the folks are creating today.  But like the frog in the pot of cold water on the stove....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are supporting a dictator who is ruining our country right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You're pissing and moaning about him being "a dictator" at the same time that leftists are demanding that he just "fix it with his pen" instead of asking the legislature to do its damned job and legislate?
> 
> If you had any brains at all, you'd see the inconsistency there.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Well, that's not how _I _would have characterized your posts, but okay.


----------



## Cecilie1200

IM2 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're out of you mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's out of his mind because he thinks that we should have a southern border.  You're out of your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a southern border. Complete with a fence. The number one problem relative to illegal immigration is visa overstays.  But we must all be overly concerned with a southern border. And we all know why that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim to be a researcher, yet you just told a flat out lie.  More people cross the border than VISA overstays.
> 
> And wow, how stupid is that we get to pick one thing and one thing only and it must solve all problems.  Leftists never offer that on any issue, yet you demand it on every issue.  We want to deal with border crossings AND VISA overstays.  Two things???  Blows your mind, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because leftists find it hard to walk and breathe at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Visa overstays are the number 1 problem.
Click to expand...


How lovely.  You've learned to count.  Your mommy must be so proud.

Meanwhile, "Number 1 problem" indicates that there are OTHER problems.  SOME of us are capable of fixing more than one at a time, and intend to do so just as soon as we can move past your mindless, useless caterwauling.


----------



## kaz

IM2 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're out of you mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's out of his mind because he thinks that we should have a southern border.  You're out of your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a southern border. Complete with a fence. The number one problem relative to illegal immigration is visa overstays.  But we must all be overly concerned with a southern border. And we all know why that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim to be a researcher, yet you just told a flat out lie.  More people cross the border than VISA overstays.
> 
> And wow, how stupid is that we get to pick one thing and one thing only and it must solve all problems.  Leftists never offer that on any issue, yet you demand it on every issue.  We want to deal with border crossings AND VISA overstays.  Two things???  Blows your mind, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because leftists find it hard to walk and breathe at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Visa overstays are the number 1 problem.
Click to expand...


Just more fake news.

Why do you hate black people so much that you want illegal aliens to come and take their jobs for below minimum wage?  Jobs is the number one issue for blacks to economically catch up to whites and you keep them poor and destitute


----------



## kaz

IM2 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they can't vote if they're not here.  You know exactly what you're doing.
> 
> Duh, you know, dude, we're 5% of the world, but anyone who lives in the world under a bad government, they just come here!  Yeah, that's the way it's always been.  Drool.   Rad, man
> 
> Idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since we made most of those governments bad.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we're the cause of all problems in the world.  Got it.  You just made me literally laugh out loud at you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep laughing fool, because I'm right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll keep laughing at the fool who thinks he's right.
> 
> You're just a hater.
> 
> What about foot fungus?  The United States caused that, didn't we?  I always suspected that we did
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You fit the profile of the Trump supporter. White and dumb.
Click to expand...


You fit the profile of a leftist.  A dickless dependency whore.

You also fit the profile of a Klansman the way you hate blacks.  Particularly black men.  Keep them poor and jobless


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

IM2 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they change it?  It's working in their favor.  The MSM, the moderate right like Medved and Hewitt, the women are all on board with the destruction of this country by not providing deterrents to come here.  The invaders are winning to the point Trump is even giving in.
> 
> I'd hate to be alive in this country 50 years or so from today; a socialist, communist nightmare that the folks are creating today.  But like the frog in the pot of cold water on the stove....................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are supporting a dictator who is ruining our country right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, he's trying to save it.  That's why we voted him in.  All we can do now is hope he devises new and stronger border protections TO save this country.  Next budget, the wall should not be negotiable.  Let the commies shutdown the government if they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're out of you mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's out of his mind because he thinks that we should have a southern border.  You're out of your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a southern border. Complete with a fence. The number one problem relative to illegal immigration is visa overstays.  But we must all be overly concerned with a southern border. And we all know why that is.
Click to expand...


Drugs don't get into the country on Visa overstays.  

SOME of our southern border has a fence, and it's a pretty outdated one as well.  We need state of the art technology and construction to battle this invasion.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Picaro said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There wasn't a policy of separating all families until Trump started it. Anyway, it's Diane Feinstein's bill, it's made news in the normal world, I guess it hasn't hit Alex Jones or Fox News or Zero Hedge, whatever shithole you get your news from.
> 
> Apparently they are going to stop separating families, did you miss that too? Or were you against it now all along?
> 
> Haven't lied one bit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there wasn't a policy of enforcing illegal immigration law until Trump started it.
> 
> Anyway, it's amazing how you're such a big fan of this bill, but can't actually tell me what it is.
> 
> It's a lie to say Trump "caved", or that he started a policy of separating families, or to pretend that he hasn't been calling for this law you pretend doesn't exist to be changed all along.  Come to think of it, it's also a lie for you to pretend the Flores Settlement and the Ninth Circuit ruling regarding it don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it was because he really cared about these kids, not the fact that the party was’t behind him and only 17 percent of the public approved. He’s just big softy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least as believable as leftists caring about these kids, when they haven't done a fucking thing to change the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would they change it?  It's working in their favor.  The MSM, the moderate right like Medved and Hewitt, the women are all on board with the destruction of this country by not providing deterrents to come here.  The invaders are winning to the point Trump is even giving in.
> 
> I'd hate to be alive in this country 50 years or so from today; a socialist, communist nightmare that the folks are creating today.  But like the frog in the pot of cold water on the stove....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We can laugh as we watch the people they 'helped' slice them up for fun and loot their houses, like the police in Mexico's cities do. Those drone cameras are pretty handy for that. Then, after they loot this place and turn it into San Salvador, they go for Canada. Then they have nobody left to steal from and blame for their self-inflicted idiocy, and they regress back to the Aztec era and all that wonderfullness.
> 
> Or so they think; the fact is they're too stupid to conquer anybody even 10% of their own numbers, and they will just start killing each other, themselves being the easiest pickings, which is why MS-13 and the Mexican cartels tend to stay in brown neighborhoods and plunder them, all with La Raza guidance and legal advice, of course.
Click to expand...


If somebody wants to try a socialist/ communist society, all they have to do is move to the many outside of our borders.  And if they finally realize it's not all that it was cut out to be, they can always move back the the good ole USA if they let them. 

Once they turn this place into the likes of all those others, there won't be a USA to move back to.  It will be gone forever and the great experiment concluded.  There is only one USA, and at least while I'm alive, it's worth preserving it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they change it? It's working in their favor. The MSM, the moderate right like Medved and Hewitt, the women are all on board with the destruction of this country by not providing deterrents to come here. The invaders are winning to the point Trump is even giving in.
> 
> I'd hate to be alive in this country 50 years or so from today; a socialist, communist nightmare that the folks are creating today. But like the frog in the pot of cold water on the stove....................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again- 50 years ago, some asshole like you said that about the Poles.
> 100 years ago, some asshole like you said that about the Germans and Italians.
> 150 years ago, some asshole like you said that about the Irish.
> 
> If you want to create a real deterent to coming here, go after the rich white people who are violating the rules by hiring them to start with.  Scoop up a bunch of the Yuppie Spawn and their illegal nannies in the park.  Do some raids on some factories were they hire day laborers.
> 
> The reality is, we have immigration because we NEED immigration. White people aren't even reproducing at replacement rates. (More of us are dying than being born.) With all these old white folks retiring, we need some brown people to do the work we don't want to do.
Click to expand...


Americans will do any job provided the pay is satisfactory.  How much do you think our solders are working for when they go to war?  You live up north.  You've seen that lineman up on the pole out in the blowing snow in 0 degree temperatures with winds blowing at 20 mph.  You've seen the water department guys in the same weather swishing through the water trying to seal a leak.  Americans will do all kinds of jobs. 

I agree with you that we need more pressure on employers hiring illegals.  It's going on all over the south, and even up north.  In fact they just busted a meat packing place here and got over 140 of them.  Prior to that, a landscaping company with just over 100.  Trump is getting the word out that he means business, it's just getting the Congress to act to have mandatory E-Verify for employers.  

ICE arrests 114 at Ohio garden center - CNN

ICE raids Ohio meatpacking plant, 146 arrested


----------



## AZGAL

What is it about the stupid arrogance pretending to be humanitarianism of the far left loonies? Right out of the Orwell doublespeak playbook: WE CARE about children...YET NO PLAN to fix issues that concern poverty and children...HOMELESS families, vets, women, and teens and children all across the USA living in squalid, hopeless conditions on the streets or filthy, depressing shelters, INCLUDING CITIZENS who have circumstances, need psychiatric and medical help, and may have lost everything to a season of HURRICANES with more of this season upon us again. I HAVE SEEN the PICTURES of the SOUTHWEST KEYS children's housing and believe me these children NEVER lived this well not in Central America or Mexico. YET THE LYIN' MSM MEDIA misrepresented the goodwill offered to these immigrant children in these clean, safe, well run facilities with TV and schooling and food. _I AGREE THERE WAS A BETTER WAY: simply bring the family to the childrens center for a goodbye meal and assure the parents that the children will see the parents after arraignment in a few days. THEN the _entire FAMILY can go to a family location together. I posted the pictures of Southwest Keys on this thread already. CLEAN + GENEROUS.


----------



## AZGAL

E- Verify


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

AZGAL said:


> What is it about the stupid arrogance pretending to be humanitarianism of the far left loonies? Right out of the Orwell doublespeak playbook: WE CARE about children...YET NO PLAN to fix issues that concern poverty and children...HOMELESS families, vets, women, and teens and children all across the USA living in squalid, hopeless conditions on the streets or filthy, depressing shelters, INCLUDING CITIZENS who have circumstances, need psychiatric and medical help, and may have lost everything to a season of HURRICANES with more of this season upon us again. I HAVE SEEN the PICTURES of the SOUTHWEST KEYS children's housing and believe me these children NEVER lived this well not in Central America or Mexico. YET THE LYIN' MSM MEDIA misrepresented the goodwill offered to these immigrant children in these clean, safe, well run facilities with TV and schooling and food. _I AGREE THERE WAS A BETTER WAY: simply bring the family to the childrens center for a goodbye meal and assure the parents that the children will see the parents after arraignment in a few days. THEN the _entire FAMILY can go to a family location together. I posted the pictures of Southwest Keys on this thread already. CLEAN, SAFE, GENEROUS.



Absolutely.  It's all a big MSM show they are putting on to take our minds off of our real important issues and success like the economy and North Korea.  

They show a kid getting taken away by agents in these detention centers, and the child is helplessly screaming for his mother.  Wait a minute:  If an American woman snuck her kid into Mexico, got busted, and had her child ripped out of her arms, would that American child be screaming "mommy" in Spanish?  Well.....he would if he was coached.  Like I said, big show to tug on the liberal heartstrings. 

Don't believe that Democrats care about these kids, Democrats only care about using these kids for THEIR political agenda.  If these southern American people were renown to support Republicans, that wall would have been up 50 years ago.  Trump just signed an EO to keep those children with their so-called parents, watch how many days it takes until some leftist takes it to court to have it overturned.


----------



## AZGAL

It seems that yuppy media types are all over the Hispanic CEO of the very decent Southwest Keys facilities...
"I want to make it very, very clear. This is not a detention center," said Dr. Juan Sanchez during an exclusive interview with Eyewitness News. "We're licensed by the State of Texas, to run a childcare facility."


----------



## AZGAL

*Martha McSally*‏Verified account @*RepMcSally* May 31

At the border where refugees are lined up on the other side of the turnstile seeking asylum. The number of new asylum claims tripled from 2014-2017 and fraud keeps legitimate claims out.


Rafael Carranza, Arizona Republic Published 9:10 p.m. MT June 18, 2018 | Updated 8:17 a.m. MT June 19, 2018
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is telling asylum-seekers to present their claims at the ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border to avoid prosecution under his "zero-tolerance" crackdown on illegal entries.


----------



## Dragonlady

AZGAL said:


> *Martha McSally*‏Verified account @*RepMcSally* May 31
> 
> At the border where refugees are lined up on the other side of the turnstile seeking asylum. The number of new asylum claims tripled from 2014-2017 and fraud keeps legitimate claims out.
> 
> 
> Rafael Carranza, Arizona Republic Published 9:10 p.m. MT June 18, 2018 | Updated 8:17 a.m. MT June 19, 2018
> U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is telling asylum-seekers to present their claims at the ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border to avoid prosecution under his "zero-tolerance" crackdown on illegal entries.



Sessions has blocked the border crossings so asylum seekers can’t get in. What you suggest is possible is being blocked by Border Patrol officers.


----------



## AZGAL

I live near the borders. The ports are not blocked. Sessions is encouraging true ASYLUM SEEKERS to make their intentions known at a border crossing rather than run into the desert or cross a river...


----------



## Dragonlady

Those who do not learn from history, are condemned to repeat it.

Log In or Sign Up to View


----------



## HappyJoy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there wasn't a policy of enforcing illegal immigration law until Trump started it.
> 
> Anyway, it's amazing how you're such a big fan of this bill, but can't actually tell me what it is.
> 
> It's a lie to say Trump "caved", or that he started a policy of separating families, or to pretend that he hasn't been calling for this law you pretend doesn't exist to be changed all along.  Come to think of it, it's also a lie for you to pretend the Flores Settlement and the Ninth Circuit ruling regarding it don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was because he really cared about these kids, not the fact that the party was’t behind him and only 17 percent of the public approved. He’s just big softy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least as believable as leftists caring about these kids, when they haven't done a fucking thing to change the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would they change it?  It's working in their favor.  The MSM, the moderate right like Medved and Hewitt, the women are all on board with the destruction of this country by not providing deterrents to come here.  The invaders are winning to the point Trump is even giving in.
> 
> I'd hate to be alive in this country 50 years or so from today; a socialist, communist nightmare that the folks are creating today.  But like the frog in the pot of cold water on the stove....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We can laugh as we watch the people they 'helped' slice them up for fun and loot their houses, like the police in Mexico's cities do. Those drone cameras are pretty handy for that. Then, after they loot this place and turn it into San Salvador, they go for Canada. Then they have nobody left to steal from and blame for their self-inflicted idiocy, and they regress back to the Aztec era and all that wonderfullness.
> 
> Or so they think; the fact is they're too stupid to conquer anybody even 10% of their own numbers, and they will just start killing each other, themselves being the easiest pickings, which is why MS-13 and the Mexican cartels tend to stay in brown neighborhoods and plunder them, all with La Raza guidance and legal advice, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If somebody wants to try a socialist/ communist society, all they have to do is move to the many outside of our borders.  And if they finally realize it's not all that it was cut out to be, they can always move back the the good ole USA if they let them.
> 
> Once they turn this place into the likes of all those others, there won't be a USA to move back to.  It will be gone forever and the great experiment concluded.  There is only one USA, and at least while I'm alive, it's worth preserving it.
Click to expand...


If someone wants to try a 100% capitalist society they....they can't, it doesn't exist.


----------



## Unkotare

I wonder how many of the bigger mouths here have actually gotten to know people who have lived as refugees or have legitimately sought asylum in the US...as people, not talking points.


----------



## Dragonlady

AZGAL said:


> I live near the borders. The ports are not blocked. Sessions is encouraging true ASYLUM SEEKERS to make their intentions known at a border crossing rather than run into the desert or cross a river...



The lawyers who work along the border are saying that’s not what’s happening. Asylum seekers are being slowed down and blocked at the borders. Asylum seekers have to have both feet on US soil to claim asylum. Trump won’t let them do that. That’s why they’re crossing any way they can. People are waiting days and then being turned away from crossing while being told the US is full and they can’t come in.


----------



## kaz

HappyJoy said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was because he really cared about these kids, not the fact that the party was’t behind him and only 17 percent of the public approved. He’s just big softy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least as believable as leftists caring about these kids, when they haven't done a fucking thing to change the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would they change it?  It's working in their favor.  The MSM, the moderate right like Medved and Hewitt, the women are all on board with the destruction of this country by not providing deterrents to come here.  The invaders are winning to the point Trump is even giving in.
> 
> I'd hate to be alive in this country 50 years or so from today; a socialist, communist nightmare that the folks are creating today.  But like the frog in the pot of cold water on the stove....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We can laugh as we watch the people they 'helped' slice them up for fun and loot their houses, like the police in Mexico's cities do. Those drone cameras are pretty handy for that. Then, after they loot this place and turn it into San Salvador, they go for Canada. Then they have nobody left to steal from and blame for their self-inflicted idiocy, and they regress back to the Aztec era and all that wonderfullness.
> 
> Or so they think; the fact is they're too stupid to conquer anybody even 10% of their own numbers, and they will just start killing each other, themselves being the easiest pickings, which is why MS-13 and the Mexican cartels tend to stay in brown neighborhoods and plunder them, all with La Raza guidance and legal advice, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If somebody wants to try a socialist/ communist society, all they have to do is move to the many outside of our borders.  And if they finally realize it's not all that it was cut out to be, they can always move back the the good ole USA if they let them.
> 
> Once they turn this place into the likes of all those others, there won't be a USA to move back to.  It will be gone forever and the great experiment concluded.  There is only one USA, and at least while I'm alive, it's worth preserving it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone wants to try a 100% capitalist society they....they can't, it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


Wow, you just blew the .01% of the population who are anarchists out of the water.  Your typical worthless post


----------



## bripat9643

Dragonlady said:


> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live near the borders. The ports are not blocked. Sessions is encouraging true ASYLUM SEEKERS to make their intentions known at a border crossing rather than run into the desert or cross a river...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lawyers who work along the border are saying that’s not what’s happening. Asylum seekers are being slowed down and blocked at the borders. Asylum seekers have to have both feet on US soil to claim asylum. Trump won’t let them do that. That’s why they’re crossing any way they can. People are waiting days and then being turned away from crossing while being told the US is full and they can’t come in.
Click to expand...

Good.  I only wish it was true.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## HappyJoy

kaz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least as believable as leftists caring about these kids, when they haven't done a fucking thing to change the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they change it?  It's working in their favor.  The MSM, the moderate right like Medved and Hewitt, the women are all on board with the destruction of this country by not providing deterrents to come here.  The invaders are winning to the point Trump is even giving in.
> 
> I'd hate to be alive in this country 50 years or so from today; a socialist, communist nightmare that the folks are creating today.  But like the frog in the pot of cold water on the stove....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We can laugh as we watch the people they 'helped' slice them up for fun and loot their houses, like the police in Mexico's cities do. Those drone cameras are pretty handy for that. Then, after they loot this place and turn it into San Salvador, they go for Canada. Then they have nobody left to steal from and blame for their self-inflicted idiocy, and they regress back to the Aztec era and all that wonderfullness.
> 
> Or so they think; the fact is they're too stupid to conquer anybody even 10% of their own numbers, and they will just start killing each other, themselves being the easiest pickings, which is why MS-13 and the Mexican cartels tend to stay in brown neighborhoods and plunder them, all with La Raza guidance and legal advice, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If somebody wants to try a socialist/ communist society, all they have to do is move to the many outside of our borders.  And if they finally realize it's not all that it was cut out to be, they can always move back the the good ole USA if they let them.
> 
> Once they turn this place into the likes of all those others, there won't be a USA to move back to.  It will be gone forever and the great experiment concluded.  There is only one USA, and at least while I'm alive, it's worth preserving it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone wants to try a 100% capitalist society they....they can't, it doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you just blew the .01% of the population who are anarchists out of the water.  Your typical worthless post
Click to expand...


Sorry, you can't live your wannabe John Galt dreams, don't blame the messenger.


----------



## kaz

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they change it?  It's working in their favor.  The MSM, the moderate right like Medved and Hewitt, the women are all on board with the destruction of this country by not providing deterrents to come here.  The invaders are winning to the point Trump is even giving in.
> 
> I'd hate to be alive in this country 50 years or so from today; a socialist, communist nightmare that the folks are creating today.  But like the frog in the pot of cold water on the stove....................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can laugh as we watch the people they 'helped' slice them up for fun and loot their houses, like the police in Mexico's cities do. Those drone cameras are pretty handy for that. Then, after they loot this place and turn it into San Salvador, they go for Canada. Then they have nobody left to steal from and blame for their self-inflicted idiocy, and they regress back to the Aztec era and all that wonderfullness.
> 
> Or so they think; the fact is they're too stupid to conquer anybody even 10% of their own numbers, and they will just start killing each other, themselves being the easiest pickings, which is why MS-13 and the Mexican cartels tend to stay in brown neighborhoods and plunder them, all with La Raza guidance and legal advice, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If somebody wants to try a socialist/ communist society, all they have to do is move to the many outside of our borders.  And if they finally realize it's not all that it was cut out to be, they can always move back the the good ole USA if they let them.
> 
> Once they turn this place into the likes of all those others, there won't be a USA to move back to.  It will be gone forever and the great experiment concluded.  There is only one USA, and at least while I'm alive, it's worth preserving it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone wants to try a 100% capitalist society they....they can't, it doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you just blew the .01% of the population who are anarchists out of the water.  Your typical worthless post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, you can't live your wannabe John Galt dreams, don't blame the messenger.
Click to expand...


So were you not able to read my post as a defense mechanism or out of pure stupidity?


----------



## Mike473

bripat9643 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live near the borders. The ports are not blocked. Sessions is encouraging true ASYLUM SEEKERS to make their intentions known at a border crossing rather than run into the desert or cross a river...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lawyers who work along the border are saying that’s not what’s happening. Asylum seekers are being slowed down and blocked at the borders. Asylum seekers have to have both feet on US soil to claim asylum. Trump won’t let them do that. That’s why they’re crossing any way they can. People are waiting days and then being turned away from crossing while being told the US is full and they can’t come in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good.  I only wish it was true.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Click to expand...


I was talking with a friend today who believes the Unites States could easily take in up to 300 million additional people and there is no reason to stop anyone at the border. Her reasoning is that the flow of immigration would end long before we reached that number and everyone would be happier for it.


----------



## Cellblock2429

IM2 said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /------/ You can get credit for fixing someone else's screwup: Here Are Horrifying Photos Of Obama’s Illegal Alien Facilities The Media Refuses To Show You
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean ones from 2014 when we had a flood of unaccompanied minors and we had to find places for them all?  We didn't yank them from their parents because their parents didn't come with them.
> 
> CONTEXT, buddy.  It's all about CONTEXT.  Trump and Sessions tried to intimidate these people by being cruel to them.  It backfired in their face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ The Liberal Immigration Policy
> Step one: Let the poor kids in for goodness sake.
> Step 2: Let the poor kids' parents in to care for them for goodness sake.
> Step 3: Let the poor kids grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters in to keep the family intact *and vote Democrat* for goodness sake.
> View attachment 200061
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is true.
Click to expand...

/——/ Ever hear of chain migration, Tard?


----------



## kaz

Mike473 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live near the borders. The ports are not blocked. Sessions is encouraging true ASYLUM SEEKERS to make their intentions known at a border crossing rather than run into the desert or cross a river...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lawyers who work along the border are saying that’s not what’s happening. Asylum seekers are being slowed down and blocked at the borders. Asylum seekers have to have both feet on US soil to claim asylum. Trump won’t let them do that. That’s why they’re crossing any way they can. People are waiting days and then being turned away from crossing while being told the US is full and they can’t come in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good.  I only wish it was true.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking with a friend today who believes the Unites States could easily take in up to 300 million additional people and there is no reason to stop anyone at the border. Her reasoning is that the flow of immigration would end long before we reached that number and everyone would be happier for it.
Click to expand...

Well there you go ...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dragonlady said:


> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live near the borders. The ports are not blocked. Sessions is encouraging true ASYLUM SEEKERS to make their intentions known at a border crossing rather than run into the desert or cross a river...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lawyers who work along the border are saying that’s not what’s happening. Asylum seekers are being slowed down and blocked at the borders. Asylum seekers have to have both feet on US soil to claim asylum. Trump won’t let them do that. That’s why they’re crossing any way they can. People are waiting days and then being turned away from crossing while being told the US is full and they can’t come in.
Click to expand...


Trump shouldn't let them do that. Asylum is what you seek to escape extreme danger from your government be it harm to you, your family or even death.  Once they set foot in Mexico, that goal was already achieved.  There is no need to come here.


----------



## AZGAL

*It Takes the Government More Than Two Years to Hire an Immigration Judge*

By Eric Katz
_June 8, 2017

*@GovExec  *

GovExec covers the most pressing biz topics in fed government online and through live events. Part of @*AtlanticMedia*. Curated by @*rjgianfortune*

Washington, DC
_
_SEE ARTICLE AND ATTATCHED REPORT_

_June 2017
GAO-17-438
United States Government Accountability Office
June 2017 IMMIGRATION COURTS Actions Needed to Reduce Case Backlog and Address Long-Standing Management and Operational Challenges_
_EOIR has taken some steps to address its workforce needs, such as entering into a contract to determine judicial staff workloads, but does not have a workforce plan that would help EOIR better address staffing needs, such as those resulting from the 39 percent of its immigration judges who are currently eligible for retirement. EOIR also does not have efficient practices for hiring new immigration judges, which has contributed to immigration judges being staffed below authorized levels. GAO found that it took an average of 742 days to hire new judges from 2011 through August 2016. By assessing its hiring process and developing a hiring strategy that targets staffing needs, EOIR would be better positioned to hire judges more quickly and address its staffing gaps_


----------



## AZGAL

*These people have a better chance at proceeding with Asylum claims if they make that claim at a port of entry rather than by illegally crossing the border. They can get a temporary status to remain legally:*

Countries Currently Designated for TPS


*El Salvador*
*Haiti*
*Honduras*
*Nepal*
*Nicaragua*
*Somalia*
*Sudan*
*South Sudan*
*Syria*
*Yemen*


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there wasn't a policy of enforcing illegal immigration law until Trump started it.
> 
> Anyway, it's amazing how you're such a big fan of this bill, but can't actually tell me what it is.
> 
> It's a lie to say Trump "caved", or that he started a policy of separating families, or to pretend that he hasn't been calling for this law you pretend doesn't exist to be changed all along.  Come to think of it, it's also a lie for you to pretend the Flores Settlement and the Ninth Circuit ruling regarding it don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was because he really cared about these kids, not the fact that the party was’t behind him and only 17 percent of the public approved. He’s just big softy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least as believable as leftists caring about these kids, when they haven't done a fucking thing to change the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would they change it?  It's working in their favor.  The MSM, the moderate right like Medved and Hewitt, the women are all on board with the destruction of this country by not providing deterrents to come here.  The invaders are winning to the point Trump is even giving in.
> 
> I'd hate to be alive in this country 50 years or so from today; a socialist, communist nightmare that the folks are creating today.  But like the frog in the pot of cold water on the stove....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are supporting a dictator who is ruining our country right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, he's trying to save it.  That's why we voted him in.  All we can do now is hope he devises new and stronger border protections TO save this country.  Next budget, the wall should not be negotiable.  Let the commies shutdown the government if they want.
Click to expand...

*An when hasn't a tyrant claimed he's trying to save the country.  What a leader is trying to do often is less  important than the methods he's using. *


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they change it? It's working in their favor. The MSM, the moderate right like Medved and Hewitt, the women are all on board with the destruction of this country by not providing deterrents to come here. The invaders are winning to the point Trump is even giving in.
> 
> I'd hate to be alive in this country 50 years or so from today; a socialist, communist nightmare that the folks are creating today. But like the frog in the pot of cold water on the stove....................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again- 50 years ago, some asshole like you said that about the Poles.
> 100 years ago, some asshole like you said that about the Germans and Italians.
> 150 years ago, some asshole like you said that about the Irish.
> 
> If you want to create a real deterent to coming here, go after the rich white people who are violating the rules by hiring them to start with.  Scoop up a bunch of the Yuppie Spawn and their illegal nannies in the park.  Do some raids on some factories were they hire day laborers.
> 
> The reality is, we have immigration because we NEED immigration. White people aren't even reproducing at replacement rates. (More of us are dying than being born.) With all these old white folks retiring, we need some brown people to do the work we don't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Americans will do any job provided the pay is satisfactory.  How much do you think our solders are working for when they go to war?  You live up north.  You've seen that lineman up on the pole out in the blowing snow in 0 degree temperatures with winds blowing at 20 mph.  You've seen the water department guys in the same weather swishing through the water trying to seal a leak.  Americans will do all kinds of jobs.
> 
> I agree with you that we need more pressure on employers hiring illegals.  It's going on all over the south, and even up north.  In fact they just busted a meat packing place here and got over 140 of them.  Prior to that, a landscaping company with just over 100.  Trump is getting the word out that he means business, it's just getting the Congress to act to have mandatory E-Verify for employers.
> 
> ICE arrests 114 at Ohio garden center - CNN
> 
> ICE raids Ohio meatpacking plant, 146 arrested
Click to expand...


Ever seen guys repairing the roads in Arizona in the middle of summer?  I mean, yeah, they do the work in the middle of the night, but that still means you're working in the middle of the night, and it's still hotter than Hell's boiler room.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ray From Cleveland said:


> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it about the stupid arrogance pretending to be humanitarianism of the far left loonies? Right out of the Orwell doublespeak playbook: WE CARE about children...YET NO PLAN to fix issues that concern poverty and children...HOMELESS families, vets, women, and teens and children all across the USA living in squalid, hopeless conditions on the streets or filthy, depressing shelters, INCLUDING CITIZENS who have circumstances, need psychiatric and medical help, and may have lost everything to a season of HURRICANES with more of this season upon us again. I HAVE SEEN the PICTURES of the SOUTHWEST KEYS children's housing and believe me these children NEVER lived this well not in Central America or Mexico. YET THE LYIN' MSM MEDIA misrepresented the goodwill offered to these immigrant children in these clean, safe, well run facilities with TV and schooling and food. _I AGREE THERE WAS A BETTER WAY: simply bring the family to the childrens center for a goodbye meal and assure the parents that the children will see the parents after arraignment in a few days. THEN the _entire FAMILY can go to a family location together. I posted the pictures of Southwest Keys on this thread already. CLEAN, SAFE, GENEROUS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  It's all a big MSM show they are putting on to take our minds off of our real important issues and success like the economy and North Korea.
> 
> They show a kid getting taken away by agents in these detention centers, and the child is helplessly screaming for his mother.  Wait a minute:  If an American woman snuck her kid into Mexico, got busted, and had her child ripped out of her arms, would that American child be screaming "mommy" in Spanish?  Well.....he would if he was coached.  Like I said, big show to tug on the liberal heartstrings.
> 
> Don't believe that Democrats care about these kids, Democrats only care about using these kids for THEIR political agenda.  If these southern American people were renown to support Republicans, that wall would have been up 50 years ago.  Trump just signed an EO to keep those children with their so-called parents, watch how many days it takes until some leftist takes it to court to have it overturned.
Click to expand...


Ben Shapiro addressed this in a brilliant column.

_Here’s All The Proof You Need That Democrats Never Cared About Separation Of Illegal Immigrant Children From Parents

". . . when Trump signed the executive order, you’d imagine that Democrats would have celebrated – after all, kids would now be able to stay with their parents, so far as the law allowed!

Instead, Democrats immediately suggested that holding children together with parents was brutal and evil – the same argument civil rights groups made when President Obama pursued the same policy, an argument that ended in a Ninth Circuit ruling mandating the separation of children from parents.

Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) tweeted:

This Executive Order doesn’t fix the crisis. Indefinitely detaining children with their families in camps is inhumane and will not make us safe.

Senator Bernie Sanders (Loonbag-VT) explained that the executive order didn’t go far enough, because “we have a situation where the Trump administration now, their solution is to provide indefinite detention…the Trump administration wants to undo the Flores settlement, which focuses on the needs of children and limits to 20 days, the number of days that children can be in jail.”"_

Yeah, Bernie, that'd be the same settlement you leftists were swearing didn't really exist, AND telling us was "eeeeevil" policy, just five minutes ago.  NOW it's "focusing on the needs of children"?  Could you ass kittens FIND your minds, and then make them up?

_"Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) told CNN that Trump’s new policy – i.e. Obama’s old policy – “could lead to family internment camps.” The execrable Samantha Bee, who was officially named World’s Least Funny Human™ just a few weeks ago, mocked, “Yay! No more baby internment camps, just regular internment camps…Cool! That’s what we call a win in 2018. To be clear, I am happy that at least these kids are theoretically gonna stay with their parents, but Mommy & Me Jails are not a solution.”

So, in other words, they didn’t care all that much about separation, because when the separation is rectified, that too is awful. All those on the Left really want is the full release of all illegal immigrants with children. End of story."_


----------



## HappyJoy

kaz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can laugh as we watch the people they 'helped' slice them up for fun and loot their houses, like the police in Mexico's cities do. Those drone cameras are pretty handy for that. Then, after they loot this place and turn it into San Salvador, they go for Canada. Then they have nobody left to steal from and blame for their self-inflicted idiocy, and they regress back to the Aztec era and all that wonderfullness.
> 
> Or so they think; the fact is they're too stupid to conquer anybody even 10% of their own numbers, and they will just start killing each other, themselves being the easiest pickings, which is why MS-13 and the Mexican cartels tend to stay in brown neighborhoods and plunder them, all with La Raza guidance and legal advice, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If somebody wants to try a socialist/ communist society, all they have to do is move to the many outside of our borders.  And if they finally realize it's not all that it was cut out to be, they can always move back the the good ole USA if they let them.
> 
> Once they turn this place into the likes of all those others, there won't be a USA to move back to.  It will be gone forever and the great experiment concluded.  There is only one USA, and at least while I'm alive, it's worth preserving it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone wants to try a 100% capitalist society they....they can't, it doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you just blew the .01% of the population who are anarchists out of the water.  Your typical worthless post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, you can't live your wannabe John Galt dreams, don't blame the messenger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So were you not able to read my post as a defense mechanism or out of pure stupidity?
Click to expand...


To be honest your reply was a waste of my time and I shouldn't have bothered responding to it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Mike473 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live near the borders. The ports are not blocked. Sessions is encouraging true ASYLUM SEEKERS to make their intentions known at a border crossing rather than run into the desert or cross a river...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lawyers who work along the border are saying that’s not what’s happening. Asylum seekers are being slowed down and blocked at the borders. Asylum seekers have to have both feet on US soil to claim asylum. Trump won’t let them do that. That’s why they’re crossing any way they can. People are waiting days and then being turned away from crossing while being told the US is full and they can’t come in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good.  I only wish it was true.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking with a friend today who believes the Unites States could easily take in up to 300 million additional people and there is no reason to stop anyone at the border. Her reasoning is that the flow of immigration would end long before we reached that number and everyone would be happier for it.
Click to expand...


And I'm guessing your friend lives nowhere near the Mexican border.


----------



## saveliberty

Coyote said:


> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.



America did not bring the kids into the country illegally.  We also do not allow children to stay in prisons with their criminal parents.  Interesting you propose we do that.


----------



## Kondor3

Pharaoh has hardened his heart.

And this time, it's righteous.


----------



## AZGAL

*Individual assessment for Asylum*
For persons who do not come into the country as part of a bigger group individual asylum interviews are conducted to establish whether the person has sufficient reasons for seeking asylum.


----------



## AZGAL

My God imagine if all this was going on with a Hillary as president!


----------



## AZGAL




----------



## Flopper

IM2 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're out of you mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's out of his mind because he thinks that we should have a southern border.  You're out of your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a southern border. Complete with a fence. The number one problem relative to illegal immigration is visa overstays.  But we must all be overly concerned with a southern border. And we all know why that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim to be a researcher, yet you just told a flat out lie.  More people cross the border than VISA overstays.
> 
> And wow, how stupid is that we get to pick one thing and one thing only and it must solve all problems.  Leftists never offer that on any issue, yet you demand it on every issue.  We want to deal with border crossings AND VISA overstays.  Two things???  Blows your mind, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because leftists find it hard to walk and breathe at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Visa overstays are the number 1 problem.
Click to expand...

*I don't know if they are a bigger problem but they are much harder to deport than border jumpers because they are not guilty of a criminal act thus they can't be tried in criminal court, are not eligible for expedited deportation, more likely to be represented by counsel, and more likely to be longer term residents settled in the community and more often professionals. 

In order to remove most people that overstay visas, there will have to be major changes in immigration law because the law treats overstays about as seriously as your local library treats overdue books.

A second problem is ICE doesn't know who is overstaying visas and if they did where they are.  DHS testified before congress about how hard it is to identify who is overstaying their visa.  Due to the way visa's work particularly with those that leave and re-enter the country ICE can't tell for sure when a visa expires or whether the person is still in the country.  

Since only visa holders that are issued work permits are assigned social security numbers, they can't be tracked through employment, tax returns, driving permits, etc.. only thru foreign passport numbers. Since foreign passport number are not standard in length are structure and often contain various special characters, many businesses and government agencies do not accurately record them.*


----------



## Flopper

AZGAL said:


> My God imagine if all this was going on with a Hillary as president!View attachment 200211


*It simply wouldn't be going on.*


----------



## AZGAL




----------



## Flopper

Mike473 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live near the borders. The ports are not blocked. Sessions is encouraging true ASYLUM SEEKERS to make their intentions known at a border crossing rather than run into the desert or cross a river...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lawyers who work along the border are saying that’s not what’s happening. Asylum seekers are being slowed down and blocked at the borders. Asylum seekers have to have both feet on US soil to claim asylum. Trump won’t let them do that. That’s why they’re crossing any way they can. People are waiting days and then being turned away from crossing while being told the US is full and they can’t come in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good.  I only wish it was true.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking with a friend today who believes the Unites States could easily take in up to 300 million additional people and there is no reason to stop anyone at the border. Her reasoning is that the flow of immigration would end long before we reached that number and everyone would be happier for it.
Click to expand...

*We could certainly take more people.  300 million? Don't think so. We take about a million legal immigrants a year but 600,000 are changes of status; that is they are already here.  Biggest problem in taking too many immigrants is assimilation.  You want new immigrants to mix into the population, not form clusters.*


----------



## AZGAL

A lot of border to watch...


----------



## Coyote

saveliberty said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
Click to expand...


America did not bring the kids into the country illegally.  We also do not allow children to stay in prisons with their criminal parents.  Interesting you propose we do that.[/QUOTE]
Interesting you keep proposing these false equivalencies.


----------



## saveliberty

Coyote said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America did not bring the kids into the country illegally.  We also do not allow children to stay in prisons with their criminal parents.  Interesting you propose we do that.
Click to expand...

Interesting you keep proposing these false equivalencies.[/QUOTE]

At least I can use a quote function.  

Maybe you can learn what illegal means.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it about the stupid arrogance pretending to be humanitarianism of the far left loonies? Right out of the Orwell doublespeak playbook: WE CARE about children...YET NO PLAN to fix issues that concern poverty and children...HOMELESS families, vets, women, and teens and children all across the USA living in squalid, hopeless conditions on the streets or filthy, depressing shelters, INCLUDING CITIZENS who have circumstances, need psychiatric and medical help, and may have lost everything to a season of HURRICANES with more of this season upon us again. I HAVE SEEN the PICTURES of the SOUTHWEST KEYS children's housing and believe me these children NEVER lived this well not in Central America or Mexico. YET THE LYIN' MSM MEDIA misrepresented the goodwill offered to these immigrant children in these clean, safe, well run facilities with TV and schooling and food. _I AGREE THERE WAS A BETTER WAY: simply bring the family to the childrens center for a goodbye meal and assure the parents that the children will see the parents after arraignment in a few days. THEN the _entire FAMILY can go to a family location together. I posted the pictures of Southwest Keys on this thread already. CLEAN, SAFE, GENEROUS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  It's all a big MSM show they are putting on to take our minds off of our real important issues and success like the economy and North Korea.
> 
> They show a kid getting taken away by agents in these detention centers, and the child is helplessly screaming for his mother.  Wait a minute:  If an American woman snuck her kid into Mexico, got busted, and had her child ripped out of her arms, would that American child be screaming "mommy" in Spanish?  Well.....he would if he was coached.  Like I said, big show to tug on the liberal heartstrings.
> 
> Don't believe that Democrats care about these kids, Democrats only care about using these kids for THEIR political agenda.  If these southern American people were renown to support Republicans, that wall would have been up 50 years ago.  Trump just signed an EO to keep those children with their so-called parents, watch how many days it takes until some leftist takes it to court to have it overturned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ben Shapiro addressed this in a brilliant column.
> 
> _Here’s All The Proof You Need That Democrats Never Cared About Separation Of Illegal Immigrant Children From Parents
> 
> ". . . when Trump signed the executive order, you’d imagine that Democrats would have celebrated – after all, kids would now be able to stay with their parents, so far as the law allowed!
> 
> Instead, Democrats immediately suggested that holding children together with parents was brutal and evil – the same argument civil rights groups made when President Obama pursued the same policy, an argument that ended in a Ninth Circuit ruling mandating the separation of children from parents.
> 
> Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) tweeted:
> 
> This Executive Order doesn’t fix the crisis. Indefinitely detaining children with their families in camps is inhumane and will not make us safe.
> 
> Senator Bernie Sanders (Loonbag-VT) explained that the executive order didn’t go far enough, because “we have a situation where the Trump administration now, their solution is to provide indefinite detention…the Trump administration wants to undo the Flores settlement, which focuses on the needs of children and limits to 20 days, the number of days that children can be in jail.”"_
> 
> Yeah, Bernie, that'd be the same settlement you leftists were swearing didn't really exist, AND telling us was "eeeeevil" policy, just five minutes ago.  NOW it's "focusing on the needs of children"?  Could you ass kittens FIND your minds, and then make them up?
> 
> _"Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) told CNN that Trump’s new policy – i.e. Obama’s old policy – “could lead to family internment camps.” The execrable Samantha Bee, who was officially named World’s Least Funny Human™ just a few weeks ago, mocked, “Yay! No more baby internment camps, just regular internment camps…Cool! That’s what we call a win in 2018. To be clear, I am happy that at least these kids are theoretically gonna stay with their parents, but Mommy & Me Jails are not a solution.”
> 
> So, in other words, they didn’t care all that much about separation, because when the separation is rectified, that too is awful. All those on the Left really want is the full release of all illegal immigrants with children. End of story."_
Click to expand...


Exactly.  What they were hoping for was a Trump version of Catch and Release.  Again, the Democrats could care less about the children and they only use children to get what they want--more illegal immigrants. 

While the left celebrated Trump's decision to put children back with their so-called parents, what they didn't expect is that he was two moves ahead of them.  No catch and release.  Instead, give them what they claim they want.  What Trump actually did was force them to show they were liars all along.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they change it? It's working in their favor. The MSM, the moderate right like Medved and Hewitt, the women are all on board with the destruction of this country by not providing deterrents to come here. The invaders are winning to the point Trump is even giving in.
> 
> I'd hate to be alive in this country 50 years or so from today; a socialist, communist nightmare that the folks are creating today. But like the frog in the pot of cold water on the stove....................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again- 50 years ago, some asshole like you said that about the Poles.
> 100 years ago, some asshole like you said that about the Germans and Italians.
> 150 years ago, some asshole like you said that about the Irish.
> 
> If you want to create a real deterent to coming here, go after the rich white people who are violating the rules by hiring them to start with.  Scoop up a bunch of the Yuppie Spawn and their illegal nannies in the park.  Do some raids on some factories were they hire day laborers.
> 
> The reality is, we have immigration because we NEED immigration. White people aren't even reproducing at replacement rates. (More of us are dying than being born.) With all these old white folks retiring, we need some brown people to do the work we don't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Americans will do any job provided the pay is satisfactory.  How much do you think our solders are working for when they go to war?  You live up north.  You've seen that lineman up on the pole out in the blowing snow in 0 degree temperatures with winds blowing at 20 mph.  You've seen the water department guys in the same weather swishing through the water trying to seal a leak.  Americans will do all kinds of jobs.
> 
> I agree with you that we need more pressure on employers hiring illegals.  It's going on all over the south, and even up north.  In fact they just busted a meat packing place here and got over 140 of them.  Prior to that, a landscaping company with just over 100.  Trump is getting the word out that he means business, it's just getting the Congress to act to have mandatory E-Verify for employers.
> 
> ICE arrests 114 at Ohio garden center - CNN
> 
> ICE raids Ohio meatpacking plant, 146 arrested
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever seen guys repairing the roads in Arizona in the middle of summer?  I mean, yeah, they do the work in the middle of the night, but that still means you're working in the middle of the night, and it's still hotter than Hell's boiler room.
Click to expand...


That's another one, construction.  While we don't get your heat, we have extremely humid days over here, and road crews along with private industry construction are ongoing all summer long.  Usually they work overtime as well because our construction months are a little over a half-year depending on what kind of work you do.

My father is a retired bricklayer.  Because you can't lay brick in the extremely cold weather, bricklayers went on unemployment for the winter.  It didn't pay much, so you work as many hours as you can in the favorable months.  My father used to work night and day.  He'd come home from his day job, eat dinner, and then head out to do side work.  Then he'd do side jobs all weekend.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was because he really cared about these kids, not the fact that the party was’t behind him and only 17 percent of the public approved. He’s just big softy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least as believable as leftists caring about these kids, when they haven't done a fucking thing to change the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would they change it?  It's working in their favor.  The MSM, the moderate right like Medved and Hewitt, the women are all on board with the destruction of this country by not providing deterrents to come here.  The invaders are winning to the point Trump is even giving in.
> 
> I'd hate to be alive in this country 50 years or so from today; a socialist, communist nightmare that the folks are creating today.  But like the frog in the pot of cold water on the stove....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are supporting a dictator who is ruining our country right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, he's trying to save it.  That's why we voted him in.  All we can do now is hope he devises new and stronger border protections TO save this country.  Next budget, the wall should not be negotiable.  Let the commies shutdown the government if they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *An when hasn't a tyrant claimed he's trying to save the country.  What a leader is trying to do often is less  important than the methods he's using. *
Click to expand...


That's one of the differences between the left and the right. The left uses failed policies that look good, and the right uses policies that work, but may not look good. 

_*"Folks, Liberals measure success by intent.  Conservatives measure success by results." *_
Rush Limbaugh


----------



## AZGAL

*Activism 101: The Three Main Ways on How to Help People in Honduras  

By Olivia Cyr  on October 31, 2017  World News


HONDURAS — According to The World Bank, Honduras is a low- to middle-income country wherein 66 percent of residents live in poverty. Sadly, many Hondurans suffer through these conditions, and in rural areas, one in five people experience the most extreme poverty, living on less that $1.90 per day.

Major challenges to the country include holding the highest level of economic inequality in Latin America, high rates of crime and violence amongst young people, and decreased crop exporting which is detrimental to the agricultural sector. Additionally, Honduras is susceptible to natural disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes.

On its own, the country has achieved many successes in improving poverty and life for the population. Disadvantaged communities found education coverage with the Project for Education Quality, Good Governance, and Institutional Strengthening. The Nutrition and Social Protection Project through the government helped more than 36,000 at-risk children avoid food insecurity.

The Rural Competitiveness Project created more than 9,000 jobs in 2016 and increased small business productivity. These are only a few ways conditions in Honduras are getting better, but there are many resources and organizations that suggest how to help people in Honduras persevere despite serious poverty. Here are just three:

1. Water.org

Since 1990, Water.org has worked in Honduras to construct a community water system as well as health and hygiene education. The program aims to provide more than 3,600 people throughout two communities with improved access to water. Water.org focuses on the working families of rural areas who make only enough money to feed their families, with none to spare.

The program seeks to help Hondurans overcome the water sanitation and accessibility issues that cause 800,000 people to lack safe water access. So far, Water.org has reached 13,000 people with the help of one program partner. It also accepts donations from people around the world to help reach more people in need of improved water quality...

2. Save the Children, Honduras

Save the Children is a program that works globally to protect children in crises. In 2016 alone, Save the Children, Honduras provided vital nourishment to 10,575 children, helped 10,500 families feed their children, provided 14,900 children a healthy start to life and supported 12,316 children in times of crisis. The program works primarily in early childhood development centers, gives children nutritious snacks and fosters a fun, safe and hands-on education...

3. Children International*

“Team Honduras” for Children International consists of a large community of volunteers, grad students, interns and a dedicated community coordinator — all of whom work hard each year to help the country combat its major challenges. The program educates children on the benefits of good hygiene and emphasizes that sanitation is a crucial element of a healthy life, as 69 percent of 9- to 10- year-olds are infected by parasites from poor sanitary conditions.

*Children International also fights crime in Honduras.*


----------



## Flopper

AZGAL said:


> *Individual assessment for Asylum*
> For persons who do not come into the country as part of a bigger group individual asylum interviews are conducted to establish whether the person has sufficient reasons for seeking asylum.


*It is difficult to apply for asylum at a port entry which is your only choice if you do not have a visa.  

First, you tell the inspections officer at the port of entry that you fear returning to your country and that you wish to apply for asylum.  You will be given a fear screening in which the officer will determine if you seem to meet the criteria.  If he's not convince you will be removed immediately.  If he thinks you are lying, you can be barred from entry for 5 years.  

If you convinced the officer of your fear, then you will be detained for a few days or several weeks, until you are given a  "creditable fear interview" with a trained asylum officer. If you pass, which most people don't, you will be able to complete your application for asylum and present your case to an asylum judge which can take days or weeks.  If you fail the creditable fear interview, you can request a review by an immigration judge, although you will not be informed of your right.  You must tell the interviewer when you are told you failed that you want a review by an immigration judge. 

At your hearing, the immigration judge will hear your case  for asylum and either deport you or grant you asylum pending a complete background check which allows you to enter the refugee program.  Only about 40% are accepted.

The whole process including multiple interviews and background checks takes about 4 to 6 months.  During the entire process, the government follows a strict set of protocols and rules.  During the process you will not be told of your rights to appeal, nor that you can hire a lawyer or how to do so.  Unless the people that interview you understand your language, you must secure an interpreter. One will not be provided.

In no way does the government help the asylum seeker. The person must understand the process, their rights, and what they need to do to be successful.  This is why getting a visa of some sort, entering the US and hiring an immigration lawyer is the best route to being granted asylum.

Can You Request Asylum At U.S. Border or Entry Point? - AllLaw.com 
Requesting Asylum at U.S. Border? What to Expect at Credible Fear Interview *


----------



## Picaro

Dope-addled leftists feed the illegal dope trade, feeds the gang wars, feeds the MS-13 thugs, feeds the the whole train of misery. Screw their fake ' concerns'. The problem wouldn't exist if they didn't prefer mindless self-indulgence over obeying basic laws. Many real hippies had no problems quitting drugs peddled by gangster cartels in the early 1970's and refused to be a part of the filthy gangs or contribute to their profits. Seems Democrats can't or won't. nobody would expect such scum to exercise any self-restraint anyway.


----------



## bripat9643

Mike473 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live near the borders. The ports are not blocked. Sessions is encouraging true ASYLUM SEEKERS to make their intentions known at a border crossing rather than run into the desert or cross a river...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lawyers who work along the border are saying that’s not what’s happening. Asylum seekers are being slowed down and blocked at the borders. Asylum seekers have to have both feet on US soil to claim asylum. Trump won’t let them do that. That’s why they’re crossing any way they can. People are waiting days and then being turned away from crossing while being told the US is full and they can’t come in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good.  I only wish it was true.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking with a friend today who believes the Unites States could easily take in up to 300 million additional people and there is no reason to stop anyone at the border. Her reasoning is that the flow of immigration would end long before we reached that number and everyone would be happier for it.
Click to expand...

How could we possibly be happier?  Would you be happier if there were twice as many people on the beach and twice as many cars on the road?  The idea is absurd.  Open borders morons will say anything to justify their agenda.


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was because he really cared about these kids, not the fact that the party was’t behind him and only 17 percent of the public approved. He’s just big softy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least as believable as leftists caring about these kids, when they haven't done a fucking thing to change the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would they change it?  It's working in their favor.  The MSM, the moderate right like Medved and Hewitt, the women are all on board with the destruction of this country by not providing deterrents to come here.  The invaders are winning to the point Trump is even giving in.
> 
> I'd hate to be alive in this country 50 years or so from today; a socialist, communist nightmare that the folks are creating today.  But like the frog in the pot of cold water on the stove....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are supporting a dictator who is ruining our country right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, he's trying to save it.  That's why we voted him in.  All we can do now is hope he devises new and stronger border protections TO save this country.  Next budget, the wall should not be negotiable.  Let the commies shutdown the government if they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *An when hasn't a tyrant claimed he's trying to save the country.  What a leader is trying to do often is less  important than the methods he's using. *
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation of Obama's lies.


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> Mike473 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live near the borders. The ports are not blocked. Sessions is encouraging true ASYLUM SEEKERS to make their intentions known at a border crossing rather than run into the desert or cross a river...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lawyers who work along the border are saying that’s not what’s happening. Asylum seekers are being slowed down and blocked at the borders. Asylum seekers have to have both feet on US soil to claim asylum. Trump won’t let them do that. That’s why they’re crossing any way they can. People are waiting days and then being turned away from crossing while being told the US is full and they can’t come in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good.  I only wish it was true.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking with a friend today who believes the Unites States could easily take in up to 300 million additional people and there is no reason to stop anyone at the border. Her reasoning is that the flow of immigration would end long before we reached that number and everyone would be happier for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *We could certainly take more people.  300 million? Don't think so. We take about a million legal immigrants a year but 600,000 are changes of status; that is they are already here.  Biggest problem in taking too many immigrants is assimilation.  You want new immigrants to mix into the population, not form clusters.*
Click to expand...

Why should we take a single additional person?  How do we benefit?


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> Yep, they can't vote if they're not here. You know exactly what you're doing.
> 
> Duh, you know, dude, we're 5% of the world, but anyone who lives in the world under a bad government, they just come here! Yeah, that's the way it's always been. Drool. Rad, man
> 
> Idiot



Not everyone wants to come here, and the ones who do are usually trying for a darned good reason. 

Here's the thing.... they come here because we have more jobs than we have people to do them.


----------



## JoeB131

Cellblock2429 said:


> /----/ The Liberal Immigration Policy
> Step one: Let the poor kids in for goodness sake.
> Step 2: Let the poor kids' parents in to care for them for goodness sake.
> Step 3: Let the poor kids grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters in to keep the family intact *and vote Democrat* for goodness sake.



And?  

It seems to me that you guys would have an equal chance to get these people to vote for you if you weren't going all Nazi on them. 

No, much easier to play on the racial fears of stupid white people about their inevitable minority status.


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ The Liberal Immigration Policy
> Step one: Let the poor kids in for goodness sake.
> Step 2: Let the poor kids' parents in to care for them for goodness sake.
> Step 3: Let the poor kids grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters in to keep the family intact *and vote Democrat* for goodness sake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> It seems to me that you guys would have an equal chance to get these people to vote for you if you weren't going all Nazi on them.
> 
> No, much easier to play on the racial fears of stupid white people about their inevitable minority status.
Click to expand...

/——/ If there was a chance they were voting GOP, you Libtards would be volunteering to build the wall brick by brick. Besides law breakers looking for welfare fall into the democRAT camp, not ours.


----------



## JoeB131

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——/ If there was a chance they were voting GOP, you Libtards would be volunteering to build the wall brick by brick. Besides law breakers looking for welfare fall into the democRAT camp, not ours.



Except these people aren't looking for welfare.  They are willing to do the jobs the welfare collecting white trash in the trailer parks aren't willing to do.


----------



## kaz

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If somebody wants to try a socialist/ communist society, all they have to do is move to the many outside of our borders.  And if they finally realize it's not all that it was cut out to be, they can always move back the the good ole USA if they let them.
> 
> Once they turn this place into the likes of all those others, there won't be a USA to move back to.  It will be gone forever and the great experiment concluded.  There is only one USA, and at least while I'm alive, it's worth preserving it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If someone wants to try a 100% capitalist society they....they can't, it doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you just blew the .01% of the population who are anarchists out of the water.  Your typical worthless post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, you can't live your wannabe John Galt dreams, don't blame the messenger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So were you not able to read my post as a defense mechanism or out of pure stupidity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest your reply was a waste of my time and I shouldn't have bothered responding to it.
Click to expand...


You mean your reply where I said I'm not an anarchist and you came back with that oh, I'm an anarchist?  Yes, you spent a lot of time on that.  It showed


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's out of his mind because he thinks that we should have a southern border.  You're out of your mind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have a southern border. Complete with a fence. The number one problem relative to illegal immigration is visa overstays.  But we must all be overly concerned with a southern border. And we all know why that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim to be a researcher, yet you just told a flat out lie.  More people cross the border than VISA overstays.
> 
> And wow, how stupid is that we get to pick one thing and one thing only and it must solve all problems.  Leftists never offer that on any issue, yet you demand it on every issue.  We want to deal with border crossings AND VISA overstays.  Two things???  Blows your mind, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because leftists find it hard to walk and breathe at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Visa overstays are the number 1 problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I don't know if they are a bigger problem but they are much harder to deport than border jumpers because they are not guilty of a criminal act thus they can't be tried in criminal court, are not eligible for expedited deportation, more likely to be represented by counsel, and more likely to be longer term residents settled in the community and more often professionals.
> 
> In order to remove most people that overstay visas, there will have to be major changes in immigration law because the law treats overstays about as seriously as your local library treats overdue books.
> 
> A second problem is ICE doesn't know who is overstaying visas and if they did where they are.  DHS testified before congress about how hard it is to identify who is overstaying their visa.  Due to the way visa's work particularly with those that leave and re-enter the country ICE can't tell for sure when a visa expires or whether the person is still in the country.
> 
> Since only visa holders that are issued work permits are assigned social security numbers, they can't be tracked through employment, tax returns, driving permits, etc.. only thru foreign passport numbers. Since foreign passport number are not standard in length are structure and often contain various special characters, many businesses and government agencies do not accurately record them.*
Click to expand...


You're right that we do need serious legislation.  We also need a database of when VISA holders entered, if they left, the expiration date and so on.  Then when their VISA expires and they haven't left, we need to issue an arrest warrant


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they can't vote if they're not here. You know exactly what you're doing.
> 
> Duh, you know, dude, we're 5% of the world, but anyone who lives in the world under a bad government, they just come here! Yeah, that's the way it's always been. Drool. Rad, man
> 
> Idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone wants to come here, and the ones who do are usually trying for a darned good reason.
> 
> Here's the thing.... they come here because we have more jobs than we have people to do them.
Click to expand...


Not the jobs they take.  Taking those jobs keep poor and disproportionately blacks on welfare voting for Democrats.

You bludgeon businesses into firing low end employees with taxes and regulations then import Democrat voters across the borders to take the jobs that are left.  For you that's win-win


----------



## IM2

kaz said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they can't vote if they're not here. You know exactly what you're doing.
> 
> Duh, you know, dude, we're 5% of the world, but anyone who lives in the world under a bad government, they just come here! Yeah, that's the way it's always been. Drool. Rad, man
> 
> Idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone wants to come here, and the ones who do are usually trying for a darned good reason.
> 
> Here's the thing.... they come here because we have more jobs than we have people to do them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the jobs they take.  Taking those jobs keep poor and disproportionately blacks on welfare voting for Democrats.
> 
> You bludgeon businesses into firing low end employees with taxes and regulations then import Democrat voters across the borders to take the jobs that are left.  For you that's win-win
Click to expand...


No, that's not what happens.


----------



## basquebromance

"Republicans should stop wasting their time on Immigration until after we elect more Senators and Congressmen/women in November. Dems are just playing games, have no intention of doing anything to solves this decades old problem. We can pass great legislation after the Red Wave!

Elect more Republicans in  November and we will pass the finest, fairest and most comprehensive Immigration Bills anywhere in the world. Right now we have the dumbest and the worst. Dems are doing nothing but Obstructing. Remember their motto, RESIST! Ours is PRODUCE!

Even if we get 100% Republican votes in the Senate, we need 10 Democrat votes to get a much needed Immigration Bill - & the Dems are Obstructionists who won’t give votes for political reasons & because they don’t care about Crime coming from Border! So we need to elect more R’s!" - President Trump


----------



## kaz

IM2 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they can't vote if they're not here. You know exactly what you're doing.
> 
> Duh, you know, dude, we're 5% of the world, but anyone who lives in the world under a bad government, they just come here! Yeah, that's the way it's always been. Drool. Rad, man
> 
> Idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone wants to come here, and the ones who do are usually trying for a darned good reason.
> 
> Here's the thing.... they come here because we have more jobs than we have people to do them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the jobs they take.  Taking those jobs keep poor and disproportionately blacks on welfare voting for Democrats.
> 
> You bludgeon businesses into firing low end employees with taxes and regulations then import Democrat voters across the borders to take the jobs that are left.  For you that's win-win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's not what happens.
Click to expand...


You don't know that and you call yourself a researcher?  That's hilarious


----------



## basquebromance

Millions come LEGALLY to the U.S.A  Calling illegal aliens 'undocumented immigrants ' is like calling heroin dealers 'undocumented pharmacists '


----------



## HappyJoy

kaz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone wants to try a 100% capitalist society they....they can't, it doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you just blew the .01% of the population who are anarchists out of the water.  Your typical worthless post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, you can't live your wannabe John Galt dreams, don't blame the messenger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So were you not able to read my post as a defense mechanism or out of pure stupidity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest your reply was a waste of my time and I shouldn't have bothered responding to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean your reply where I said I'm not an anarchist and you came back with that oh, I'm an anarchist?  Yes, you spent a lot of time on that.  It showed
Click to expand...


You can't even recap a 2 sentence conversation correctly. Ok, you got me, wasted my time again. Koz, stay on topic, it's your only hope.


----------



## kaz

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you just blew the .01% of the population who are anarchists out of the water.  Your typical worthless post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you can't live your wannabe John Galt dreams, don't blame the messenger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So were you not able to read my post as a defense mechanism or out of pure stupidity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest your reply was a waste of my time and I shouldn't have bothered responding to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean your reply where I said I'm not an anarchist and you came back with that oh, I'm an anarchist?  Yes, you spent a lot of time on that.  It showed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even recap a 2 sentence conversation correctly. Ok, you got me, wasted my time again. Koz, stay on topic, it's your only hope.
Click to expand...


You drool a lot, dont you?

You care (sic) about other's poor, not our own


----------



## bripat9643

JoeB131 said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ If there was a chance they were voting GOP, you Libtards would be volunteering to build the wall brick by brick. Besides law breakers looking for welfare fall into the democRAT camp, not ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except these people aren't looking for welfare.  They are willing to do the jobs the welfare collecting white trash in the trailer parks aren't willing to do.
Click to expand...

Many of them most certainly are looking for welfare, especially the women accompanied by young children.


----------



## bripat9643

kaz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you can't live your wannabe John Galt dreams, don't blame the messenger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So were you not able to read my post as a defense mechanism or out of pure stupidity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest your reply was a waste of my time and I shouldn't have bothered responding to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean your reply where I said I'm not an anarchist and you came back with that oh, I'm an anarchist?  Yes, you spent a lot of time on that.  It showed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even recap a 2 sentence conversation correctly. Ok, you got me, wasted my time again. Koz, stay on topic, it's your only hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You drool a lot, dont you?
Click to expand...

That's just puss leaking out of his ear.


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ If there was a chance they were voting GOP, you Libtards would be volunteering to build the wall brick by brick. Besides law breakers looking for welfare fall into the democRAT camp, not ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except these people aren't looking for welfare.  They are willing to do the jobs the welfare collecting white trash in the trailer parks aren't willing to do.
Click to expand...

/----/ Except they are looking for welfare.
Immigration and Welfare | Federation for American Immigration Reform
Although the United States’ welfare rolls are already swollen, every year we import more people who wind up on public assistance: immigrants. Many immigrants are poor; indeed, that is why they come here. The immigrants we admit are much poorer than the native population and are increasing the size of our impoverished population. The share of immigrants below the poverty line (17.8 percent) is much higher than the share of natives that are poor (12.6 percent).1

As a result of their high rate of poverty, immigrant households are more likely to participate in practically every one of the major means-tested programs. In 2007, immigrant use of welfare programs (32.7 percent) was 69 percent higher than non-immigrants’ use (19.4 percent).2

Each year, state governments spend an estimated $11 billion to $22 billion to provide welfare to immigrants.3 Those programs include Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Child Care and Development Fund, reduced meal programs in school and public housing.


----------



## basquebromance

What's on TV is a political tactic but something else terrifying is going on. Formerly responsible people suddenly sound like extremists. Left's no longer working to convince those who disagree. They’re trying to destroy those in the way. It’s not a pose. They're sincere. It's war.

it's a war, folks, it's a war.


----------



## danielpalos

I would like to be able to capitally care, but I don't have a petty cash fund for that purpose, is what I can claim, under Any form form of Capitalism. 

Socialists don't have that excuse.


----------



## HappyJoy

kaz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you can't live your wannabe John Galt dreams, don't blame the messenger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So were you not able to read my post as a defense mechanism or out of pure stupidity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest your reply was a waste of my time and I shouldn't have bothered responding to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean your reply where I said I'm not an anarchist and you came back with that oh, I'm an anarchist?  Yes, you spent a lot of time on that.  It showed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even recap a 2 sentence conversation correctly. Ok, you got me, wasted my time again. Koz, stay on topic, it's your only hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You drool a lot, dont you?
> 
> You care (sic) about other's poor, not our own
Click to expand...


Why are you adding a _sic_ to your own post?  I guess you don't know how that works either.


----------



## Cecilie1200

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a southern border. Complete with a fence. The number one problem relative to illegal immigration is visa overstays.  But we must all be overly concerned with a southern border. And we all know why that is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claim to be a researcher, yet you just told a flat out lie.  More people cross the border than VISA overstays.
> 
> And wow, how stupid is that we get to pick one thing and one thing only and it must solve all problems.  Leftists never offer that on any issue, yet you demand it on every issue.  We want to deal with border crossings AND VISA overstays.  Two things???  Blows your mind, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because leftists find it hard to walk and breathe at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Visa overstays are the number 1 problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I don't know if they are a bigger problem but they are much harder to deport than border jumpers because they are not guilty of a criminal act thus they can't be tried in criminal court, are not eligible for expedited deportation, more likely to be represented by counsel, and more likely to be longer term residents settled in the community and more often professionals.
> 
> In order to remove most people that overstay visas, there will have to be major changes in immigration law because the law treats overstays about as seriously as your local library treats overdue books.
> 
> A second problem is ICE doesn't know who is overstaying visas and if they did where they are.  DHS testified before congress about how hard it is to identify who is overstaying their visa.  Due to the way visa's work particularly with those that leave and re-enter the country ICE can't tell for sure when a visa expires or whether the person is still in the country.
> 
> Since only visa holders that are issued work permits are assigned social security numbers, they can't be tracked through employment, tax returns, driving permits, etc.. only thru foreign passport numbers. Since foreign passport number are not standard in length are structure and often contain various special characters, many businesses and government agencies do not accurately record them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right that we do need serious legislation.  We also need a database of when VISA holders entered, if they left, the expiration date and so on.  Then when their VISA expires and they haven't left, we need to issue an arrest warrant
Click to expand...


I find it unbelievable that we just issue VISAs like number slips from those little machines at the Post Office, and then never bother to keep track of them.


----------



## danielpalos

Cecilie1200 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim to be a researcher, yet you just told a flat out lie.  More people cross the border than VISA overstays.
> 
> And wow, how stupid is that we get to pick one thing and one thing only and it must solve all problems.  Leftists never offer that on any issue, yet you demand it on every issue.  We want to deal with border crossings AND VISA overstays.  Two things???  Blows your mind, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because leftists find it hard to walk and breathe at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Visa overstays are the number 1 problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I don't know if they are a bigger problem but they are much harder to deport than border jumpers because they are not guilty of a criminal act thus they can't be tried in criminal court, are not eligible for expedited deportation, more likely to be represented by counsel, and more likely to be longer term residents settled in the community and more often professionals.
> 
> In order to remove most people that overstay visas, there will have to be major changes in immigration law because the law treats overstays about as seriously as your local library treats overdue books.
> 
> A second problem is ICE doesn't know who is overstaying visas and if they did where they are.  DHS testified before congress about how hard it is to identify who is overstaying their visa.  Due to the way visa's work particularly with those that leave and re-enter the country ICE can't tell for sure when a visa expires or whether the person is still in the country.
> 
> Since only visa holders that are issued work permits are assigned social security numbers, they can't be tracked through employment, tax returns, driving permits, etc.. only thru foreign passport numbers. Since foreign passport number are not standard in length are structure and often contain various special characters, many businesses and government agencies do not accurately record them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right that we do need serious legislation.  We also need a database of when VISA holders entered, if they left, the expiration date and so on.  Then when their VISA expires and they haven't left, we need to issue an arrest warrant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it unbelievable that we just issue VISAs like number slips from those little machines at the Post Office, and then never bother to keep track of them.
Click to expand...

We should be making money, not losing money.

A friendlier visa could function as a federal id. for a market friendly fee or fine.  Yearly expiration could ensure, updated statuses or pay the fine, instead of the fee.


----------



## Cecilie1200

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So were you not able to read my post as a defense mechanism or out of pure stupidity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest your reply was a waste of my time and I shouldn't have bothered responding to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean your reply where I said I'm not an anarchist and you came back with that oh, I'm an anarchist?  Yes, you spent a lot of time on that.  It showed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even recap a 2 sentence conversation correctly. Ok, you got me, wasted my time again. Koz, stay on topic, it's your only hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You drool a lot, dont you?
> 
> You care (sic) about other's poor, not our own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you adding a _sic_ to your own post?  I guess you don't know how that works either.
Click to expand...


Because it's a quote of something you said which is incorrect.  You know, unless you have NOT, in fact, been trying to tell us that you care about illegals.

You're not real swift on the uptake, are ya?


----------



## kaz

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So were you not able to read my post as a defense mechanism or out of pure stupidity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest your reply was a waste of my time and I shouldn't have bothered responding to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean your reply where I said I'm not an anarchist and you came back with that oh, I'm an anarchist?  Yes, you spent a lot of time on that.  It showed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even recap a 2 sentence conversation correctly. Ok, you got me, wasted my time again. Koz, stay on topic, it's your only hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You drool a lot, dont you?
> 
> You care (sic) about other's poor, not our own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you adding a _sic_ to your own post?  I guess you don't know how that works either.
Click to expand...


OMG you're stupid.  You didn't understand that?  Seriously?

I'm curious.  How did you justify in your mind that you were actually smart despite your grades and test scores?


----------



## kaz

Cecilie1200 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest your reply was a waste of my time and I shouldn't have bothered responding to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean your reply where I said I'm not an anarchist and you came back with that oh, I'm an anarchist?  Yes, you spent a lot of time on that.  It showed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even recap a 2 sentence conversation correctly. Ok, you got me, wasted my time again. Koz, stay on topic, it's your only hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You drool a lot, dont you?
> 
> You care (sic) about other's poor, not our own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you adding a _sic_ to your own post?  I guess you don't know how that works either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it's a quote of something you said which is incorrect.  You know, unless you have NOT, in fact, been trying to tell us that you care about illegals.
> 
> You're not real swift on the uptake, are ya?
Click to expand...


I can't believe he didn't get that.  I guess that's why he falls for everything Democrats tell him


----------



## Cecilie1200

kaz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean your reply where I said I'm not an anarchist and you came back with that oh, I'm an anarchist?  Yes, you spent a lot of time on that.  It showed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even recap a 2 sentence conversation correctly. Ok, you got me, wasted my time again. Koz, stay on topic, it's your only hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You drool a lot, dont you?
> 
> You care (sic) about other's poor, not our own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you adding a _sic_ to your own post?  I guess you don't know how that works either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it's a quote of something you said which is incorrect.  You know, unless you have NOT, in fact, been trying to tell us that you care about illegals.
> 
> You're not real swift on the uptake, are ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't believe he didn't get that.  I guess that's why he falls for everything Democrats tell him
Click to expand...


I thought it was hilarious, myself.  Clearly, your humor is too subtle for the likes of Happy, who's still on the "Three Stooges" level.


----------



## mudwhistle

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​




We don't hate illegals. 
We would love them to stay where they belong. 

If I was to invade Germany, which I love very much, I would expect to be arrested and deported.


----------



## danielpalos

mudwhistle said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't hate illegals.
> We would love them to stay where they belong.
> 
> If I was to invade Germany, which I love very much, I would expect to be arrested and deported.
Click to expand...

let's build new cities for them.


----------



## ph3iron

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


We have 350000000 people here .
And we are worried about 10000000 young people who will help our SS and work harder than our local rubes?


----------



## ph3iron

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
Click to expand...

There's positive human cost.
They will raise the IQ of us all


----------



## bripat9643

IM2 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they can't vote if they're not here. You know exactly what you're doing.
> 
> Duh, you know, dude, we're 5% of the world, but anyone who lives in the world under a bad government, they just come here! Yeah, that's the way it's always been. Drool. Rad, man
> 
> Idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone wants to come here, and the ones who do are usually trying for a darned good reason.
> 
> Here's the thing.... they come here because we have more jobs than we have people to do them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the jobs they take.  Taking those jobs keep poor and disproportionately blacks on welfare voting for Democrats.
> 
> You bludgeon businesses into firing low end employees with taxes and regulations then import Democrat voters across the borders to take the jobs that are left.  For you that's win-win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's not what happens.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what happens.


----------



## bripat9643

ph3iron said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> We have 350000000 people here .
> And we are worried about 10000000 young people who will help our SS and work harder than our local rubes?
Click to expand...

It's more like 40 million


----------



## bripat9643

Cecilie1200 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest your reply was a waste of my time and I shouldn't have bothered responding to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean your reply where I said I'm not an anarchist and you came back with that oh, I'm an anarchist?  Yes, you spent a lot of time on that.  It showed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even recap a 2 sentence conversation correctly. Ok, you got me, wasted my time again. Koz, stay on topic, it's your only hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You drool a lot, dont you?
> 
> You care (sic) about other's poor, not our own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you adding a _sic_ to your own post?  I guess you don't know how that works either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it's a quote of something you said which is incorrect.  You know, unless you have NOT, in fact, been trying to tell us that you care about illegals.
> 
> You're not real swift on the uptake, are ya?
Click to expand...


[sic] is for noting grammar or syntax errors.  Quotes are what he should have used.


----------



## kaz

bripat9643 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean your reply where I said I'm not an anarchist and you came back with that oh, I'm an anarchist?  Yes, you spent a lot of time on that.  It showed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even recap a 2 sentence conversation correctly. Ok, you got me, wasted my time again. Koz, stay on topic, it's your only hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You drool a lot, dont you?
> 
> You care (sic) about other's poor, not our own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you adding a _sic_ to your own post?  I guess you don't know how that works either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it's a quote of something you said which is incorrect.  You know, unless you have NOT, in fact, been trying to tell us that you care about illegals.
> 
> You're not real swift on the uptake, are ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [sic] is for noting grammar or syntax errors.  Quotes are what he should have used.
Click to expand...

Sic translates as "not my mistake."  Exactly what I meant.  Cecile got it.  I did NOT mean quotes


----------



## Flopper

bripat9643 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike473 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live near the borders. The ports are not blocked. Sessions is encouraging true ASYLUM SEEKERS to make their intentions known at a border crossing rather than run into the desert or cross a river...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lawyers who work along the border are saying that’s not what’s happening. Asylum seekers are being slowed down and blocked at the borders. Asylum seekers have to have both feet on US soil to claim asylum. Trump won’t let them do that. That’s why they’re crossing any way they can. People are waiting days and then being turned away from crossing while being told the US is full and they can’t come in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good.  I only wish it was true.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking with a friend today who believes the Unites States could easily take in up to 300 million additional people and there is no reason to stop anyone at the border. Her reasoning is that the flow of immigration would end long before we reached that number and everyone would be happier for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *We could certainly take more people.  300 million? Don't think so. We take about a million legal immigrants a year but 600,000 are changes of status; that is they are already here.  Biggest problem in taking too many immigrants is assimilation.  You want new immigrants to mix into the population, not form clusters.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should we take a single additional person?  How do we benefit?
Click to expand...

*America needs immigrants to grow and prosper, especially highly-skilled immigrants who fuel innovation and spur higher productivity gains across the economy.  We simple don't produce enough to meet demand.

Annual growth of the labor force has slowed from 1.2 percent in the 1990s to 0.5 percent in the current decade. And with the number of native-born Americans of working age on a path to decline by 8 million between now and 2035, we need immigrant workers and their children to maintain our economic growth into the future. 

What we don't need is more illegal immigrants that live in the shadows.  They can not assimilate and contribute to economy in the way legal immigrants can.
Immigration projected to drive growth in U.S. working-age population through at least 2035 *


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike473 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lawyers who work along the border are saying that’s not what’s happening. Asylum seekers are being slowed down and blocked at the borders. Asylum seekers have to have both feet on US soil to claim asylum. Trump won’t let them do that. That’s why they’re crossing any way they can. People are waiting days and then being turned away from crossing while being told the US is full and they can’t come in.
> 
> 
> 
> Good.  I only wish it was true.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking with a friend today who believes the Unites States could easily take in up to 300 million additional people and there is no reason to stop anyone at the border. Her reasoning is that the flow of immigration would end long before we reached that number and everyone would be happier for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *We could certainly take more people.  300 million? Don't think so. We take about a million legal immigrants a year but 600,000 are changes of status; that is they are already here.  Biggest problem in taking too many immigrants is assimilation.  You want new immigrants to mix into the population, not form clusters.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should we take a single additional person?  How do we benefit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *America needs immigrants to grow and prosper, especially highly-skilled immigrants who fuel innovation and spur higher productivity gains across the economy.  We simple don't produce enough to meet demand.
> 
> Annual growth of the labor force has slowed from 1.2 percent in the 1990s to 0.5 percent in the current decade. And with the number of native-born Americans of working age on a path to decline by 8 million between now and 2035, we need immigrant workers and their children to maintain our economic growth into the future.
> 
> What we don't need is more illegal immigrants that live in the shadows.  They can not assimilate and contribute to economy in the way legal immigrants can.
> Immigration projected to drive growth in U.S. working-age population through at least 2035 *
Click to expand...

Were taking about illegal aliens, not "immigrants," race baiting jackass


----------



## HappyJoy

Cecilie1200 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest your reply was a waste of my time and I shouldn't have bothered responding to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean your reply where I said I'm not an anarchist and you came back with that oh, I'm an anarchist?  Yes, you spent a lot of time on that.  It showed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even recap a 2 sentence conversation correctly. Ok, you got me, wasted my time again. Koz, stay on topic, it's your only hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You drool a lot, dont you?
> 
> You care (sic) about other's poor, not our own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you adding a _sic_ to your own post?  I guess you don't know how that works either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it's a quote of something you said which is incorrect.  You know, unless you have NOT, in fact, been trying to tell us that you care about illegals.
> 
> You're not real swift on the uptake, are ya?
Click to expand...


No, it's not a quote dingbat.


----------



## HappyJoy

kaz said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even recap a 2 sentence conversation correctly. Ok, you got me, wasted my time again. Koz, stay on topic, it's your only hope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You drool a lot, dont you?
> 
> You care (sic) about other's poor, not our own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you adding a _sic_ to your own post?  I guess you don't know how that works either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it's a quote of something you said which is incorrect.  You know, unless you have NOT, in fact, been trying to tell us that you care about illegals.
> 
> You're not real swift on the uptake, are ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [sic] is for noting grammar or syntax errors.  Quotes are what he should have used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sic translates as "not my mistake."  Exactly what I meant.  Cecile got it.  I did NOT mean quotes
Click to expand...


Sorry, you failed English, please deport yourself.


----------



## Flopper

Cellblock2429 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ If there was a chance they were voting GOP, you Libtards would be volunteering to build the wall brick by brick. Besides law breakers looking for welfare fall into the democRAT camp, not ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except these people aren't looking for welfare.  They are willing to do the jobs the welfare collecting white trash in the trailer parks aren't willing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Except they are looking for welfare.
> Immigration and Welfare | Federation for American Immigration Reform
> Although the United States’ welfare rolls are already swollen, every year we import more people who wind up on public assistance: immigrants. Many immigrants are poor; indeed, that is why they come here. The immigrants we admit are much poorer than the native population and are increasing the size of our impoverished population. The share of immigrants below the poverty line (17.8 percent) is much higher than the share of natives that are poor (12.6 percent).1
> 
> As a result of their high rate of poverty, immigrant households are more likely to participate in practically every one of the major means-tested programs. In 2007, immigrant use of welfare programs (32.7 percent) was 69 percent higher than non-immigrants’ use (19.4 percent).2
> 
> Each year, state governments spend an estimated $11 billion to $22 billion to provide welfare to immigrants.3 Those programs include Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Child Care and Development Fund, reduced meal programs in school and public housing.
Click to expand...

*The statistics are a bit misleading.  If you look at the number of immigrant families below the poverty level, there is little difference. However these statistics are per capita and since immigrants families are much larger, per capita, statistics will how a much higher percentage in poverty.

As we move from 1st generation immigrants to second generation, the per capita difference fades due the fact 2nd generation families are much smaller and make more money.*


----------



## kaz

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You drool a lot, dont you?
> 
> You care (sic) about other's poor, not our own
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you adding a _sic_ to your own post?  I guess you don't know how that works either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it's a quote of something you said which is incorrect.  You know, unless you have NOT, in fact, been trying to tell us that you care about illegals.
> 
> You're not real swift on the uptake, are ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [sic] is for noting grammar or syntax errors.  Quotes are what he should have used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sic translates as "not my mistake."  Exactly what I meant.  Cecile got it.  I did NOT mean quotes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, you failed English, please deport yourself.
Click to expand...

Even after reading it, Cecile explaining it and me explaining it you dont get it, do you?  Classic.  Its special ed for you all over again...


----------



## Cecilie1200

mudwhistle said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't hate illegals.
> We would love them to stay where they belong.
> 
> If I was to invade Germany, which I love very much, I would expect to be arrested and deported.
Click to expand...


I don't have much feeling about the individuals one way or another.  I absolutely hate their disrespect for our laws and our country.  If they had turned up through the proper legal channels, it would then be a question of whether or not they were useful, productive residents.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ph3iron said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> We have 350000000 people here .
> And we are worried about 10000000 young people who will help our SS and work harder than our local rubes?
Click to expand...


Yes.  Because they aren't all young, they aren't all helpful, and they aren't all hard-working.

Oh, and we already have 350,000,000 people here.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ph3iron said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's positive human cost.
> They will raise the IQ of us all
Click to expand...


They might raise YOURS, because the more you talk, the more convinced I become that a really good bowel movement would raise your IQ.


----------



## Cecilie1200

bripat9643 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean your reply where I said I'm not an anarchist and you came back with that oh, I'm an anarchist?  Yes, you spent a lot of time on that.  It showed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even recap a 2 sentence conversation correctly. Ok, you got me, wasted my time again. Koz, stay on topic, it's your only hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You drool a lot, dont you?
> 
> You care (sic) about other's poor, not our own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you adding a _sic_ to your own post?  I guess you don't know how that works either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it's a quote of something you said which is incorrect.  You know, unless you have NOT, in fact, been trying to tell us that you care about illegals.
> 
> You're not real swift on the uptake, are ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [sic] is for noting grammar or syntax errors.  Quotes are what he should have used.
Click to expand...


I'm aware.  It was intended to be a snarky backhand, rather than a serious usage, so I can accept it and find it funny.  I'm reading it as a correction of the typographical error of Happy saying he cares when he should have said he DOESN'T care.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike473 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lawyers who work along the border are saying that’s not what’s happening. Asylum seekers are being slowed down and blocked at the borders. Asylum seekers have to have both feet on US soil to claim asylum. Trump won’t let them do that. That’s why they’re crossing any way they can. People are waiting days and then being turned away from crossing while being told the US is full and they can’t come in.
> 
> 
> 
> Good.  I only wish it was true.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking with a friend today who believes the Unites States could easily take in up to 300 million additional people and there is no reason to stop anyone at the border. Her reasoning is that the flow of immigration would end long before we reached that number and everyone would be happier for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *We could certainly take more people.  300 million? Don't think so. We take about a million legal immigrants a year but 600,000 are changes of status; that is they are already here.  Biggest problem in taking too many immigrants is assimilation.  You want new immigrants to mix into the population, not form clusters.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should we take a single additional person?  How do we benefit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *America needs immigrants to grow and prosper, especially highly-skilled immigrants who fuel innovation and spur higher productivity gains across the economy.  We simple don't produce enough to meet demand.
> 
> Annual growth of the labor force has slowed from 1.2 percent in the 1990s to 0.5 percent in the current decade. And with the number of native-born Americans of working age on a path to decline by 8 million between now and 2035, we need immigrant workers and their children to maintain our economic growth into the future.
> 
> What we don't need is more illegal immigrants that live in the shadows.  They can not assimilate and contribute to economy in the way legal immigrants can.
> Immigration projected to drive growth in U.S. working-age population through at least 2035 *
Click to expand...


You're correct.  We DON'T need more illegal immigrants that live in the shadows.  But since living in the shadows is what people who break the law DO, that translates out into "we don't need more illegal immigrants".  And no, the solution to crime is NEVER to simply stop viewing it as bad.


----------



## bripat9643

Cecilie1200 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even recap a 2 sentence conversation correctly. Ok, you got me, wasted my time again. Koz, stay on topic, it's your only hope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You drool a lot, dont you?
> 
> You care (sic) about other's poor, not our own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you adding a _sic_ to your own post?  I guess you don't know how that works either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it's a quote of something you said which is incorrect.  You know, unless you have NOT, in fact, been trying to tell us that you care about illegals.
> 
> You're not real swift on the uptake, are ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [sic] is for noting grammar or syntax errors.  Quotes are what he should have used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm aware.  It was intended to be a snarky backhand, rather than a serious usage, so I can accept it and find it funny.  I'm reading it as a correction of the typographical error of Happy saying he cares when he should have said he DOESN'T care.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we all know that's what he meant, even HappyJoy knows that.  Most people give syntax errors a pass, unless they are vindictive douchebag snowflakes.


----------



## Cecilie1200

HappyJoy said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean your reply where I said I'm not an anarchist and you came back with that oh, I'm an anarchist?  Yes, you spent a lot of time on that.  It showed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even recap a 2 sentence conversation correctly. Ok, you got me, wasted my time again. Koz, stay on topic, it's your only hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You drool a lot, dont you?
> 
> You care (sic) about other's poor, not our own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you adding a _sic_ to your own post?  I guess you don't know how that works either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it's a quote of something you said which is incorrect.  You know, unless you have NOT, in fact, been trying to tell us that you care about illegals.
> 
> You're not real swift on the uptake, are ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not a quote dingbat.
Click to expand...


Oh?  You've never claimed to care about illegals?  Well, then you're more honest than I have previously given you credit for.


----------



## Cecilie1200

bripat9643 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You drool a lot, dont you?
> 
> You care (sic) about other's poor, not our own
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you adding a _sic_ to your own post?  I guess you don't know how that works either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it's a quote of something you said which is incorrect.  You know, unless you have NOT, in fact, been trying to tell us that you care about illegals.
> 
> You're not real swift on the uptake, are ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [sic] is for noting grammar or syntax errors.  Quotes are what he should have used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm aware.  It was intended to be a snarky backhand, rather than a serious usage, so I can accept it and find it funny.  I'm reading it as a correction of the typographical error of Happy saying he cares when he should have said he DOESN'T care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, we all know that's what he meant, even HappyJoy knows that.  Most people give syntax errors a pass, unless they are vindictive douchebag snowflakes.
Click to expand...


Yeah, and Kaz wasn't pointing out a REAL syntax error.  He was pointing out that any claim that Happy cares about illegals is missing the word "doesn't".


----------



## HappyJoy

kaz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you adding a _sic_ to your own post?  I guess you don't know how that works either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's a quote of something you said which is incorrect.  You know, unless you have NOT, in fact, been trying to tell us that you care about illegals.
> 
> You're not real swift on the uptake, are ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [sic] is for noting grammar or syntax errors.  Quotes are what he should have used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sic translates as "not my mistake."  Exactly what I meant.  Cecile got it.  I did NOT mean quotes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, you failed English, please deport yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even after reading it, Cecile explaining it and me explaining it you dont get it, do you?  Classic.  Its special ed for you all over again...
Click to expand...


You didn't even directly quote me. Yes, everyone knows what you meant, you're just to dumb to understand that you made a mistake. Can we move on now?


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ If there was a chance they were voting GOP, you Libtards would be volunteering to build the wall brick by brick. Besides law breakers looking for welfare fall into the democRAT camp, not ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except these people aren't looking for welfare.  They are willing to do the jobs the welfare collecting white trash in the trailer parks aren't willing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You drool a lot, dont you?
> 
> You care (sic) about other's poor, not our own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you adding a _sic_ to your own post?  I guess you don't know how that works either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it's a quote of something you said which is incorrect.  You know, unless you have NOT, in fact, been trying to tell us that you care about illegals.
> 
> You're not real swift on the uptake, are ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [sic] is for noting grammar or syntax errors.  Quotes are what he should have used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm aware.  It was intended to be a snarky backhand, rather than a serious usage, so I can accept it and find it funny.  I'm reading it as a correction of the typographical error of Happy saying he cares when he should have said he DOESN'T care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, we all know that's what he meant, even HappyJoy knows that.  Most people give syntax errors a pass, unless they are vindictive douchebag snowflakes.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syntax errors had nothing to do with it.  Sheesh.
> 
> Happy joy.    bripat.
> 
> 
> Sic means "not my mistake."  Syntax errors are only one use of it
Click to expand...


----------



## Cecilie1200

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's a quote of something you said which is incorrect.  You know, unless you have NOT, in fact, been trying to tell us that you care about illegals.
> 
> You're not real swift on the uptake, are ya?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [sic] is for noting grammar or syntax errors.  Quotes are what he should have used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sic translates as "not my mistake."  Exactly what I meant.  Cecile got it.  I did NOT mean quotes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, you failed English, please deport yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even after reading it, Cecile explaining it and me explaining it you dont get it, do you?  Classic.  Its special ed for you all over again...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't even directly quote me. Yes, everyone knows what you meant, you're just to dumb to understand that you made a mistake. Can we move on now?
Click to expand...


There's a difference between quoting, and direct quoting.  No one ever claimed it was a direct quote.

And he didn't make a mistake.  He made a joke.  You're just pissy because he made it at your expense, and you think having a stick-up-your-ass grammatical argument will somehow make you look less foolish.  We could have moved on several post ago, if you hadn't been wasting our time trying to "win".  (See, there are the quotes you wanted.  You're welcome.)


----------



## bripat9643

Cecilie1200 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [sic] is for noting grammar or syntax errors.  Quotes are what he should have used.
> 
> 
> 
> Sic translates as "not my mistake."  Exactly what I meant.  Cecile got it.  I did NOT mean quotes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, you failed English, please deport yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even after reading it, Cecile explaining it and me explaining it you dont get it, do you?  Classic.  Its special ed for you all over again...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't even directly quote me. Yes, everyone knows what you meant, you're just to dumb to understand that you made a mistake. Can we move on now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a difference between quoting, and direct quoting.  No one ever claimed it was a direct quote.
> 
> And he didn't make a mistake.  He made a joke.  You're just pissy because he made it at your expense, and you think having a stick-up-your-ass grammatical argument will somehow make you look less foolish.  We could have moved on several post ago, if you hadn't been wasting our time trying to "win".  (See, there are the quotes you wanted.  You're welcome.)
Click to expand...

I'm not pissy.  I didn't want to have this big discussion about it.  I just made a passing comment.  No offense intended.

Now would everyone get off my case?


----------



## kaz

bripat9643 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sic translates as "not my mistake."  Exactly what I meant.  Cecile got it.  I did NOT mean quotes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you failed English, please deport yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even after reading it, Cecile explaining it and me explaining it you dont get it, do you?  Classic.  Its special ed for you all over again...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't even directly quote me. Yes, everyone knows what you meant, you're just to dumb to understand that you made a mistake. Can we move on now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a difference between quoting, and direct quoting.  No one ever claimed it was a direct quote.
> 
> And he didn't make a mistake.  He made a joke.  You're just pissy because he made it at your expense, and you think having a stick-up-your-ass grammatical argument will somehow make you look less foolish.  We could have moved on several post ago, if you hadn't been wasting our time trying to "win".  (See, there are the quotes you wanted.  You're welcome.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not pissy.  I didn't want to have this big discussion about it.  I just made a passing comment.  No offense intended.
> 
> Now would everyone get off my case?
Click to expand...


I only got on your case because you slammed me for criticizing a syntax error ... which I DID NOT DO


----------



## danielpalos

Flopper said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike473 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lawyers who work along the border are saying that’s not what’s happening. Asylum seekers are being slowed down and blocked at the borders. Asylum seekers have to have both feet on US soil to claim asylum. Trump won’t let them do that. That’s why they’re crossing any way they can. People are waiting days and then being turned away from crossing while being told the US is full and they can’t come in.
> 
> 
> 
> Good.  I only wish it was true.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking with a friend today who believes the Unites States could easily take in up to 300 million additional people and there is no reason to stop anyone at the border. Her reasoning is that the flow of immigration would end long before we reached that number and everyone would be happier for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *We could certainly take more people.  300 million? Don't think so. We take about a million legal immigrants a year but 600,000 are changes of status; that is they are already here.  Biggest problem in taking too many immigrants is assimilation.  You want new immigrants to mix into the population, not form clusters.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should we take a single additional person?  How do we benefit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *America needs immigrants to grow and prosper, especially highly-skilled immigrants who fuel innovation and spur higher productivity gains across the economy.  We simple don't produce enough to meet demand.
> 
> Annual growth of the labor force has slowed from 1.2 percent in the 1990s to 0.5 percent in the current decade. And with the number of native-born Americans of working age on a path to decline by 8 million between now and 2035, we need immigrant workers and their children to maintain our economic growth into the future.
> 
> What we don't need is more illegal immigrants that live in the shadows.  They can not assimilate and contribute to economy in the way legal immigrants can.
> Immigration projected to drive growth in U.S. working-age population through at least 2035 *
Click to expand...

we need to end our alleged wars on drugs and terror.  those policies create refugees.


----------



## Mike473

Under the current system, what % of illegal immigrants could gain entrance to the United States through the process in place now? How many have high end work skills?

I am assuming that a high % have only a small chance of making it in legally. In other words, waiting in line is not an option if your turn will never come. They have nothing to lose by trying to get in any way they can. I doubt they are worried about larger political arguments, only improving their immediate family situation. Survival comes first.

The big question is how to fix the process. How many people per year can the United States support? What steps can the US take to influence improvements in Central and South America to raise the standard of living, if anything?

I am also assuming that the United States is acting as a pressure release for many of those countries. If the US cut off all immigration, I am betting that over time, the millions of people who would have otherwise decided to run, would find the only option was to fight. That kind of atmosphere can lead to some bad outcomes.


----------



## danielpalos

Mike473 said:


> Under the current system, what % of illegal immigrants could gain entrance to the United States through the process in place now? How many have high end work skills?
> 
> I am assuming that a high % have only a small chance of making it in legally. In other words, waiting in line is not an option if your turn will never come. They have nothing to lose by trying to get in any way they can. I doubt they are worried about larger political arguments, only improving their immediate family situation. Survival comes first.
> 
> The big question is how to fix the process. How many people per year can the United States support? What steps can the US take to influence improvements in Central and South America to raise the standard of living, if anything?
> 
> I am also assuming that the United States is acting as a pressure release for many of those countries. If the US cut off all immigration, I am betting that over time, the millions of people who would have otherwise decided to run, would find the only option was to fight. That kind of atmosphere can lead to some bad outcomes.


Tourism.  Most people fleeing persecution may be able to "wait it out", and perhaps coincide with a good exchange rate, before going back.  We could be making money, not losing money.  

Being Good Capitalists, can be so difficult, for the right wing.


----------



## AZGAL

This thread was concerned with the human cost of immigration. All immigration is a privilege except for the human rights of true asylum candidates and the true rights of unaccompanied children to a fair process including a chance at asylum. Of course there are some special visas allowed as well.


----------



## Cecilie1200

bripat9643 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sic translates as "not my mistake."  Exactly what I meant.  Cecile got it.  I did NOT mean quotes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you failed English, please deport yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even after reading it, Cecile explaining it and me explaining it you dont get it, do you?  Classic.  Its special ed for you all over again...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't even directly quote me. Yes, everyone knows what you meant, you're just to dumb to understand that you made a mistake. Can we move on now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a difference between quoting, and direct quoting.  No one ever claimed it was a direct quote.
> 
> And he didn't make a mistake.  He made a joke.  You're just pissy because he made it at your expense, and you think having a stick-up-your-ass grammatical argument will somehow make you look less foolish.  We could have moved on several post ago, if you hadn't been wasting our time trying to "win".  (See, there are the quotes you wanted.  You're welcome.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not pissy.  I didn't want to have this big discussion about it.  I just made a passing comment.  No offense intended.
> 
> Now would everyone get off my case?
Click to expand...


Not you, dear.  Happy.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Mike473 said:


> Under the current system, what % of illegal immigrants could gain entrance to the United States through the process in place now? How many have high end work skills?
> 
> I am assuming that a high % have only a small chance of making it in legally. In other words, waiting in line is not an option if your turn will never come. They have nothing to lose by trying to get in any way they can. I doubt they are worried about larger political arguments, only improving their immediate family situation. Survival comes first.
> 
> The big question is how to fix the process. How many people per year can the United States support? What steps can the US take to influence improvements in Central and South America to raise the standard of living, if anything?
> 
> I am also assuming that the United States is acting as a pressure release for many of those countries. If the US cut off all immigration, I am betting that over time, the millions of people who would have otherwise decided to run, would find the only option was to fight. That kind of atmosphere can lead to some bad outcomes.



Actually, our current immigration system doesn't require high-end work skills.  One of the many things that's broken about it is that, thanks to Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy, we went from expecting immigration to benefit the US to thinking it exists because people "deserve" to upgrade their country.

It's my opinion - shared by a lot of people - that we should GIVE them something to lose by "trying to get in any way they can".  Yeah, you may have to wait on line for a long time.  You may have to look for ways to make yourself more valuable to the US (although, as I said, we now seem to think there's something wrong with preferring a nuclear physicist over a farm worker with a 2nd-grade education).  You may even be stuck with trying to find some way to improve your own shithole country.  I dunno.  But we definitely need to put a stop to it being no big deal to break our laws.

And spare me the "survival" argument.  The vast majority of these people are not in an invade-the-US-or-die situation.  If they were, they'd be able to apply for asylum, which doesn't require sneaking through the scrub brush at all.

I fail to see how there's any question about what WE should do to improve other countries at all, as if it's our fault and responsibility.  Unless we're planning to invade and occupy the damned places, and thereby at LEAST get the benefits of the real estate, it is not our business to try to remake the world.


----------



## Flopper

danielpalos said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike473 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good.  I only wish it was true.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking with a friend today who believes the Unites States could easily take in up to 300 million additional people and there is no reason to stop anyone at the border. Her reasoning is that the flow of immigration would end long before we reached that number and everyone would be happier for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *We could certainly take more people.  300 million? Don't think so. We take about a million legal immigrants a year but 600,000 are changes of status; that is they are already here.  Biggest problem in taking too many immigrants is assimilation.  You want new immigrants to mix into the population, not form clusters.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should we take a single additional person?  How do we benefit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *America needs immigrants to grow and prosper, especially highly-skilled immigrants who fuel innovation and spur higher productivity gains across the economy.  We simple don't produce enough to meet demand.
> 
> Annual growth of the labor force has slowed from 1.2 percent in the 1990s to 0.5 percent in the current decade. And with the number of native-born Americans of working age on a path to decline by 8 million between now and 2035, we need immigrant workers and their children to maintain our economic growth into the future.
> 
> What we don't need is more illegal immigrants that live in the shadows.  They can not assimilate and contribute to economy in the way legal immigrants can.
> Immigration projected to drive growth in U.S. working-age population through at least 2035 *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we need to end our alleged wars on drugs and terror.  those policies create refugees.
Click to expand...

*Why not?
We lost the war on drugs years ago and there was never a real war on terror.*


----------



## Kondor3

Dear World:

Thank you for your patronage over the past 200 years as you've sent us your tired, your poor and your huddled masses.

That allowed us to fill an entire continent with your distant cousins and whatever wretched refuse you could not sustain.

We regret to inform you, however, that we are now full-up and no longer taking new applications to take up residence with us.

We have the utmost confidence in your ability to improve your own countries so that emigration is no longer problematic.

Meanwhile, please stop sending your trash our way, and find another pressure safety valve to vent your steam.

We now embark upon an era in which we apply the same sort of screening criteria that most of you already do.

Very best regards,

Your distant cousins,

The United States of America


----------



## kaz

Cecilie1200 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you failed English, please deport yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Even after reading it, Cecile explaining it and me explaining it you dont get it, do you?  Classic.  Its special ed for you all over again...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't even directly quote me. Yes, everyone knows what you meant, you're just to dumb to understand that you made a mistake. Can we move on now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a difference between quoting, and direct quoting.  No one ever claimed it was a direct quote.
> 
> And he didn't make a mistake.  He made a joke.  You're just pissy because he made it at your expense, and you think having a stick-up-your-ass grammatical argument will somehow make you look less foolish.  We could have moved on several post ago, if you hadn't been wasting our time trying to "win".  (See, there are the quotes you wanted.  You're welcome.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not pissy.  I didn't want to have this big discussion about it.  I just made a passing comment.  No offense intended.
> 
> Now would everyone get off my case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not you, dear.  Happy.
Click to expand...


At some point bripat should have asked himself, WTF, I'm arguing on HappyJoy's side, obviously I'm completely lost.  But he didn't, he continued to be HJ's nut sack


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Mike473 said:


> Under the current system, what % of illegal immigrants could gain entrance to the United States through the process in place now? How many have high end work skills?
> 
> I am assuming that a high % have only a small chance of making it in legally. In other words, waiting in line is not an option if your turn will never come. They have nothing to lose by trying to get in any way they can. I doubt they are worried about larger political arguments, only improving their immediate family situation. Survival comes first.
> 
> The big question is how to fix the process. How many people per year can the United States support? What steps can the US take to influence improvements in Central and South America to raise the standard of living, if anything?
> 
> I am also assuming that the United States is acting as a pressure release for many of those countries. If the US cut off all immigration, I am betting that over time, the millions of people who would have otherwise decided to run, would find the only option was to fight. That kind of atmosphere can lead to some bad outcomes.



The other option is to allow these breeding grounds continue to keep making children and then coming here.  It's not like there is an immediate problem and the solution is asylum.  The problems will continue to grow whether we take in one refugee or 10 million.  It's not going to stop as long as people can have kids and come here. 

The US legally takes in one million foreigners a year.  I think that's pretty generous.  Because they are not assimilating, they are already turning our country into a bilingual nation.  Between the cost to taxpayers, lowering our pay scale, taking jobs Americans should be working, I think we've done more than enough. 

There are a lot  of places around the world that suck.  But the planet has 7.6 billion people on it, and we simply don't have the room for most of them.  If we put a stop to this nonsense now, perhaps word will get back to these territories and they will quit having children because there will be no place to go.


----------



## danielpalos

Kondor3 said:


> Dear World:
> 
> Thank you for your patronage over the past 200 years as you've sent us your tired, your poor and your huddled masses.
> 
> That allowed us to fill an entire continent with your distant cousins and whatever wretched refuse you could not sustain.
> 
> We regret to inform you, however, that we are now full-up and no longer taking new applications to take up residence with us.
> 
> We have the utmost confidence in your ability to improve your own countries so that emigration is no longer problematic.
> 
> Meanwhile, please stop sending your trash our way, and find another pressure safety valve to vent your steam.
> 
> We now embark upon an era in which we apply the same sort of screening criteria that most of you already do.
> 
> Very best regards,
> 
> Your distant cousins,
> 
> The United States of America


Blame the Right Wing, if we have to give our Statue of Liberty back!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Cecilie1200 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim to be a researcher, yet you just told a flat out lie.  More people cross the border than VISA overstays.
> 
> And wow, how stupid is that we get to pick one thing and one thing only and it must solve all problems.  Leftists never offer that on any issue, yet you demand it on every issue.  We want to deal with border crossings AND VISA overstays.  Two things???  Blows your mind, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because leftists find it hard to walk and breathe at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Visa overstays are the number 1 problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I don't know if they are a bigger problem but they are much harder to deport than border jumpers because they are not guilty of a criminal act thus they can't be tried in criminal court, are not eligible for expedited deportation, more likely to be represented by counsel, and more likely to be longer term residents settled in the community and more often professionals.
> 
> In order to remove most people that overstay visas, there will have to be major changes in immigration law because the law treats overstays about as seriously as your local library treats overdue books.
> 
> A second problem is ICE doesn't know who is overstaying visas and if they did where they are.  DHS testified before congress about how hard it is to identify who is overstaying their visa.  Due to the way visa's work particularly with those that leave and re-enter the country ICE can't tell for sure when a visa expires or whether the person is still in the country.
> 
> Since only visa holders that are issued work permits are assigned social security numbers, they can't be tracked through employment, tax returns, driving permits, etc.. only thru foreign passport numbers. Since foreign passport number are not standard in length are structure and often contain various special characters, many businesses and government agencies do not accurately record them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right that we do need serious legislation.  We also need a database of when VISA holders entered, if they left, the expiration date and so on.  Then when their VISA expires and they haven't left, we need to issue an arrest warrant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it unbelievable that we just issue VISAs like number slips from those little machines at the Post Office, and then never bother to keep track of them.
Click to expand...


Visa's should require a down payment; maybe 2K or something like that.  If you don't turn it in and leave the country on time, you lose your deposit.  On top of the 2K, we hold 10% of your net pay in escrow.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ If there was a chance they were voting GOP, you Libtards would be volunteering to build the wall brick by brick. Besides law breakers looking for welfare fall into the democRAT camp, not ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except these people aren't looking for welfare.  They are willing to do the jobs the welfare collecting white trash in the trailer parks aren't willing to do.
Click to expand...


Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.  

So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants.  Typical leftist thinking all the way.  Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ The Liberal Immigration Policy
> Step one: Let the poor kids in for goodness sake.
> Step 2: Let the poor kids' parents in to care for them for goodness sake.
> Step 3: Let the poor kids grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters in to keep the family intact *and vote Democrat* for goodness sake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> It seems to me that you guys would have an equal chance to get these people to vote for you if you weren't going all Nazi on them.
> 
> No, much easier to play on the racial fears of stupid white people about their inevitable minority status.
Click to expand...


That's ridiculous.  Every other group outside whites vote a majority Democrat.  That's why the Democrat party became the anti-white party.  Their goal is to make us a minority in our own country.  

So they take in any minority garbage that they can: legal, illegal, criminal, unskilled labor, you name it, they take it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they can't vote if they're not here. You know exactly what you're doing.
> 
> Duh, you know, dude, we're 5% of the world, but anyone who lives in the world under a bad government, they just come here! Yeah, that's the way it's always been. Drool. Rad, man
> 
> Idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone wants to come here, and the ones who do are usually trying for a darned good reason.
> 
> Here's the thing.... they come here because we have more jobs than we have people to do them.
Click to expand...


Today, yes they do, but they've been coming here long before that, so that kite doesn't fly.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ If there was a chance they were voting GOP, you Libtards would be volunteering to build the wall brick by brick. Besides law breakers looking for welfare fall into the democRAT camp, not ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except these people aren't looking for welfare.  They are willing to do the jobs the welfare collecting white trash in the trailer parks aren't willing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.
> 
> So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants.  Typical leftist thinking all the way.  Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.
Click to expand...

Let capitalism do the work.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they can't vote if they're not here. You know exactly what you're doing.
> 
> Duh, you know, dude, we're 5% of the world, but anyone who lives in the world under a bad government, they just come here! Yeah, that's the way it's always been. Drool. Rad, man
> 
> Idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone wants to come here, and the ones who do are usually trying for a darned good reason.
> 
> Here's the thing.... they come here because we have more jobs than we have people to do them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today, yes they do, but they've been coming here long before that, so that kite doesn't fly.
Click to expand...

yes, they have.


----------



## Flopper

Kondor3 said:


> Dear World:
> 
> Thank you for your patronage over the past 200 years as you've sent us your tired, your poor and your huddled masses.
> 
> That allowed us to fill an entire continent with your distant cousins and whatever wretched refuse you could not sustain.
> 
> We regret to inform you, however, that we are now full-up and no longer taking new applications to take up residence with us.
> 
> We have the utmost confidence in your ability to improve your own countries so that emigration is no longer problematic.
> 
> Meanwhile, please stop sending your trash our way, and find another pressure safety valve to vent your steam.
> 
> We now embark upon an era in which we apply the same sort of screening criteria that most of you already do.
> 
> Very best regards,
> 
> Your distant cousins,
> 
> The United States of America


*It appears that over the last 200 years those tired, poor, and handle masses entering this nation and have built the greatest nation on earth.  Can't argue with success.*


----------



## danielpalos

The Point is, Gentlemen; that we have a Statue of Liberty.  

If we have to give it back; the right wing gets the blame.


----------



## HappyJoy

kaz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even after reading it, Cecile explaining it and me explaining it you dont get it, do you?  Classic.  Its special ed for you all over again...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't even directly quote me. Yes, everyone knows what you meant, you're just to dumb to understand that you made a mistake. Can we move on now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a difference between quoting, and direct quoting.  No one ever claimed it was a direct quote.
> 
> And he didn't make a mistake.  He made a joke.  You're just pissy because he made it at your expense, and you think having a stick-up-your-ass grammatical argument will somehow make you look less foolish.  We could have moved on several post ago, if you hadn't been wasting our time trying to "win".  (See, there are the quotes you wanted.  You're welcome.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not pissy.  I didn't want to have this big discussion about it.  I just made a passing comment.  No offense intended.
> 
> Now would everyone get off my case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not you, dear.  Happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At some point bripat should have asked himself, WTF, I'm arguing on HappyJoy's side, obviously I'm completely lost.  But he didn't, he continued to be HJ's nut sack
Click to expand...


I have plenty problems with Bripat, but I have to give him credit, he's more knowledgeable than you and like it or not Bripat I want to say thank you. 

Kaz, may you shut the fuck up for a change, be humble and learn something:]

https://www.google.com/search?q=sic.....69i57j0l5.3032j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

sic
sik/
_adverb_

used in brackets after a copied or quoted word that appears odd or erroneous to show that the word is quoted exactly as it stands in the original, as in _a story must hold a child's interest and “enrich his [_sic _] life.”_.
  You didn't quote or copy what I had stated, illiterate prick.


----------



## Kondor3

Flopper said:


> ...It appears that over the last 200 years those tired, poor, and handle masses entering this nation and have built the greatest nation on earth.  Can't argue with success.


Entirely true. Trouble is, we're full-up...we don't need any more than we already have, and there is no point in intentionally overcrowding ourselves until we attain $hithole status.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


we separated a number of kids from a family simply b/c leftists didn't like the names they were given.

but if criminals risk the lives of their kids by running through the desert...


----------



## Votto

HappyJoy said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its just like the 'anchor baby' deal , mexicans drop an anchor baby and they have the Americans by the nutz .    This variation of the mexican taking their kids to the border is , as i say just a variation of dropping an anchor baby .  -------------------- as the mexican cries and says , you can't separate 'mamasitas' and widdle mexicans Coyote .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can have another debate about birthright citizenship, this is another matter altogether so maybe stick to the topic.
Click to expand...


No, no we can't.

So long as there is no border wall, the decision has already been made.  They have the rights of a citizen but don't have to pay taxes.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> Not the jobs they take. Taking those jobs keep poor and disproportionately blacks on welfare voting for Democrats.



Blacks don't want those jobs any more than white people do. 

You also look at jobs as  zero sum game.  When you have more workers doing jobs, you also have more consumers creating jobs. 

Yes, I know, this is a difficult concept for you, jobs are created by consumer activity, not the kindness of rich people.  



kaz said:


> You bludgeon businesses into firing low end employees with taxes and regulations then import Democrat voters across the borders to take the jobs that are left. For you that's win-win



again, it's not businesses that create jobs, it's consumer demand.  If you are a bottom feeder business who can't provide decent salaries and benefits, we are all better off if you go out of business.   Which I'm sure you have a number of times.


----------



## JoeB131

Cellblock2429 said:


> Although the United States’ welfare rolls are already swollen, every year we import more people who wind up on public assistance: immigrants.



Guy, you can't go to a racist website like FAIR and claim you made a point.  

Most undocumented immigrants can't go on welfare because they don't have documents.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.
> 
> So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants. Typical leftist thinking all the way. Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.



well, I'd be happy to cure the problem of white entitlement, but that would just make people like you angrier at the wrong people. 

You know, like you are angry at the Darkies now and not the rich boss who cheats you out of health insurance.


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear World:
> 
> Thank you for your patronage over the past 200 years as you've sent us your tired, your poor and your huddled masses.
> 
> That allowed us to fill an entire continent with your distant cousins and whatever wretched refuse you could not sustain.
> 
> We regret to inform you, however, that we are now full-up and no longer taking new applications to take up residence with us.
> 
> We have the utmost confidence in your ability to improve your own countries so that emigration is no longer problematic.
> 
> Meanwhile, please stop sending your trash our way, and find another pressure safety valve to vent your steam.
> 
> We now embark upon an era in which we apply the same sort of screening criteria that most of you already do.
> 
> Very best regards,
> 
> Your distant cousins,
> 
> The United States of America
> 
> 
> 
> *It appears that over the last 200 years those tired, poor, and handle masses entering this nation and have built the greatest nation on earth.  Can't argue with success.*
Click to expand...


We're talking about illegal aliens, not immigrants, race baiting jackass


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> hat's ridiculous. Every other group outside whites vote a majority Democrat. That's why the Democrat party became the anti-white party. Their goal is to make us a minority in our own country.



Every other non-white group votes Democratic because the GOP has spent the last 50 years demonizing non-whites.  

That only 40% of whites see through the racism to the GOP's gross incompetence in running the country is the problem.  Really, nobody should be voting Republican if they are making less than six figures.  

But it's easier for your sort to kick down than punch up. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> So they take in any minority garbage that they can: legal, illegal, criminal, unskilled labor, you name it, they take it.



Um, you don't think that referring to minorities as "garbage" is why they won't vote for your side?


----------



## kaz

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't even directly quote me. Yes, everyone knows what you meant, you're just to dumb to understand that you made a mistake. Can we move on now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a difference between quoting, and direct quoting.  No one ever claimed it was a direct quote.
> 
> And he didn't make a mistake.  He made a joke.  You're just pissy because he made it at your expense, and you think having a stick-up-your-ass grammatical argument will somehow make you look less foolish.  We could have moved on several post ago, if you hadn't been wasting our time trying to "win".  (See, there are the quotes you wanted.  You're welcome.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not pissy.  I didn't want to have this big discussion about it.  I just made a passing comment.  No offense intended.
> 
> Now would everyone get off my case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not you, dear.  Happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At some point bripat should have asked himself, WTF, I'm arguing on HappyJoy's side, obviously I'm completely lost.  But he didn't, he continued to be HJ's nut sack
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have plenty problems with Bripat, but I have to give him credit, he's more knowledgeable than you and like it or not Bripat I want to say thank you.
> 
> Kaz, may you shut the fuck up for a change, be humble and learn something:]
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=sic.....69i57j0l5.3032j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
> 
> sic
> sik/
> _adverb_
> 
> used in brackets after a copied or quoted word that appears odd or erroneous to show that the word is quoted exactly as it stands in the original, as in _a story must hold a child's interest and “enrich his [_sic _] life.”_.
> You didn't quote or copy what I had stated, illiterate prick.
Click to expand...


Ouch, Bripat defends you and you slam him.  Nice job.

Sic can be a direct quote or not.  It can be used for anything that sounds awkward or not right.  You are citing one use of sic.   It's hilarious that you didn't get the joke.  Cecile did, she kept trying to explain it to you to no avail.

How many times did they tell you this in special ed?  Dude, this is't that hard?  How can you possibly not get it?


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.
> 
> So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants. Typical leftist thinking all the way. Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, I'd be happy to cure the problem of white entitlement, but that would just make people like you angrier at the wrong people.
> 
> You know, like you are angry at the Darkies now and not the rich boss who cheats you out of health insurance.
Click to expand...

/——/ STFU you racist.


----------



## Cellblock2429

danielpalos said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ If there was a chance they were voting GOP, you Libtards would be volunteering to build the wall brick by brick. Besides law breakers looking for welfare fall into the democRAT camp, not ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except these people aren't looking for welfare.  They are willing to do the jobs the welfare collecting white trash in the trailer parks aren't willing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.
> 
> So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants.  Typical leftist thinking all the way.  Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let capitalism do the work.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
Click to expand...

/——-/ A minimum wage is counter intuitive to capitalism. It smacks of socialism


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not the jobs they take. Taking those jobs keep poor and disproportionately blacks on welfare voting for Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks don't want those jobs any more than white people do
Click to expand...


They don't want the jobs for the wages they pay because you import workers who will do the jobs for less.  You didn't contradict me.



JoeB131 said:


> You also look at jobs as  zero sum game.  When you have more workers doing jobs, you also have more consumers creating jobs.
> 
> Yes, I know, this is a difficult concept for you, jobs are created by consumer activity, not the kindness of rich people.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You bludgeon businesses into firing low end employees with taxes and regulations then import Democrat voters across the borders to take the jobs that are left. For you that's win-win
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, it's not businesses that create jobs, it's consumer demand.
Click to expand...


It's hilarious when you explain business to me.  Remember how you didn't know what price and cost meant?  That was classic.

Consumer demand doesn't create jobs, that doesn't make sense.  Business owners create companies to satisfy consumer demand.  But without the company, there is no job.  Business pays employees.




JoeB131 said:


> If you are a bottom feeder business who can't provide decent salaries and benefits, we are all better off if you go out of business.   Which I'm sure you have a number of times.



Again your lack of grasp of business.  Ending my medical coverage for my employees had nothing to do with whether I could pay it or not.   Your lack of business is astounding.  Government intentionally makes medical coverage expensive for businesses.  Employees are worth a dollar value.  Only a bad business pays them more than that, and they won't last.  It's a math calculation.  I'd have to lower salaries by too much to pay their insurance.  They want the pay.

You're so mindless Joe.  We look at the total cost of an employee.  I've explained this to you before.  We don't just count your salary.  I didn't care how you wanted the money.  You want it as life insurance, medical coverage, salary, whatever.  But you won't get paid more than you're worth as total compensation.  In your case, you weren't worth anything.  Firing you made people so happy I saved your entire salary and benefits.

Reality

Salary = Total compensation - benefits.

Joe thinks

Total compensation = salary.  We give freebie benefits on top of that.

Your opinion about business is hilarious.  Keep socialistsplaining it to me.

You want medical care when government drives the cost to be too much of your pay?  I don't give a shit.  It's the employees who don't want their pay to go that low.  That you think it's about whether I can pay the insurance or not is so mind numbingly ignorant


----------



## kaz

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ If there was a chance they were voting GOP, you Libtards would be volunteering to build the wall brick by brick. Besides law breakers looking for welfare fall into the democRAT camp, not ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except these people aren't looking for welfare.  They are willing to do the jobs the welfare collecting white trash in the trailer parks aren't willing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.
> 
> So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants.  Typical leftist thinking all the way.  Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let capitalism do the work.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ A minimum wage is counter intuitive to capitalism. It smacks of socialism
Click to expand...


It also doesn't work.  

Increase the minimum wage -> drives up other salaries -> drives up prices -> low end workers want more pay
                  ^ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> hat's ridiculous. Every other group outside whites vote a majority Democrat. That's why the Democrat party became the anti-white party. Their goal is to make us a minority in our own country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every other non-white group votes Democratic because the GOP has spent the last 50 years demonizing non-whites.
> 
> That only 40% of whites see through the racism to the GOP's gross incompetence in running the country is the problem.  Really, nobody should be voting Republican if they are making less than six figures.
> 
> But it's easier for your sort to kick down than punch up.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they take in any minority garbage that they can: legal, illegal, criminal, unskilled labor, you name it, they take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, you don't think that referring to minorities as "garbage" is why they won't vote for your side?
Click to expand...


Every race becomes more conservative as they become wealthier.  That's why you work so hard to keep them poor


----------



## Cellblock2429

kaz said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ If there was a chance they were voting GOP, you Libtards would be volunteering to build the wall brick by brick. Besides law breakers looking for welfare fall into the democRAT camp, not ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except these people aren't looking for welfare.  They are willing to do the jobs the welfare collecting white trash in the trailer parks aren't willing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.
> 
> So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants.  Typical leftist thinking all the way.  Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let capitalism do the work.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ A minimum wage is counter intuitive to capitalism. It smacks of socialism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also doesn't work.
> 
> Increase the minimum wage -> drives up other salaries -> drives up prices -> low end workers want more pay
> ^ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...

/——/ Many Union contracts are tied to the minimum wage. If it goes up $1 then their Union pay automatically increases $1. That’s why Union thugs support higher minimum wages.


----------



## JoeB131

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——-/ A minimum wage is counter intuitive to capitalism. It smacks of socialism



So let me get this straight. 

Assuring people make a minimum wage is bad because it's counter-intuitive to not let the Capitalist cheat people at every turn... 

But we totally need to stop illegal aliens from coming here to take the jobs that Capitalist want to cheat white people on.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> Every race becomes more conservative as they become wealthier. That's why you work so hard to keep them poor



Again, buddy... my income has always gone up when Democrats were in charge and it goes down when Republicans are in charge... so who is keeping people poor again?


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/ A minimum wage is counter intuitive to capitalism. It smacks of socialism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight.
> 
> Assuring people make a minimum wage is bad because it's counter-intuitive to not let the Capitalist cheat people at every turn...
> 
> But we totally need to stop illegal aliens from coming here to take the jobs that Capitalist want to cheat white people on.
Click to expand...

/——/ Yes brainiac, socialism has no place in capatialist societies. It’s not the Gubmint’s job to asssure anything except Life. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, if you want or need a higher salary get the skills required for a better job or move to where better paying jobs are located like I did at the age of 20.


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every race becomes more conservative as they become wealthier. That's why you work so hard to keep them poor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, buddy... my income has always gone up when Democrats were in charge and it goes down when Republicans are in charge... so who is keeping people poor again?
Click to expand...

/——/ Poverty has little to do with a lack of money. It’s a state of mind and poor money management skills. Try reading this: Does money management matter if you're poor?


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every race becomes more conservative as they become wealthier. That's why you work so hard to keep them poor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, buddy... my income has always gone up when Democrats were in charge and it goes down when Republicans are in charge... so who is keeping people poor again?
Click to expand...

/——/ And my income has  gone up no matter what Party is in charge.


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> hat's ridiculous. Every other group outside whites vote a majority Democrat. That's why the Democrat party became the anti-white party. Their goal is to make us a minority in our own country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every other non-white group votes Democratic because the GOP has spent the last 50 years demonizing non-whites.
> 
> That only 40% of whites see through the racism to the GOP's gross incompetence in running the country is the problem.  Really, nobody should be voting Republican if they are making less than six figures.
> 
> But it's easier for your sort to kick down than punch up.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they take in any minority garbage that they can: legal, illegal, criminal, unskilled labor, you name it, they take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, you don't think that referring to minorities as "garbage" is why they won't vote for your side?
Click to expand...

/——/ Correction JoeB, the GOP hasn’t spent the last 50 years demonizing non whites, however the democRATs have spent the last 50 years saying we do.


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> hat's ridiculous. Every other group outside whites vote a majority Democrat. That's why the Democrat party became the anti-white party. Their goal is to make us a minority in our own country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every other non-white group votes Democratic because the GOP has spent the last 50 years demonizing non-whites.
> 
> That only 40% of whites see through the racism to the GOP's gross incompetence in running the country is the problem.  Really, nobody should be voting Republican if they are making less than six figures.
> 
> But it's easier for your sort to kick down than punch up.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they take in any minority garbage that they can: legal, illegal, criminal, unskilled labor, you name it, they take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, you don't think that referring to minorities as "garbage" is why they won't vote for your side?
Click to expand...

/——/ You twist and distort others words. No one said all minorities are garbage. Most aren’t but some are and those are the ones you glob onto.


----------



## kaz

Cellblock2429 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except these people aren't looking for welfare.  They are willing to do the jobs the welfare collecting white trash in the trailer parks aren't willing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.
> 
> So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants.  Typical leftist thinking all the way.  Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let capitalism do the work.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ A minimum wage is counter intuitive to capitalism. It smacks of socialism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also doesn't work.
> 
> Increase the minimum wage -> drives up other salaries -> drives up prices -> low end workers want more pay
> ^ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Many Union contracts are tied to the minimum wage. If it goes up $1 then their Union pay automatically increases $1. That’s why Union thugs support higher minimum wages.
Click to expand...


Very true.  And yes, unions do for that reason.

But it's way beyond that.  If you pay someone worth $10 more than that, say $15, what happens to people worth $12?  You need to pay them $18, not $15.  Note it's not $17 either you have to pay them proportionally more, not nominally more.  

They are worth more because they work a little harder, smarter, more reliably.  If you pay someone less worth less, they will become unmotivated.  Minimum wage is like a ripple in a pond up the wage scale.

Then as I pointed out, it's a vicious cycle.  We increased pay but not value of employees, so prices have to go up to compensate for the wage increases.  Then the low end needs a raise to pay them.  Raising the minimum wage increases cost, it does not increase value.  We solved nothing.

And the bad part for low end employees is that jobs were shed along the way.  Companies looked at every option, including staff reductions, automation, process design along the way.  Leftist policies are about making people feel good while you screw them


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every race becomes more conservative as they become wealthier. That's why you work so hard to keep them poor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, buddy... my income has always gone up when Democrats were in charge and it goes down when Republicans are in charge... so who is keeping people poor again?
Click to expand...


Your bad attitude is keeping you poor.  That's why I fired you.  Your coworkers were so happy you were gone they became more productive and I didn't even need to replace you.  They literally told me their jobs were easier when you left.

People with your attitude you suck the life of of everyone around you


----------



## Cellblock2429

kaz said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.
> 
> So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants.  Typical leftist thinking all the way.  Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.
> 
> 
> 
> Let capitalism do the work.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ A minimum wage is counter intuitive to capitalism. It smacks of socialism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also doesn't work.
> 
> Increase the minimum wage -> drives up other salaries -> drives up prices -> low end workers want more pay
> ^ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Many Union contracts are tied to the minimum wage. If it goes up $1 then their Union pay automatically increases $1. That’s why Union thugs support higher minimum wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true.  And yes, unions do for that reason.
> 
> But it's way beyond that.  If you pay someone worth $10 more than that, say $15, what happens to people worth $12?  You need to pay them $17, not $15.  They are worth more because they work a little harder, smarter, more reliably.  If you pay someone less worth less, they will become unmotivated.  Minimum wage is like a ripple in a pond up the wage scale.
> 
> Then as I pointed out, it's a vicious cycle.  We increased pay but not value of employees, so prices have to go up to compensate for the wage increases.  Then the low end needs a raise to pay them.  Raising the minimum wage increases cost, it does not increase value.  We solved nothing.
> 
> And the bad part for low end employees is that jobs were shed along the way.  Companies looked at every option, including staff reductions, automation, process design along the way.  Leftist policies are about making people feel good while you screw them
Click to expand...

/——/ I was a sales rep for Procter & Gamble in the 1980s And was always 110% of quota or better. But since it was a salaried position, I made the same money as the guy at 95% of quota which was the minimum to keep their job. There was also their refusal for cost of living adjustments. I live on Long Island and made the same as the rep in Arkansas. He actually had a higher standard of living than me. So I switched to commissioned sales and doubled my income within 6 months. Hated leaving P&G.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/ A minimum wage is counter intuitive to capitalism. It smacks of socialism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight.
> 
> Assuring people make a minimum wage is bad because it's counter-intuitive to not let the Capitalist cheat people at every turn...
> 
> But we totally need to stop illegal aliens from coming here to take the jobs that Capitalist want to cheat white people on.
Click to expand...


You're working too hard to make it about race, it's just making whatever point you're trying to make all the more obfuscated


----------



## Pop23

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every race becomes more conservative as they become wealthier. That's why you work so hard to keep them poor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, buddy... my income has always gone up when Democrats were in charge and it goes down when Republicans are in charge... so who is keeping people poor again?
Click to expand...


A resume writers income would naturally go up when the economy is bad. 

What the hell did you just admit? The economy is bad when Democrats are in charge? Duh


----------



## HappyJoy

kaz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a difference between quoting, and direct quoting.  No one ever claimed it was a direct quote.
> 
> And he didn't make a mistake.  He made a joke.  You're just pissy because he made it at your expense, and you think having a stick-up-your-ass grammatical argument will somehow make you look less foolish.  We could have moved on several post ago, if you hadn't been wasting our time trying to "win".  (See, there are the quotes you wanted.  You're welcome.)
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not pissy.  I didn't want to have this big discussion about it.  I just made a passing comment.  No offense intended.
> 
> Now would everyone get off my case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not you, dear.  Happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At some point bripat should have asked himself, WTF, I'm arguing on HappyJoy's side, obviously I'm completely lost.  But he didn't, he continued to be HJ's nut sack
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have plenty problems with Bripat, but I have to give him credit, he's more knowledgeable than you and like it or not Bripat I want to say thank you.
> 
> Kaz, may you shut the fuck up for a change, be humble and learn something:]
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=sic.....69i57j0l5.3032j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
> 
> sic
> sik/
> _adverb_
> 
> used in brackets after a copied or quoted word that appears odd or erroneous to show that the word is quoted exactly as it stands in the original, as in _a story must hold a child's interest and “enrich his [_sic _] life.”_.
> You didn't quote or copy what I had stated, illiterate prick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ouch, Bripat defends you and you slam him.  Nice job.
Click to expand...


You have reading comprehension problems.



> Sic can be a direct quote or not.  It can be used for anything that sounds awkward or not right.  You are citing one use of sic.   It's hilarious that you didn't get the joke.  Cecile did, she kept trying to explain it to you to no avail.



Show me the use of _sic_ when it's not a direct quote, numbnuts. Because you didn't quote me, you mischaracterized my post.



> How many times did they tell you this in special ed?  Dude, this is't that hard?  How can you possibly not get it?



I can't believe how dumb you are and you're quadrupling down now.


----------



## HappyJoy

Votto said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> its just like the 'anchor baby' deal , mexicans drop an anchor baby and they have the Americans by the nutz .    This variation of the mexican taking their kids to the border is , as i say just a variation of dropping an anchor baby .  -------------------- as the mexican cries and says , you can't separate 'mamasitas' and widdle mexicans Coyote .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can have another debate about birthright citizenship, this is another matter altogether so maybe stick to the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, no we can't.
> 
> So long as there is no border wall, the decision has already been made.  They have the rights of a citizen but don't have to pay taxes.
Click to expand...


Said nobody.


----------



## kaz

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not pissy.  I didn't want to have this big discussion about it.  I just made a passing comment.  No offense intended.
> 
> Now would everyone get off my case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not you, dear.  Happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At some point bripat should have asked himself, WTF, I'm arguing on HappyJoy's side, obviously I'm completely lost.  But he didn't, he continued to be HJ's nut sack
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have plenty problems with Bripat, but I have to give him credit, he's more knowledgeable than you and like it or not Bripat I want to say thank you.
> 
> Kaz, may you shut the fuck up for a change, be humble and learn something:]
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=sic.....69i57j0l5.3032j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
> 
> sic
> sik/
> _adverb_
> 
> used in brackets after a copied or quoted word that appears odd or erroneous to show that the word is quoted exactly as it stands in the original, as in _a story must hold a child's interest and “enrich his [_sic _] life.”_.
> You didn't quote or copy what I had stated, illiterate prick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ouch, Bripat defends you and you slam him.  Nice job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have reading comprehension problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sic can be a direct quote or not.  It can be used for anything that sounds awkward or not right.  You are citing one use of sic.   It's hilarious that you didn't get the joke.  Cecile did, she kept trying to explain it to you to no avail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me the use of _sic_ when it's not a direct quote, numbnuts. Because you didn't quote me, you mischaracterized my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times did they tell you this in special ed?  Dude, this is't that hard?  How can you possibly not get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't believe how dumb you are and you're quadrupling down now.
Click to expand...


Dude, it was a joke, it was clear.  You just have a stick up your ass because the joke was at your expense.  You're just doubling down on stupid.

As your special ed teacher kept telling you, this isn't that hard, even for you


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every race becomes more conservative as they become wealthier. That's why you work so hard to keep them poor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, buddy... my income has always gone up when Democrats were in charge and it goes down when Republicans are in charge... so who is keeping people poor again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Poverty has little to do with a lack of money. It’s a state of mind and poor money management skills. Try reading this: Does money management matter if you're poor?
Click to expand...

We see the same thing in public policy decisions.  Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are simply right wing "feel good" programs.


----------



## HappyJoy

kaz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not you, dear.  Happy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point bripat should have asked himself, WTF, I'm arguing on HappyJoy's side, obviously I'm completely lost.  But he didn't, he continued to be HJ's nut sack
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have plenty problems with Bripat, but I have to give him credit, he's more knowledgeable than you and like it or not Bripat I want to say thank you.
> 
> Kaz, may you shut the fuck up for a change, be humble and learn something:]
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=sic.....69i57j0l5.3032j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
> 
> sic
> sik/
> _adverb_
> 
> used in brackets after a copied or quoted word that appears odd or erroneous to show that the word is quoted exactly as it stands in the original, as in _a story must hold a child's interest and “enrich his [_sic _] life.”_.
> You didn't quote or copy what I had stated, illiterate prick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ouch, Bripat defends you and you slam him.  Nice job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have reading comprehension problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sic can be a direct quote or not.  It can be used for anything that sounds awkward or not right.  You are citing one use of sic.   It's hilarious that you didn't get the joke.  Cecile did, she kept trying to explain it to you to no avail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me the use of _sic_ when it's not a direct quote, numbnuts. Because you didn't quote me, you mischaracterized my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times did they tell you this in special ed?  Dude, this is't that hard?  How can you possibly not get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't believe how dumb you are and you're quadrupling down now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, it was a joke, it was clear.  You just have a stick up your ass because the joke was at your expense.  You're just doubling down on stupid.
> 
> As your special ed teacher kept telling you, this isn't that hard, even for you
Click to expand...


Ah, now it's a joke. OK, I accept your concession.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.
> 
> So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants.  Typical leftist thinking all the way.  Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.
> 
> 
> 
> Let capitalism do the work.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ A minimum wage is counter intuitive to capitalism. It smacks of socialism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also doesn't work.
> 
> Increase the minimum wage -> drives up other salaries -> drives up prices -> low end workers want more pay
> ^ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Many Union contracts are tied to the minimum wage. If it goes up $1 then their Union pay automatically increases $1. That’s why Union thugs support higher minimum wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true.  And yes, unions do for that reason.
> 
> But it's way beyond that.  If you pay someone worth $10 more than that, say $15, what happens to people worth $12?  You need to pay them $18, not $15.  Note it's not $17 either you have to pay them proportionally more, not nominally more.
> 
> They are worth more because they work a little harder, smarter, more reliably.  If you pay someone less worth less, they will become unmotivated.  Minimum wage is like a ripple in a pond up the wage scale.
> 
> Then as I pointed out, it's a vicious cycle.  We increased pay but not value of employees, so prices have to go up to compensate for the wage increases.  Then the low end needs a raise to pay them.  Raising the minimum wage increases cost, it does not increase value.  We solved nothing.
> 
> And the bad part for low end employees is that jobs were shed along the way.  Companies looked at every option, including staff reductions, automation, process design along the way.  Leftist policies are about making people feel good while you screw them
Click to expand...

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is to adjust for cost of living and cost of social services.  

The inflation canard won't work, since the right wing is not whining about price inflation for fuel.


----------



## kaz

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> At some point bripat should have asked himself, WTF, I'm arguing on HappyJoy's side, obviously I'm completely lost.  But he didn't, he continued to be HJ's nut sack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have plenty problems with Bripat, but I have to give him credit, he's more knowledgeable than you and like it or not Bripat I want to say thank you.
> 
> Kaz, may you shut the fuck up for a change, be humble and learn something:]
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=sic.....69i57j0l5.3032j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
> 
> sic
> sik/
> _adverb_
> 
> used in brackets after a copied or quoted word that appears odd or erroneous to show that the word is quoted exactly as it stands in the original, as in _a story must hold a child's interest and “enrich his [_sic _] life.”_.
> You didn't quote or copy what I had stated, illiterate prick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ouch, Bripat defends you and you slam him.  Nice job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have reading comprehension problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sic can be a direct quote or not.  It can be used for anything that sounds awkward or not right.  You are citing one use of sic.   It's hilarious that you didn't get the joke.  Cecile did, she kept trying to explain it to you to no avail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me the use of _sic_ when it's not a direct quote, numbnuts. Because you didn't quote me, you mischaracterized my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times did they tell you this in special ed?  Dude, this is't that hard?  How can you possibly not get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't believe how dumb you are and you're quadrupling down now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, it was a joke, it was clear.  You just have a stick up your ass because the joke was at your expense.  You're just doubling down on stupid.
> 
> As your special ed teacher kept telling you, this isn't that hard, even for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, now it's a joke. OK, I accept your concession.
Click to expand...


Cecile explained that to you long ago.

You're so smart (sic)


----------



## Cellblock2429

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not pissy.  I didn't want to have this big discussion about it.  I just made a passing comment.  No offense intended.
> 
> Now would everyone get off my case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not you, dear.  Happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At some point bripat should have asked himself, WTF, I'm arguing on HappyJoy's side, obviously I'm completely lost.  But he didn't, he continued to be HJ's nut sack
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have plenty problems with Bripat, but I have to give him credit, he's more knowledgeable than you and like it or not Bripat I want to say thank you.
> 
> Kaz, may you shut the fuck up for a change, be humble and learn something:]
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=sic.....69i57j0l5.3032j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
> 
> sic
> sik/
> _adverb_
> 
> used in brackets after a copied or quoted word that appears odd or erroneous to show that the word is quoted exactly as it stands in the original, as in _a story must hold a child's interest and “enrich his [_sic _] life.”_.
> You didn't quote or copy what I had stated, illiterate prick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ouch, Bripat defends you and you slam him.  Nice job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have reading comprehension problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sic can be a direct quote or not.  It can be used for anything that sounds awkward or not right.  You are citing one use of sic.   It's hilarious that you didn't get the joke.  Cecile did, she kept trying to explain it to you to no avail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me the use of _sic_ when it's not a direct quote, numbnuts. Because you didn't quote me, you mischaracterized my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times did they tell you this in special ed?  Dude, this is't that hard?  How can you possibly not get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't believe how dumb you are and you're quadrupling down now.
Click to expand...

/-----/ Now that we have debated (sic) to death, can we next argue:
*Pilcrow*

The pilcrow (¶) is the poster child of abandoned punctuation marks. With roots in ancient Greece, the pilcrow started life during the fourth century BC as the _paragraphos_, a horizontal line drawn in the margin of many a papyrus scroll to indicate that something of interest lay in the corresponding line. The reader was left to determine precisely what that something was.

Evolving over the centuries into its modern reverse-P shape, the_ paragraphos_ came to be used to break texts into meaningful chunks such as paragraphs and sentences. With this duty came the trappings of its elevated role, and pilcrows were often separately inked in eye-catching colored ink. When the printing press arrived and the volume of new books skyrocketed, the spaces left for the pilcrow often went unfilled, and from the pilcrow’s ashes arose the indented paragraph.


----------



## Cellblock2429

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let capitalism do the work.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/ A minimum wage is counter intuitive to capitalism. It smacks of socialism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also doesn't work.
> 
> Increase the minimum wage -> drives up other salaries -> drives up prices -> low end workers want more pay
> ^ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Many Union contracts are tied to the minimum wage. If it goes up $1 then their Union pay automatically increases $1. That’s why Union thugs support higher minimum wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true.  And yes, unions do for that reason.
> 
> But it's way beyond that.  If you pay someone worth $10 more than that, say $15, what happens to people worth $12?  You need to pay them $18, not $15.  Note it's not $17 either you have to pay them proportionally more, not nominally more.
> 
> They are worth more because they work a little harder, smarter, more reliably.  If you pay someone less worth less, they will become unmotivated.  Minimum wage is like a ripple in a pond up the wage scale.
> 
> Then as I pointed out, it's a vicious cycle.  We increased pay but not value of employees, so prices have to go up to compensate for the wage increases.  Then the low end needs a raise to pay them.  Raising the minimum wage increases cost, it does not increase value.  We solved nothing.
> 
> And the bad part for low end employees is that jobs were shed along the way.  Companies looked at every option, including staff reductions, automation, process design along the way.  Leftist policies are about making people feel good while you screw them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is to adjust for cost of living and cost of social services.
> 
> The inflation canard won't work, since the right wing is not whining about price inflation for fuel.
Click to expand...

/----/ Increase in the minimum wage is one of the causes of higher fuel cost since wage increases affect the cost of doing business.  BTW here's another contributing factor of the price of gas: OPEC ministers agree to raise oil production but don't say by how much


----------



## bripat9643

kaz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a difference between quoting, and direct quoting.  No one ever claimed it was a direct quote.
> 
> And he didn't make a mistake.  He made a joke.  You're just pissy because he made it at your expense, and you think having a stick-up-your-ass grammatical argument will somehow make you look less foolish.  We could have moved on several post ago, if you hadn't been wasting our time trying to "win".  (See, there are the quotes you wanted.  You're welcome.)
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not pissy.  I didn't want to have this big discussion about it.  I just made a passing comment.  No offense intended.
> 
> Now would everyone get off my case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not you, dear.  Happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At some point bripat should have asked himself, WTF, I'm arguing on HappyJoy's side, obviously I'm completely lost.  But he didn't, he continued to be HJ's nut sack
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have plenty problems with Bripat, but I have to give him credit, he's more knowledgeable than you and like it or not Bripat I want to say thank you.
> 
> Kaz, may you shut the fuck up for a change, be humble and learn something:]
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=sic.....69i57j0l5.3032j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
> 
> sic
> sik/
> _adverb_
> 
> used in brackets after a copied or quoted word that appears odd or erroneous to show that the word is quoted exactly as it stands in the original, as in _a story must hold a child's interest and “enrich his [_sic _] life.”_.
> You didn't quote or copy what I had stated, illiterate prick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ouch, Bripat defends you and you slam him.  Nice job.
> 
> Sic can be a direct quote or not.  It can be used for anything that sounds awkward or not right.  You are citing one use of sic.   It's hilarious that you didn't get the joke.  Cecile did, she kept trying to explain it to you to no avail.
> 
> How many times did they tell you this in special ed?  Dude, this is't that hard?  How can you possibly not get it?
Click to expand...

HappyJoy never gets the point, no matter how many times you explain it.  Pretending to be brain damaged is his favorite tactic.


----------



## bripat9643

Cellblock2429 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except these people aren't looking for welfare.  They are willing to do the jobs the welfare collecting white trash in the trailer parks aren't willing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.
> 
> So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants.  Typical leftist thinking all the way.  Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let capitalism do the work.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ A minimum wage is counter intuitive to capitalism. It smacks of socialism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also doesn't work.
> 
> Increase the minimum wage -> drives up other salaries -> drives up prices -> low end workers want more pay
> ^ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Many Union contracts are tied to the minimum wage. If it goes up $1 then their Union pay automatically increases $1. That’s why Union thugs support higher minimum wages.
Click to expand...

That's also why the government supports an inflationary monetary policy.  Minimum wage increases result in higher unemployment.  One way to reduce that effect is to inflate the value of the increase away.


----------



## bripat9643

kaz said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.
> 
> So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants.  Typical leftist thinking all the way.  Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.
> 
> 
> 
> Let capitalism do the work.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ A minimum wage is counter intuitive to capitalism. It smacks of socialism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also doesn't work.
> 
> Increase the minimum wage -> drives up other salaries -> drives up prices -> low end workers want more pay
> ^ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Many Union contracts are tied to the minimum wage. If it goes up $1 then their Union pay automatically increases $1. That’s why Union thugs support higher minimum wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true.  And yes, unions do for that reason.
> 
> But it's way beyond that.  If you pay someone worth $10 more than that, say $15, what happens to people worth $12?  You need to pay them $18, not $15.  Note it's not $17 either you have to pay them proportionally more, not nominally more.
> 
> They are worth more because they work a little harder, smarter, more reliably.  If you pay someone less worth less, they will become unmotivated.  Minimum wage is like a ripple in a pond up the wage scale.
> 
> Then as I pointed out, it's a vicious cycle.  We increased pay but not value of employees, so prices have to go up to compensate for the wage increases.  Then the low end needs a raise to pay them.  Raising the minimum wage increases cost, it does not increase value.  We solved nothing.
> 
> And the bad part for low end employees is that jobs were shed along the way.  Companies looked at every option, including staff reductions, automation, process design along the way.  Leftist policies are about making people feel good while you screw them
Click to expand...

Prices increase as a result of deliberate monetary policy designed to inflate the wage increases away.  If that weren't done, then the effect of minimum wage increases would be higher unemployment.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/ A minimum wage is counter intuitive to capitalism. It smacks of socialism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight.
> 
> Assuring people make a minimum wage is bad because it's counter-intuitive to not let the Capitalist cheat people at every turn...
> 
> But we totally need to stop illegal aliens from coming here to take the jobs that Capitalist want to cheat white people on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're working too hard to make it about race, it's just making whatever point you're trying to make all the more obfuscated
Click to expand...


You could say "good morning how are you?" to Joe and he'd find a way to make it about race.  He would make the claim that the morning brings the sun out and that gets rid of the dark.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.
> 
> So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants.  Typical leftist thinking all the way.  Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.
> 
> 
> 
> Let capitalism do the work.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ A minimum wage is counter intuitive to capitalism. It smacks of socialism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also doesn't work.
> 
> Increase the minimum wage -> drives up other salaries -> drives up prices -> low end workers want more pay
> ^ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Many Union contracts are tied to the minimum wage. If it goes up $1 then their Union pay automatically increases $1. That’s why Union thugs support higher minimum wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true.  And yes, unions do for that reason.
> 
> But it's way beyond that.  If you pay someone worth $10 more than that, say $15, what happens to people worth $12?  You need to pay them $18, not $15.  Note it's not $17 either you have to pay them proportionally more, not nominally more.
> 
> They are worth more because they work a little harder, smarter, more reliably.  If you pay someone less worth less, they will become unmotivated.  Minimum wage is like a ripple in a pond up the wage scale.
> 
> Then as I pointed out, it's a vicious cycle.  We increased pay but not value of employees, so prices have to go up to compensate for the wage increases.  Then the low end needs a raise to pay them.  Raising the minimum wage increases cost, it does not increase value.  We solved nothing.
> 
> And the bad part for low end employees is that jobs were shed along the way.  Companies looked at every option, including staff reductions, automation, process design along the way.  Leftist policies are about making people feel good while you screw them
Click to expand...


_*"People have told me that getting ahead only leaves others behind.  That's the point of getting ahead.  If we all moved ahead the same distance at the same time, then nobody gets ahead."*_
Brian Kimeade


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Kondor3 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It appears that over the last 200 years those tired, poor, and handle masses entering this nation and have built the greatest nation on earth.  Can't argue with success.
> 
> 
> 
> Entirely true. Trouble is, we're full-up...we don't need any more than we already have, and there is no point in intentionally overcrowding ourselves until we attain $hithole status.
Click to expand...


I don't know where this concept by the left came from that we always need to increase our population.   Wasn't it just a few years ago they were on the rampage of over populating the earth and we need more birth control?  

These people just can't make up their minds.


----------



## JoeB131

Cellblock2429 said:


> Yes brainiac, socialism has no place in capatialist societies. It’s not the Gubmint’s job to asssure anything except Life. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, if you want or need a higher salary get the skills required for a better job or move to where better paying jobs are located like I did at the age of 20.



But you have NO PROBLEM with gubmint putting kids in cages so their parents won't take your job by being willing to work for less money.  

Sorry, man, during the last recession, we had Adjunct professors on food stamps and airline pilot selling their blood plasma... or as the Capitalists liked to call it, "The Good Old days"


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear World:
> 
> Thank you for your patronage over the past 200 years as you've sent us your tired, your poor and your huddled masses.
> 
> That allowed us to fill an entire continent with your distant cousins and whatever wretched refuse you could not sustain.
> 
> We regret to inform you, however, that we are now full-up and no longer taking new applications to take up residence with us.
> 
> We have the utmost confidence in your ability to improve your own countries so that emigration is no longer problematic.
> 
> Meanwhile, please stop sending your trash our way, and find another pressure safety valve to vent your steam.
> 
> We now embark upon an era in which we apply the same sort of screening criteria that most of you already do.
> 
> Very best regards,
> 
> Your distant cousins,
> 
> The United States of America
> 
> 
> 
> *It appears that over the last 200 years those tired, poor, and handle masses entering this nation and have built the greatest nation on earth.  Can't argue with success.*
Click to expand...


So because of the last 200 years, we keep bringing in millions and millions more?  What happens when we have a billion people in this country--more than half of whom don't even know the language?  Do you want to live in this country then?


----------



## JoeB131

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——/ You twist and distort others words. No one said all minorities are garbage. Most aren’t but some are and those are the ones you glob onto.



Ray said "minority garbage"... and combined with the rest of the racism he spews here, it's kind of typical.


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes brainiac, socialism has no place in capatialist societies. It’s not the Gubmint’s job to asssure anything except Life. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, if you want or need a higher salary get the skills required for a better job or move to where better paying jobs are located like I did at the age of 20.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you have NO PROBLEM with gubmint putting kids in cages so their parents won't take your job by being willing to work for less money.
> 
> Sorry, man, during the last recession, we had Adjunct professors on food stamps and airline pilot selling their blood plasma... or as the Capitalists liked to call it, "The Good Old days"
Click to expand...

/-----/ You win Strawman Argument of the day. Congratulations


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/ A minimum wage is counter intuitive to capitalism. It smacks of socialism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also doesn't work.
> 
> Increase the minimum wage -> drives up other salaries -> drives up prices -> low end workers want more pay
> ^ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Many Union contracts are tied to the minimum wage. If it goes up $1 then their Union pay automatically increases $1. That’s why Union thugs support higher minimum wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true.  And yes, unions do for that reason.
> 
> But it's way beyond that.  If you pay someone worth $10 more than that, say $15, what happens to people worth $12?  You need to pay them $18, not $15.  Note it's not $17 either you have to pay them proportionally more, not nominally more.
> 
> They are worth more because they work a little harder, smarter, more reliably.  If you pay someone less worth less, they will become unmotivated.  Minimum wage is like a ripple in a pond up the wage scale.
> 
> Then as I pointed out, it's a vicious cycle.  We increased pay but not value of employees, so prices have to go up to compensate for the wage increases.  Then the low end needs a raise to pay them.  Raising the minimum wage increases cost, it does not increase value.  We solved nothing.
> 
> And the bad part for low end employees is that jobs were shed along the way.  Companies looked at every option, including staff reductions, automation, process design along the way.  Leftist policies are about making people feel good while you screw them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is to adjust for cost of living and cost of social services.
> 
> The inflation canard won't work, since the right wing is not whining about price inflation for fuel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Increase in the minimum wage is one of the causes of higher fuel cost since wage increases affect the cost of doing business.  BTW here's another contributing factor of the price of gas: OPEC ministers agree to raise oil production but don't say by how much
Click to expand...

Just right wing propaganda.  

Our ventures in the Middle East are what have cause price inflation for fuel.  You don't really care.  So why bother with your right wing, propaganda.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.
> 
> So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants.  Typical leftist thinking all the way.  Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.
> 
> 
> 
> Let capitalism do the work.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ A minimum wage is counter intuitive to capitalism. It smacks of socialism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also doesn't work.
> 
> Increase the minimum wage -> drives up other salaries -> drives up prices -> low end workers want more pay
> ^ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Many Union contracts are tied to the minimum wage. If it goes up $1 then their Union pay automatically increases $1. That’s why Union thugs support higher minimum wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's also why the government supports an inflationary monetary policy.  Minimum wage increases result in higher unemployment.  One way to reduce that effect is to inflate the value of the increase away.
Click to expand...

More right wing propaganda? 

You need to update your understanding of economics.

Jurisdictions with higher than average minimum wages tend to have lower unemployment in those jurisdictions.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let capitalism do the work.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/ A minimum wage is counter intuitive to capitalism. It smacks of socialism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also doesn't work.
> 
> Increase the minimum wage -> drives up other salaries -> drives up prices -> low end workers want more pay
> ^ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Many Union contracts are tied to the minimum wage. If it goes up $1 then their Union pay automatically increases $1. That’s why Union thugs support higher minimum wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true.  And yes, unions do for that reason.
> 
> But it's way beyond that.  If you pay someone worth $10 more than that, say $15, what happens to people worth $12?  You need to pay them $18, not $15.  Note it's not $17 either you have to pay them proportionally more, not nominally more.
> 
> They are worth more because they work a little harder, smarter, more reliably.  If you pay someone less worth less, they will become unmotivated.  Minimum wage is like a ripple in a pond up the wage scale.
> 
> Then as I pointed out, it's a vicious cycle.  We increased pay but not value of employees, so prices have to go up to compensate for the wage increases.  Then the low end needs a raise to pay them.  Raising the minimum wage increases cost, it does not increase value.  We solved nothing.
> 
> And the bad part for low end employees is that jobs were shed along the way.  Companies looked at every option, including staff reductions, automation, process design along the way.  Leftist policies are about making people feel good while you screw them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prices increase as a result of deliberate monetary policy designed to inflate the wage increases away.  If that weren't done, then the effect of minimum wage increases would be higher unemployment.
Click to expand...

link?


----------



## Cellblock2429

QUOTE="JoeB131, post: 20201072, member: 31057"]





Cellblock2429 said:


> /——/ You twist and distort others words. No one said all minorities are garbage. Most aren’t but some are and those are the ones you glob onto.



Ray said "minority garbage"... and combined with the rest of the racism he spews here, it's kind of typical.[/QUOTE]
/----/ Ray doesn't need me to defend him. My issue is with your sweeping generalizations and distortions because it's the only way you can frame your arguments.  "minority garbage" means minorities who are also garbage, a subset. Yes, I know the distinction is confusing for you. Hope this helps: Where as B is minorities and A is garbage minorities.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let capitalism do the work.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/ A minimum wage is counter intuitive to capitalism. It smacks of socialism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also doesn't work.
> 
> Increase the minimum wage -> drives up other salaries -> drives up prices -> low end workers want more pay
> ^ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Many Union contracts are tied to the minimum wage. If it goes up $1 then their Union pay automatically increases $1. That’s why Union thugs support higher minimum wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true.  And yes, unions do for that reason.
> 
> But it's way beyond that.  If you pay someone worth $10 more than that, say $15, what happens to people worth $12?  You need to pay them $18, not $15.  Note it's not $17 either you have to pay them proportionally more, not nominally more.
> 
> They are worth more because they work a little harder, smarter, more reliably.  If you pay someone less worth less, they will become unmotivated.  Minimum wage is like a ripple in a pond up the wage scale.
> 
> Then as I pointed out, it's a vicious cycle.  We increased pay but not value of employees, so prices have to go up to compensate for the wage increases.  Then the low end needs a raise to pay them.  Raising the minimum wage increases cost, it does not increase value.  We solved nothing.
> 
> And the bad part for low end employees is that jobs were shed along the way.  Companies looked at every option, including staff reductions, automation, process design along the way.  Leftist policies are about making people feel good while you screw them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*"People have told me that getting ahead only leaves others behind.  That's the point of getting ahead.  If we all moved ahead the same distance at the same time, then nobody gets ahead."*_
> Brian Kimeade
Click to expand...

Yet, we all move forward.

Simply, Order versus Chaos.  

Moving ahead by Order could mean, "scouts ahead". 

Moving ahead by Chaos, is usually an Individual endeavor.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> Your bad attitude is keeping you poor. That's why I fired you.



Guy, you couldn't afford me... I probably wouldn't have sent your chicken shit company a resume... 

You're a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.  

I watch little companies like yours go out of business because of their half-assery all the time. 



Pop23 said:


> A resume writers income would naturally go up when the economy is bad.
> 
> What the hell did you just admit? The economy is bad when Democrats are in charge? Duh



I haven't always done resume writing... I've been doing it as a side job for the last 8 years (after Bush crashed the economy and I needed extra income) and started doing it full time when I built my business up large enough where it was meeting all my needs.  

Now, I'm not entirely sure that WHEN Trump tanks the economy, that it's going to be a windfall.  Yup,t here will be more poeple looking for jobs, but a lot of people will hunker down and not want to change jobs, so it might be a wash.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You could say "good morning how are you?" to Joe and he'd find a way to make it about race. He would make the claim that the morning brings the sun out and that gets rid of the dark.



Ray, you spew racism with every post,t hat's why it's about race with you. 

The problem is, you think your behavior is acceptable.


----------



## JoeB131

Cellblock2429 said:


> Ray doesn't need me to defend him. My issue is with your sweeping generalizations and distortions because it's the only way you can frame your arguments. "minority garbage" means minorities who are also garbage. Yes, I know the distinction is confusing for you.



But funny, Ray never says "White Garbage" does he.. Or "White Trash", which is a category he probably falls into.


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray doesn't need me to defend him. My issue is with your sweeping generalizations and distortions because it's the only way you can frame your arguments. "minority garbage" means minorities who are also garbage. Yes, I know the distinction is confusing for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But funny, Ray never says "White Garbage" does he.. Or "White Trash", which is a category he probably falls into.
Click to expand...

/----/ White garbage is not trying to flood our country illegally.  They present other problems.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray doesn't need me to defend him. My issue is with your sweeping generalizations and distortions because it's the only way you can frame your arguments. "minority garbage" means minorities who are also garbage. Yes, I know the distinction is confusing for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But funny, Ray never says "White Garbage" does he.. Or "White Trash", which is a category he probably falls into.
Click to expand...


I only responded to your claim that only white trash (garbage) are responsible for welfare.  You leftist say something and when somebody responds in kind, they're the bad guy.  

Don't bring up race if you don't want to make an issue out of race.  But if you are going to bring up race, don't be critical when somebody mentions race as well.


----------



## kaz

bripat9643 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let capitalism do the work.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/ A minimum wage is counter intuitive to capitalism. It smacks of socialism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also doesn't work.
> 
> Increase the minimum wage -> drives up other salaries -> drives up prices -> low end workers want more pay
> ^ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Many Union contracts are tied to the minimum wage. If it goes up $1 then their Union pay automatically increases $1. That’s why Union thugs support higher minimum wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true.  And yes, unions do for that reason.
> 
> But it's way beyond that.  If you pay someone worth $10 more than that, say $15, what happens to people worth $12?  You need to pay them $18, not $15.  Note it's not $17 either you have to pay them proportionally more, not nominally more.
> 
> They are worth more because they work a little harder, smarter, more reliably.  If you pay someone less worth less, they will become unmotivated.  Minimum wage is like a ripple in a pond up the wage scale.
> 
> Then as I pointed out, it's a vicious cycle.  We increased pay but not value of employees, so prices have to go up to compensate for the wage increases.  Then the low end needs a raise to pay them.  Raising the minimum wage increases cost, it does not increase value.  We solved nothing.
> 
> And the bad part for low end employees is that jobs were shed along the way.  Companies looked at every option, including staff reductions, automation, process design along the way.  Leftist policies are about making people feel good while you screw them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prices increase as a result of deliberate monetary policy designed to inflate the wage increases away.  If that weren't done, then the effect of minimum wage increases would be higher unemployment.
Click to expand...


The effect of minimum wage increases IS unemployment


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could say "good morning how are you?" to Joe and he'd find a way to make it about race. He would make the claim that the morning brings the sun out and that gets rid of the dark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray, you spew racism with every post,t hat's why it's about race with you.
> 
> The problem is, you think your behavior is acceptable.
Click to expand...


I appreciate you highlighting my point Joe.  No matter what anybody on the right says here, every post is about race with you.  If it's not, you'll make it about race.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray doesn't need me to defend him. My issue is with your sweeping generalizations and distortions because it's the only way you can frame your arguments. "minority garbage" means minorities who are also garbage. Yes, I know the distinction is confusing for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But funny, Ray never says "White Garbage" does he.. Or "White Trash", which is a category he probably falls into.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only responded to your claim that only white trash (garbage) are responsible for welfare.  You leftist say something and when somebody responds in kind, they're the bad guy.
> 
> Don't bring up race if you don't want to make an issue out of race.  But if you are going to bring up race, don't be critical when somebody mentions race as well.
Click to expand...

what a coincidence, I feel the same way about the right wing.

It is about economics.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage means Labor will be paying more in taxes and creating more in demand, regardless.

Legal status can be fixed by Congress.  Capitalism doesn't care.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/ A minimum wage is counter intuitive to capitalism. It smacks of socialism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also doesn't work.
> 
> Increase the minimum wage -> drives up other salaries -> drives up prices -> low end workers want more pay
> ^ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Many Union contracts are tied to the minimum wage. If it goes up $1 then their Union pay automatically increases $1. That’s why Union thugs support higher minimum wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true.  And yes, unions do for that reason.
> 
> But it's way beyond that.  If you pay someone worth $10 more than that, say $15, what happens to people worth $12?  You need to pay them $18, not $15.  Note it's not $17 either you have to pay them proportionally more, not nominally more.
> 
> They are worth more because they work a little harder, smarter, more reliably.  If you pay someone less worth less, they will become unmotivated.  Minimum wage is like a ripple in a pond up the wage scale.
> 
> Then as I pointed out, it's a vicious cycle.  We increased pay but not value of employees, so prices have to go up to compensate for the wage increases.  Then the low end needs a raise to pay them.  Raising the minimum wage increases cost, it does not increase value.  We solved nothing.
> 
> And the bad part for low end employees is that jobs were shed along the way.  Companies looked at every option, including staff reductions, automation, process design along the way.  Leftist policies are about making people feel good while you screw them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prices increase as a result of deliberate monetary policy designed to inflate the wage increases away.  If that weren't done, then the effect of minimum wage increases would be higher unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The effect of minimum wage increases IS unemployment
Click to expand...

Link?  Seattle and San Francisco indicate a fallacy of false Cause or special pleading regarding that specific, line of reasoning.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bad attitude is keeping you poor. That's why I fired you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you couldn't afford me... I probably wouldn't have sent your chicken shit company a resume...
> 
> You're a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.
> 
> I watch little companies like yours go out of business because of their half-assery all the time.
Click to expand...


You already told me your max salary was $80K.  Now you make less than $25K.  It's not the money I can't afford, that's for sure.  I wouldn't do you to my staff though.

After I had bought and merged three companies, I had picked up a lot of good employees and of course a lot of dead wood.  I was working with my management team on our plan to replace the bad staff.  But we didn't know how many people we would need to replace them.

After a lot of discussion, I finally decided we fire all the bad ones immediately and the same day, no dragging it out.  Let's rip off the bandaid.  We'll identify the gaps and be ready to replace them at once.

So that Friday, we did it.  We fired 30% of the company.  All of them had either personally bad attitudes or just bad attitudes about doing any work.  You were a marginal worker, it was your bad attitude that got you fired. 

Here's what you didn't know because you were gone.  You know how many of you we had to replace?  Zero.  It wasn't just you I didn't replace, I didn't need to replace any of you.  The place seemed so much roomier and wow, it was so much more enjoyable being there without the lazy, useless and bad attitudes.  Over time we replaced you as we grew, but that Friday you all left, your pay and benefits were all just savings


----------



## Cellblock2429

danielpalos said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray doesn't need me to defend him. My issue is with your sweeping generalizations and distortions because it's the only way you can frame your arguments. "minority garbage" means minorities who are also garbage. Yes, I know the distinction is confusing for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But funny, Ray never says "White Garbage" does he.. Or "White Trash", which is a category he probably falls into.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only responded to your claim that only white trash (garbage) are responsible for welfare.  You leftist say something and when somebody responds in kind, they're the bad guy.
> 
> Don't bring up race if you don't want to make an issue out of race.  But if you are going to bring up race, don't be critical when somebody mentions race as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what a coincidence, I feel the same way about the right wing.
> 
> It is about economics.
> 
> A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage means Labor will be paying more in taxes and creating more in demand, regardless.
> 
> Legal status can be fixed by Congress.  Capitalism doesn't care.
Click to expand...

/----/ Against, raising minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available. Small businesses can't afford them.


----------



## bripat9643

kaz said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bad attitude is keeping you poor. That's why I fired you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you couldn't afford me... I probably wouldn't have sent your chicken shit company a resume...
> 
> You're a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.
> 
> I watch little companies like yours go out of business because of their half-assery all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already told me your max salary was $80K.  Now you make less than $25K.  It's not the money I can't afford, that's for sure.  I wouldn't do you to my staff though.
> 
> After I had bought and merged three companies, I had picked up a lot of good employees and of course a lot of dead wood.  I was working with my management team on our plan to replace the bad staff.  But we didn't know how many people we would need to replace them.
> 
> After a lot of discussion, I finally decided we fire all the bad ones immediately and the same day, no dragging it out.  Let's rip off the bandaid.  We'll identify the gaps and be ready to replace them at once.
> 
> So that Friday, we did it.  We fired 30% of the company.  All of them had either personally bad attitudes or just bad attitudes about doing any work.  You were a marginal worker, it was your bad attitude that got you fired.
> 
> Here's what you didn't know because you were gone.  You know how many of you we had to replace?  Zero.  It wasn't just you I didn't replace, I didn't need to replace any of you.  The place seemed so much roomier and wow, it was so much more enjoyable being there without the lazy, useless and bad attitudes.  Over time we replaced you as we grew, but that Friday you all left, your pay and benefits were all just savings
Click to expand...

It's an accepted managment understanding that 20% of the people do 80% of the work.  I've managed many projects where such is the case.  I had one guy under me who never fixed a single bug.  I could easily do more work than any 5 of the worst performers.  In fact, training them just meant I had to do more work than I would have to do if they weren't there.  My boss whined about the fact that he had to pay me about 30% more than these useless drones.


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray doesn't need me to defend him. My issue is with your sweeping generalizations and distortions because it's the only way you can frame your arguments. "minority garbage" means minorities who are also garbage. Yes, I know the distinction is confusing for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But funny, Ray never says "White Garbage" does he.. Or "White Trash", which is a category he probably falls into.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only responded to your claim that only white trash (garbage) are responsible for welfare.  You leftist say something and when somebody responds in kind, they're the bad guy.
> 
> Don't bring up race if you don't want to make an issue out of race.  But if you are going to bring up race, don't be critical when somebody mentions race as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what a coincidence, I feel the same way about the right wing.
> 
> It is about economics.
> 
> A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage means Labor will be paying more in taxes and creating more in demand, regardless.
> 
> Legal status can be fixed by Congress.  Capitalism doesn't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Against, raising minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available. Small businesses can't afford them.
Click to expand...

Why is the unemployment rate lower where the minimum wage is higher, if not for capitalism and price seeking on the part of more motivated Labor.


----------



## Cellblock2429

danielpalos said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray doesn't need me to defend him. My issue is with your sweeping generalizations and distortions because it's the only way you can frame your arguments. "minority garbage" means minorities who are also garbage. Yes, I know the distinction is confusing for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But funny, Ray never says "White Garbage" does he.. Or "White Trash", which is a category he probably falls into.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only responded to your claim that only white trash (garbage) are responsible for welfare.  You leftist say something and when somebody responds in kind, they're the bad guy.
> 
> Don't bring up race if you don't want to make an issue out of race.  But if you are going to bring up race, don't be critical when somebody mentions race as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what a coincidence, I feel the same way about the right wing.
> 
> It is about economics.
> 
> A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage means Labor will be paying more in taxes and creating more in demand, regardless.
> 
> Legal status can be fixed by Congress.  Capitalism doesn't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Against, raising minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available. Small businesses can't afford them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the unemployment rate lower where the minimum wage is higher, if not for capitalism and price seeking on the part of more motivated Labor.
Click to expand...

/----/ If that was the quick fix or hiring motivated workers, businesses would pay more without Gubmint intervention.  Do you understand anything about business?  They pay what they can afford. Labor is their biggest expense.


----------



## IM2

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But funny, Ray never says "White Garbage" does he.. Or "White Trash", which is a category he probably falls into.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only responded to your claim that only white trash (garbage) are responsible for welfare.  You leftist say something and when somebody responds in kind, they're the bad guy.
> 
> Don't bring up race if you don't want to make an issue out of race.  But if you are going to bring up race, don't be critical when somebody mentions race as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what a coincidence, I feel the same way about the right wing.
> 
> It is about economics.
> 
> A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage means Labor will be paying more in taxes and creating more in demand, regardless.
> 
> Legal status can be fixed by Congress.  Capitalism doesn't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Against, raising minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available. Small businesses can't afford them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the unemployment rate lower where the minimum wage is higher, if not for capitalism and price seeking on the part of more motivated Labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ If that was the quick fix or hiring motivated workers, businesses would pay more without Gubmint intervention.  Do you understand anything about business?  The ypay what they can afford. Labor is their biggest expense.
Click to expand...


Wrong.


----------



## Thinker101

IM2 said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only responded to your claim that only white trash (garbage) are responsible for welfare.  You leftist say something and when somebody responds in kind, they're the bad guy.
> 
> Don't bring up race if you don't want to make an issue out of race.  But if you are going to bring up race, don't be critical when somebody mentions race as well.
> 
> 
> 
> what a coincidence, I feel the same way about the right wing.
> 
> It is about economics.
> 
> A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage means Labor will be paying more in taxes and creating more in demand, regardless.
> 
> Legal status can be fixed by Congress.  Capitalism doesn't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Against, raising minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available. Small businesses can't afford them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the unemployment rate lower where the minimum wage is higher, if not for capitalism and price seeking on the part of more motivated Labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ If that was the quick fix or hiring motivated workers, businesses would pay more without Gubmint intervention.  Do you understand anything about business?  The ypay what they can afford. Labor is their biggest expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
Click to expand...


Great rebuttal...dumbass.


----------



## Cellblock2429

IM2 said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only responded to your claim that only white trash (garbage) are responsible for welfare.  You leftist say something and when somebody responds in kind, they're the bad guy.
> 
> Don't bring up race if you don't want to make an issue out of race.  But if you are going to bring up race, don't be critical when somebody mentions race as well.
> 
> 
> 
> what a coincidence, I feel the same way about the right wing.
> 
> It is about economics.
> 
> A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage means Labor will be paying more in taxes and creating more in demand, regardless.
> 
> Legal status can be fixed by Congress.  Capitalism doesn't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Against, raising minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available. Small businesses can't afford them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the unemployment rate lower where the minimum wage is higher, if not for capitalism and price seeking on the part of more motivated Labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ If that was the quick fix or hiring motivated workers, businesses would pay more without Gubmint intervention.  Do you understand anything about business?  The ypay what they can afford. Labor is their biggest expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
Click to expand...

/----/ No. I'm correct:
Reducing your 5 *biggest* company *expenses* will increase your profit margins. For most *businesses*, the five *greatest expenses* are: *Staff*, physical location, capital equipment, development *costs*, and *Cost* of Goods Sold (aka: Inventory).Sep 28, 2016
Here is a quick list of 23 tips to control these expenses so that you can enhance your profitability.


Most of your team don't really understand the "full" amount you are paying them. So twice a year give them a "Full Benefits Report" that lays out their salary, bonuses, employer share of payroll taxes and HR compliance costs, and the dollar value any benefits they receive.
Create a culture where compensation is tied to value created for the company, not to time served.
Communicate clearly and far in advance as to progress towards individual and team bonuses. It's your job to make sure that your team sees the direct, causal connection between the results they and the company generate and the bonus status they are working towards.
*23 Tips to Reduce Your Biggest Business Expenses | Inc.com*
23 Tips to Reduce Your Biggest Business Expenses


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But funny, Ray never says "White Garbage" does he.. Or "White Trash", which is a category he probably falls into.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only responded to your claim that only white trash (garbage) are responsible for welfare.  You leftist say something and when somebody responds in kind, they're the bad guy.
> 
> Don't bring up race if you don't want to make an issue out of race.  But if you are going to bring up race, don't be critical when somebody mentions race as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what a coincidence, I feel the same way about the right wing.
> 
> It is about economics.
> 
> A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage means Labor will be paying more in taxes and creating more in demand, regardless.
> 
> Legal status can be fixed by Congress.  Capitalism doesn't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Against, raising minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available. Small businesses can't afford them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the unemployment rate lower where the minimum wage is higher, if not for capitalism and price seeking on the part of more motivated Labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ If that was the quick fix or hiring motivated workers, businesses would pay more without Gubmint intervention.  Do you understand anything about business?  The ypay what they can afford. Labor is their biggest expense.
Click to expand...

Capitalists get tax breaks for paying wages.  Shareholders get a better return on their capital investment with higher profit.

Labor doesn't get tax breaks for actually providing Labor or tax breaks for lousy Capital management when a Firm fails.


----------



## bripat9643

danielpalos said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only responded to your claim that only white trash (garbage) are responsible for welfare.  You leftist say something and when somebody responds in kind, they're the bad guy.
> 
> Don't bring up race if you don't want to make an issue out of race.  But if you are going to bring up race, don't be critical when somebody mentions race as well.
> 
> 
> 
> what a coincidence, I feel the same way about the right wing.
> 
> It is about economics.
> 
> A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage means Labor will be paying more in taxes and creating more in demand, regardless.
> 
> Legal status can be fixed by Congress.  Capitalism doesn't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Against, raising minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available. Small businesses can't afford them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the unemployment rate lower where the minimum wage is higher, if not for capitalism and price seeking on the part of more motivated Labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ If that was the quick fix or hiring motivated workers, businesses would pay more without Gubmint intervention.  Do you understand anything about business?  The ypay what they can afford. Labor is their biggest expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalists get tax breaks for paying wages.  Shareholders get a better return on their capital investment with higher profit.
> 
> Labor doesn't get tax breaks for actually providing Labor or tax breaks for lousy Capital management when a Firm fails.
Click to expand...

They don't get any breaks for paying wages, moron.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> what a coincidence, I feel the same way about the right wing.
> 
> It is about economics.
> 
> A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage means Labor will be paying more in taxes and creating more in demand, regardless.
> 
> Legal status can be fixed by Congress.  Capitalism doesn't care.
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Against, raising minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available. Small businesses can't afford them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the unemployment rate lower where the minimum wage is higher, if not for capitalism and price seeking on the part of more motivated Labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ If that was the quick fix or hiring motivated workers, businesses would pay more without Gubmint intervention.  Do you understand anything about business?  The ypay what they can afford. Labor is their biggest expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalists get tax breaks for paying wages.  Shareholders get a better return on their capital investment with higher profit.
> 
> Labor doesn't get tax breaks for actually providing Labor or tax breaks for lousy Capital management when a Firm fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't get any breaks for paying wages, moron.
Click to expand...

not what i heard.


----------



## Cellblock2429

danielpalos said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only responded to your claim that only white trash (garbage) are responsible for welfare.  You leftist say something and when somebody responds in kind, they're the bad guy.
> 
> Don't bring up race if you don't want to make an issue out of race.  But if you are going to bring up race, don't be critical when somebody mentions race as well.
> 
> 
> 
> what a coincidence, I feel the same way about the right wing.
> 
> It is about economics.
> 
> A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage means Labor will be paying more in taxes and creating more in demand, regardless.
> 
> Legal status can be fixed by Congress.  Capitalism doesn't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Against, raising minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available. Small businesses can't afford them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the unemployment rate lower where the minimum wage is higher, if not for capitalism and price seeking on the part of more motivated Labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ If that was the quick fix or hiring motivated workers, businesses would pay more without Gubmint intervention.  Do you understand anything about business?  The ypay what they can afford. Labor is their biggest expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalists get tax breaks for paying wages.  Shareholders get a better return on their capital investment with higher profit.
> 
> Labor doesn't get tax breaks for actually providing Labor or tax breaks for lousy Capital management when a Firm fails.
Click to expand...

/----/ "Capitalists get tax breaks for paying wages. "  Yes, they can deduct the cost of labor from their GROSS income but they have to make a profit .  If your expenses outstrip your income you have to cut those expenses to stay afloat and the fastest easy is to cut labor costs.


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> what a coincidence, I feel the same way about the right wing.
> 
> It is about economics.
> 
> A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage means Labor will be paying more in taxes and creating more in demand, regardless.
> 
> Legal status can be fixed by Congress.  Capitalism doesn't care.
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Against, raising minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available. Small businesses can't afford them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the unemployment rate lower where the minimum wage is higher, if not for capitalism and price seeking on the part of more motivated Labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ If that was the quick fix or hiring motivated workers, businesses would pay more without Gubmint intervention.  Do you understand anything about business?  The ypay what they can afford. Labor is their biggest expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalists get tax breaks for paying wages.  Shareholders get a better return on their capital investment with higher profit.
> 
> Labor doesn't get tax breaks for actually providing Labor or tax breaks for lousy Capital management when a Firm fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ "Capitalists get tax breaks for paying wages. "  Yes, they can deduct the cost of labor from their GROSS income but they have to make a profit .  If your expenses outstrip your income you have to cut those expenses to stay afloat and the fastest easy is to cut labor costs.
Click to expand...

easy is not as good as easy And convenient.  

We have Convenience stores, not Easy stores.  Capitalists should know that.


----------



## IM2

Thinker101 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> what a coincidence, I feel the same way about the right wing.
> 
> It is about economics.
> 
> A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage means Labor will be paying more in taxes and creating more in demand, regardless.
> 
> Legal status can be fixed by Congress.  Capitalism doesn't care.
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Against, raising minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available. Small businesses can't afford them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the unemployment rate lower where the minimum wage is higher, if not for capitalism and price seeking on the part of more motivated Labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ If that was the quick fix or hiring motivated workers, businesses would pay more without Gubmint intervention.  Do you understand anything about business?  The ypay what they can afford. Labor is their biggest expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great rebuttal...dumbass.
Click to expand...


Thank you, I'm glad you think so.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bad attitude is keeping you poor. That's why I fired you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you couldn't afford me... I probably wouldn't have sent your chicken shit company a resume...
> 
> You're a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.
> 
> I watch little companies like yours go out of business because of their half-assery all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already told me your max salary was $80K.  Now you make less than $25K.  It's not the money I can't afford, that's for sure.  I wouldn't do you to my staff though.
> 
> After I had bought and merged three companies, I had picked up a lot of good employees and of course a lot of dead wood.  I was working with my management team on our plan to replace the bad staff.  But we didn't know how many people we would need to replace them.
> 
> After a lot of discussion, I finally decided we fire all the bad ones immediately and the same day, no dragging it out.  Let's rip off the bandaid.  We'll identify the gaps and be ready to replace them at once.
> 
> So that Friday, we did it.  We fired 30% of the company.  All of them had either personally bad attitudes or just bad attitudes about doing any work.  You were a marginal worker, it was your bad attitude that got you fired.
> 
> Here's what you didn't know because you were gone.  You know how many of you we had to replace?  Zero.  It wasn't just you I didn't replace, I didn't need to replace any of you.  The place seemed so much roomier and wow, it was so much more enjoyable being there without the lazy, useless and bad attitudes.  Over time we replaced you as we grew, but that Friday you all left, your pay and benefits were all just savings
Click to expand...


Bad actors influence others as well.  One of our customers just got rid of their shipper.  The guy came to work explicitly to make problems for everybody.  I hated to pickup there, but it was not only me, other drivers from other companies told me how they hated dealing with this Ahole.  In fact some years ago, a driver punched him out he got so pissed; probably lost his job too. 

Now that he's gone there is a new spring in everybody's step.  The workers are happier and work better.  They are not prevented from using their ideas to better the place, and the dock has never looked better.  They don't sit in the shipping office all day playing on the internet, they are always doing something.  It wasn't until the company got rid of the guy his coworkers expressed how much they hated working there.  Now they say it's once again enjoyable to go to work.


----------



## bripat9643

danielpalos said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Against, raising minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available. Small businesses can't afford them.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the unemployment rate lower where the minimum wage is higher, if not for capitalism and price seeking on the part of more motivated Labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ If that was the quick fix or hiring motivated workers, businesses would pay more without Gubmint intervention.  Do you understand anything about business?  The ypay what they can afford. Labor is their biggest expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalists get tax breaks for paying wages.  Shareholders get a better return on their capital investment with higher profit.
> 
> Labor doesn't get tax breaks for actually providing Labor or tax breaks for lousy Capital management when a Firm fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't get any breaks for paying wages, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not what i heard.
Click to expand...

That's because you hang around with other morons.


----------



## IM2

Cellblock2429 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> what a coincidence, I feel the same way about the right wing.
> 
> It is about economics.
> 
> A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage means Labor will be paying more in taxes and creating more in demand, regardless.
> 
> Legal status can be fixed by Congress.  Capitalism doesn't care.
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Against, raising minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available. Small businesses can't afford them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the unemployment rate lower where the minimum wage is higher, if not for capitalism and price seeking on the part of more motivated Labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ If that was the quick fix or hiring motivated workers, businesses would pay more without Gubmint intervention.  Do you understand anything about business?  The ypay what they can afford. Labor is their biggest expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ No. I'm correct:
> Reducing your 5 *biggest* company *expenses* will increase your profit margins. For most *businesses*, the five *greatest expenses* are: *Staff*, physical location, capital equipment, development *costs*, and *Cost* of Goods Sold (aka: Inventory).Sep 28, 2016
> Here is a quick list of 23 tips to control these expenses so that you can enhance your profitability.
> 
> 
> Most of your team don't really understand the "full" amount you are paying them. So twice a year give them a "Full Benefits Report" that lays out their salary, bonuses, employer share of payroll taxes and HR compliance costs, and the dollar value any benefits they receive.
> Create a culture where compensation is tied to value created for the company, not to time served.
> Communicate clearly and far in advance as to progress towards individual and team bonuses. It's your job to make sure that your team sees the direct, causal connection between the results they and the company generate and the bonus status they are working towards.
> *23 Tips to Reduce Your Biggest Business Expenses | Inc.com*
> 23 Tips to Reduce Your Biggest Business Expenses
Click to expand...


You're wrong bud. When you made your comment about what business would do without government that's where you left reality. And then if you have those million dollar pieces of equipment…….


----------



## IM2

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bad attitude is keeping you poor. That's why I fired you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you couldn't afford me... I probably wouldn't have sent your chicken shit company a resume...
> 
> You're a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.
> 
> I watch little companies like yours go out of business because of their half-assery all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already told me your max salary was $80K.  Now you make less than $25K.  It's not the money I can't afford, that's for sure.  I wouldn't do you to my staff though.
> 
> After I had bought and merged three companies, I had picked up a lot of good employees and of course a lot of dead wood.  I was working with my management team on our plan to replace the bad staff.  But we didn't know how many people we would need to replace them.
> 
> After a lot of discussion, I finally decided we fire all the bad ones immediately and the same day, no dragging it out.  Let's rip off the bandaid.  We'll identify the gaps and be ready to replace them at once.
> 
> So that Friday, we did it.  We fired 30% of the company.  All of them had either personally bad attitudes or just bad attitudes about doing any work.  You were a marginal worker, it was your bad attitude that got you fired.
> 
> Here's what you didn't know because you were gone.  You know how many of you we had to replace?  Zero.  It wasn't just you I didn't replace, I didn't need to replace any of you.  The place seemed so much roomier and wow, it was so much more enjoyable being there without the lazy, useless and bad attitudes.  Over time we replaced you as we grew, but that Friday you all left, your pay and benefits were all just savings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bad actors influence others as well.  One of our customers just got rid of their shipper.  The guy came to work explicitly to make problems for everybody.  I hated to pickup there, but it was not only me, other drivers from other companies told me how they hated dealing with this Ahole.  In fact some years ago, a driver punched him out he got so pissed; probably lost his job too.
> 
> Now that he's gone there is a new spring in everybody's step.  The workers are happier and work better.  They are not prevented from using their ideas to better the place, and the dock has never looked better.  They don't sit in the shipping office all day playing on the internet, they are always doing something.  It wasn't until the company got rid of the guy his coworkers expressed how much they hated working there.  Now they say it's once again enjoyable to go to work.
Click to expand...


And I guess  this applies to every business there is.


----------



## percysunshine

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​




Dang, you must be embarassed that Coyotes are the problem. Body snatchers and smugglers....


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

IM2 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bad attitude is keeping you poor. That's why I fired you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you couldn't afford me... I probably wouldn't have sent your chicken shit company a resume...
> 
> You're a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.
> 
> I watch little companies like yours go out of business because of their half-assery all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already told me your max salary was $80K.  Now you make less than $25K.  It's not the money I can't afford, that's for sure.  I wouldn't do you to my staff though.
> 
> After I had bought and merged three companies, I had picked up a lot of good employees and of course a lot of dead wood.  I was working with my management team on our plan to replace the bad staff.  But we didn't know how many people we would need to replace them.
> 
> After a lot of discussion, I finally decided we fire all the bad ones immediately and the same day, no dragging it out.  Let's rip off the bandaid.  We'll identify the gaps and be ready to replace them at once.
> 
> So that Friday, we did it.  We fired 30% of the company.  All of them had either personally bad attitudes or just bad attitudes about doing any work.  You were a marginal worker, it was your bad attitude that got you fired.
> 
> Here's what you didn't know because you were gone.  You know how many of you we had to replace?  Zero.  It wasn't just you I didn't replace, I didn't need to replace any of you.  The place seemed so much roomier and wow, it was so much more enjoyable being there without the lazy, useless and bad attitudes.  Over time we replaced you as we grew, but that Friday you all left, your pay and benefits were all just savings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bad actors influence others as well.  One of our customers just got rid of their shipper.  The guy came to work explicitly to make problems for everybody.  I hated to pickup there, but it was not only me, other drivers from other companies told me how they hated dealing with this Ahole.  In fact some years ago, a driver punched him out he got so pissed; probably lost his job too.
> 
> Now that he's gone there is a new spring in everybody's step.  The workers are happier and work better.  They are not prevented from using their ideas to better the place, and the dock has never looked better.  They don't sit in the shipping office all day playing on the internet, they are always doing something.  It wasn't until the company got rid of the guy his coworkers expressed how much they hated working there.  Now they say it's once again enjoyable to go to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I guess  this applies to every business there is.
Click to expand...


Only the ones who allow assholes to work there.  Who wants to go to work when you have a miserable SOB to work with or under?  Of course your attitude will be affected.  In the last three years, we had three customers who had idiots with terrible attitudes working in shipping.  All three are gone now.  Not only are their coworkers happy, I'm pretty happy about it myself.  I no longer have to deal with these morons.


----------



## kaz

bripat9643 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bad attitude is keeping you poor. That's why I fired you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you couldn't afford me... I probably wouldn't have sent your chicken shit company a resume...
> 
> You're a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.
> 
> I watch little companies like yours go out of business because of their half-assery all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already told me your max salary was $80K.  Now you make less than $25K.  It's not the money I can't afford, that's for sure.  I wouldn't do you to my staff though.
> 
> After I had bought and merged three companies, I had picked up a lot of good employees and of course a lot of dead wood.  I was working with my management team on our plan to replace the bad staff.  But we didn't know how many people we would need to replace them.
> 
> After a lot of discussion, I finally decided we fire all the bad ones immediately and the same day, no dragging it out.  Let's rip off the bandaid.  We'll identify the gaps and be ready to replace them at once.
> 
> So that Friday, we did it.  We fired 30% of the company.  All of them had either personally bad attitudes or just bad attitudes about doing any work.  You were a marginal worker, it was your bad attitude that got you fired.
> 
> Here's what you didn't know because you were gone.  You know how many of you we had to replace?  Zero.  It wasn't just you I didn't replace, I didn't need to replace any of you.  The place seemed so much roomier and wow, it was so much more enjoyable being there without the lazy, useless and bad attitudes.  Over time we replaced you as we grew, but that Friday you all left, your pay and benefits were all just savings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's an accepted managment understanding that 20% of the people do 80% of the work.  I've managed many projects where such is the case.  I had one guy under me who never fixed a single bug.  I could easily do more work than any 5 of the worst performers.  In fact, training them just meant I had to do more work than I would have to do if they weren't there.  My boss whined about the fact that he had to pay me about 30% more than these useless drones.
Click to expand...


Yeah.  The good part of this was it made everyone more productive.  They were just tired of the bad attitudes like Joe and others not wanting to work and talking and stalling all the time.  The atmosphere was just so much more pleasant.  We all felt it.   The staff I kept knew why every one of the ones who were gone were gone.

There were two people I was on the fence about firing and decided not to fire them.  Their manager plead both their cases that they could improve.  So we agreed to tell them they were on the fence and put them both on action plans.  Both made it.  One of them became competent.  The other actually became a star.  It was like a flip switched.  And he stayed that way until I sold the company.  He became my company's chief website designer


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bad attitude is keeping you poor. That's why I fired you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you couldn't afford me... I probably wouldn't have sent your chicken shit company a resume...
> 
> You're a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.
> 
> I watch little companies like yours go out of business because of their half-assery all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already told me your max salary was $80K.  Now you make less than $25K.  It's not the money I can't afford, that's for sure.  I wouldn't do you to my staff though.
> 
> After I had bought and merged three companies, I had picked up a lot of good employees and of course a lot of dead wood.  I was working with my management team on our plan to replace the bad staff.  But we didn't know how many people we would need to replace them.
> 
> After a lot of discussion, I finally decided we fire all the bad ones immediately and the same day, no dragging it out.  Let's rip off the bandaid.  We'll identify the gaps and be ready to replace them at once.
> 
> So that Friday, we did it.  We fired 30% of the company.  All of them had either personally bad attitudes or just bad attitudes about doing any work.  You were a marginal worker, it was your bad attitude that got you fired.
> 
> Here's what you didn't know because you were gone.  You know how many of you we had to replace?  Zero.  It wasn't just you I didn't replace, I didn't need to replace any of you.  The place seemed so much roomier and wow, it was so much more enjoyable being there without the lazy, useless and bad attitudes.  Over time we replaced you as we grew, but that Friday you all left, your pay and benefits were all just savings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bad actors influence others as well.  One of our customers just got rid of their shipper.  The guy came to work explicitly to make problems for everybody.  I hated to pickup there, but it was not only me, other drivers from other companies told me how they hated dealing with this Ahole.  In fact some years ago, a driver punched him out he got so pissed; probably lost his job too.
> 
> Now that he's gone there is a new spring in everybody's step.  The workers are happier and work better.  They are not prevented from using their ideas to better the place, and the dock has never looked better.  They don't sit in the shipping office all day playing on the internet, they are always doing something.  It wasn't until the company got rid of the guy his coworkers expressed how much they hated working there.  Now they say it's once again enjoyable to go to work.
Click to expand...


Yep.  And that's management's job to recognize and deal with those situations.  There's nothing the rest of the staff can do about that situation if we don't do our jobs.  I don't enjoy firing people, but I'm sure there are parts of your job you don't like either.  But you recognize that it is part of the job and do it.  That's why you're good at it


----------



## kaz

IM2 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bad attitude is keeping you poor. That's why I fired you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you couldn't afford me... I probably wouldn't have sent your chicken shit company a resume...
> 
> You're a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.
> 
> I watch little companies like yours go out of business because of their half-assery all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already told me your max salary was $80K.  Now you make less than $25K.  It's not the money I can't afford, that's for sure.  I wouldn't do you to my staff though.
> 
> After I had bought and merged three companies, I had picked up a lot of good employees and of course a lot of dead wood.  I was working with my management team on our plan to replace the bad staff.  But we didn't know how many people we would need to replace them.
> 
> After a lot of discussion, I finally decided we fire all the bad ones immediately and the same day, no dragging it out.  Let's rip off the bandaid.  We'll identify the gaps and be ready to replace them at once.
> 
> So that Friday, we did it.  We fired 30% of the company.  All of them had either personally bad attitudes or just bad attitudes about doing any work.  You were a marginal worker, it was your bad attitude that got you fired.
> 
> Here's what you didn't know because you were gone.  You know how many of you we had to replace?  Zero.  It wasn't just you I didn't replace, I didn't need to replace any of you.  The place seemed so much roomier and wow, it was so much more enjoyable being there without the lazy, useless and bad attitudes.  Over time we replaced you as we grew, but that Friday you all left, your pay and benefits were all just savings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bad actors influence others as well.  One of our customers just got rid of their shipper.  The guy came to work explicitly to make problems for everybody.  I hated to pickup there, but it was not only me, other drivers from other companies told me how they hated dealing with this Ahole.  In fact some years ago, a driver punched him out he got so pissed; probably lost his job too.
> 
> Now that he's gone there is a new spring in everybody's step.  The workers are happier and work better.  They are not prevented from using their ideas to better the place, and the dock has never looked better.  They don't sit in the shipping office all day playing on the internet, they are always doing something.  It wasn't until the company got rid of the guy his coworkers expressed how much they hated working there.  Now they say it's once again enjoyable to go to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I guess  this applies to every business there is.
Click to expand...


Yes.  It's unfortunate when management doesn't do their job and they make everyone suffer.

I don't remember everyone I've fired since I spent my career in management, but I remember the first.  I kept giving him more chances.  He'd improve for five minutes then go back to sucking.  I was afraid the other staff would fear for their jobs if I started firing people.

Finally I had enough and fired him.  You know what the first thing the staff said when I told them he was gone?  We wondered what took you so long.  I realized that they knew exactly what was going on.  They weren't afraid at all I was going to fire them just because I fired someone who didn't do any work


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the unemployment rate lower where the minimum wage is higher, if not for capitalism and price seeking on the part of more motivated Labor.
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ If that was the quick fix or hiring motivated workers, businesses would pay more without Gubmint intervention.  Do you understand anything about business?  The ypay what they can afford. Labor is their biggest expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalists get tax breaks for paying wages.  Shareholders get a better return on their capital investment with higher profit.
> 
> Labor doesn't get tax breaks for actually providing Labor or tax breaks for lousy Capital management when a Firm fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't get any breaks for paying wages, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not what i heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because you hang around with other morons.
Click to expand...

yet, it is the right wing that has, nothing but fallacy.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bad attitude is keeping you poor. That's why I fired you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you couldn't afford me... I probably wouldn't have sent your chicken shit company a resume...
> 
> You're a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.
> 
> I watch little companies like yours go out of business because of their half-assery all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already told me your max salary was $80K.  Now you make less than $25K.  It's not the money I can't afford, that's for sure.  I wouldn't do you to my staff though.
> 
> After I had bought and merged three companies, I had picked up a lot of good employees and of course a lot of dead wood.  I was working with my management team on our plan to replace the bad staff.  But we didn't know how many people we would need to replace them.
> 
> After a lot of discussion, I finally decided we fire all the bad ones immediately and the same day, no dragging it out.  Let's rip off the bandaid.  We'll identify the gaps and be ready to replace them at once.
> 
> So that Friday, we did it.  We fired 30% of the company.  All of them had either personally bad attitudes or just bad attitudes about doing any work.  You were a marginal worker, it was your bad attitude that got you fired.
> 
> Here's what you didn't know because you were gone.  You know how many of you we had to replace?  Zero.  It wasn't just you I didn't replace, I didn't need to replace any of you.  The place seemed so much roomier and wow, it was so much more enjoyable being there without the lazy, useless and bad attitudes.  Over time we replaced you as we grew, but that Friday you all left, your pay and benefits were all just savings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bad actors influence others as well.  One of our customers just got rid of their shipper.  The guy came to work explicitly to make problems for everybody.  I hated to pickup there, but it was not only me, other drivers from other companies told me how they hated dealing with this Ahole.  In fact some years ago, a driver punched him out he got so pissed; probably lost his job too.
> 
> Now that he's gone there is a new spring in everybody's step.  The workers are happier and work better.  They are not prevented from using their ideas to better the place, and the dock has never looked better.  They don't sit in the shipping office all day playing on the internet, they are always doing something.  It wasn't until the company got rid of the guy his coworkers expressed how much they hated working there.  Now they say it's once again enjoyable to go to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  And that's management's job to recognize and deal with those situations.  There's nothing the rest of the staff can do about that situation if we don't do our jobs.  I don't enjoy firing people, but I'm sure there are parts of your job you don't like either.  But you recognize that it is part of the job and do it.  That's why you're good at it
Click to expand...


Correct, I don't have to deal with that.  But as a landlord, I've had to tell people to leave or evict them.  It's never a comfortable thing.  Some of them are otherwise nice people, but if you give me problems or don't pay rent, you leave me little choice.  The last time it was a family of four; the parents and one teenage girl and a 3 year old.  But sometimes you just have no choice in the matter.


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bad attitude is keeping you poor. That's why I fired you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you couldn't afford me... I probably wouldn't have sent your chicken shit company a resume...
> 
> You're a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.
> 
> I watch little companies like yours go out of business because of their half-assery all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already told me your max salary was $80K.  Now you make less than $25K.  It's not the money I can't afford, that's for sure.  I wouldn't do you to my staff though.
> 
> After I had bought and merged three companies, I had picked up a lot of good employees and of course a lot of dead wood.  I was working with my management team on our plan to replace the bad staff.  But we didn't know how many people we would need to replace them.
> 
> After a lot of discussion, I finally decided we fire all the bad ones immediately and the same day, no dragging it out.  Let's rip off the bandaid.  We'll identify the gaps and be ready to replace them at once.
> 
> So that Friday, we did it.  We fired 30% of the company.  All of them had either personally bad attitudes or just bad attitudes about doing any work.  You were a marginal worker, it was your bad attitude that got you fired.
> 
> Here's what you didn't know because you were gone.  You know how many of you we had to replace?  Zero.  It wasn't just you I didn't replace, I didn't need to replace any of you.  The place seemed so much roomier and wow, it was so much more enjoyable being there without the lazy, useless and bad attitudes.  Over time we replaced you as we grew, but that Friday you all left, your pay and benefits were all just savings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bad actors influence others as well.  One of our customers just got rid of their shipper.  The guy came to work explicitly to make problems for everybody.  I hated to pickup there, but it was not only me, other drivers from other companies told me how they hated dealing with this Ahole.  In fact some years ago, a driver punched him out he got so pissed; probably lost his job too.
> 
> Now that he's gone there is a new spring in everybody's step.  The workers are happier and work better.  They are not prevented from using their ideas to better the place, and the dock has never looked better.  They don't sit in the shipping office all day playing on the internet, they are always doing something.  It wasn't until the company got rid of the guy his coworkers expressed how much they hated working there.  Now they say it's once again enjoyable to go to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  And that's management's job to recognize and deal with those situations.  There's nothing the rest of the staff can do about that situation if we don't do our jobs.  I don't enjoy firing people, but I'm sure there are parts of your job you don't like either.  But you recognize that it is part of the job and do it.  That's why you're good at it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, I don't have to deal with that.  But as a landlord, I've had to tell people to leave or evict them.  It's never a comfortable thing.  Some of them are otherwise nice people, but if you give me problems or don't pay rent, you leave me little choice.  The last time it was a family of four; the parents and one teenage girl and a 3 year old.  But sometimes you just have no choice in the matter.
Click to expand...


Yeah, the reasons may be different, but that's what it's like firing people.  I keep it short and factual.  Leftists of course say, don't you care about people?  They have families.  First of all of course in their typical style, leftists are telling me what to do with my money, not what they are doing with theirs.  Second, of course I care about their family.  But they should have cared more about their own family and tried harder.

Fortunately, I never was forced to lay someone I wanted to keep off when I was in consulting, corporate or my own business because of economics.  Every person I ever fired deserved it.  That would have been a lot harder


----------



## kaz

percysunshine said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dang, you must be embarassed that Coyotes are the problem. Body snatchers and smugglers....
Click to expand...


Coyote's a leftist.  She has no shame.  Her views have been validated by the left, so she can say anything no matter how stupid it is.  Like that she's against illegal immigration while she does nothing but fight to enable illegal immigration.

And yet she's not responsible for the cost to society, crime, welfare, none of it.  She has no shame, nothing is her responsibility, including her own actions


----------



## kaz

IM2 said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Against, raising minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available. Small businesses can't afford them.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the unemployment rate lower where the minimum wage is higher, if not for capitalism and price seeking on the part of more motivated Labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ If that was the quick fix or hiring motivated workers, businesses would pay more without Gubmint intervention.  Do you understand anything about business?  The ypay what they can afford. Labor is their biggest expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ No. I'm correct:
> Reducing your 5 *biggest* company *expenses* will increase your profit margins. For most *businesses*, the five *greatest expenses* are: *Staff*, physical location, capital equipment, development *costs*, and *Cost* of Goods Sold (aka: Inventory).Sep 28, 2016
> Here is a quick list of 23 tips to control these expenses so that you can enhance your profitability.
> 
> 
> Most of your team don't really understand the "full" amount you are paying them. So twice a year give them a "Full Benefits Report" that lays out their salary, bonuses, employer share of payroll taxes and HR compliance costs, and the dollar value any benefits they receive.
> Create a culture where compensation is tied to value created for the company, not to time served.
> Communicate clearly and far in advance as to progress towards individual and team bonuses. It's your job to make sure that your team sees the direct, causal connection between the results they and the company generate and the bonus status they are working towards.
> *23 Tips to Reduce Your Biggest Business Expenses | Inc.com*
> 23 Tips to Reduce Your Biggest Business Expenses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong bud. When you made your comment about what business would do without government that's where you left reality. And then if you have those million dollar pieces of equipment…….
Click to expand...


Equivocation.  He was talking about government interfering in pay.  You changed that to there not being any government


----------



## Flopper

Kondor3 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It appears that over the last 200 years those tired, poor, and handle masses entering this nation and have built the greatest nation on earth.  Can't argue with success.
> 
> 
> 
> Entirely true. Trouble is, we're full-up...we don't need any more than we already have, and there is no point in intentionally overcrowding ourselves until we attain $hithole status.
Click to expand...

*One can argue that we need more immigrants because they start more new businesses than native born Americans or that immigrants bring new ideas to solve old problems, or they help us in competing in a global economy.  All true but more important is the fact that our demographics are such that we will not be able fill existing jobs much less the new jobs that are being created.  Our economy will go into a structural decline before mid-century.  

Roughly 10,000 Baby Boomers will turn 65 today, and about 10,000 more will cross that threshold every day for the next 19 years. Not only is the labor force shrinking due to retirement but we are creating new jobs at rate of 175,000 to 240,000 a month.

Without immigration, the only way we can fill those jobs is with a high birthrate.  However, our birth rate has reached a 30 year low.  It has been trending down for decades.  At this rate we not be able to replace the existing population and the trend seems to be accelerating.

Even if we double the number of legal immigrants entering the country, we still will not be able to keep up with demand.
Baby Boomers Retire
U.S. Births Dip To 30-Year Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level *


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It appears that over the last 200 years those tired, poor, and handle masses entering this nation and have built the greatest nation on earth.  Can't argue with success.
> 
> 
> 
> Entirely true. Trouble is, we're full-up...we don't need any more than we already have, and there is no point in intentionally overcrowding ourselves until we attain $hithole status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *One can argue that we need more immigrants because they start more new businesses than native born Americans or that immigrants bring new ideas to solve old problems, or they help us in competing in a global economy.  All true but more important is the fact that our demographics are such that we will not be able fill existing jobs much less the new jobs that are being created.  Our economy will go into a structural decline.
> 
> Roughly 10,000 Baby Boomers will turn 65 today, and about 10,000 more will cross that threshold every day for the next 19 years. Not only is the labor force shrinking due to retirement but we are creating new jobs at rate of 175,000 to 240,000 a month.
> 
> Without immigration, the only way we can fill those jobs is with a high birthrate.  However, our birth rate has reached a 30 year low.  It has been trending down for decades.  At this rate we not be able to replace the existing population and the trend seems to be accelerating.
> 
> Even if we double the number of legal immigrants entering the country, we still will not be able to keep up with demand.
> Baby Boomers Retire
> U.S. Births Dip To 30-Year Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level *
Click to expand...


We're talking about illegal aliens, not immigrants, race whoring dickhead


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It appears that over the last 200 years those tired, poor, and handle masses entering this nation and have built the greatest nation on earth.  Can't argue with success.
> 
> 
> 
> Entirely true. Trouble is, we're full-up...we don't need any more than we already have, and there is no point in intentionally overcrowding ourselves until we attain $hithole status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *One can argue that we need more immigrants because they start more new businesses than native born Americans or that immigrants bring new ideas to solve old problems, or they help us in competing in a global economy.  All true but more important is the fact that our demographics are such that we will not be able fill existing jobs much less the new jobs that are being created.  Our economy will go into a structural decline.
> 
> Roughly 10,000 Baby Boomers will turn 65 today, and about 10,000 more will cross that threshold every day for the next 19 years. Not only is the labor force shrinking due to retirement but we are creating new jobs at rate of 175,000 to 240,000 a month.
> 
> Without immigration, the only way we can fill those jobs is with a high birthrate.  However, our birth rate has reached a 30 year low.  It has been trending down for decades.  At this rate we not be able to replace the existing population and the trend seems to be accelerating.
> 
> Even if we double the number of legal immigrants entering the country, we still will not be able to keep up with demand.
> Baby Boomers Retire
> U.S. Births Dip To 30-Year Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level *
Click to expand...


We'll do just fine without them.  The shorter the labor, the higher the wage offerings.  On one hand you people on the left complain that the middle-class is shrinking, and on the other you claim we need imports to do jobs because every single American is working today.  Well.......the labor force participation rate doesn't reflect that. When people really need to get work done, they will increase their offers.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Flopper said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It appears that over the last 200 years those tired, poor, and handle masses entering this nation and have built the greatest nation on earth.  Can't argue with success.
> 
> 
> 
> Entirely true. Trouble is, we're full-up...we don't need any more than we already have, and there is no point in intentionally overcrowding ourselves until we attain $hithole status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *One can argue that we need more immigrants because they start more new businesses than native born Americans or that immigrants bring new ideas to solve old problems, or they help us in competing in a global economy.  All true but more important is the fact that our demographics are such that we will not be able fill existing jobs much less the new jobs that are being created.  Our economy will go into a structural decline before mid-century.
> 
> Roughly 10,000 Baby Boomers will turn 65 today, and about 10,000 more will cross that threshold every day for the next 19 years. Not only is the labor force shrinking due to retirement but we are creating new jobs at rate of 175,000 to 240,000 a month.
> 
> Without immigration, the only way we can fill those jobs is with a high birthrate.  However, our birth rate has reached a 30 year low.  It has been trending down for decades.  At this rate we not be able to replace the existing population and the trend seems to be accelerating.
> 
> Even if we double the number of legal immigrants entering the country, we still will not be able to keep up with demand.
> Baby Boomers Retire
> U.S. Births Dip To 30-Year Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level *
Click to expand...

/——/ OK then bring them in from Europe, legally of course and only if they are willing to assimilate.


----------



## Flopper

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It appears that over the last 200 years those tired, poor, and handle masses entering this nation and have built the greatest nation on earth.  Can't argue with success.
> 
> 
> 
> Entirely true. Trouble is, we're full-up...we don't need any more than we already have, and there is no point in intentionally overcrowding ourselves until we attain $hithole status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *One can argue that we need more immigrants because they start more new businesses than native born Americans or that immigrants bring new ideas to solve old problems, or they help us in competing in a global economy.  All true but more important is the fact that our demographics are such that we will not be able fill existing jobs much less the new jobs that are being created.  Our economy will go into a structural decline.
> 
> Roughly 10,000 Baby Boomers will turn 65 today, and about 10,000 more will cross that threshold every day for the next 19 years. Not only is the labor force shrinking due to retirement but we are creating new jobs at rate of 175,000 to 240,000 a month.
> 
> Without immigration, the only way we can fill those jobs is with a high birthrate.  However, our birth rate has reached a 30 year low.  It has been trending down for decades.  At this rate we not be able to replace the existing population and the trend seems to be accelerating.
> 
> Even if we double the number of legal immigrants entering the country, we still will not be able to keep up with demand.
> Baby Boomers Retire
> U.S. Births Dip To 30-Year Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal aliens, not immigrants, race whoring dickhead
Click to expand...

*Legally immigration is closely linked to illegal immigration because the forces fighting illegal immigration are also fighting to keep legal immigrants out the country.  Our government is working frantically to make sure there is no welcome mat to immigrants, legal or illegal.  We desperately need more legal immigrants and desperately need less illegal immigrants and we're not making much progress in either direction. 





*


----------



## Cellblock2429

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It appears that over the last 200 years those tired, poor, and handle masses entering this nation and have built the greatest nation on earth.  Can't argue with success.
> 
> 
> 
> Entirely true. Trouble is, we're full-up...we don't need any more than we already have, and there is no point in intentionally overcrowding ourselves until we attain $hithole status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *One can argue that we need more immigrants because they start more new businesses than native born Americans or that immigrants bring new ideas to solve old problems, or they help us in competing in a global economy.  All true but more important is the fact that our demographics are such that we will not be able fill existing jobs much less the new jobs that are being created.  Our economy will go into a structural decline.
> 
> Roughly 10,000 Baby Boomers will turn 65 today, and about 10,000 more will cross that threshold every day for the next 19 years. Not only is the labor force shrinking due to retirement but we are creating new jobs at rate of 175,000 to 240,000 a month.
> 
> Without immigration, the only way we can fill those jobs is with a high birthrate.  However, our birth rate has reached a 30 year low.  It has been trending down for decades.  At this rate we not be able to replace the existing population and the trend seems to be accelerating.
> 
> Even if we double the number of legal immigrants entering the country, we still will not be able to keep up with demand.
> Baby Boomers Retire
> U.S. Births Dip To 30-Year Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal aliens, not immigrants, race whoring dickhead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Legally immigration is closely linked to illegal immigration because the forces fighting illegal immigration are also fighting to keep legal immigrants out the country.  Our government is working frantically to make sure there is no welcome mat to immigrants, legal or illegal.  We desperately need more legal immigrants and desperately need less illegal immigrants and we're not making much progress in either direction. *
Click to expand...

/——/ Total made up bullshyt. We aren’t against legal immigration. It’s the Progs who want to flood the country with future democRAT voters that’s the issue. You’re just trying to refute our demand to enforce our laws by claiming we’re against all immigrants. Total bullshyt Strawman argument.


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It appears that over the last 200 years those tired, poor, and handle masses entering this nation and have built the greatest nation on earth.  Can't argue with success.
> 
> 
> 
> Entirely true. Trouble is, we're full-up...we don't need any more than we already have, and there is no point in intentionally overcrowding ourselves until we attain $hithole status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *One can argue that we need more immigrants because they start more new businesses than native born Americans or that immigrants bring new ideas to solve old problems, or they help us in competing in a global economy.  All true but more important is the fact that our demographics are such that we will not be able fill existing jobs much less the new jobs that are being created.  Our economy will go into a structural decline.
> 
> Roughly 10,000 Baby Boomers will turn 65 today, and about 10,000 more will cross that threshold every day for the next 19 years. Not only is the labor force shrinking due to retirement but we are creating new jobs at rate of 175,000 to 240,000 a month.
> 
> Without immigration, the only way we can fill those jobs is with a high birthrate.  However, our birth rate has reached a 30 year low.  It has been trending down for decades.  At this rate we not be able to replace the existing population and the trend seems to be accelerating.
> 
> Even if we double the number of legal immigrants entering the country, we still will not be able to keep up with demand.
> Baby Boomers Retire
> U.S. Births Dip To 30-Year Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal aliens, not immigrants, race whoring dickhead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Legally immigration is closely linked to illegal immigration because the forces fighting illegal immigration are also fighting to keep legal immigrants out the country.  Our government is working frantically to make sure there is no welcome mat to immigrants, legal or illegal.  We desperately need more legal immigrants and desperately need less illegal immigrants and we're not making much progress in either direction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
Click to expand...


Bull shit, they are fundamentally different, race pimping ass.  That's why you're doing it.

Legal immigrants:  Respect the law, come here legally, follow the process.  They must be able to legally support themselves and they pass a criminal background check.  They are mostly middle class.

Illegal aliens:  Come here illegally, earn a living illegally, steal medical care, education and welfare from taxpayers.  They are criminals.  And they have not passed a background check and cannot support themselves legally.

Entirely different animals.  My father in law would never have come here illegally from Korea.  He followed the law.

The only ones we're telling to "keep out" dickhead are the ones who weren't invited and came illegally anyway and are living illegal lives


----------



## kaz

Cellblock2429 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It appears that over the last 200 years those tired, poor, and handle masses entering this nation and have built the greatest nation on earth.  Can't argue with success.
> 
> 
> 
> Entirely true. Trouble is, we're full-up...we don't need any more than we already have, and there is no point in intentionally overcrowding ourselves until we attain $hithole status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *One can argue that we need more immigrants because they start more new businesses than native born Americans or that immigrants bring new ideas to solve old problems, or they help us in competing in a global economy.  All true but more important is the fact that our demographics are such that we will not be able fill existing jobs much less the new jobs that are being created.  Our economy will go into a structural decline.
> 
> Roughly 10,000 Baby Boomers will turn 65 today, and about 10,000 more will cross that threshold every day for the next 19 years. Not only is the labor force shrinking due to retirement but we are creating new jobs at rate of 175,000 to 240,000 a month.
> 
> Without immigration, the only way we can fill those jobs is with a high birthrate.  However, our birth rate has reached a 30 year low.  It has been trending down for decades.  At this rate we not be able to replace the existing population and the trend seems to be accelerating.
> 
> Even if we double the number of legal immigrants entering the country, we still will not be able to keep up with demand.
> Baby Boomers Retire
> U.S. Births Dip To 30-Year Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal aliens, not immigrants, race whoring dickhead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Legally immigration is closely linked to illegal immigration because the forces fighting illegal immigration are also fighting to keep legal immigrants out the country.  Our government is working frantically to make sure there is no welcome mat to immigrants, legal or illegal.  We desperately need more legal immigrants and desperately need less illegal immigrants and we're not making much progress in either direction. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Total made up bullshyt. We aren’t against legal immigration. It’s the Progs who want to flood the country with future democRAT voters that’s the issue. You’re just trying to refute our demand to enforce our laws by claiming we’re against all immigrants. Total bullshyt Strawman argument.
Click to expand...


There is no reason for race pimping pricks like Flopper to conflate illegal aliens with legal immigrants other than to keep pushing the racism lie.  It's destroying our country from the inside.

The left just want to win at this point.  They don't care what's left when they do


----------



## Dragonlady

Cellblock2429 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It appears that over the last 200 years those tired, poor, and handle masses entering this nation and have built the greatest nation on earth.  Can't argue with success.
> 
> 
> 
> Entirely true. Trouble is, we're full-up...we don't need any more than we already have, and there is no point in intentionally overcrowding ourselves until we attain $hithole status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *One can argue that we need more immigrants because they start more new businesses than native born Americans or that immigrants bring new ideas to solve old problems, or they help us in competing in a global economy.  All true but more important is the fact that our demographics are such that we will not be able fill existing jobs much less the new jobs that are being created.  Our economy will go into a structural decline.
> 
> Roughly 10,000 Baby Boomers will turn 65 today, and about 10,000 more will cross that threshold every day for the next 19 years. Not only is the labor force shrinking due to retirement but we are creating new jobs at rate of 175,000 to 240,000 a month.
> 
> Without immigration, the only way we can fill those jobs is with a high birthrate.  However, our birth rate has reached a 30 year low.  It has been trending down for decades.  At this rate we not be able to replace the existing population and the trend seems to be accelerating.
> 
> Even if we double the number of legal immigrants entering the country, we still will not be able to keep up with demand.
> Baby Boomers Retire
> U.S. Births Dip To 30-Year Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal aliens, not immigrants, race whoring dickhead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Legally immigration is closely linked to illegal immigration because the forces fighting illegal immigration are also fighting to keep legal immigrants out the country.  Our government is working frantically to make sure there is no welcome mat to immigrants, legal or illegal.  We desperately need more legal immigrants and desperately need less illegal immigrants and we're not making much progress in either direction. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Total made up bullshyt. We aren’t against legal immigration. It’s the Progs who want to flood the country with future democRAT voters that’s the issue. You’re just trying to refute our demand to enforce our laws by claiming we’re against all immigrants. Total bullshyt Strawman argument.
Click to expand...


Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration. 

Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration


----------



## Flopper

Cellblock2429 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It appears that over the last 200 years those tired, poor, and handle masses entering this nation and have built the greatest nation on earth.  Can't argue with success.
> 
> 
> 
> Entirely true. Trouble is, we're full-up...we don't need any more than we already have, and there is no point in intentionally overcrowding ourselves until we attain $hithole status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *One can argue that we need more immigrants because they start more new businesses than native born Americans or that immigrants bring new ideas to solve old problems, or they help us in competing in a global economy.  All true but more important is the fact that our demographics are such that we will not be able fill existing jobs much less the new jobs that are being created.  Our economy will go into a structural decline.
> 
> Roughly 10,000 Baby Boomers will turn 65 today, and about 10,000 more will cross that threshold every day for the next 19 years. Not only is the labor force shrinking due to retirement but we are creating new jobs at rate of 175,000 to 240,000 a month.
> 
> Without immigration, the only way we can fill those jobs is with a high birthrate.  However, our birth rate has reached a 30 year low.  It has been trending down for decades.  At this rate we not be able to replace the existing population and the trend seems to be accelerating.
> 
> Even if we double the number of legal immigrants entering the country, we still will not be able to keep up with demand.
> Baby Boomers Retire
> U.S. Births Dip To 30-Year Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal aliens, not immigrants, race whoring dickhead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Legally immigration is closely linked to illegal immigration because the forces fighting illegal immigration are also fighting to keep legal immigrants out the country.  Our government is working frantically to make sure there is no welcome mat to immigrants, legal or illegal.  We desperately need more legal immigrants and desperately need less illegal immigrants and we're not making much progress in either direction. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Total made up bullshyt. We aren’t against legal immigration. It’s the Progs who want to flood the country with future democRAT voters that’s the issue. You’re just trying to refute our demand to enforce our laws by claiming we’re against all immigrants. Total bullshyt Strawman argument.
Click to expand...

*You need only look at the posts in this and other illegal immigration threads.  About half of those fighting illegal immigration are opposing legal immigration.
For example take a look at these groups who claim to be fighting illegal immigration but are really opposing  immigration.
http://www.americanimmigrationcontrol.com/
www.ccir.net
www.fairus.org
www.duke.org/nf/index.html
www.numbersusa.com/home.html
www.ProjectUSA.org
www.tscpress.com
www.steinreport.com
www.vdare.com*
*www.americanpatrol.com*


----------



## kaz

Dragonlady said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Entirely true. Trouble is, we're full-up...we don't need any more than we already have, and there is no point in intentionally overcrowding ourselves until we attain $hithole status.
> 
> 
> 
> *One can argue that we need more immigrants because they start more new businesses than native born Americans or that immigrants bring new ideas to solve old problems, or they help us in competing in a global economy.  All true but more important is the fact that our demographics are such that we will not be able fill existing jobs much less the new jobs that are being created.  Our economy will go into a structural decline.
> 
> Roughly 10,000 Baby Boomers will turn 65 today, and about 10,000 more will cross that threshold every day for the next 19 years. Not only is the labor force shrinking due to retirement but we are creating new jobs at rate of 175,000 to 240,000 a month.
> 
> Without immigration, the only way we can fill those jobs is with a high birthrate.  However, our birth rate has reached a 30 year low.  It has been trending down for decades.  At this rate we not be able to replace the existing population and the trend seems to be accelerating.
> 
> Even if we double the number of legal immigrants entering the country, we still will not be able to keep up with demand.
> Baby Boomers Retire
> U.S. Births Dip To 30-Year Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal aliens, not immigrants, race whoring dickhead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Legally immigration is closely linked to illegal immigration because the forces fighting illegal immigration are also fighting to keep legal immigrants out the country.  Our government is working frantically to make sure there is no welcome mat to immigrants, legal or illegal.  We desperately need more legal immigrants and desperately need less illegal immigrants and we're not making much progress in either direction. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Total made up bullshyt. We aren’t against legal immigration. It’s the Progs who want to flood the country with future democRAT voters that’s the issue. You’re just trying to refute our demand to enforce our laws by claiming we’re against all immigrants. Total bullshyt Strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
Click to expand...


Temporarily, yes.  We've eaten an elephant.  We need time to digest.  He also said once we cut off illegal immigration, then we can increase legal immigration again.  Which is the right approach.  Being the liar that you are, you never say what Trump fully actually said


----------



## Cellblock2429

Flopper said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Entirely true. Trouble is, we're full-up...we don't need any more than we already have, and there is no point in intentionally overcrowding ourselves until we attain $hithole status.
> 
> 
> 
> *One can argue that we need more immigrants because they start more new businesses than native born Americans or that immigrants bring new ideas to solve old problems, or they help us in competing in a global economy.  All true but more important is the fact that our demographics are such that we will not be able fill existing jobs much less the new jobs that are being created.  Our economy will go into a structural decline.
> 
> Roughly 10,000 Baby Boomers will turn 65 today, and about 10,000 more will cross that threshold every day for the next 19 years. Not only is the labor force shrinking due to retirement but we are creating new jobs at rate of 175,000 to 240,000 a month.
> 
> Without immigration, the only way we can fill those jobs is with a high birthrate.  However, our birth rate has reached a 30 year low.  It has been trending down for decades.  At this rate we not be able to replace the existing population and the trend seems to be accelerating.
> 
> Even if we double the number of legal immigrants entering the country, we still will not be able to keep up with demand.
> Baby Boomers Retire
> U.S. Births Dip To 30-Year Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal aliens, not immigrants, race whoring dickhead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Legally immigration is closely linked to illegal immigration because the forces fighting illegal immigration are also fighting to keep legal immigrants out the country.  Our government is working frantically to make sure there is no welcome mat to immigrants, legal or illegal.  We desperately need more legal immigrants and desperately need less illegal immigrants and we're not making much progress in either direction. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Total made up bullshyt. We aren’t against legal immigration. It’s the Progs who want to flood the country with future democRAT voters that’s the issue. You’re just trying to refute our demand to enforce our laws by claiming we’re against all immigrants. Total bullshyt Strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You need only look at the posts in this and other illegal immigration threads.  About half of those fighting illegal immigration are opposing legal immigration.
> For example take a look at these groups who claim to be fighting illegal immigration but are really opposing  immigration.
> http://www.americanimmigrationcontrol.com/
> www.ccir.net
> www.fairus.org
> www.duke.org/nf/index.html
> www.numbersusa.com/home.html
> www.ProjectUSA.org
> www.tscpress.com
> www.steinreport.com
> www.vdare.com*
> *www.americanpatrol.com*
Click to expand...

/——/ I read the first one and I agree with them : AIC is about reducing annual legal immigration to numbers which can be readily assimilated.
What’s wrong with that?


----------



## deanrd

*What human cost is acceptable in controlling illegal immigration?*

For Republicans it's their soul.  Because of the way they do it.


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Entirely true. Trouble is, we're full-up...we don't need any more than we already have, and there is no point in intentionally overcrowding ourselves until we attain $hithole status.
> 
> 
> 
> *One can argue that we need more immigrants because they start more new businesses than native born Americans or that immigrants bring new ideas to solve old problems, or they help us in competing in a global economy.  All true but more important is the fact that our demographics are such that we will not be able fill existing jobs much less the new jobs that are being created.  Our economy will go into a structural decline.
> 
> Roughly 10,000 Baby Boomers will turn 65 today, and about 10,000 more will cross that threshold every day for the next 19 years. Not only is the labor force shrinking due to retirement but we are creating new jobs at rate of 175,000 to 240,000 a month.
> 
> Without immigration, the only way we can fill those jobs is with a high birthrate.  However, our birth rate has reached a 30 year low.  It has been trending down for decades.  At this rate we not be able to replace the existing population and the trend seems to be accelerating.
> 
> Even if we double the number of legal immigrants entering the country, we still will not be able to keep up with demand.
> Baby Boomers Retire
> U.S. Births Dip To 30-Year Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal aliens, not immigrants, race whoring dickhead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Legally immigration is closely linked to illegal immigration because the forces fighting illegal immigration are also fighting to keep legal immigrants out the country.  Our government is working frantically to make sure there is no welcome mat to immigrants, legal or illegal.  We desperately need more legal immigrants and desperately need less illegal immigrants and we're not making much progress in either direction. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Total made up bullshyt. We aren’t against legal immigration. It’s the Progs who want to flood the country with future democRAT voters that’s the issue. You’re just trying to refute our demand to enforce our laws by claiming we’re against all immigrants. Total bullshyt Strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You need only look at the posts in this and other illegal immigration threads.  About half of those fighting illegal immigration are opposing legal immigration.
> For example take a look at these groups who claim to be fighting illegal immigration but are really opposing  immigration.
> http://www.americanimmigrationcontrol.com/
> www.ccir.net
> www.fairus.org
> www.duke.org/nf/index.html
> www.numbersusa.com/home.html
> www.ProjectUSA.org
> www.tscpress.com
> www.steinreport.com
> www.vdare.com*
> *www.americanpatrol.com*
Click to expand...


That's just a lie.  It's a tiny fraction who oppose legal immigration.  I've spent most of my life with Republicans.  I used to be one.  This isn't why I left the party, it was because they aren't fiscal conservatives.  But Republicans overwhelmingly support legal immigration.   You're just making up your shit as you go.  I guess that's why you have to resort to race whoring


----------



## kaz

deanrd said:


> *What human cost is acceptable in controlling illegal immigration?*
> 
> For Republicans it's their soul.  Because of the way they do it.



Wow, you must have hated Obama (edit:  I meant Clinton, obviously.  Though the detention centers in the news were built by Obama)


----------



## Flopper

Dragonlady said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Entirely true. Trouble is, we're full-up...we don't need any more than we already have, and there is no point in intentionally overcrowding ourselves until we attain $hithole status.
> 
> 
> 
> *One can argue that we need more immigrants because they start more new businesses than native born Americans or that immigrants bring new ideas to solve old problems, or they help us in competing in a global economy.  All true but more important is the fact that our demographics are such that we will not be able fill existing jobs much less the new jobs that are being created.  Our economy will go into a structural decline.
> 
> Roughly 10,000 Baby Boomers will turn 65 today, and about 10,000 more will cross that threshold every day for the next 19 years. Not only is the labor force shrinking due to retirement but we are creating new jobs at rate of 175,000 to 240,000 a month.
> 
> Without immigration, the only way we can fill those jobs is with a high birthrate.  However, our birth rate has reached a 30 year low.  It has been trending down for decades.  At this rate we not be able to replace the existing population and the trend seems to be accelerating.
> 
> Even if we double the number of legal immigrants entering the country, we still will not be able to keep up with demand.
> Baby Boomers Retire
> U.S. Births Dip To 30-Year Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal aliens, not immigrants, race whoring dickhead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Legally immigration is closely linked to illegal immigration because the forces fighting illegal immigration are also fighting to keep legal immigrants out the country.  Our government is working frantically to make sure there is no welcome mat to immigrants, legal or illegal.  We desperately need more legal immigrants and desperately need less illegal immigrants and we're not making much progress in either direction. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Total made up bullshyt. We aren’t against legal immigration. It’s the Progs who want to flood the country with future democRAT voters that’s the issue. You’re just trying to refute our demand to enforce our laws by claiming we’re against all immigrants. Total bullshyt Strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
Click to expand...

*Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half. 
Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*


----------



## Cellblock2429

deanrd said:


> *What human cost is acceptable in controlling illegal immigration?*
> 
> For Republicans it's their soul.  Because of the way they do it.



/——/ Once they reach Mexico they have asslyum. Why does Mexico mistreat them? They already speak Spanish and can understand the culture. Why doesn’t Canada send ships to the Mexican border and bring the kids to their country. Why is only the USA singled out as evil villains by you guys?


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *One can argue that we need more immigrants because they start more new businesses than native born Americans or that immigrants bring new ideas to solve old problems, or they help us in competing in a global economy.  All true but more important is the fact that our demographics are such that we will not be able fill existing jobs much less the new jobs that are being created.  Our economy will go into a structural decline.
> 
> Roughly 10,000 Baby Boomers will turn 65 today, and about 10,000 more will cross that threshold every day for the next 19 years. Not only is the labor force shrinking due to retirement but we are creating new jobs at rate of 175,000 to 240,000 a month.
> 
> Without immigration, the only way we can fill those jobs is with a high birthrate.  However, our birth rate has reached a 30 year low.  It has been trending down for decades.  At this rate we not be able to replace the existing population and the trend seems to be accelerating.
> 
> Even if we double the number of legal immigrants entering the country, we still will not be able to keep up with demand.
> Baby Boomers Retire
> U.S. Births Dip To 30-Year Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal aliens, not immigrants, race whoring dickhead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Legally immigration is closely linked to illegal immigration because the forces fighting illegal immigration are also fighting to keep legal immigrants out the country.  Our government is working frantically to make sure there is no welcome mat to immigrants, legal or illegal.  We desperately need more legal immigrants and desperately need less illegal immigrants and we're not making much progress in either direction. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Total made up bullshyt. We aren’t against legal immigration. It’s the Progs who want to flood the country with future democRAT voters that’s the issue. You’re just trying to refute our demand to enforce our laws by claiming we’re against all immigrants. Total bullshyt Strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
Click to expand...


Obviously after Slick and Obama that isn't a standard for you.  And it's not really going to be up to Trump. 

We've imported so many millions of legal immigrants and illegal aliens, you're clearly just driven by keeping the tap of Democrat voters open.  Legal immigrants are going to be more split.  You want the poor ones


----------



## Flopper

Flopper said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *One can argue that we need more immigrants because they start more new businesses than native born Americans or that immigrants bring new ideas to solve old problems, or they help us in competing in a global economy.  All true but more important is the fact that our demographics are such that we will not be able fill existing jobs much less the new jobs that are being created.  Our economy will go into a structural decline.
> 
> Roughly 10,000 Baby Boomers will turn 65 today, and about 10,000 more will cross that threshold every day for the next 19 years. Not only is the labor force shrinking due to retirement but we are creating new jobs at rate of 175,000 to 240,000 a month.
> 
> Without immigration, the only way we can fill those jobs is with a high birthrate.  However, our birth rate has reached a 30 year low.  It has been trending down for decades.  At this rate we not be able to replace the existing population and the trend seems to be accelerating.
> 
> Even if we double the number of legal immigrants entering the country, we still will not be able to keep up with demand.
> Baby Boomers Retire
> U.S. Births Dip To 30-Year Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal aliens, not immigrants, race whoring dickhead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Legally immigration is closely linked to illegal immigration because the forces fighting illegal immigration are also fighting to keep legal immigrants out the country.  Our government is working frantically to make sure there is no welcome mat to immigrants, legal or illegal.  We desperately need more legal immigrants and desperately need less illegal immigrants and we're not making much progress in either direction. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Total made up bullshyt. We aren’t against legal immigration. It’s the Progs who want to flood the country with future democRAT voters that’s the issue. You’re just trying to refute our demand to enforce our laws by claiming we’re against all immigrants. Total bullshyt Strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
Click to expand...


*I've conversed with a lot people about illegal immigration and the one thing that stands out is that most people that feel strongly about stopping illegal immigration think legal immigration should be reduced or abolished.  They just don't want all those Hispanics, Africans, and Asians in their country regardless of how they got here.  *


----------



## Cellblock2429

Flopper said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *One can argue that we need more immigrants because they start more new businesses than native born Americans or that immigrants bring new ideas to solve old problems, or they help us in competing in a global economy.  All true but more important is the fact that our demographics are such that we will not be able fill existing jobs much less the new jobs that are being created.  Our economy will go into a structural decline.
> 
> Roughly 10,000 Baby Boomers will turn 65 today, and about 10,000 more will cross that threshold every day for the next 19 years. Not only is the labor force shrinking due to retirement but we are creating new jobs at rate of 175,000 to 240,000 a month.
> 
> Without immigration, the only way we can fill those jobs is with a high birthrate.  However, our birth rate has reached a 30 year low.  It has been trending down for decades.  At this rate we not be able to replace the existing population and the trend seems to be accelerating.
> 
> Even if we double the number of legal immigrants entering the country, we still will not be able to keep up with demand.
> Baby Boomers Retire
> U.S. Births Dip To 30-Year Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal aliens, not immigrants, race whoring dickhead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Legally immigration is closely linked to illegal immigration because the forces fighting illegal immigration are also fighting to keep legal immigrants out the country.  Our government is working frantically to make sure there is no welcome mat to immigrants, legal or illegal.  We desperately need more legal immigrants and desperately need less illegal immigrants and we're not making much progress in either direction. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Total made up bullshyt. We aren’t against legal immigration. It’s the Progs who want to flood the country with future democRAT voters that’s the issue. You’re just trying to refute our demand to enforce our laws by claiming we’re against all immigrants. Total bullshyt Strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
Click to expand...

/——/
There has to be limits to any immigration. The illegals are taking spots from the legals.


----------



## kaz

Cellblock2429 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *One can argue that we need more immigrants because they start more new businesses than native born Americans or that immigrants bring new ideas to solve old problems, or they help us in competing in a global economy.  All true but more important is the fact that our demographics are such that we will not be able fill existing jobs much less the new jobs that are being created.  Our economy will go into a structural decline.
> 
> Roughly 10,000 Baby Boomers will turn 65 today, and about 10,000 more will cross that threshold every day for the next 19 years. Not only is the labor force shrinking due to retirement but we are creating new jobs at rate of 175,000 to 240,000 a month.
> 
> Without immigration, the only way we can fill those jobs is with a high birthrate.  However, our birth rate has reached a 30 year low.  It has been trending down for decades.  At this rate we not be able to replace the existing population and the trend seems to be accelerating.
> 
> Even if we double the number of legal immigrants entering the country, we still will not be able to keep up with demand.
> Baby Boomers Retire
> U.S. Births Dip To 30-Year Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal aliens, not immigrants, race whoring dickhead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Legally immigration is closely linked to illegal immigration because the forces fighting illegal immigration are also fighting to keep legal immigrants out the country.  Our government is working frantically to make sure there is no welcome mat to immigrants, legal or illegal.  We desperately need more legal immigrants and desperately need less illegal immigrants and we're not making much progress in either direction. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Total made up bullshyt. We aren’t against legal immigration. It’s the Progs who want to flood the country with future democRAT voters that’s the issue. You’re just trying to refute our demand to enforce our laws by claiming we’re against all immigrants. Total bullshyt Strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You need only look at the posts in this and other illegal immigration threads.  About half of those fighting illegal immigration are opposing legal immigration.
> For example take a look at these groups who claim to be fighting illegal immigration but are really opposing  immigration.
> http://www.americanimmigrationcontrol.com/
> www.ccir.net
> www.fairus.org
> www.duke.org/nf/index.html
> www.numbersusa.com/home.html
> www.ProjectUSA.org
> www.tscpress.com
> www.steinreport.com
> www.vdare.com*
> *www.americanpatrol.com*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ I read the first one and I agree with them : AIC is about reducing annual legal immigration to numbers which can be readily assimilated.
> What’s wrong with that?
Click to expand...


And Flopper's caught in yet another lie.  He said they are "opposing legal immigration."  That was just a lie


----------



## Cellblock2429

Flopper said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal aliens, not immigrants, race whoring dickhead
> 
> 
> 
> *Legally immigration is closely linked to illegal immigration because the forces fighting illegal immigration are also fighting to keep legal immigrants out the country.  Our government is working frantically to make sure there is no welcome mat to immigrants, legal or illegal.  We desperately need more legal immigrants and desperately need less illegal immigrants and we're not making much progress in either direction. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Total made up bullshyt. We aren’t against legal immigration. It’s the Progs who want to flood the country with future democRAT voters that’s the issue. You’re just trying to refute our demand to enforce our laws by claiming we’re against all immigrants. Total bullshyt Strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I've conversed with a lot people about illegal immigration and the one thing that stands out is that most people that feel strongly about stopping illegal immigration think legal immigration should reduced or abolished.  They just don't want all those Hispanics, Africans, and Asians in their country regardless of how they get here.  *
Click to expand...

/——/ OH bullshyt.


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal aliens, not immigrants, race whoring dickhead
> 
> 
> 
> *Legally immigration is closely linked to illegal immigration because the forces fighting illegal immigration are also fighting to keep legal immigrants out the country.  Our government is working frantically to make sure there is no welcome mat to immigrants, legal or illegal.  We desperately need more legal immigrants and desperately need less illegal immigrants and we're not making much progress in either direction. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Total made up bullshyt. We aren’t against legal immigration. It’s the Progs who want to flood the country with future democRAT voters that’s the issue. You’re just trying to refute our demand to enforce our laws by claiming we’re against all immigrants. Total bullshyt Strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I've conversed with a lot people about illegal immigration and the one thing that stands out is that most people that feel strongly about stopping illegal immigration think legal immigration should be reduced or abolished.  They just don't want all those Hispanics, Africans, and Asians in their country regardless of how they got here.  *
Click to expand...


It's called confirmation bias.

Note you gave a list of sites you claimed opposed legal immigration, and the very first site didn't.  It was a lie


----------



## Flopper

Cellblock2429 said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What human cost is acceptable in controlling illegal immigration?*
> 
> For Republicans it's their soul.  Because of the way they do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Once they reach Mexico they have asslyum. Why does Mexico mistreat them? They already speak Spanish and can understand the culture. Why doesn’t Canada send ships to the Mexican border and bring the kids to their country. Why is only the USA singled out as evil villains by you guys?
Click to expand...

*The criticism is not so much about what we're trying do but rather how we are going about it.*


----------



## kaz

Cellblock2429 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal aliens, not immigrants, race whoring dickhead
> 
> 
> 
> *Legally immigration is closely linked to illegal immigration because the forces fighting illegal immigration are also fighting to keep legal immigrants out the country.  Our government is working frantically to make sure there is no welcome mat to immigrants, legal or illegal.  We desperately need more legal immigrants and desperately need less illegal immigrants and we're not making much progress in either direction. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Total made up bullshyt. We aren’t against legal immigration. It’s the Progs who want to flood the country with future democRAT voters that’s the issue. You’re just trying to refute our demand to enforce our laws by claiming we’re against all immigrants. Total bullshyt Strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/
> There has to be limits to any immigration. The illegals are taking spots from the legals.
Click to expand...


Illegal aliens are keeping blacks unemployed.  Flopper doesn't care because blacks are already here voting for Democrats.  He needs more poor Mexicans for his blood feud with Republicans


----------



## kaz

Cellblock2429 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Legally immigration is closely linked to illegal immigration because the forces fighting illegal immigration are also fighting to keep legal immigrants out the country.  Our government is working frantically to make sure there is no welcome mat to immigrants, legal or illegal.  We desperately need more legal immigrants and desperately need less illegal immigrants and we're not making much progress in either direction. *
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Total made up bullshyt. We aren’t against legal immigration. It’s the Progs who want to flood the country with future democRAT voters that’s the issue. You’re just trying to refute our demand to enforce our laws by claiming we’re against all immigrants. Total bullshyt Strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I've conversed with a lot people about illegal immigration and the one thing that stands out is that most people that feel strongly about stopping illegal immigration think legal immigration should reduced or abolished.  They just don't want all those Hispanics, Africans, and Asians in their country regardless of how they get here.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ OH bullshyt.
Click to expand...


Can you imagine if we made up left positions and attributed them to leftists?  Flopper would be like that's not true, I'm a leftist, that isn't our position!  He'd suddenly get it.  But he sits here telling us what Republicans who he hates think as if he has any idea.

Then again he directly lied saying his sites were sites that oppose legal immigration which just turned out to be a lie


----------



## bripat9643

kaz said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dang, you must be embarassed that Coyotes are the problem. Body snatchers and smugglers....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coyote's a leftist.  She has no shame.  Her views have been validated by the left, so she can say anything no matter how stupid it is.  Like that she's against illegal immigration while she does nothing but fight to enable illegal immigration.
> 
> And yet she's not responsible for the cost to society, crime, welfare, none of it.  She has no shame, nothing is her responsibility, including her own actions
Click to expand...

You just described the typical snowflake.  They're destroying this country.


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It appears that over the last 200 years those tired, poor, and handle masses entering this nation and have built the greatest nation on earth.  Can't argue with success.
> 
> 
> 
> Entirely true. Trouble is, we're full-up...we don't need any more than we already have, and there is no point in intentionally overcrowding ourselves until we attain $hithole status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *One can argue that we need more immigrants because they start more new businesses than native born Americans or that immigrants bring new ideas to solve old problems, or they help us in competing in a global economy.  All true but more important is the fact that our demographics are such that we will not be able fill existing jobs much less the new jobs that are being created.  Our economy will go into a structural decline.
> 
> Roughly 10,000 Baby Boomers will turn 65 today, and about 10,000 more will cross that threshold every day for the next 19 years. Not only is the labor force shrinking due to retirement but we are creating new jobs at rate of 175,000 to 240,000 a month.
> 
> Without immigration, the only way we can fill those jobs is with a high birthrate.  However, our birth rate has reached a 30 year low.  It has been trending down for decades.  At this rate we not be able to replace the existing population and the trend seems to be accelerating.
> 
> Even if we double the number of legal immigrants entering the country, we still will not be able to keep up with demand.
> Baby Boomers Retire
> U.S. Births Dip To 30-Year Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal aliens, not immigrants, race whoring dickhead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Legally immigration is closely linked to illegal immigration because the forces fighting illegal immigration are also fighting to keep legal immigrants out the country.  Our government is working frantically to make sure there is no welcome mat to immigrants, legal or illegal.  We desperately need more legal immigrants and desperately need less illegal immigrants and we're not making much progress in either direction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
Click to expand...


We don't need any immigrants at all.  All you pro-immigration saps can never explain how Americans gain a single thing by importing more people into this country.


----------



## Flopper

Cellblock2429 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal aliens, not immigrants, race whoring dickhead
> 
> 
> 
> *Legally immigration is closely linked to illegal immigration because the forces fighting illegal immigration are also fighting to keep legal immigrants out the country.  Our government is working frantically to make sure there is no welcome mat to immigrants, legal or illegal.  We desperately need more legal immigrants and desperately need less illegal immigrants and we're not making much progress in either direction. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Total made up bullshyt. We aren’t against legal immigration. It’s the Progs who want to flood the country with future democRAT voters that’s the issue. You’re just trying to refute our demand to enforce our laws by claiming we’re against all immigrants. Total bullshyt Strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/
> There has to be limits to any immigration. The illegals are taking spots from the legals.
Click to expand...

*There is.  The body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.  I don't think Trump is messing with that number.  It is .2% of the population, way too small.*


----------



## Cellblock2429

kaz said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Total made up bullshyt. We aren’t against legal immigration. It’s the Progs who want to flood the country with future democRAT voters that’s the issue. You’re just trying to refute our demand to enforce our laws by claiming we’re against all immigrants. Total bullshyt Strawman argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I've conversed with a lot people about illegal immigration and the one thing that stands out is that most people that feel strongly about stopping illegal immigration think legal immigration should reduced or abolished.  They just don't want all those Hispanics, Africans, and Asians in their country regardless of how they get here.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ OH bullshyt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you imagine if we made up left positions and attributed them to leftists?  Flopper would be like that's not true, I'm a leftist, that isn't our position!  He'd suddenly get it.  But he sits here telling us what Republicans who he hates think as if he has any idea.
> 
> Then again he directly lied saying his sites were sites that oppose legal immigration which just turned out to be a lie
Click to expand...

/——/ Great idea. Let me start. The Left wants to ban farming to save the environment. They say we get all the food we need from supermarkets. Flopper agrees.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal aliens, not immigrants, race whoring dickhead
> 
> 
> 
> *Legally immigration is closely linked to illegal immigration because the forces fighting illegal immigration are also fighting to keep legal immigrants out the country.  Our government is working frantically to make sure there is no welcome mat to immigrants, legal or illegal.  We desperately need more legal immigrants and desperately need less illegal immigrants and we're not making much progress in either direction. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Total made up bullshyt. We aren’t against legal immigration. It’s the Progs who want to flood the country with future democRAT voters that’s the issue. You’re just trying to refute our demand to enforce our laws by claiming we’re against all immigrants. Total bullshyt Strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I've conversed with a lot people about illegal immigration and the one thing that stands out is that most people that feel strongly about stopping illegal immigration think legal immigration should be reduced or abolished.  They just don't want all those Hispanics, Africans, and Asians in their country regardless of how they got here.  *
Click to expand...


Or maybe we feel that they are not assimilating in our country very well and need more time.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Legally immigration is closely linked to illegal immigration because the forces fighting illegal immigration are also fighting to keep legal immigrants out the country.  Our government is working frantically to make sure there is no welcome mat to immigrants, legal or illegal.  We desperately need more legal immigrants and desperately need less illegal immigrants and we're not making much progress in either direction. *
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Total made up bullshyt. We aren’t against legal immigration. It’s the Progs who want to flood the country with future democRAT voters that’s the issue. You’re just trying to refute our demand to enforce our laws by claiming we’re against all immigrants. Total bullshyt Strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I've conversed with a lot people about illegal immigration and the one thing that stands out is that most people that feel strongly about stopping illegal immigration think legal immigration should be reduced or abolished.  They just don't want all those Hispanics, Africans, and Asians in their country regardless of how they got here.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or maybe we feel that they are not assimilating in our country very well and need more time.
Click to expand...

/——/ We restricted immigrants for decades so the ones here could assimilate. The *Immigration* Act *of* 1924 created a quota system that restricted entry to 2 percent *of* the total *number of* people *of* each nationality in America as *of* the 1890 national census–a system that favored *immigrants* from Western Europe–and prohibited *immigrants* from Asia.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

deanrd said:


> *What human cost is acceptable in controlling illegal immigration?*
> 
> For Republicans it's their soul.  Because of the way they do it.



It's so comical how you leftists get religious when you think it supports your agenda.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Cellblock2429 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Total made up bullshyt. We aren’t against legal immigration. It’s the Progs who want to flood the country with future democRAT voters that’s the issue. You’re just trying to refute our demand to enforce our laws by claiming we’re against all immigrants. Total bullshyt Strawman argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I've conversed with a lot people about illegal immigration and the one thing that stands out is that most people that feel strongly about stopping illegal immigration think legal immigration should be reduced or abolished.  They just don't want all those Hispanics, Africans, and Asians in their country regardless of how they got here.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or maybe we feel that they are not assimilating in our country very well and need more time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ We restricted immigrants for decades so the ones here could assimilate. The *Immigration* Act *of* 1924 created a quota system that restricted entry to 2 percent *of* the total *number of* people *of* each nationality in America as *of* the 1890 national census–a system that favored *immigrants* from Western Europe–and prohibited *immigrants* from Asia.
Click to expand...


Well the left feels this kind of thing has never happened before---only with Trump.  

The changes taking place because of foreigners is obvious.  It's time to stop migration until at least everybody can speak and read the language here.


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It appears that over the last 200 years those tired, poor, and handle masses entering this nation and have built the greatest nation on earth.  Can't argue with success.
> 
> 
> 
> Entirely true. Trouble is, we're full-up...we don't need any more than we already have, and there is no point in intentionally overcrowding ourselves until we attain $hithole status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *One can argue that we need more immigrants because they start more new businesses than native born Americans.  *
Click to expand...


They start more new businesses than native born Americans only if you count selling breakfast burritos at construction sites to be a business.
*


Flopper said:



			or that immigrants bring new ideas to solve old problems,
		
Click to expand...

*
Really?  Got any examples?
*


Flopper said:



			or they help us in competing in a global economy.
		
Click to expand...

*
How does sucking off the taxpayers help us compete in the global economy?
*



Flopper said:



			All true but more important is the fact that our demographics are such that we will not be able fill existing jobs much less the new jobs that are being created.  Our economy will go into a structural decline before mid-century.   

Roughly 10,000 Baby Boomers will turn 65 today, and about 10,000 more will cross that threshold every day for the next 19 years. Not only is the labor force shrinking due to retirement but we are creating new jobs at rate of 175,000 to 240,000 a month.

Click to expand...

*
Great.  that means high demand for workers, which translates into better pay.  Why do you want to undermine American wages?
*


Flopper said:



			Without immigration, the only way we can fill those jobs is with a high birthrate.  However, our birth rate has reached a 30 year low.  It has been trending down for decades.  At this rate we not be able to replace the existing population and the trend seems to be accelerating.
		
Click to expand...

*


Flopper said:


> *Even if we double the number of legal immigrants entering the country, we still will not be able to keep up with demand.
> Baby Boomers Retire
> U.S. Births Dip To 30-Year Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level *



*There is already a lot of discussion about the fact that automation and AI will be make a lot of jobs obsolete, and you want to exacerbate the problem by importing cheap labor? *


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Legally immigration is closely linked to illegal immigration because the forces fighting illegal immigration are also fighting to keep legal immigrants out the country.  Our government is working frantically to make sure there is no welcome mat to immigrants, legal or illegal.  We desperately need more legal immigrants and desperately need less illegal immigrants and we're not making much progress in either direction. *
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Total made up bullshyt. We aren’t against legal immigration. It’s the Progs who want to flood the country with future democRAT voters that’s the issue. You’re just trying to refute our demand to enforce our laws by claiming we’re against all immigrants. Total bullshyt Strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/
> There has to be limits to any immigration. The illegals are taking spots from the legals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There is.  The body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.  I don't think Trump is messing with that number.  It is .2% of the population, way too small.*
Click to expand...


And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.

Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.

Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls.  Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote.  Your motive is clear


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I've conversed with a lot people about illegal immigration and the one thing that stands out is that most people that feel strongly about stopping illegal immigration think legal immigration should be reduced or abolished.  They just don't want all those Hispanics, Africans, and Asians in their country regardless of how they got here.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or maybe we feel that they are not assimilating in our country very well and need more time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ We restricted immigrants for decades so the ones here could assimilate. The *Immigration* Act *of* 1924 created a quota system that restricted entry to 2 percent *of* the total *number of* people *of* each nationality in America as *of* the 1890 national census–a system that favored *immigrants* from Western Europe–and prohibited *immigrants* from Asia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the left feels this kind of thing has never happened before---only with Trump.
> 
> The changes taking place because of foreigners is obvious.  It's time to stop migration until at least everybody can speak and read the language here.
Click to expand...


I think immigration should be tied to their ability to support themselves rather than quotas.  You come here, support yourself for seven years, you can become a citizen.  They aren't going to be able to do that if they don't learn to speak English


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I've conversed with a lot people about illegal immigration and the one thing that stands out is that most people that feel strongly about stopping illegal immigration think legal immigration should be reduced or abolished.  They just don't want all those Hispanics, Africans, and Asians in their country regardless of how they got here.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or maybe we feel that they are not assimilating in our country very well and need more time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ We restricted immigrants for decades so the ones here could assimilate. The *Immigration* Act *of* 1924 created a quota system that restricted entry to 2 percent *of* the total *number of* people *of* each nationality in America as *of* the 1890 national census–a system that favored *immigrants* from Western Europe–and prohibited *immigrants* from Asia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the left feels this kind of thing has never happened before---only with Trump.
> 
> The changes taking place because of foreigners is obvious.  It's time to stop migration until at least everybody can speak and read the language here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think immigration should be tied to their ability to support themselves rather than quotas.  You come here, support yourself for seven years, you can become a citizen.  They aren't going to be able to do that if they don't learn to speak English
Click to expand...


I agree, but talking with people close to the border (I've never been there) the problem they have are illegals crowding 12 people into a two family home or apartment.  That brings down property value.  So they can work at McDonald's part time and still make claim of supporting themselves.  The other problem is anchor babies.  Come here and have a bunch of kids, and then you can share in their welfare plus be able to make claim they need you here because they are little Americans that cannot support themselves.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Total made up bullshyt. We aren’t against legal immigration. It’s the Progs who want to flood the country with future democRAT voters that’s the issue. You’re just trying to refute our demand to enforce our laws by claiming we’re against all immigrants. Total bullshyt Strawman argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/
> There has to be limits to any immigration. The illegals are taking spots from the legals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There is.  The body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.  I don't think Trump is messing with that number.  It is .2% of the population, way too small.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.
> 
> Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.
> 
> Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls.  Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote.  Your motive is clear
Click to expand...


If you want a Visa in this country, you should have to make a down payment, say 2K or so.  If you don't turn it in and leave the country, you lose your deposit.  Plus if it's a work Visa, we keep 10% of your net pay in escrow for the same reason.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Legally immigration is closely linked to illegal immigration because the forces fighting illegal immigration are also fighting to keep legal immigrants out the country.  Our government is working frantically to make sure there is no welcome mat to immigrants, legal or illegal.  We desperately need more legal immigrants and desperately need less illegal immigrants and we're not making much progress in either direction. *
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Total made up bullshyt. We aren’t against legal immigration. It’s the Progs who want to flood the country with future democRAT voters that’s the issue. You’re just trying to refute our demand to enforce our laws by claiming we’re against all immigrants. Total bullshyt Strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I've conversed with a lot people about illegal immigration and the one thing that stands out is that most people that feel strongly about stopping illegal immigration think legal immigration should be reduced or abolished.  They just don't want all those Hispanics, Africans, and Asians in their country regardless of how they got here.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or maybe we feel that they are not assimilating in our country very well and need more time.
Click to expand...

*That depends of what you mean by assimilation.  It's going to take quite a while to change their skin color and eliminate all trace of their heritage, like about 100 years.*


----------



## Cellblock2429

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Total made up bullshyt. We aren’t against legal immigration. It’s the Progs who want to flood the country with future democRAT voters that’s the issue. You’re just trying to refute our demand to enforce our laws by claiming we’re against all immigrants. Total bullshyt Strawman argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I've conversed with a lot people about illegal immigration and the one thing that stands out is that most people that feel strongly about stopping illegal immigration think legal immigration should be reduced or abolished.  They just don't want all those Hispanics, Africans, and Asians in their country regardless of how they got here.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or maybe we feel that they are not assimilating in our country very well and need more time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That depends of what you mean by assimilation.  It's going to take quite a while to change their skin color and eliminate all trace of their heritage, like about 100 years.*
Click to expand...

/——/ it has nothing to do with changing skin color you freakin moron. It means blending into our society


----------



## bripat9643

Cellblock2429 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I've conversed with a lot people about illegal immigration and the one thing that stands out is that most people that feel strongly about stopping illegal immigration think legal immigration should be reduced or abolished.  They just don't want all those Hispanics, Africans, and Asians in their country regardless of how they got here.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or maybe we feel that they are not assimilating in our country very well and need more time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That depends of what you mean by assimilation.  It's going to take quite a while to change their skin color and eliminate all trace of their heritage, like about 100 years.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ it has nothing to do with changing skin color you freakin moron. It means blending into our society
Click to expand...

Of course he has to accuse anyone who opposes his agenda of racism.  How else can he defend such utter nonsense?


----------



## Unkotare

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Legally immigration is closely linked to illegal immigration because the forces fighting illegal immigration are also fighting to keep legal immigrants out the country.  Our government is working frantically to make sure there is no welcome mat to immigrants, legal or illegal.  We desperately need more legal immigrants and desperately need less illegal immigrants and we're not making much progress in either direction. *
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Total made up bullshyt. We aren’t against legal immigration. It’s the Progs who want to flood the country with future democRAT voters that’s the issue. You’re just trying to refute our demand to enforce our laws by claiming we’re against all immigrants. Total bullshyt Strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I've conversed with a lot people about illegal immigration and the one thing that stands out is that most people that feel strongly about stopping illegal immigration think legal immigration should be reduced or abolished.  They just don't want all those Hispanics, Africans, and Asians in their country regardless of how they got here.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or maybe we feel that they are not assimilating in our country very well and need more time.
Click to expand...




You’re wrong.


----------



## Unkotare

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I've conversed with a lot people about illegal immigration and the one thing that stands out is that most people that feel strongly about stopping illegal immigration think legal immigration should be reduced or abolished.  They just don't want all those Hispanics, Africans, and Asians in their country regardless of how they got here.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or maybe we feel that they are not assimilating in our country very well and need more time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ We restricted immigrants for decades so the ones here could assimilate. The *Immigration* Act *of* 1924 created a quota system that restricted entry to 2 percent *of* the total *number of* people *of* each nationality in America as *of* the 1890 national census–a system that favored *immigrants* from Western Europe–and prohibited *immigrants* from Asia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the left feels this kind of thing has never happened before---only with Trump.
> 
> The changes taking place because of foreigners is obvious.  It's time to stop migration until at least everybody can speak and read the language here.
Click to expand...




The Know-Nothing party is gone. Let it go or join it in the dustbin.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Unkotare said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I've conversed with a lot people about illegal immigration and the one thing that stands out is that most people that feel strongly about stopping illegal immigration think legal immigration should be reduced or abolished.  They just don't want all those Hispanics, Africans, and Asians in their country regardless of how they got here.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or maybe we feel that they are not assimilating in our country very well and need more time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ We restricted immigrants for decades so the ones here could assimilate. The *Immigration* Act *of* 1924 created a quota system that restricted entry to 2 percent *of* the total *number of* people *of* each nationality in America as *of* the 1890 national census–a system that favored *immigrants* from Western Europe–and prohibited *immigrants* from Asia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the left feels this kind of thing has never happened before---only with Trump.
> 
> The changes taking place because of foreigners is obvious.  It's time to stop migration until at least everybody can speak and read the language here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Know-Nothing party is gone. Let it go or join it in the dustbin.
Click to expand...

/——/ To prove they aren’t racists, libs are now required to post only in Spanish


----------



## Kondor3

Flopper said:


> We desperately need more legal immigrants...


Incorrect. We are a nation of 330,000,000 - one third of a billion - we already have the intellect and the warm bodies to produce whatever we need.


----------



## JoeB131

Cellblock2429 said:


> White garbage is not trying to flood our country illegally. They present other problems.



First, Racist from Cleveland said "minority garbage", he didn't specify illegals. 

secondly, they are hardly flooding.  3% of the population is undocumented. 



kaz said:


> You already told me your max salary was $80K. Now you make less than $25K. It's not the money I can't afford, that's for sure. I wouldn't do you to my staff though.



No, guy, your comprehension is messed up. I currently make 80K a year 



kaz said:


> So that Friday, we did it. We fired 30% of the company. All of them had either personally bad attitudes or just bad attitudes about doing any work. You were a marginal worker, it was your bad attitude that got you fired.



Naw, man, what has gotten me fired is bad management. Most companies I was let go from went out of business in a year totally without any help from me.  One couldn't even blame a recession. 



kaz said:


> Here's what you didn't know because you were gone. You know how many of you we had to replace? Zero. It wasn't just you I didn't replace, I didn't need to replace any of you.



Guy, as I said, usually when a company lets people go, it's because the higher ups fucked up and the company is in a nose dive. Downsizing is almost always a sign of bad management.  Any manager who "fires" his way to a better staff never gets there. 

Because usually for every person they fire, two people get the clue and quit. 

But I will give you one bit of compliment... If it weren't for assholes like you as managers, nobody would want new resumes...  So really, people like you really do provide me a living.


----------



## JoeB131

bripat9643 said:


> It's an accepted managment understanding that 20% of the people do 80% of the work. I've managed many projects where such is the case. I had one guy under me who never fixed a single bug. I could easily do more work than any 5 of the worst performers. In fact, training them just meant I had to do more work than I would have to do if they weren't there. My boss whined about the fact that he had to pay me about 30% more than these useless drones.



Um, yeah, you are on here 24/7 spewing racist crap.  I think you need to show your boss your USMB posts and then we see how long you keep a job.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Bad actors influence others as well. One of our customers just got rid of their shipper. The guy came to work explicitly to make problems for everybody. I hated to pickup there, but it was not only me, other drivers from other companies told me how they hated dealing with this Ahole. In fact some years ago, a driver punched him out he got so pissed; probably lost his job too.



Oh, racist, it seems like everywhere you drive, there are people with problems. Union guys, minorities... 

Has it ever occurred to you it's just  you?


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> Yeah, the reasons may be different, but that's what it's like firing people. I keep it short and factual. Leftists of course say, don't you care about people? They have families. First of all of course in their typical style, leftists are telling me what to do with my money, not what they are doing with theirs. Second, of course I care about their family. But they should have cared more about their own family and tried harder.



again, you are a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance. 

Managers who think they can fire their way to a better workplace usually have teams with shitty morale.  Who wants to work at a place where you can be fired on a whim?


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> We'll do just fine without them. The shorter the labor, the higher the wage offerings. On one hand you people on the left complain that the middle-class is shrinking, and on the other you claim we need imports to do jobs because every single American is working today. Well.......the labor force participation rate doesn't reflect that. When people really need to get work done, they will increase their offers.



Again, most of the jobs these folks do, Americans simply don't want to do. 

They don't want to clean toilets or pick lettuce.  

The middle class is not shrinking because immigrants are taking the awful jobs.  It is shrinking because the one percenters are out there cutting wages and benefits.


----------



## JoeB131

As amusing as it is to watch Kaz's weird fascination with me, let's get back to the subject at hand. 

The reason why we have an illegal immigration problem is because there are jobs Americans just simply do not want to do, no matter how much you pay them.  

That's it.  Americans don't want to work in sweatshops. They don't want to pick lettuce for 8 hours a day under the hot sun.  

So there are some very simple ways to solve these problems without building walls or putting kids in a concentration camp.  

1) Develop a National ID system.  You can't get work without the National ID, which links to a database that will have your picture and thumbprint in it so it can't be faked.  

2) Have ICE concentrate its efforts on workplace enforcement. The reality is, only a few employers are the bad apples, and if you make an example out of them, the rest will follow.  

3) Create a Guest Worker Program like Germany has.  Migrants can come here without their families for a set period of time to work as needed by certain industries. At the end of their period, they have to go home.  

Of course, since our anger on this issue isn't based on rationality, these things won't be done.  The One Percent want illegals for cheap labor,and they want to keep guys like Ray mad about it so they won't notice the screwing they are getting.


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I've conversed with a lot people about illegal immigration and the one thing that stands out is that most people that feel strongly about stopping illegal immigration think legal immigration should be reduced or abolished.  They just don't want all those Hispanics, Africans, and Asians in their country regardless of how they got here.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe we feel that they are not assimilating in our country very well and need more time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ We restricted immigrants for decades so the ones here could assimilate. The *Immigration* Act *of* 1924 created a quota system that restricted entry to 2 percent *of* the total *number of* people *of* each nationality in America as *of* the 1890 national census–a system that favored *immigrants* from Western Europe–and prohibited *immigrants* from Asia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the left feels this kind of thing has never happened before---only with Trump.
> 
> The changes taking place because of foreigners is obvious.  It's time to stop migration until at least everybody can speak and read the language here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think immigration should be tied to their ability to support themselves rather than quotas.  You come here, support yourself for seven years, you can become a citizen.  They aren't going to be able to do that if they don't learn to speak English
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, but talking with people close to the border (I've never been there) the problem they have are illegals crowding 12 people into a two family home or apartment.  That brings down property value.  So they can work at McDonald's part time and still make claim of supporting themselves.  The other problem is anchor babies.  Come here and have a bunch of kids, and then you can share in their welfare plus be able to make claim they need you here because they are little Americans that cannot support themselves.
Click to expand...


Those are real issues that need to be solved.  We have a better chance to do that though if people can only come legally


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Total made up bullshyt. We aren’t against legal immigration. It’s the Progs who want to flood the country with future democRAT voters that’s the issue. You’re just trying to refute our demand to enforce our laws by claiming we’re against all immigrants. Total bullshyt Strawman argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I've conversed with a lot people about illegal immigration and the one thing that stands out is that most people that feel strongly about stopping illegal immigration think legal immigration should be reduced or abolished.  They just don't want all those Hispanics, Africans, and Asians in their country regardless of how they got here.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or maybe we feel that they are not assimilating in our country very well and need more time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That depends of what you mean by assimilation.  It's going to take quite a while to change their skin color and eliminate all trace of their heritage, like about 100 years.*
Click to expand...


You  mean because there are only white citizens in this country, race baiting dickhead.  And you really are a douche.  He's talking about the ability to function here in English.  Not making them deny their heritage.

Idiot


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> You mean because there are only white citizens in this country, race baiting dickhead. And you really are a douche. He's talking about the ability to function here in English. Not making them deny their heritage.



Except he didn't say "ability to speak English", he said "assimilate". 

Hey, maybe we should eliminate St. Paddy's Day, Oktoberfest, Columbus Day and the Polish Parade here in Chicago because, hey, those people need to "assimilate", right?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean because there are only white citizens in this country, race baiting dickhead. And you really are a douche. He's talking about the ability to function here in English. Not making them deny their heritage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except he didn't say "ability to speak English", he said "assimilate".
> 
> Hey, maybe we should eliminate St. Paddy's Day, Oktoberfest, Columbus Day and the Polish Parade here in Chicago because, hey, those people need to "assimilate", right?
Click to expand...


If you can't speak or read English, guess what?  You're not assimilating very well. If the country has to accommodate you for that reason, you are not assimilating very well.  If you are a NYC cab driver, and refuse to pick up fares because they have a pet with them due to your religion, you are not assimilating very well.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe we feel that they are not assimilating in our country very well and need more time.
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ We restricted immigrants for decades so the ones here could assimilate. The *Immigration* Act *of* 1924 created a quota system that restricted entry to 2 percent *of* the total *number of* people *of* each nationality in America as *of* the 1890 national census–a system that favored *immigrants* from Western Europe–and prohibited *immigrants* from Asia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the left feels this kind of thing has never happened before---only with Trump.
> 
> The changes taking place because of foreigners is obvious.  It's time to stop migration until at least everybody can speak and read the language here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think immigration should be tied to their ability to support themselves rather than quotas.  You come here, support yourself for seven years, you can become a citizen.  They aren't going to be able to do that if they don't learn to speak English
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, but talking with people close to the border (I've never been there) the problem they have are illegals crowding 12 people into a two family home or apartment.  That brings down property value.  So they can work at McDonald's part time and still make claim of supporting themselves.  The other problem is anchor babies.  Come here and have a bunch of kids, and then you can share in their welfare plus be able to make claim they need you here because they are little Americans that cannot support themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are real issues that need to be solved.  We have a better chance to do that though if people can only come legally
Click to expand...


Well some of them are coming legally and that's what they do.  Again, no first hand experience, but just going by what people who live in the area tell me.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> As amusing as it is to watch Kaz's weird fascination with me, let's get back to the subject at hand.
> 
> The reason why we have an illegal immigration problem is because there are jobs Americans just simply do not want to do, no matter how much you pay them.
> 
> That's it.  Americans don't want to work in sweatshops. They don't want to pick lettuce for 8 hours a day under the hot sun.
> 
> So there are some very simple ways to solve these problems without building walls or putting kids in a concentration camp.
> 
> 1) Develop a National ID system.  You can't get work without the National ID, which links to a database that will have your picture and thumbprint in it so it can't be faked.
> 
> 2) Have ICE concentrate its efforts on workplace enforcement. The reality is, only a few employers are the bad apples, and if you make an example out of them, the rest will follow.
> 
> 3) Create a Guest Worker Program like Germany has.  Migrants can come here without their families for a set period of time to work as needed by certain industries. At the end of their period, they have to go home.
> 
> Of course, since our anger on this issue isn't based on rationality, these things won't be done.  The One Percent want illegals for cheap labor,and they want to keep guys like Ray mad about it so they won't notice the screwing they are getting.



A national ID?  You people bitch about a Voter-ID. 

ICE is concentrating on places that hire illegals.  As I have posted, we recently had two busts here resulting in nearly 250 arrests.  We've never seen that before under DumBama.  However that's much more difficult to do if you have some liberal bimbo Mayor that warns the illegals before the raids take place.  

We already have a guest worker program; had it for years.  Next?  

Yes, there is a simply way to solve this problem without walls: anybody caught here illegally faces a minimum 5 years in prison and of course, immediate deportation when they get out.  If you get out and come back again, a minimum 10 years in prison.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> We'll do just fine without them. The shorter the labor, the higher the wage offerings. On one hand you people on the left complain that the middle-class is shrinking, and on the other you claim we need imports to do jobs because every single American is working today. Well.......the labor force participation rate doesn't reflect that. When people really need to get work done, they will increase their offers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, most of the jobs these folks do, Americans simply don't want to do.
> 
> They don't want to clean toilets or pick lettuce.
> 
> The middle class is not shrinking because immigrants are taking the awful jobs.  It is shrinking because the one percenters are out there cutting wages and benefits.
Click to expand...


Even if that were true, wages and benefits would go up if the workforce is so low an employer simply can't find workers for what he or she is offering.  They would have no choice; hire people one way or another or close up. 

You on the left are obsessed with this idea the only thing coming over that border are lettuce pickers.  They are in all kinds of fields of work.  The CB radio used to be active all day long.  Today, if it goes off about eight to ten times, it was a busy day.  I understand that technology has left the radio behind, but in many cases, it's because we have so many foreign drivers that don't have a radio because they can't understand the damn thing.  

It is estimated we have over 12 million illegals in this country.  Some say it's closer to 20 million.  I can't imagine that the only work 20 million people have is picking lettuce.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bad actors influence others as well. One of our customers just got rid of their shipper. The guy came to work explicitly to make problems for everybody. I hated to pickup there, but it was not only me, other drivers from other companies told me how they hated dealing with this Ahole. In fact some years ago, a driver punched him out he got so pissed; probably lost his job too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, racist, it seems like everywhere you drive, there are people with problems. Union guys, minorities...
> 
> Has it ever occurred to you it's just  you?
Click to expand...


Where did I say he was a minority?  See how you dream up this bullshit?


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As amusing as it is to watch Kaz's weird fascination with me, let's get back to the subject at hand.
> 
> The reason why we have an illegal immigration problem is because there are jobs Americans just simply do not want to do, no matter how much you pay them.
> 
> That's it.  Americans don't want to work in sweatshops. They don't want to pick lettuce for 8 hours a day under the hot sun.
> 
> So there are some very simple ways to solve these problems without building walls or putting kids in a concentration camp.
> 
> 1) Develop a National ID system.  You can't get work without the National ID, which links to a database that will have your picture and thumbprint in it so it can't be faked.
> 
> 2) Have ICE concentrate its efforts on workplace enforcement. The reality is, only a few employers are the bad apples, and if you make an example out of them, the rest will follow.
> 
> 3) Create a Guest Worker Program like Germany has.  Migrants can come here without their families for a set period of time to work as needed by certain industries. At the end of their period, they have to go home.
> 
> Of course, since our anger on this issue isn't based on rationality, these things won't be done.  The One Percent want illegals for cheap labor,and they want to keep guys like Ray mad about it so they won't notice the screwing they are getting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A national ID?  You people bitch about a Voter-ID.
> 
> ICE is concentrating on places that hire illegals.  As I have posted, we recently had two busts here resulting in nearly 250 arrests.  We've never seen that before under DumBama.  However that's much more difficult to do if you have some liberal bimbo Mayor that warns the illegals before the raids take place.
> 
> We already have a guest worker program; had it for years.  Next?
> 
> Yes, there is a simply way to solve this problem without walls: anybody caught here illegally faces a minimum 5 years in prison and of course, immediate deportation when they get out.  If you get out and come back again, a minimum 10 years in prison.
Click to expand...

All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id. regardless.  Applied capitalism can make it happen via a fee or a fine.

How, really really serious is the right wing about our alleged "Invasion"?  

Second Amendment related laws take precedence over immigration laws, when it is really really serious. 

10USC246 is such a federal law.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Unkotare said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I've conversed with a lot people about illegal immigration and the one thing that stands out is that most people that feel strongly about stopping illegal immigration think legal immigration should be reduced or abolished.  They just don't want all those Hispanics, Africans, and Asians in their country regardless of how they got here.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or maybe we feel that they are not assimilating in our country very well and need more time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ We restricted immigrants for decades so the ones here could assimilate. The *Immigration* Act *of* 1924 created a quota system that restricted entry to 2 percent *of* the total *number of* people *of* each nationality in America as *of* the 1890 national census–a system that favored *immigrants* from Western Europe–and prohibited *immigrants* from Asia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the left feels this kind of thing has never happened before---only with Trump.
> 
> The changes taking place because of foreigners is obvious.  It's time to stop migration until at least everybody can speak and read the language here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Know-Nothing party is gone. Let it go or join it in the dustbin.
Click to expand...


They're gone?  They don't have a majority in Congress?  They don't have a majority in the Senate?  They don't own the White House?  They don't have 2/3 of the Governorships across the country?  

If that's what you consider gone, then I hope they go away more next election.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You already told me your max salary was $80K. Now you make less than $25K. It's not the money I can't afford, that's for sure. I wouldn't do you to my staff though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, your comprehension is messed up. I currently make 80K a year
Click to expand...


You're right, that is what you said.  Coincidentally you said you did $80K a day in invoices pushing paper, I mixed up the $80K's.  Do you know when people make up numbers, they tend to do it in a pattern?

BTW, $80K isn't that much in Chicago.  It's OK



JoeB131 said:


> I work two jobs and pull down over 80K a year



So what's your second job?  Test subject.  Cadaver?


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the reasons may be different, but that's what it's like firing people. I keep it short and factual. Leftists of course say, don't you care about people? They have families. First of all of course in their typical style, leftists are telling me what to do with my money, not what they are doing with theirs. Second, of course I care about their family. But they should have cared more about their own family and tried harder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, you are a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.
> 
> Managers who think they can fire their way to a better workplace usually have teams with shitty morale.  Who wants to work at a place where you can be fired on a whim?
Click to expand...


Again you are a "resume writer" who knows nothing about business.

You don't get insurance in addition to full salary.  Jobs pay a fixed total amount.  Whether it comes as medical insurance, healthcare contributions, salary, whatever.

If I didn't pay market compensation, I wouldn't have had employees.

Let's say your compensation to make up a number is $80K.  Now would you rather have:

$70K in salary and $10K in benefits ...

... or ...

$80K in salary.

Joe:  

Joe:  $70K + $10K, that's greater than $80K !!!

Dumb ass.  I'm not paying more than market wages, and my employees aren't working for less than market wages.  All you're droning on about is again just that you know zero about business.

Now, do you want me to explain price and cost to you again?


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean because there are only white citizens in this country, race baiting dickhead. And you really are a douche. He's talking about the ability to function here in English. Not making them deny their heritage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except he didn't say "ability to speak English", he said "assimilate".
> 
> Hey, maybe we should eliminate St. Paddy's Day, Oktoberfest, Columbus Day and the Polish Parade here in Chicago because, hey, those people need to "assimilate", right?
Click to expand...


A professional writer, that cracks me up.

I think you're confusing assimilate with conform.  You're using the word assimilate, but you obviously thinking of conforming.  Assimilate just means they can function here.  Conforming would mean they become like us.

I sure have to explain the English language a lot to you.  Odd considering you write professionally.  Remember how you didn't know how to capitalize?  That was painful teaching you that.   Ray's still running circles around you


----------



## danielpalos

is it any wonder, right wing policies get held up in Court.


----------



## Kondor3

Flopper said:


> ...I've conversed with a lot people about illegal immigration and the one thing that stands out is that most people that feel strongly about stopping illegal immigration think legal immigration should be reduced or abolished.  They just don't want all those Hispanics, Africans, and Asians in their country regardless of how they got here.


Hispanics advocate for themselves.

Blacks advocate for themselves.

Asians advocate for themselves.

Same with Whites.

We're all "racist"... it's just a matter of how that impacts relations with others, and how that impacts our sense of what's fair and what is not.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> The reason why we have an illegal immigration problem is because there are jobs Americans just simply do not want to do, no matter how much you pay them



That's such a lie.  Of course people will work for market wages.  What Americans (black or white) won't do is work for wages under market rates.  You push wages below market rates by importing millions of poor illegal aliens from a third world shit hole country who will do it for less.

Democrats have repeated that lie so many times that you actually believe it


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ We restricted immigrants for decades so the ones here could assimilate. The *Immigration* Act *of* 1924 created a quota system that restricted entry to 2 percent *of* the total *number of* people *of* each nationality in America as *of* the 1890 national census–a system that favored *immigrants* from Western Europe–and prohibited *immigrants* from Asia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the left feels this kind of thing has never happened before---only with Trump.
> 
> The changes taking place because of foreigners is obvious.  It's time to stop migration until at least everybody can speak and read the language here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think immigration should be tied to their ability to support themselves rather than quotas.  You come here, support yourself for seven years, you can become a citizen.  They aren't going to be able to do that if they don't learn to speak English
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, but talking with people close to the border (I've never been there) the problem they have are illegals crowding 12 people into a two family home or apartment.  That brings down property value.  So they can work at McDonald's part time and still make claim of supporting themselves.  The other problem is anchor babies.  Come here and have a bunch of kids, and then you can share in their welfare plus be able to make claim they need you here because they are little Americans that cannot support themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are real issues that need to be solved.  We have a better chance to do that though if people can only come legally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well some of them are coming legally and that's what they do.  Again, no first hand experience, but just going by what people who live in the area tell me.
Click to expand...


It takes different amounts of time for sure.  I had a neighbor growing up who had a thick German accent.  He wouldn't speak a word of German though.  He said he came to the United States to be an American and speak English.  

Anyway, they're all individuals, I agree on that.  Some will be faster and some slower.  As a whole though, legals assimilate on average a lot faster.  Remember they aren't like illegals in that they are required to earn a living ... legally ...

BTW, America is far better at assimilation than Europe.  Including with Muslims.  In Europe, they are virtually in all Muslim districts.  We have Muslim areas, but as a whole they are far better spread out.  Our law enforcement also gets a lot more tips from Muslims than European law enforcement does


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Kondor3 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I've conversed with a lot people about illegal immigration and the one thing that stands out is that most people that feel strongly about stopping illegal immigration think legal immigration should be reduced or abolished.  They just don't want all those Hispanics, Africans, and Asians in their country regardless of how they got here.
> 
> 
> 
> Hispanics advocate for themselves.
> 
> Blacks advocate for themselves.
> 
> Asians advocate for themselves.
> 
> Same with Whites.
> 
> We're all "racist"... it's just a matter of how that impacts relations with others, and how that impacts our sense of what's fair and what is not.
Click to expand...


Yep.  If you tell a Democrat that most all blacks vote Democrat, they will tell you that it's because blacks are looking out for their self-interest.  If you tell people you voted for Trump because he's white and is for your self-interest, you're a racist.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the reasons may be different, but that's what it's like firing people. I keep it short and factual. Leftists of course say, don't you care about people? They have families. First of all of course in their typical style, leftists are telling me what to do with my money, not what they are doing with theirs. Second, of course I care about their family. But they should have cared more about their own family and tried harder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, you are a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.
> 
> Managers who think they can fire their way to a better workplace usually have teams with shitty morale.  Who wants to work at a place where you can be fired on a whim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you are a "resume writer" who knows nothing about business.
> 
> You don't get insurance in addition to full salary.  Jobs pay a fixed total amount.  Whether it comes as medical insurance, healthcare contributions, salary, whatever.
> 
> If I didn't pay market compensation, I wouldn't have had employees.
> 
> Let's say your compensation to make up a number is $80K.  Now would you rather have:
> 
> $70K in salary and $10K in benefits ...
> 
> ... or ...
> 
> $80K in salary.
> 
> Joe:
> 
> Joe:  $70K + $10K, that's greater than $80K !!!
> 
> Dumb ass.  I'm not paying more than market wages, and my employees aren't working for less than market wages.  All you're droning on about is again just that you know zero about business.
> 
> Now, do you want me to explain price and cost to you again?
Click to expand...


I would rather have 10K in benefits.  Benefits are not taxed and by not having that in your paycheck, it brings down your tax rate.  It's one of the many failures of Commie Care.  Now, you have to  pay for insurance with after tax money that you won't likely be able to write-off.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> If you can't speak or read English, guess what? You're not assimilating very well. If the country has to accommodate you for that reason, you are not assimilating very well. If you are a NYC cab driver, and refuse to pick up fares because they have a pet with them due to your religion, you are not assimilating very well.



Why would anyone want a smelly animal in their cab?  

We make all sorts of accommedation for American's religion.  Shit, you guys want to make it legal for people to refuse service because they don't like someone else's sex life.  

Of do you think rights are only for white christian people... 

Never mind, no need to answer.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> I sure have to explain the English language a lot to you. Odd considering you write professionally. Remember how you didn't know how to capitalize? That was painful teaching you that. Ray's still running circles around you



Uh, guy, you are getting the level of proofreading I get for not being paid... 

Now if you pay me, maybe I'd take more time... but frankly, the very fact you stalk me like a bitter ex-girlfriend is payment enough.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> You don't get insurance in addition to full salary. Jobs pay a fixed total amount. Whether it comes as medical insurance, healthcare contributions, salary, whatever.
> 
> If I didn't pay market compensation, I wouldn't have had employees.
> 
> Let's say your compensation to make up a number is $80K. Now would you rather have:



Okay, see, here's the thing... I understand business better than you do. 

People don't get insurance because they are taking advantage of it by choice... they get it because if they have that one catastrophic illness, they'll be covered.  

Or they would be if big insurance didn't try to cheat them, but that's another conversation. 

So really, you can't get QUALITY employees if you don't offer insurance. I mean, maybe you'd get a kid who doesn't know any better, but grownups know that's the cost of admission. 

So let's look at your retarded ass example. 



kaz said:


> Let's say your compensation to make up a number is $80K. Now would you rather have:
> 
> $70K in salary and $10K in benefits ...
> 
> ... or ...
> 
> $80K in salary.
> 
> Joe:
> 
> Joe: $70K + $10K, that's greater than $80K !!!



No, captain retard... what would I rather have is insurance.  

Here's why. Let's use your example.  I get 80K. Not that a bottom feeder like you could pay anyone 80K, but let's pretend.  

And then a year after I work for you, I find out I have cancer.  Whoops. Gee, what does Cancer treatment cost?  

https://health.usnews.com/health-ne...-worry-about-rising-costs-of-cancer-treatment

Just the DRUGS cost more than your difference. We aren't even talking about the testing, etc.   

And of course, being the kind of douche bag you are, you'd probably try to get rid of that employee when they took too many doctor's appointment. (This was exactly the issue I had with a former employer, the one who cured me of being Republican.)  





kaz said:


> Now, do you want me to explain price and cost to you again?



Why, you didn't make a point last time.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> That's such a lie. Of course people will work for market wages. What Americans (black or white) won't do is work for wages under market rates. You push wages below market rates by importing millions of poor illegal aliens from a third world shit hole country who will do it for less.
> 
> Democrats have repeated that lie so many times that you actually believe it



Um, no, because I've seen it.  

Let's go back to the Company that cured me of being a Republican.  Now, this all happened after I left, but several employees told me about it. 

This company used to hire day laborers (Mexican) to do tedious tasks of packaging kits for us.  It was through a "temp agency", so they had "plausible deniability".  

Then they got bought out by a bigger, publicly traded company.  The first thing they did was put down a mandate everyone working the scrub jobs had to have papers.  so the day laborers were gone and they replaced them with white people.  Except the only white people they could find were meth heads who usually didn't last a week. 

From what I was told, some of these folks were genuinely scary.


----------



## JoeB131

Kondor3 said:


> Hispanics advocate for themselves.
> 
> Blacks advocate for themselves.
> 
> Asians advocate for themselves.
> 
> Same with Whites.
> 
> We're all "racist"... it's just a matter of how that impacts relations with others, and how that impacts our sense of what's fair and what is not.



Those other groups need to advocate for themselves because they don't have the institutional power that white folks have.


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the reasons may be different, but that's what it's like firing people. I keep it short and factual. Leftists of course say, don't you care about people? They have families. First of all of course in their typical style, leftists are telling me what to do with my money, not what they are doing with theirs. Second, of course I care about their family. But they should have cared more about their own family and tried harder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, you are a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.
> 
> Managers who think they can fire their way to a better workplace usually have teams with shitty morale.  Who wants to work at a place where you can be fired on a whim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you are a "resume writer" who knows nothing about business.
> 
> You don't get insurance in addition to full salary.  Jobs pay a fixed total amount.  Whether it comes as medical insurance, healthcare contributions, salary, whatever.
> 
> If I didn't pay market compensation, I wouldn't have had employees.
> 
> Let's say your compensation to make up a number is $80K.  Now would you rather have:
> 
> $70K in salary and $10K in benefits ...
> 
> ... or ...
> 
> $80K in salary.
> 
> Joe:
> 
> Joe:  $70K + $10K, that's greater than $80K !!!
> 
> Dumb ass.  I'm not paying more than market wages, and my employees aren't working for less than market wages.  All you're droning on about is again just that you know zero about business.
> 
> Now, do you want me to explain price and cost to you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would rather have 10K in benefits.  Benefits are not taxed and by not having that in your paycheck, it brings down your tax rate.  It's one of the many failures of Commie Care.  Now, you have to  pay for insurance with after tax money that you won't likely be able to write-off.
Click to expand...


I simplified my example for sure.  There are other factors.  I dealt with it on an "all else being equal" basis.  But you're right that in reality it wasn't that simple.  Things like group rates and to your point taxes can change the calculation for sure.

What happened in my case was that because of how I was set up, that SOB Obama removed the tax deductability of my type of plan in as you accurately call it CommieCare.  That is a big part of why I keep saying that Obama wasn't trying to cover people, he was trying to get companies to drop coverage.

Anyway, I continued to actually make the payments to my employees, so it isn't actually quite accurate when I say I dropped my plan.  But in essence for my employees it became taxable which means it was really just more salary.  I didn't take away my contributions and it still said medical contribution on their check.  Just it was treated as salary.  Of course I explained that to them.

What's funny is that Joe keeps calling me a heartless SOB.  He's actually talking about Obama, his messiah, who is the one who made the contributions taxable.  Anyway, I never explained that detail to Joe since he obviously doesn't read


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> What happened in my case was that because of how I was set up, that SOB Obama removed the tax deductability of my type of plan in as you accurately call it CommieCare. That is a big part of why I keep saying that Obama wasn't trying to cover people, he was trying to get companies to drop coverage.
> 
> Anyway, I continued to actually make the payments to my employees, so it isn't actually quite accurate when I say I dropped my plan. But in essence for my employees it became taxable which means it was really just more salary. I didn't take away my contributions and it still said medical contribution. Just it was treated as salary.



Again, guy, if you are such a bottom feeder you can't produce health coverage for your employees and their families, you probably suck as a business man and quality employees avoid you.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happened in my case was that because of how I was set up, that SOB Obama removed the tax deductability of my type of plan in as you accurately call it CommieCare. That is a big part of why I keep saying that Obama wasn't trying to cover people, he was trying to get companies to drop coverage.
> 
> Anyway, I continued to actually make the payments to my employees, so it isn't actually quite accurate when I say I dropped my plan. But in essence for my employees it became taxable which means it was really just more salary. I didn't take away my contributions and it still said medical contribution. Just it was treated as salary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, guy, if you are such a bottom feeder you can't produce health coverage for your employees and their families, you probably suck as a business man and quality employees avoid you.
Click to expand...


Winston Churchill:  I can explain it to you, I cannot comprehend it for you


----------



## Unkotare

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I've conversed with a lot people about illegal immigration and the one thing that stands out is that most people that feel strongly about stopping illegal immigration think legal immigration should be reduced or abolished.  They just don't want all those Hispanics, Africans, and Asians in their country regardless of how they got here.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe we feel that they are not assimilating in our country very well and need more time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ We restricted immigrants for decades so the ones here could assimilate. The *Immigration* Act *of* 1924 created a quota system that restricted entry to 2 percent *of* the total *number of* people *of* each nationality in America as *of* the 1890 national census–a system that favored *immigrants* from Western Europe–and prohibited *immigrants* from Asia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the left feels this kind of thing has never happened before---only with Trump.
> 
> The changes taking place because of foreigners is obvious.  It's time to stop migration until at least everybody can speak and read the language here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Know-Nothing party is gone. Let it go or join it in the dustbin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're gone?  .....
Click to expand...


Yes, they are gone. The Know-Nothing Party was defunct by 1860. Even then real Americans recognized that they were idiots and cowards not worth the attention. Every few decades a new crop of mentally defective weaklings like you start whining about the exact process by which their own ancestors came to America. Pretty stupid, really.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> Winston Churchill: I can explain it to you, I cannot comprehend it for you



Guy, you can explain it all day... 

The reality is, companies that don't offer health insurance don't get the best employees...  

Do you know what my number three source of resume clients is after shitty managers and downsizings?  It's companies that don't offer insurance and they want to find a job that does.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Unkotare said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe we feel that they are not assimilating in our country very well and need more time.
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ We restricted immigrants for decades so the ones here could assimilate. The *Immigration* Act *of* 1924 created a quota system that restricted entry to 2 percent *of* the total *number of* people *of* each nationality in America as *of* the 1890 national census–a system that favored *immigrants* from Western Europe–and prohibited *immigrants* from Asia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the left feels this kind of thing has never happened before---only with Trump.
> 
> The changes taking place because of foreigners is obvious.  It's time to stop migration until at least everybody can speak and read the language here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Know-Nothing party is gone. Let it go or join it in the dustbin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're gone?  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are gone. The Know-Nothing Party was defunct by 1860. Even then real Americans recognized that they were idiots and cowards not worth the attention. Every few decades a new crop of mentally defective weaklings like you start whining about the exact process by which their own ancestors came to America. Pretty stupid, really.
Click to expand...


You know how my ancestors came here?  Please tell me, because I don't even know that.  However they came, I'm sure it wasn't illegally like what's going on today.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You know how my ancestors came here? Please tell me, because I don't even know that. However they came, I'm sure it wasn't illegally like what's going on today.



Obviously, you need to read up on the history of immigration.  Before the 1920's, if you got here on a boat, you were in.   

There were attempts to limit immigration of Asians, but basically, if you were white and the boat got here, so did you.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the reasons may be different, but that's what it's like firing people. I keep it short and factual. Leftists of course say, don't you care about people? They have families. First of all of course in their typical style, leftists are telling me what to do with my money, not what they are doing with theirs. Second, of course I care about their family. But they should have cared more about their own family and tried harder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, you are a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.
> 
> Managers who think they can fire their way to a better workplace usually have teams with shitty morale.  Who wants to work at a place where you can be fired on a whim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you are a "resume writer" who knows nothing about business.
> 
> You don't get insurance in addition to full salary.  Jobs pay a fixed total amount.  Whether it comes as medical insurance, healthcare contributions, salary, whatever.
> 
> If I didn't pay market compensation, I wouldn't have had employees.
> 
> Let's say your compensation to make up a number is $80K.  Now would you rather have:
> 
> $70K in salary and $10K in benefits ...
> 
> ... or ...
> 
> $80K in salary.
> 
> Joe:
> 
> Joe:  $70K + $10K, that's greater than $80K !!!
> 
> Dumb ass.  I'm not paying more than market wages, and my employees aren't working for less than market wages.  All you're droning on about is again just that you know zero about business.
> 
> Now, do you want me to explain price and cost to you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would rather have 10K in benefits.  Benefits are not taxed and by not having that in your paycheck, it brings down your tax rate.  It's one of the many failures of Commie Care.  Now, you have to  pay for insurance with after tax money that you won't likely be able to write-off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I simplified my example for sure.  There are other factors.  I dealt with it on an "all else being equal" basis.  But you're right that in reality it wasn't that simple.  Things like group rates and to your point taxes can change the calculation for sure.
> 
> What happened in my case was that because of how I was set up, that SOB Obama removed the tax deductability of my type of plan in as you accurately call it CommieCare.  That is a big part of why I keep saying that Obama wasn't trying to cover people, he was trying to get companies to drop coverage.
> 
> Anyway, I continued to actually make the payments to my employees, so it isn't actually quite accurate when I say I dropped my plan.  But in essence for my employees it became taxable which means it was really just more salary.  I didn't take away my contributions and it still said medical contribution on their check.  Just it was treated as salary.  Of course I explained that to them.
> 
> What's funny is that Joe keeps calling me a heartless SOB.  He's actually talking about Obama, his messiah, who is the one who made the contributions taxable.  Anyway, I never explained that detail to Joe since he obviously doesn't read
Click to expand...


Correct, it was never about getting everybody covered.  If it was, he wouldn't have had to lie about it so much.

It was actually about creating as many new government dependents as he could, and he was quite successful.  Now, many of those that are supposedly covered are on shitty government plans. 

Vote buying is what the Democrats are all about.  The minimum requirement is to have birth control on your plan.  This was to buy the female vote.  The medication I take is life sustaining, and not one word about my medication (or anybody else's that's life sustaining) in the bill.  That's because I'm not part of a large voting block like the women are. 

So now the french fry makers and self stockers in America can get a plan heavily subsidized by taxpayers.  But middle income earners are the people that can't afford those outrageously priced plans, but then again, middle income earners are likely Republican voters.


----------



## Unkotare

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ We restricted immigrants for decades so the ones here could assimilate. The *Immigration* Act *of* 1924 created a quota system that restricted entry to 2 percent *of* the total *number of* people *of* each nationality in America as *of* the 1890 national census–a system that favored *immigrants* from Western Europe–and prohibited *immigrants* from Asia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the left feels this kind of thing has never happened before---only with Trump.
> 
> The changes taking place because of foreigners is obvious.  It's time to stop migration until at least everybody can speak and read the language here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Know-Nothing party is gone. Let it go or join it in the dustbin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're gone?  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are gone. The Know-Nothing Party was defunct by 1860. Even then real Americans recognized that they were idiots and cowards not worth the attention. Every few decades a new crop of mentally defective weaklings like you start whining about the exact process by which their own ancestors came to America. Pretty stupid, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know how my ancestors came here?  Please tell me, because I don't even know that.  However they came, I'm sure it wasn't illegally like what's going on today.
Click to expand...



If you don't know then you can't be sure, so STFU while the same process continues as it always has.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vote buying is what the Democrats are all about. The minimum requirement is to have birth control on your plan. This was to buy the female vote. The medication I take is life sustaining, and not one word about my medication (or anybody else's that's life sustaining) in the bill. That's because I'm not part of a large voting block like the women are.
> 
> So now the french fry makers and self stockers in America can get a plan heavily subsidized by taxpayers. But middle income earners are the people that can't afford those outrageously prices plans, but then again, middle income earners are likely Republican voters.



Meh, I've never had a problem getting insurance, not once.  

Your boss screws you, and you want to blame everyone else and can't get a better job, or will even try.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how my ancestors came here? Please tell me, because I don't even know that. However they came, I'm sure it wasn't illegally like what's going on today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, you need to read up on the history of immigration.  Before the 1920's, if you got here on a boat, you were in.
> 
> There were attempts to limit immigration of Asians, but basically, if you were white and the boat got here, so did you.
Click to expand...


Yes, that's true, you were in.  But times changed and so have the laws, so if you come here with no permission, you are breaking our laws.  You are an illegal.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vote buying is what the Democrats are all about. The minimum requirement is to have birth control on your plan. This was to buy the female vote. The medication I take is life sustaining, and not one word about my medication (or anybody else's that's life sustaining) in the bill. That's because I'm not part of a large voting block like the women are.
> 
> So now the french fry makers and self stockers in America can get a plan heavily subsidized by taxpayers. But middle income earners are the people that can't afford those outrageously prices plans, but then again, middle income earners are likely Republican voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I've never had a problem getting insurance, not once.
> 
> Your boss screws you, and you want to blame everyone else and can't get a better job, or will even try.
Click to expand...


There is only one person that screwed me and millions of others.  He's got the name of a terrorist and has big floppy elephant ears.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Unkotare said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the left feels this kind of thing has never happened before---only with Trump.
> 
> The changes taking place because of foreigners is obvious.  It's time to stop migration until at least everybody can speak and read the language here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Know-Nothing party is gone. Let it go or join it in the dustbin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're gone?  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are gone. The Know-Nothing Party was defunct by 1860. Even then real Americans recognized that they were idiots and cowards not worth the attention. Every few decades a new crop of mentally defective weaklings like you start whining about the exact process by which their own ancestors came to America. Pretty stupid, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know how my ancestors came here?  Please tell me, because I don't even know that.  However they came, I'm sure it wasn't illegally like what's going on today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't know then you can't be sure, so STFU while the same process continues as it always has.
Click to expand...


I'll say WTF I want to say.  And I say these people are nothing but problems for Americans.  They proved it yesterday, they are proving it today, and will prove it even more tomorrow.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes, that's true, you were in. But times changed and so have the laws, so if you come here with no permission, you are breaking our laws. You are an illegal.



Lots of stuff is illegal. Hiring a hooker is illegal. Smoking a joint is illegal. Going to fast on the highway is illegal.  

Nobody really considers these great crimes, for some reason. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> There is only one person that screwed me and millions of others. He's got the name of a terrorist and has big floppy elephant ears.



Um, no, guy.  Obama is not responsible for your lack of initiative.


----------



## Kondor3

JoeB131 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hispanics advocate for themselves.
> 
> Blacks advocate for themselves.
> 
> Asians advocate for themselves.
> 
> Same with Whites.
> 
> We're all "racist"... it's just a matter of how that impacts relations with others, and how that impacts our sense of what's fair and what is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those other groups need to advocate for themselves because they don't have the institutional power that white folks have.
Click to expand...

Yes... that is the decades-old shop-worn excuse for trying to delude White Folk into thinking that advocating for themselves is wrong. It's stopped working.


----------



## JoeB131

Kondor3 said:


> Yes... that is the decades-old shop-worn excuse for trying to delude White Folk into thinking that advocating for themselves is wrong. It's stopped working.



White people don't need to advocate for themselves, they already have all the advantages.  

Here's the thing. If I were to list all the fuckovers I've gotten in my life, every last one of them was at the hands of a fellow white male with more power, influence and money than I have.  

It's foolish to think his interests are my interests.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't speak or read English, guess what? You're not assimilating very well. If the country has to accommodate you for that reason, you are not assimilating very well. If you are a NYC cab driver, and refuse to pick up fares because they have a pet with them due to your religion, you are not assimilating very well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone want a smelly animal in their cab?
> 
> We make all sorts of accommedation for American's religion.  Shit, you guys want to make it legal for people to refuse service because they don't like someone else's sex life.
> 
> Of do you think rights are only for white christian people...
> 
> Never mind, no need to answer.
Click to expand...


As a typical leftist, I know you have no respect for our Constitution, especially the part that says nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.  But if you are forced by law to participate in a ritual against your religion beliefs, then that part of the Constitution is violated.  

If a person who owns a bakery shop decides he doesn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding, then that's his option.  If he works for somebody and is told he has to make the cake, then he has to weigh his religious values.  Take the job or don't take the job.  

Cab drivers work for cab companies.  They know ahead of time that it's just about the only way to travel in places like NYC.  So there will be times they have to transport a pet, especially if the animal is there to assist in a handicap like a seeing eye dog.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> White people don't need to advocate for themselves, they already have all the advantages.



Like what? 



JoeB131 said:


> Here's the thing. If I were to list all the fuckovers I've gotten in my life, every last one of them was at the hands of a fellow white male with more power, influence and money than I have.
> 
> It's foolish to think his interests are my interests.



That's because a majority of managers, bosses and company owners are white.  You're talking about the law of odds here.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Lots of stuff is illegal. Hiring a hooker is illegal. Smoking a joint is illegal. Going to fast on the highway is illegal.
> 
> Nobody really considers these great crimes, for some reason.



But they are all against the law and have a penalty to pay if you get caught. 



JoeB131 said:


> Um, no, guy. Obama is not responsible for your lack of initiative.



It's not my lack of initiative, it's that ugly commie you helped put in the white house.  Until that time, every job I worked had health insurance.  Today, no company I contacted for a job carries it any longer.  It's not my lack of initiative that caused this problem.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Winston Churchill: I can explain it to you, I cannot comprehend it for you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you can explain it all day...
> 
> The reality is, companies that don't offer health insurance don't get the best employees...
> 
> Do you know what my number three source of resume clients is after shitty managers and downsizings?  It's companies that don't offer insurance and they want to find a job that does.
Click to expand...


So your bull shit aside, what's your second job?


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/
> There has to be limits to any immigration. The illegals are taking spots from the legals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There is.  The body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.  I don't think Trump is messing with that number.  It is .2% of the population, way too small.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.
> 
> Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.
> 
> Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls.  Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote.  Your motive is clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want a Visa in this country, you should have to make a down payment, say 2K or so.  If you don't turn it in and leave the country, you lose your deposit.  Plus if it's a work Visa, we keep 10% of your net pay in escrow for the same reason.
Click to expand...

*Ray, that sounds like a great way to increase Mexican and Central American exports of produce to the US.  Charge foreign workers $2,000 to get a work permit would turn a labor shortage into a disaster. *


----------



## Unkotare

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Know-Nothing party is gone. Let it go or join it in the dustbin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're gone?  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are gone. The Know-Nothing Party was defunct by 1860. Even then real Americans recognized that they were idiots and cowards not worth the attention. Every few decades a new crop of mentally defective weaklings like you start whining about the exact process by which their own ancestors came to America. Pretty stupid, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know how my ancestors came here?  Please tell me, because I don't even know that.  However they came, I'm sure it wasn't illegally like what's going on today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't know then you can't be sure, so STFU while the same process continues as it always has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll say WTF I want to say.  And I say these people are nothing but problems for Americans.  .....
Click to expand...



Like your ancestors were when they came? There were certainly some dumbasses here bitching and moaning just like you are now about how your ancestors were nothing but problems for Americans. No doubt some dumbass great, great grandchildren of people immigrating today will do the same cowardly, irrational, unAmerican shit you are doing today. The weakest of the herd never learn.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Unkotare said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're gone?  .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are gone. The Know-Nothing Party was defunct by 1860. Even then real Americans recognized that they were idiots and cowards not worth the attention. Every few decades a new crop of mentally defective weaklings like you start whining about the exact process by which their own ancestors came to America. Pretty stupid, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know how my ancestors came here?  Please tell me, because I don't even know that.  However they came, I'm sure it wasn't illegally like what's going on today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't know then you can't be sure, so STFU while the same process continues as it always has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll say WTF I want to say.  And I say these people are nothing but problems for Americans.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like your ancestors were when they came? There were certainly some dumbasses here bitching and moaning just like you are now about how your ancestors were nothing but problems for Americans. No doubt some dumbass great, great grandchildren of people immigrating today will do the same cowardly, irrational, unAmerican shit you are doing today. The weakest of the herd never learn.
Click to expand...


In this country, we are all allowed to have opinions.....so far.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> 
> 
> /——/
> There has to be limits to any immigration. The illegals are taking spots from the legals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There is.  The body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.  I don't think Trump is messing with that number.  It is .2% of the population, way too small.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.
> 
> Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.
> 
> Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls.  Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote.  Your motive is clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want a Visa in this country, you should have to make a down payment, say 2K or so.  If you don't turn it in and leave the country, you lose your deposit.  Plus if it's a work Visa, we keep 10% of your net pay in escrow for the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Ray, that sounds like a great way to increase Mexican and Central American exports of produce to the US.  Charge foreign workers $2,000 to get a work permit would turn a labor shortage into a disaster. *
Click to expand...


Why is that?  If you turn in your Visa on time and leave the country when you are supposed to, you get that $2,000 back just like when you rent a car or an apartment.  If not, we will use that money to track you or another like you down and have you deported.


----------



## Flopper

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Total made up bullshyt. We aren’t against legal immigration. It’s the Progs who want to flood the country with future democRAT voters that’s the issue. You’re just trying to refute our demand to enforce our laws by claiming we’re against all immigrants. Total bullshyt Strawman argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/
> There has to be limits to any immigration. The illegals are taking spots from the legals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There is.  The body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.  I don't think Trump is messing with that number.  It is .2% of the population, way too small.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.
> 
> Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.
> 
> Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls.  Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote.  Your motive is clear
Click to expand...

*What a shocking revaluation.  Democrats don't have to say or do anything to attract Hispanic voters.  Donald Trump does it all.  He calls them rapist and murders.  Says migrants come from shit hole countries.  Blames our drug problems on Mexico. Wants to make Mexico pay the cost of defending our border with a wall. Wants to make it impossible for them to bring their families to the US. And he hovers over a taco salad proclaiming, "I love Hispanics."*


----------



## Cellblock2429

Unkotare said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the left feels this kind of thing has never happened before---only with Trump.
> 
> The changes taking place because of foreigners is obvious.  It's time to stop migration until at least everybody can speak and read the language here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Know-Nothing party is gone. Let it go or join it in the dustbin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're gone?  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are gone. The Know-Nothing Party was defunct by 1860. Even then real Americans recognized that they were idiots and cowards not worth the attention. Every few decades a new crop of mentally defective weaklings like you start whining about the exact process by which their own ancestors came to America. Pretty stupid, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know how my ancestors came here?  Please tell me, because I don't even know that.  However they came, I'm sure it wasn't illegally like what's going on today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't know then you can't be sure, so STFU while the same process continues as it always has.
Click to expand...

/——/ According to Ancestry, my family began arriving in Charles Town around 1726. I even know the names of some of the ships they came over on. So they were all legal.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/
> There has to be limits to any immigration. The illegals are taking spots from the legals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There is.  The body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.  I don't think Trump is messing with that number.  It is .2% of the population, way too small.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.
> 
> Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.
> 
> Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls.  Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote.  Your motive is clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What a shocking revaluation.  Democrats don't have to say or do anything to attract Hispanic voters.  Donald Trump does it all.  He calls them rapist and murders.  Says migrants come from shit hole countries.  Blames our drug problems on Mexico. Wants to make Mexico pay the cost of defending our border with a wall. Wants to make it impossible for them to bring their families to the US. And he hovers over a taco salad proclaiming, "I love Hispanics."
> *
Click to expand...

/——/ One has nothing to do with the other. Maybe if you loved Americans you’d support a strong border.


----------



## Unkotare

Cellblock2429 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Know-Nothing party is gone. Let it go or join it in the dustbin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're gone?  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are gone. The Know-Nothing Party was defunct by 1860. Even then real Americans recognized that they were idiots and cowards not worth the attention. Every few decades a new crop of mentally defective weaklings like you start whining about the exact process by which their own ancestors came to America. Pretty stupid, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know how my ancestors came here?  Please tell me, because I don't even know that.  However they came, I'm sure it wasn't illegally like what's going on today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't know then you can't be sure, so STFU while the same process continues as it always has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ According to Ancestry, my family began arriving in Charles Town around 1726. I even know the names of some of the ships they came over on. So they were all legal.
Click to expand...



You were thinking maybe Charlestown?


----------



## Ame®icano

candycorn said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not.
> 
> You wishing it's a racial slur doesn't make it one. It's a derisive term which refers to Mexicans, and it's based on country of origin.
> 
> By the way, since you mentioned, what skin color Mexicans have, please?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that is funny…
> 
> Yeah…someone like you who calls people “beaners” as a sign of affection makes a distinction between Mexicans and other latinos.  Riiiight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone like me?
> Nope, I did not call anyone a beaner, I joined the conversation to explain to you that beaner is not a racial slur.
> Now, since you do know the distinction, why don't you answer the question: What skin color Mexicans have?
> Or you gonna act dumb and dodge it again...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you/will you  gone/go  into a chicano bar and called the bartender a beaner and shown how much you love the race?
> 
> Are you going to dodge the question or answer it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recall I asked you question several times that you did provided answer to.
> 
> You don't get to ask me anything until you do so. Capisce?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cmon...beaner is a term of endearment right?
> 
> Sack up, find some manhood and call a Mexican a beaner to his face.  Then get ready for a nice warm hug.....
Click to expand...


Kinda, just as they call us "burgers". It's not a racist term.

BTW, when will you answer the freaking question? 

Oh, you're leftist loser, and you don't do that.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Unkotare said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're gone?  .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are gone. The Know-Nothing Party was defunct by 1860. Even then real Americans recognized that they were idiots and cowards not worth the attention. Every few decades a new crop of mentally defective weaklings like you start whining about the exact process by which their own ancestors came to America. Pretty stupid, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know how my ancestors came here?  Please tell me, because I don't even know that.  However they came, I'm sure it wasn't illegally like what's going on today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't know then you can't be sure, so STFU while the same process continues as it always has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ According to Ancestry, my family began arriving in Charles Town around 1726. I even know the names of some of the ships they came over on. So they were all legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You were thinking maybe Charlestown?
Click to expand...

/——/ No. Charleston was founded in 1670 as Charles Town, honoring King Charles II of England. Its initial location at Albemarle Point on the west bank of the *Ashley River* (now Charles Towne Landing) was abandoned in 1680 for its present site, which became the fifth-largest city in North America within ten years.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/
> There has to be limits to any immigration. The illegals are taking spots from the legals.
> 
> 
> 
> *There is.  The body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.  I don't think Trump is messing with that number.  It is .2% of the population, way too small.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.
> 
> Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.
> 
> Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls.  Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote.  Your motive is clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want a Visa in this country, you should have to make a down payment, say 2K or so.  If you don't turn it in and leave the country, you lose your deposit.  Plus if it's a work Visa, we keep 10% of your net pay in escrow for the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Ray, that sounds like a great way to increase Mexican and Central American exports of produce to the US.  Charge foreign workers $2,000 to get a work permit would turn a labor shortage into a disaster. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is that?  If you turn in your Visa on time and leave the country when you are supposed to, you get that $2,000 back just like when you rent a car or an apartment.  If not, we will use that money to track you or another like you down and have you deported.
Click to expand...

*U.S. and Mexican farmers are  increasingly competing for a dwindling supply of farm labor.

What you are neglecting is if poor farm workers can afford to pay $2000 a person to come to the US to work, they would probably stay in Mexico.  $8,000 for a family of 4 to come to the US to pick fruit is not gonna happen.

BTW, H1-B visas for high tech workers cost $4,000.*


----------



## Ame®icano

Slyhunter said:


> Can someone direct me to the thread about us leaving the UN Humane bullshit group and pulling all financing for them.
> You know there is other news out there.
> Mass murder in NJ.
> IG report that the FBI is full of Hillary lovers and biased against Trump.
> 10 FBI agents suspended or fired yesterday.



Interesting, IG report came out, and I haven't heard word "collusion" since then.


----------



## Ame®icano

Cellblock2429 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Libtards seething  with rage as they lose yet another talking point:
> *Trump says he's going to sign a 'preemptive' measure to keep migrant families together*
Click to expand...


Great, kick them out together.


----------



## Ame®icano

Flopper said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the same thugs would think nothing of abducting a child and crossing our border with them.
> 
> Think about that
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigration officials are required to interview all detainees regardless of age.  Do you really think kidnap victims are not going to speak up?
> 
> These families came seeking asylum.  You can not apply for asylum with out complete documentation of all family members.
> Think about that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor children from third world countries who are being abused and threatened and told the American will kill them?  Of course they could lie.  And you're saying keep them in the abuser's hands to keep doing that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I'm saying you don't presume that a family is human traffickers and victims without evidence any more than you would presume that a man carrying a briefcase walking out of a bank is a bank robber.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you stop a criminal at the border who has a kid that isn't his with him...you think that we should allow the kid to stay with that criminal in jail?
> 
> Because that's what you fools are advocating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A person stopped at the boarder, is not a criminal until he or she crosses the border and a court of law declares him guilty of improper entry, a criminal misdemeanor.  Accompanying children are not assumed to be victims of human trafficking without any evidence.  This is called due process, a concept you may find strange.*
Click to expand...


Person crossing the border anywhere but the "point of entry" is breaking a law and is a criminal. 

Due process is a constitutional right for all Americans. Foreigners do not have our constitutional rights.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There is.  The body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.  I don't think Trump is messing with that number.  It is .2% of the population, way too small.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.
> 
> Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.
> 
> Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls.  Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote.  Your motive is clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want a Visa in this country, you should have to make a down payment, say 2K or so.  If you don't turn it in and leave the country, you lose your deposit.  Plus if it's a work Visa, we keep 10% of your net pay in escrow for the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Ray, that sounds like a great way to increase Mexican and Central American exports of produce to the US.  Charge foreign workers $2,000 to get a work permit would turn a labor shortage into a disaster. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is that?  If you turn in your Visa on time and leave the country when you are supposed to, you get that $2,000 back just like when you rent a car or an apartment.  If not, we will use that money to track you or another like you down and have you deported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *U.S. and Mexican farmers are  increasingly competing for a dwindling supply of farm labor.
> 
> What you are neglecting is if poor farm workers can afford to pay $2000 a person to come to the US to work, they would probably stay in Mexico.  $8,000 for a family of 4 to come to the US to pick fruit is not gonna happen.
> 
> BTW, H1-B visas for high tech workers cost $4,000.*
Click to expand...


Well then let them stay in Mexico.  Problem solved.  Farming is becoming more automated as time moves on just like any other industry.  And if it becomes mostly automated, the Democrats will still find excuses to let these people in because what they really want is to make whites a minority for the first time in our history. It has nothing to do with vegetables of fruit.  A Democrat politician never does anything without there being an ulterior motive that benefits them.


----------



## Ame®icano

Flopper said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Lots of good information but the fact remains there is no law that requires Trump to separate the kids from their parents at the border.  This is policy which can be changed at the discretion of the president.  Claiming the law made me do it is just bullshit.  He clearly feels separating the kids from the parents is a determent so why doesn't he admit it.  I'm sure most of his supporters would agree. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you say so. Was there a law to separate kids from parents while Barry was president? Was there law like that while Dubya was president? Both of them were doing it, but only now it's somehow not acceptable.
> 
> Policy hasn't changed, laws neither. Border patrol and DHS are doing their jobs by the book, and if Congress doesn't like the law, than they should change the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Changing the law to prevent the separation of families during detention means taking the option away from the administration to separate families.  I doubt that congress had ever imagined a president would use children as a pawn to expedite deportation.  Previous administration have separated families when family detention centers were full and when officials felt families should be separated to protect the children.   *
Click to expand...


You said earlier that there is no legal requirements of separating families. Why was Barry doing it then? Families used to be detained together, but guess what, Barry was separating them and he built detention centers that you've seen pictures from, but lefties didn't seem to care about the issue at all.

As it turns out, separating the families is not just a policy that previous admin was practicing and current one inherited and continued, but it's actually a law that is followed thru the court order, and by signing EO to stop separating families, Trump is actually ignoring that court order. In other words, lefties lied again in order to get what they want.

I understand why he signed that EO, because of the grotesque demagogues and hypocrites in Democrat party and leftist media who insisted that he must do it. The question for you lefties is this: Are you happy with Trumps EO?

Note: the court order I mentioned above says that minors cannot be detained for more than 20 days. It doesn't matter if they're with their parents or not.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean because there are only white citizens in this country, race baiting dickhead. And you really are a douche. He's talking about the ability to function here in English. Not making them deny their heritage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except he didn't say "ability to speak English", he said "assimilate".
> 
> Hey, maybe we should eliminate St. Paddy's Day, Oktoberfest, Columbus Day and the Polish Parade here in Chicago because, hey, those people need to "assimilate", right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can't speak or read English, guess what?  You're not assimilating very well. If the country has to accommodate you for that reason, you are not assimilating very well.  If you are a NYC cab driver, and refuse to pick up fares because they have a pet with them due to your religion, you are not assimilating very well.
Click to expand...

*Most legal immigrants to US are speaking English in a year, however like most people they are more comfortable speaking their native tongue.  It is natural to assume two people speaking Spanish are doing so because they don't speak English but that is often not the case. 

Assimilation means adapting and adjusting to a culture.  It does not mean changing your culture.  An immigrant who's Hispanic, Russian, Italian, etc will carry their culture with them through out their lives.  They may become Americans but their ethnicity will not change.  Their children born in America will carry with them their American culture.*


----------



## Ame®icano

Flopper said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jay walking is a minor crime, so is crossing the border, especially with the intent of turning themselves in. I'm sorry, you're argument still sucks and at least you stopped making it (hopefully).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you consider it a minor crime.  You want it to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't want illegal immigration, however I do want more legal immigration and I want the United States to help these refugees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more Democrat voters the better.  You want to award prizes for coming here illegally.  I mean literal prizes.  Welfare, free education, free medical care.  We'll house Mexico's prison population for them.  It's not a minor crime for you at all, it's a major victory!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, none of this is true.
> 
> Just the same, crossing the border is not a major crime. Unless you're a hysterical xenophobe of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and that's been the Republican position.  Cut illegal immigration THEN increase legal.  How do we increase legal immigration when we're importing 1.8 million illegals a year between border crossings and visa overstays?
> 
> And if we did that, would you support actually stopping illegals with real means like walls and jail sentences?   Of course not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal immigration has already been cut, it's been low for quite some time and those that get caught are usually deported. So, now it's time to open up legal immigration and no, I don't believe in walls and don't see much of a point in holding those caught for a first time in our jails, deport them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, illegal immigration has been decreasing ever since Mexico recovered from the recession and border security was increased. In 2000, there was an estimated 1 million people attempted to cross the our southern border, 700,000 in 2006.  In 2016, there were 170,000 arrested at the border and ICE estimates that they're stopping more than 50% attempting to cross.
> 
> This trend makes it really tough for Trump because he just doesn't have enough illegal crossings to match deportation figures of previous presidents, even by using expedited deportation, trial in criminal court, and separating families.  It also makes his wall across the southern boarder less important.
> 
> At some point Trump is going to have to concentrate on interior arrests, more that 50 miles from the boarder.  This is where most illegal immigrants live, those that did not enter the country illegally.  It's also where most long term immigrants are found and where expedited deportation can't be use and undocumented immigrants must be heard in immigration court not criminal court.     *
Click to expand...


More lies from the left. Since DACA, and Barry's "catch and release" policy (that is not lawful) number of families crossing the border jumped over 300%.

Nobody's asking Trump to match deportation numbers from previous admins, he is asked to enforce current laws, protect our borders, stop the illegal entry into the country and kick out illegals out of the country, with priority on gangs and repeated criminals.

And again, there is no such thing as "illegal immigrant" and repeating the term is not going to make it legit. Immigrants are those who are here legally and have legal status in the US. Those you're thinking about are not that, they are just illegal aliens.


----------



## Unkotare

Ame®icano said:


> ..... Foreigners do not have our constitutional rights.





They do when they are in our jurisdiction.


----------



## Ame®icano

Flopper said:


> *The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is to persuade the parents to waive a trial and plead guilty. Once they plead guilty, their deportation can be expedited and they will be united with their children in few days or weeks.  If they ask for their day in court, they won't see their children for months, or up to 1 year and they are told this.*



What a load of crap. 

If that is the "real reason" and if Barry hasn't done anything wrong by doing it (with your silent approval), than Trump is doing nothing wrong neither.

Kids don't belong to jail. Their parents are lawbreakers, not them.


----------



## Ame®icano

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigration officials are required to interview all detainees regardless of age.  Do you really think kidnap victims are not going to speak up?
> 
> These families came seeking asylum.  You can not apply for asylum with out complete documentation of all family members.
> Think about that.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor children from third world countries who are being abused and threatened and told the American will kill them?  Of course they could lie.  And you're saying keep them in the abuser's hands to keep doing that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I'm saying you don't presume that a family is human traffickers and victims without evidence any more than you would presume that a man carrying a briefcase walking out of a bank is a bank robber.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you stop a criminal at the border who has a kid that isn't his with him...you think that we should allow the kid to stay with that criminal in jail?
> 
> Because that's what you fools are advocating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A person stopped at the boarder, is not a criminal until he or she crosses the border and a court of law declares him guilty of improper entry, a criminal misdemeanor.  Accompanying children are not assumed to be victims of human trafficking without any evidence.  This is called due process, a concept you may find strange.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery and sex trafficking not a concern, huh?
Click to expand...


That's what democrats call "good business".


----------



## candycorn

Ame®icano said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that is funny…
> 
> Yeah…someone like you who calls people “beaners” as a sign of affection makes a distinction between Mexicans and other latinos.  Riiiight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone like me?
> Nope, I did not call anyone a beaner, I joined the conversation to explain to you that beaner is not a racial slur.
> Now, since you do know the distinction, why don't you answer the question: What skin color Mexicans have?
> Or you gonna act dumb and dodge it again...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you/will you  gone/go  into a chicano bar and called the bartender a beaner and shown how much you love the race?
> 
> Are you going to dodge the question or answer it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recall I asked you question several times that you did provided answer to.
> 
> You don't get to ask me anything until you do so. Capisce?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cmon...beaner is a term of endearment right?
> 
> Sack up, find some manhood and call a Mexican a beaner to his face.  Then get ready for a nice warm hug.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda, just as they call us "burgers". It's not a racist term.
> 
> BTW, when will you answer the freaking question?
> 
> Oh, you're leftist loser, and you don't do that.
Click to expand...


The same time you answer the question..if “beaner” is such a term of endearment, have you belled up to a Chicano bar and called the tender a “beaner” to his face?


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ We restricted immigrants for decades so the ones here could assimilate. The *Immigration* Act *of* 1924 created a quota system that restricted entry to 2 percent *of* the total *number of* people *of* each nationality in America as *of* the 1890 national census–a system that favored *immigrants* from Western Europe–and prohibited *immigrants* from Asia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the left feels this kind of thing has never happened before---only with Trump.
> 
> The changes taking place because of foreigners is obvious.  It's time to stop migration until at least everybody can speak and read the language here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Know-Nothing party is gone. Let it go or join it in the dustbin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're gone?  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are gone. The Know-Nothing Party was defunct by 1860. Even then real Americans recognized that they were idiots and cowards not worth the attention. Every few decades a new crop of mentally defective weaklings like you start whining about the exact process by which their own ancestors came to America. Pretty stupid, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know how my ancestors came here?  Please tell me, because I don't even know that.  However they came, I'm sure it wasn't illegally like what's going on today.
Click to expand...

*I wouldn't be too sure about that.  One of the reason for birthright citizenship was to make clear who exactly were citizens.  During most the early 19th century Americans encourage free and open immigration. People crossed from Canada and Mexico into the territories declaring themselves Americans.  They moved to states became citizens of that state will little regard for any federal immigration laws. If you claimed to be a US citizen, you were accepted as a citizen because there was no way to prove otherwise. *


----------



## Ame®icano

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal immigration has already been cut, it's been low for quite some time and those that get caught are usually deported. So, now it's time to open up legal immigration and no, I don't believe in walls and don't see much of a point in holding those caught for a first time in our jails, deport them.
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, illegal immigration has been decreasing ever since Mexico recovered from the recession and boarder security was increased. In 2000, there was an estimated 1 million people attempted to cross the our southern boarder, 700,000 in 2006.  In 2016, there were 170,000 arrested at the boarder and ICE estimates that they stopping more than 50% attempting to cross.
> 
> This trend makes it really tough for Trump because he just doesn't have enough illegal crossings to match deportation figures of previous presidents.  It also makes his wall across the southern boarder less important.
> 
> At some point Trump is going to have to concentrate on interior arrests, more that 50 miles from the boarder.  This is where most illegal immigrants live, those that did not enter the country illegally.  It's also where most long term immigrants are found and where expedited deportation can't be use and undocumented immigrants must be heard in immigration court not criminal court.     *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, dude, seriously.  I generally ignore people's functional illiteracy on the Internet, but do you have any idea how difficult it is to think you're anything but a clueless moron on this subject when you can't even spell "border" correctly?  How in the hell is anyone supposed to answer you as though you're a rational, thinking adult like this?
> 
> A "border" is a line separating two political or geographical areas, especially countries.  A "boarder" is a person who receives regular meals when staying somewhere, in return for payment or services.  Just because they sound alike doesn't make them the same word.  English is, presumably, your mother tongue.  PLEASE learn to communicate in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Typographical errors are you're response?  That's pretty lame as well as being irrelevant.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, dipshit, my responses are my response.  Just because you're afraid to acknowledge my posts doesn't mean they aren't there.  Go find them, and quit looking to excuse and deflect from the fact that you argue like an incoherent moron.
> 
> THIS is just pointing out that your functional illiteracy makes you look like someone who doesn't deserve the respect of serious answers, and also that reading your illiterate posts is like having sand in my swimsuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh bull
> Separating the family is now a mute point since the orange clown just caved in under pressure from the party. He added that no one has had the "political courage" to take care of the issue which he claims has gone on for over 60 years. Wow, what a clown.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Let's say you or someone you know are driving down the road with kid in the back and police pull you over for speeding. Than police find out you have unpaid ticket or outstanding warrant for your arrest. First thing they'll ask you if you have someone to call to pick up your kid, if you don't they will call social services to take the kid away, until family can get the kid or you get out of jail. 

Well, since you think that kids should not be separated from their parents, you should demand from policemen to bring your kid along. In fact, you should demand that all the people currently in American jails should be united with their kids until the end of their sentence.


----------



## Flopper

Cellblock2429 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> 
> 
> /——/
> There has to be limits to any immigration. The illegals are taking spots from the legals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There is.  The body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.  I don't think Trump is messing with that number.  It is .2% of the population, way too small.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.
> 
> Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.
> 
> Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls.  Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote.  Your motive is clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What a shocking revaluation.  Democrats don't have to say or do anything to attract Hispanic voters.  Donald Trump does it all.  He calls them rapist and murders.  Says migrants come from shit hole countries.  Blames our drug problems on Mexico. Wants to make Mexico pay the cost of defending our border with a wall. Wants to make it impossible for them to bring their families to the US. And he hovers over a taco salad proclaiming, "I love Hispanics."
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ One has nothing to do with the other. Maybe if you loved Americans you’d support a strong border.
Click to expand...

*I believe it's our responsibility to protect our borders.  Asking Mexico a country whose GDP is 5% of ours to pay for defense our border is downright embarrassing.  If the mightiest nation on earth can't defend it's borders against peasants, mostly women and children, maybe it doesn't deserve those borders. *


----------



## Ame®icano

IM2 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they change it?  It's working in their favor.  The MSM, the moderate right like Medved and Hewitt, the women are all on board with the destruction of this country by not providing deterrents to come here.  The invaders are winning to the point Trump is even giving in.
> 
> I'd hate to be alive in this country 50 years or so from today; a socialist, communist nightmare that the folks are creating today.  But like the frog in the pot of cold water on the stove....................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are supporting a dictator who is ruining our country right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, he's trying to save it.  That's why we voted him in.  All we can do now is hope he devises new and stronger border protections TO save this country.  Next budget, the wall should not be negotiable.  Let the commies shutdown the government if they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're out of you mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's out of his mind because he thinks that we should have a southern border.  You're out of your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a southern border. Complete with a fence. The number one problem relative to illegal immigration is visa overstays.  But we must all be overly concerned with a southern border. And we all know why that is.
Click to expand...


Those who overstayed their visas are not number one problem. At some point those people had visas and were allowed to be here. That means, they're been vetted and came here legally, most likely they're not going to commit crimes. However, if they overstayed their visa, they should be kicked out, but they're not the number one problem. Illegals crossing border other than point of entry are much bigger problem.


----------



## Ame®icano

AZGAL said:


> E- Verify



  

*ICE arrests 114 at Ohio garden center in major mass raid*

All criminals that use fake IDs, and fake SSN should be arrested, prosecuted, jailed, or deported. Anyone who employs them should pay large fines and if that doesn't work should be put out of business.


----------



## Ame®icano

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live near the borders. The ports are not blocked. Sessions is encouraging true ASYLUM SEEKERS to make their intentions known at a border crossing rather than run into the desert or cross a river...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lawyers who work along the border are saying that’s not what’s happening. Asylum seekers are being slowed down and blocked at the borders. Asylum seekers have to have both feet on US soil to claim asylum. Trump won’t let them do that. That’s why they’re crossing any way they can. People are waiting days and then being turned away from crossing while being told the US is full and they can’t come in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump shouldn't let them do that. Asylum is what you seek to escape extreme danger from your government be it harm to you, your family or even death.  Once they set foot in Mexico, that goal was already achieved.  There is no need to come here.
Click to expand...


How many "asylum seekers" fit that criteria?


----------



## Dragonlady

Ame®icano said:


> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> E- Verify
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ICE arrests 114 at Ohio garden center in major mass raid*
> 
> All criminals that use fake IDs, and fake SSN should be arrested, prosecuted, jailed, or deported. Anyone who employs them should pay large fines and if that doesn't work should be put out of business.
Click to expand...


In Canada, employees are required to provide their SIN card to employers upon being hired. If Rev Canada audits the company and copies of all employee SIN cards aren’t in their files, the employer is fined $10,000 for each missing card.

Americans are keen to hire illegals for cheap labour. If there were no jobs waiting for them, there would be no point in sneaking in.


----------



## koshergrl

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean because there are only white citizens in this country, race baiting dickhead. And you really are a douche. He's talking about the ability to function here in English. Not making them deny their heritage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except he didn't say "ability to speak English", he said "assimilate".
> 
> Hey, maybe we should eliminate St. Paddy's Day, Oktoberfest, Columbus Day and the Polish Parade here in Chicago because, hey, those people need to "assimilate", right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can't speak or read English, guess what?  You're not assimilating very well. If the country has to accommodate you for that reason, you are not assimilating very well.  If you are a NYC cab driver, and refuse to pick up fares because they have a pet with them due to your religion, you are not assimilating very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Most legal immigrants to US are speaking English in a year, however like most people they are more comfortable speaking their native tongue.  It is natural to assume two people speaking Spanish are doing so because they don't speak English but that is often not the case.
> 
> Assimilation means adapting and adjusting to a culture.  It does not mean changing your culture.  An immigrant who's Hispanic, Russian, Italian, etc will carry their culture with them through out their lives.  They may become Americans but their ethnicity will not change.  Their children born in America will carry with them their American culture.*
Click to expand...


You don't know the meaning of *assimilating* any more than you know the meaning of any of the other terms you bastardize. 

"
to absorb into the cultural tradition of a population or group

… the belief that tolerant hosts would be able to assimilate immigrants of whatever creed or colour.

 —Brian Holmes"
Definition of ASSIMILATE


----------



## Ame®icano

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it about the stupid arrogance pretending to be humanitarianism of the far left loonies? Right out of the Orwell doublespeak playbook: WE CARE about children...YET NO PLAN to fix issues that concern poverty and children...HOMELESS families, vets, women, and teens and children all across the USA living in squalid, hopeless conditions on the streets or filthy, depressing shelters, INCLUDING CITIZENS who have circumstances, need psychiatric and medical help, and may have lost everything to a season of HURRICANES with more of this season upon us again. I HAVE SEEN the PICTURES of the SOUTHWEST KEYS children's housing and believe me these children NEVER lived this well not in Central America or Mexico. YET THE LYIN' MSM MEDIA misrepresented the goodwill offered to these immigrant children in these clean, safe, well run facilities with TV and schooling and food. _I AGREE THERE WAS A BETTER WAY: simply bring the family to the childrens center for a goodbye meal and assure the parents that the children will see the parents after arraignment in a few days. THEN the _entire FAMILY can go to a family location together. I posted the pictures of Southwest Keys on this thread already. CLEAN, SAFE, GENEROUS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  It's all a big MSM show they are putting on to take our minds off of our real important issues and success like the economy and North Korea.
> 
> They show a kid getting taken away by agents in these detention centers, and the child is helplessly screaming for his mother.  Wait a minute:  If an American woman snuck her kid into Mexico, got busted, and had her child ripped out of her arms, would that American child be screaming "mommy" in Spanish?  Well.....he would if he was coached.  Like I said, big show to tug on the liberal heartstrings.
> 
> Don't believe that Democrats care about these kids, Democrats only care about using these kids for THEIR political agenda.  If these southern American people were renown to support Republicans, that wall would have been up 50 years ago.  Trump just signed an EO to keep those children with their so-called parents, watch how many days it takes until some leftist takes it to court to have it overturned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ben Shapiro addressed this in a brilliant column.
> 
> _Here’s All The Proof You Need That Democrats Never Cared About Separation Of Illegal Immigrant Children From Parents
> 
> ". . . when Trump signed the executive order, you’d imagine that Democrats would have celebrated – after all, kids would now be able to stay with their parents, so far as the law allowed!
> 
> Instead, Democrats immediately suggested that holding children together with parents was brutal and evil – the same argument civil rights groups made when President Obama pursued the same policy, an argument that ended in a Ninth Circuit ruling mandating the separation of children from parents.
> 
> Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) tweeted:
> 
> This Executive Order doesn’t fix the crisis. Indefinitely detaining children with their families in camps is inhumane and will not make us safe.
> 
> Senator Bernie Sanders (Loonbag-VT) explained that the executive order didn’t go far enough, because “we have a situation where the Trump administration now, their solution is to provide indefinite detention…the Trump administration wants to undo the Flores settlement, which focuses on the needs of children and limits to 20 days, the number of days that children can be in jail.”"_
> 
> Yeah, Bernie, that'd be the same settlement you leftists were swearing didn't really exist, AND telling us was "eeeeevil" policy, just five minutes ago.  NOW it's "focusing on the needs of children"?  Could you ass kittens FIND your minds, and then make them up?
> 
> _"Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) told CNN that Trump’s new policy – i.e. Obama’s old policy – “could lead to family internment camps.” The execrable Samantha Bee, who was officially named World’s Least Funny Human™ just a few weeks ago, mocked, “Yay! No more baby internment camps, just regular internment camps…Cool! That’s what we call a win in 2018. To be clear, I am happy that at least these kids are theoretically gonna stay with their parents, but Mommy & Me Jails are not a solution.”
> 
> So, in other words, they didn’t care all that much about separation, because when the separation is rectified, that too is awful. All those on the Left really want is the full release of all illegal immigrants with children. End of story."_
Click to expand...


The leftists had an opportunity to address issue of separating children from parents and they did nothing. The media had an opportunity to report on this issue in the last decade (especially when Breitbart did it in 2014) and they did nothing. 

The left and the media do not care about the children. On the side note, they don't even identify children who are children. You can't even have a discussion about late term abortion, without being dismissed as anti-women, or religious freak. 

Left and some right wants open borders, and will do nothing to secure it. Some 30 years ago, Democrats had completely opposite positions about illegals than they have now. If anyone remembers Ralph Abernathy and Walter Mondale and American Latinos who were on the border trying to stop illegals from coming in. Democrats at the time were trying to organize farm worker unions Teamsters and AFLCIO around American Latinos, and prevent cheap labor from coming to the country... but now they figured, letting in illegals, and pressure to give them amnesty, giving them amnesty is the way of getting new voters and the way to increase their ranks in union memberships, and that's exactly what they're doing. They don't care about illegals, they only care to replace their former slaves who've seen them for what they are and left them, with the new ones.


----------



## Ame®icano

basquebromance said:


> Millions come LEGALLY to the U.S.A  Calling illegal aliens 'undocumented immigrants ' is like calling heroin dealers 'undocumented pharmacists '


----------



## Ame®icano

basquebromance said:


> Millions come LEGALLY to the U.S.A  Calling illegal aliens 'undocumented immigrants ' is like calling heroin dealers 'undocumented pharmacists '


----------



## Ame®icano

basquebromance said:


> Millions come LEGALLY to the U.S.A  Calling illegal aliens 'undocumented immigrants ' is like calling heroin dealers 'undocumented pharmacists '


----------



## Ame®icano

basquebromance said:


> Millions come LEGALLY to the U.S.A  Calling illegal aliens 'undocumented immigrants ' is like calling heroin dealers 'undocumented pharmacists '


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dragonlady said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> E- Verify
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ICE arrests 114 at Ohio garden center in major mass raid*
> 
> All criminals that use fake IDs, and fake SSN should be arrested, prosecuted, jailed, or deported. Anyone who employs them should pay large fines and if that doesn't work should be put out of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In Canada, employees are required to provide their SIN card to employers upon being hired. If Rev Canada audits the company and copies of all employee SIN cards aren’t in their files, the employer is fined $10,000 for each missing card.
> 
> Americans are keen to hire illegals for cheap labour. If there were no jobs waiting for them, there would be no point in sneaking in.
Click to expand...


So the solution is what, get rid of the jobs?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Ame®icano said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live near the borders. The ports are not blocked. Sessions is encouraging true ASYLUM SEEKERS to make their intentions known at a border crossing rather than run into the desert or cross a river...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lawyers who work along the border are saying that’s not what’s happening. Asylum seekers are being slowed down and blocked at the borders. Asylum seekers have to have both feet on US soil to claim asylum. Trump won’t let them do that. That’s why they’re crossing any way they can. People are waiting days and then being turned away from crossing while being told the US is full and they can’t come in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump shouldn't let them do that. Asylum is what you seek to escape extreme danger from your government be it harm to you, your family or even death.  Once they set foot in Mexico, that goal was already achieved.  There is no need to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many "asylum seekers" fit that criteria?
Click to expand...


Not many, that's why they are being detained instead of getting a hearing.  It's why they lost their children to authorities.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Ame®icano said:


> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> E- Verify
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ICE arrests 114 at Ohio garden center in major mass raid*
> 
> All criminals that use fake IDs, and fake SSN should be arrested, prosecuted, jailed, or deported. Anyone who employs them should pay large fines and if that doesn't work should be put out of business.
Click to expand...


That was the old one.  The new one is where they got over 140 of them in Sandusky Ohio at a meat processing plant.


----------



## Flopper

Ame®icano said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is to persuade the parents to waive a trial and plead guilty. Once they plead guilty, their deportation can be expedited and they will be united with their children in few days or weeks.  If they ask for their day in court, they won't see their children for months, or up to 1 year and they are told this.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of crap.
> 
> If that is the "real reason" and if Barry hasn't done anything wrong by doing it (with your silent approval), than Trump is doing nothing wrong neither.
> 
> Kids don't belong to jail. Their parents are lawbreakers, not them.
Click to expand...

*What Obama did or did not do is irrelevant now.  However, Obama separated families when it was necessary, and certainly not as a deterrent or as punishment.  Trump did so as deterrent.  He would still be doing so now were it not for the backlash in congress and the outcry from the public. 

In our immigration system, if you detain parents and take away the kids, parents will waive their right to trial because it's the fastest way to get their kids back.  If they ask for a trial they can be detained for up to a year.  If they ask for asylum, they could be away from the kids for 4-6 months.  What parent is going to take that kind of risk. In the countries these people come from, police take away kids and they are never seen again.

We created family detention center so families could be kept together.  There's no reason why we should not use them.
*


----------



## Ame®icano

danielpalos said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ If there was a chance they were voting GOP, you Libtards would be volunteering to build the wall brick by brick. Besides law breakers looking for welfare fall into the democRAT camp, not ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except these people aren't looking for welfare.  They are willing to do the jobs the welfare collecting white trash in the trailer parks aren't willing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.
> 
> So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants.  Typical leftist thinking all the way.  Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let capitalism do the work.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
Click to expand...


Another communist's great idea that's so good, it have to be forced on employers.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/
> There has to be limits to any immigration. The illegals are taking spots from the legals.
> 
> 
> 
> *There is.  The body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.  I don't think Trump is messing with that number.  It is .2% of the population, way too small.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.
> 
> Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.
> 
> Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls.  Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote.  Your motive is clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What a shocking revaluation.  Democrats don't have to say or do anything to attract Hispanic voters.  Donald Trump does it all.  He calls them rapist and murders.  Says migrants come from shit hole countries.  Blames our drug problems on Mexico. Wants to make Mexico pay the cost of defending our border with a wall. Wants to make it impossible for them to bring their families to the US. And he hovers over a taco salad proclaiming, "I love Hispanics."
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ One has nothing to do with the other. Maybe if you loved Americans you’d support a strong border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I believe it's our responsibility to protect our borders.  Asking Mexico a country whose GDP is 5% of ours to pay for defense our border is downright embarrassing.  If the mightiest nation on earth can't defend it's borders against peasants, mostly women and children, maybe it doesn't deserve those borders. *
Click to expand...


So Mexico (who helped usher in this current group of people) have  no responsibility for what's going on?  They allow this to happen.  They encourage it to happen, but it's our fault. 

What do you think Canada would say if we sent Mexicans to their border?  You know, allow them to ride a train all the way up north, then dump those people on them? 

Of course it would be our fault.  We helped these people get to that border.  We didn't stop them, we didn't try.


----------



## Kondor3

JoeB131 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... that is the decades-old shop-worn excuse for trying to delude White Folk into thinking that advocating for themselves is wrong. It's stopped working.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> White people don't need to advocate for themselves, they already have all the advantages. ...
Click to expand...

And continued advocacy by White Folk, *FOR* White Folk, will ensure that they *CONTINUE* to have all the advantages.



> ...Here's the thing. If I were to list all the fuckovers I've gotten in my life, every last one of them was at the hands of a fellow white male with more power, influence and money than I have.  It's foolish to think his interests are my interests.


So naturally, you advocate for minorities to take power, so that you will get screwed-over less frequently.

In some Alternative Universe, perhaps, but not this one.


----------



## Ame®icano

danielpalos said:


> The Point is, Gentlemen; that we have a Statue of Liberty.
> 
> If we have to give it back; the right wing gets the blame.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is to persuade the parents to waive a trial and plead guilty. Once they plead guilty, their deportation can be expedited and they will be united with their children in few days or weeks.  If they ask for their day in court, they won't see their children for months, or up to 1 year and they are told this.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of crap.
> 
> If that is the "real reason" and if Barry hasn't done anything wrong by doing it (with your silent approval), than Trump is doing nothing wrong neither.
> 
> Kids don't belong to jail. Their parents are lawbreakers, not them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What Obama did or did not do is irrelevant now.  However, Obama separated families when it was necessary, and certainly not as a deterrent or as punishment.  Trump did so as deterrent.  He would still be doing so now were it not for the backlash in congress and the outcry from the public.
> 
> In our immigration system, if you detain parents and take away the kids, parents will waive their right to trial because it's the fastest way to get their kids back.  If they ask for a trial they can be detained for up to a year.  If they ask for asylum, they could be away from the kids for 4-6 months.  What parent is going to take that kind of risk. In the countries these people come from, police take away kids and they are never seen again.
> 
> We created family detention center so families could be kept together.  There's no reason why we should not use them.
> *
Click to expand...


Correct.  Don't create any kind of deterrent, and that will solve the problem.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the left feels this kind of thing has never happened before---only with Trump.
> 
> The changes taking place because of foreigners is obvious.  It's time to stop migration until at least everybody can speak and read the language here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Know-Nothing party is gone. Let it go or join it in the dustbin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're gone?  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are gone. The Know-Nothing Party was defunct by 1860. Even then real Americans recognized that they were idiots and cowards not worth the attention. Every few decades a new crop of mentally defective weaklings like you start whining about the exact process by which their own ancestors came to America. Pretty stupid, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know how my ancestors came here?  Please tell me, because I don't even know that.  However they came, I'm sure it wasn't illegally like what's going on today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I wouldn't be too sure about that.  One of the reason for birthright citizenship was to make clear who exactly were citizens.  During most the early 19th century Americans encourage free and open immigration. People crossed from Canada and Mexico into the territories declaring themselves Americans.  They moved to states became citizens of that state will little regard for any federal immigration laws. If you claimed to be a US citizen, you were accepted as a citizen because there was no way to prove otherwise. *
Click to expand...


However we have that ability today.  Immigration was not an issue until the 19th century.  It's not in the Constitution.  There were no laws against immigration for many years.  We did have open borders at one time.  

But times have changed because we have more than enough people in this country.  320 million and counting. We are 20 trillion dollars in debt, losing our middle-class, and automation is taking jobs away faster than immigration or outsourcing.  We don't need open borders today.  If anything, we need closed borders.


----------



## Ame®icano

danielpalos said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray doesn't need me to defend him. My issue is with your sweeping generalizations and distortions because it's the only way you can frame your arguments. "minority garbage" means minorities who are also garbage. Yes, I know the distinction is confusing for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But funny, Ray never says "White Garbage" does he.. Or "White Trash", which is a category he probably falls into.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only responded to your claim that only white trash (garbage) are responsible for welfare.  You leftist say something and when somebody responds in kind, they're the bad guy.
> 
> Don't bring up race if you don't want to make an issue out of race.  But if you are going to bring up race, don't be critical when somebody mentions race as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what a coincidence, I feel the same way about the right wing.
> 
> It is about economics.
> 
> A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage means Labor will be paying more in taxes and creating more in demand, regardless.
> 
> Legal status can be fixed by Congress.  Capitalism doesn't care.
Click to expand...


Right, and one of the best ways to grow economy is to spend more on welfare. 

"For every dollar a person receives in food stamps, Pelosi said that $1.79 is put back into the economy."


----------



## Ame®icano

danielpalos said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray doesn't need me to defend him. My issue is with your sweeping generalizations and distortions because it's the only way you can frame your arguments. "minority garbage" means minorities who are also garbage. Yes, I know the distinction is confusing for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But funny, Ray never says "White Garbage" does he.. Or "White Trash", which is a category he probably falls into.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only responded to your claim that only white trash (garbage) are responsible for welfare.  You leftist say something and when somebody responds in kind, they're the bad guy.
> 
> Don't bring up race if you don't want to make an issue out of race.  But if you are going to bring up race, don't be critical when somebody mentions race as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what a coincidence, I feel the same way about the right wing.
> 
> It is about economics.
> 
> A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage means Labor will be paying more in taxes and creating more in demand, regardless.
> 
> Legal status can be fixed by Congress.  Capitalism doesn't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Against, raising minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available. Small businesses can't afford them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the unemployment rate lower where the minimum wage is higher, if not for capitalism and price seeking on the part of more motivated Labor.
Click to expand...


Can you back that up? Probably not, because it's bogus claim. It may be under circumstances and for a short period of time, but on a long run no chance. Seattle is simple example of that.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean because there are only white citizens in this country, race baiting dickhead. And you really are a douche. He's talking about the ability to function here in English. Not making them deny their heritage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except he didn't say "ability to speak English", he said "assimilate".
> 
> Hey, maybe we should eliminate St. Paddy's Day, Oktoberfest, Columbus Day and the Polish Parade here in Chicago because, hey, those people need to "assimilate", right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can't speak or read English, guess what?  You're not assimilating very well. If the country has to accommodate you for that reason, you are not assimilating very well.  If you are a NYC cab driver, and refuse to pick up fares because they have a pet with them due to your religion, you are not assimilating very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Most legal immigrants to US are speaking English in a year, however like most people they are more comfortable speaking their native tongue.  It is natural to assume two people speaking Spanish are doing so because they don't speak English but that is often not the case.
> 
> Assimilation means adapting and adjusting to a culture.  It does not mean changing your culture.  An immigrant who's Hispanic, Russian, Italian, etc will carry their culture with them through out their lives.  They may become Americans but their ethnicity will not change.  Their children born in America will carry with them their American culture.*
Click to expand...


I was born in an immigrant community now known as Slavic Village in Cleveland.  Back then, we had many new arrivals.  

In our neighborhood, they spoke Polish.  Signs in stores were written in English and Polish.  Some of our masses were in Polish.  However outside our community, everybody spoke English.  

There were no Polish speaking operators on the phone.  There were  no Polish signs outside of our neighborhood.  People in the neighborhood helped the new settlers learn the language.  Our Catholic school held free English classes to help them along.  There were not translation videos, tapes or internet.  They had to learn on their own. 

They came here legally, separated themselves from family and friends overseas, and didn't send money back or travel to take advantage of the American dollars they earned.  They came here to be Americans. 

How does one adjust to a new culture if they refuse to give up their own?


----------



## Ame®icano

danielpalos said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Against, raising minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available. Small businesses can't afford them.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the unemployment rate lower where the minimum wage is higher, if not for capitalism and price seeking on the part of more motivated Labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ If that was the quick fix or hiring motivated workers, businesses would pay more without Gubmint intervention.  Do you understand anything about business?  The ypay what they can afford. Labor is their biggest expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalists get tax breaks for paying wages.  Shareholders get a better return on their capital investment with higher profit.
> 
> Labor doesn't get tax breaks for actually providing Labor or tax breaks for lousy Capital management when a Firm fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't get any breaks for paying wages, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not what i heard.
Click to expand...


Heard where? Ladies were talking in haircut salon?


----------



## Flopper

Ame®icano said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live near the borders. The ports are not blocked. Sessions is encouraging true ASYLUM SEEKERS to make their intentions known at a border crossing rather than run into the desert or cross a river...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lawyers who work along the border are saying that’s not what’s happening. Asylum seekers are being slowed down and blocked at the borders. Asylum seekers have to have both feet on US soil to claim asylum. Trump won’t let them do that. That’s why they’re crossing any way they can. People are waiting days and then being turned away from crossing while being told the US is full and they can’t come in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump shouldn't let them do that. Asylum is what you seek to escape extreme danger from your government be it harm to you, your family or even death.  Once they set foot in Mexico, that goal was already achieved.  There is no need to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many "asylum seekers" fit that criteria?
Click to expand...

*No, the criteria for asylum is 
having suffered persecution or fear that the petitioner will suffer persecution due to:*

*Race*
*Religion*
*Nationality*
*Membership in a particular social group*
*Political opinion*
*The decision to grant asylum is based on the story the petitioner tell in the 12 page petition, the interview, and the court appearance and what facts can be confirmed.  If they are granted asylum, they enter the refugee program while their background is checked.

Mexican law prevent them from offering permanent residence, however some will be offered refugee status which unlike the US is not permanent residence.  I don't know if Mexico offers asylum.*


----------



## Ame®icano

Unkotare said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... Foreigners do not have our constitutional rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do when they are in our jurisdiction.
Click to expand...


Are you saying they can vote, bare arms, have free speech?


----------



## francoHFW

Ame®icano said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ If there was a chance they were voting GOP, you Libtards would be volunteering to build the wall brick by brick. Besides law breakers looking for welfare fall into the democRAT camp, not ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except these people aren't looking for welfare.  They are willing to do the jobs the welfare collecting white trash in the trailer parks aren't willing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.
> 
> So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants.  Typical leftist thinking all the way.  Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let capitalism do the work.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another communist's great idea that's so good, it have to be forced on employers.
Click to expand...

The shortsighted GOP ones...


----------



## Ame®icano

candycorn said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone like me?
> Nope, I did not call anyone a beaner, I joined the conversation to explain to you that beaner is not a racial slur.
> Now, since you do know the distinction, why don't you answer the question: What skin color Mexicans have?
> Or you gonna act dumb and dodge it again...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you/will you  gone/go  into a chicano bar and called the bartender a beaner and shown how much you love the race?
> 
> Are you going to dodge the question or answer it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recall I asked you question several times that you did provided answer to.
> 
> You don't get to ask me anything until you do so. Capisce?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cmon...beaner is a term of endearment right?
> 
> Sack up, find some manhood and call a Mexican a beaner to his face.  Then get ready for a nice warm hug.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda, just as they call us "burgers". It's not a racist term.
> 
> BTW, when will you answer the freaking question?
> 
> Oh, you're leftist loser, and you don't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same time you answer the question..if “beaner” is such a term of endearment, have you belled up to a Chicano bar and called the tender a “beaner” to his face?
Click to expand...


I asked you a question several times and you dodged every time. Then you asked me a question and demand I answer it immediately, and claimed I am dodging it. 

I explained it to you, it's not how it works. Normal people live and learn. It seems you just live.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> E- Verify
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ICE arrests 114 at Ohio garden center in major mass raid*
> 
> All criminals that use fake IDs, and fake SSN should be arrested, prosecuted, jailed, or deported. Anyone who employs them should pay large fines and if that doesn't work should be put out of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In Canada, employees are required to provide their SIN card to employers upon being hired. If Rev Canada audits the company and copies of all employee SIN cards aren’t in their files, the employer is fined $10,000 for each missing card.
> 
> Americans are keen to hire illegals for cheap labour. If there were no jobs waiting for them, there would be no point in sneaking in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the solution is what, get rid of the jobs?
Click to expand...

Vote Republicans out... They keep the scam going, super duper... Pass the ID card


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There is.  The body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.  I don't think Trump is messing with that number.  It is .2% of the population, way too small.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.
> 
> Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.
> 
> Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls.  Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote.  Your motive is clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What a shocking revaluation.  Democrats don't have to say or do anything to attract Hispanic voters.  Donald Trump does it all.  He calls them rapist and murders.  Says migrants come from shit hole countries.  Blames our drug problems on Mexico. Wants to make Mexico pay the cost of defending our border with a wall. Wants to make it impossible for them to bring their families to the US. And he hovers over a taco salad proclaiming, "I love Hispanics."
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ One has nothing to do with the other. Maybe if you loved Americans you’d support a strong border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I believe it's our responsibility to protect our borders.  Asking Mexico a country whose GDP is 5% of ours to pay for defense our border is downright embarrassing.  If the mightiest nation on earth can't defend it's borders against peasants, mostly women and children, maybe it doesn't deserve those borders. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Mexico (who helped usher in this current group of people) have  no responsibility for what's going on?  They allow this to happen.  They encourage it to happen, but it's our fault.
> 
> What do you think Canada would say if we sent Mexicans to their border?  You know, allow them to ride a train all the way up north, then dump those people on them?
> 
> Of course it would be our fault.  We helped these people get to that border.  We didn't stop them, we didn't try.
Click to expand...

*The Mexican government turned back 400 people at the border because they were not allowed to enter Mexico.

The Mexican government allowed the remainder to enter Mexico legally. The government had no legal grounds to stop them from traveling to the US border to petition for asylum.  The government did not transport, lodge or feed them.  Private organizations helped them and in some towns, food and lodging was provided by the people.

It appears the only people that encouraged any criminal act were border guards that refused to let petitioners put foot on US soil to petition for asylum leaving them no choice but to unlawfully enter the country.

I hope you're not saying Mexico allowing asylum seekers to petition the US is why they should pay for a 20 billion wall to protect the Unities States.  That's pretty far fetched. 

Regardless of any action of Mexico, it is the responsibility of the US to protect it's border and certainly not Mexico's responsibility.  Asking the Mexican goverment to protect the US border is completely insane.

It appears Trump is trying to work some deal with Mexico so they will stop asylum seekers who can enter Mexico legally at Guatemalan border.  Hopefully, Mexico will give him the big FU.   *


----------



## Ame®icano

Flopper said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is to persuade the parents to waive a trial and plead guilty. Once they plead guilty, their deportation can be expedited and they will be united with their children in few days or weeks.  If they ask for their day in court, they won't see their children for months, or up to 1 year and they are told this.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of crap.
> 
> If that is the "real reason" and if Barry hasn't done anything wrong by doing it (with your silent approval), than Trump is doing nothing wrong neither.
> 
> Kids don't belong to jail. Their parents are lawbreakers, not them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What Obama did or did not do is irrelevant now.  However, Obama separated families when it was necessary, and certainly not as a deterrent or as punishment.  Trump did so as deterrent.  He would still be doing so now were it not for the backlash in congress and the outcry from the public.
> 
> In our immigration system, if you detain parents and take away the kids, parents will waive their right to trial because it's the fastest way to get their kids back.  If they ask for a trial they can be detained for up to a year.  If they ask for asylum, they could be away from the kids for 4-6 months.  What parent is going to take that kind of risk. In the countries these people come from, police take away kids and they are never seen again.
> 
> We created family detention center so families could be kept together.  There's no reason why we should not use them.
> *
Click to expand...


If Barry and Trump are doing the same thing, and what Barry did is irrelevant, how come what Trump is doing is relevant? Second, this is not about what Barry did and Trump doing, my point is that you leftists suddenly start caring about children, only after you were doing the same thing, on even larger care. That makes you hypocrites, all over again.

And, family detention centers that were built by Bush were unacceptable to you lefties, so you demanded changes in policies. Bush caved in, Barry continued the same thing, Trump too. Now you want family detention centers again, that you were against during Bush era.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is to persuade the parents to waive a trial and plead guilty. Once they plead guilty, their deportation can be expedited and they will be united with their children in few days or weeks.  If they ask for their day in court, they won't see their children for months, or up to 1 year and they are told this.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of crap.
> 
> If that is the "real reason" and if Barry hasn't done anything wrong by doing it (with your silent approval), than Trump is doing nothing wrong neither.
> 
> Kids don't belong to jail. Their parents are lawbreakers, not them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What Obama did or did not do is irrelevant now.  However, Obama separated families when it was necessary, and certainly not as a deterrent or as punishment.  Trump did so as deterrent.  He would still be doing so now were it not for the backlash in congress and the outcry from the public.
> 
> In our immigration system, if you detain parents and take away the kids, parents will waive their right to trial because it's the fastest way to get their kids back.  If they ask for a trial they can be detained for up to a year.  If they ask for asylum, they could be away from the kids for 4-6 months.  What parent is going to take that kind of risk. In the countries these people come from, police take away kids and they are never seen again.
> 
> We created family detention center so families could be kept together.  There's no reason why we should not use them.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.  Don't create any kind of deterrent, and that will solve the problem.
Click to expand...

*We have a deterrent.  It's called deportation.  A few years ago we worked with the Mexican government to provide information to dissuade would be illegal immigrants from crossing the border. This booklets was available at consultant offices and post offices.  It apparent was working.  However, today the hatred Trump stirred up between the US and Mexico makes any cooperation unlikely.*


----------



## Dragonlady

Ame®icano said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... Foreigners do not have our constitutional rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do when they are in our jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying they can vote, bare arms, have free speech?
Click to expand...


Only citizens can vote but non-citizens have the right to Constitutional protections like due process.  

They do have the right to bare arms or they can choose to wear a long sleeved shirt.


----------



## koshergrl

Flopper said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is to persuade the parents to waive a trial and plead guilty. Once they plead guilty, their deportation can be expedited and they will be united with their children in few days or weeks.  If they ask for their day in court, they won't see their children for months, or up to 1 year and they are told this.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of crap.
> 
> If that is the "real reason" and if Barry hasn't done anything wrong by doing it (with your silent approval), than Trump is doing nothing wrong neither.
> 
> Kids don't belong to jail. Their parents are lawbreakers, not them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What Obama did or did not do is irrelevant now.  However, Obama separated families when it was necessary, and certainly not as a deterrent or as punishment.  Trump did so as deterrent.  He would still be doing so now were it not for the backlash in congress and the outcry from the public.
> 
> In our immigration system, if you detain parents and take away the kids, parents will waive their right to trial because it's the fastest way to get their kids back.  If they ask for a trial they can be detained for up to a year.  If they ask for asylum, they could be away from the kids for 4-6 months.  What parent is going to take that kind of risk. In the countries these people come from, police take away kids and they are never seen again.
> 
> We created family detention center so families could be kept together.  There's no reason why we should not use them.
> *
Click to expand...


Obama caused the humanitarian crisis at the border. Everybody knew this would be the result of telling criminals that they would be released if they had kids with them. That was an invitation to use kids to rush the border, and an invitation for human traffickers. That was his promise of protection for child sex traffickers. 

Now we're dealing with it and you people are screaming because we're taking children away from traffickers. you are disgusting.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.
> 
> Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.
> 
> Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls.  Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote.  Your motive is clear
> 
> 
> 
> *What a shocking revaluation.  Democrats don't have to say or do anything to attract Hispanic voters.  Donald Trump does it all.  He calls them rapist and murders.  Says migrants come from shit hole countries.  Blames our drug problems on Mexico. Wants to make Mexico pay the cost of defending our border with a wall. Wants to make it impossible for them to bring their families to the US. And he hovers over a taco salad proclaiming, "I love Hispanics."
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ One has nothing to do with the other. Maybe if you loved Americans you’d support a strong border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I believe it's our responsibility to protect our borders.  Asking Mexico a country whose GDP is 5% of ours to pay for defense our border is downright embarrassing.  If the mightiest nation on earth can't defend it's borders against peasants, mostly women and children, maybe it doesn't deserve those borders. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Mexico (who helped usher in this current group of people) have  no responsibility for what's going on?  They allow this to happen.  They encourage it to happen, but it's our fault.
> 
> What do you think Canada would say if we sent Mexicans to their border?  You know, allow them to ride a train all the way up north, then dump those people on them?
> 
> Of course it would be our fault.  We helped these people get to that border.  We didn't stop them, we didn't try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The Mexican government turned back 400 people at the border because they were not allowed to enter Mexico.
> 
> The Mexican government allowed the remainder to enter Mexico legally. The government had no legal grounds to stop them from traveling to the US border to petition for asylum.  The government did not transport, lodge or feed them.  Private organizations helped them and in some towns, food and lodging was provided by the people.
> 
> It appears the only people that encouraged any criminal act were border guards that refused to let petitioners put foot on US soil to petition for asylum leaving them no choice but to unlawfully enter the country.
> 
> I hope you're not saying Mexico allowing asylum seekers to petition the US is why they should pay for a 20 billion wall to protect the Unities States.  That's pretty far fetched.
> 
> Regardless of any action of Mexico, it is the responsibility of the US to protect it's border and certainly not Mexico's responsibility.  Asking the Mexican goverment to protect the US border is completely insane.
> 
> It appears Trump is trying to work some deal with Mexico so they will stop asylum seekers who can enter Mexico legally at Guatemalan border.  Hopefully, Mexico will give him the big FU.   *
Click to expand...

/——/ You’re just making stuff up. Mexico has every legal right to stop anyone from entering their country for any reason. Your entire post is pure conjecture and wishful thinking.


----------



## Cellblock2429

francoHFW said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ If there was a chance they were voting GOP, you Libtards would be volunteering to build the wall brick by brick. Besides law breakers looking for welfare fall into the democRAT camp, not ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except these people aren't looking for welfare.  They are willing to do the jobs the welfare collecting white trash in the trailer parks aren't willing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.
> 
> So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants.  Typical leftist thinking all the way.  Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let capitalism do the work.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another communist's great idea that's so good, it have to be forced on employers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The shortsighted GOP ones...
Click to expand...

/——-/ And you long sighted commie libs see forced minimum wage as a good thing? Wowza.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Flopper said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live near the borders. The ports are not blocked. Sessions is encouraging true ASYLUM SEEKERS to make their intentions known at a border crossing rather than run into the desert or cross a river...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lawyers who work along the border are saying that’s not what’s happening. Asylum seekers are being slowed down and blocked at the borders. Asylum seekers have to have both feet on US soil to claim asylum. Trump won’t let them do that. That’s why they’re crossing any way they can. People are waiting days and then being turned away from crossing while being told the US is full and they can’t come in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump shouldn't let them do that. Asylum is what you seek to escape extreme danger from your government be it harm to you, your family or even death.  Once they set foot in Mexico, that goal was already achieved.  There is no need to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many "asylum seekers" fit that criteria?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, the criteria for asylum is
> having suffered persecution or fear that the petitioner will suffer persecution due to:*
> 
> *Race*
> *Religion*
> *Nationality*
> *Membership in a particular social group*
> *Political opinion*
> *The decision to grant asylum is based on the story the petitioner tell in the 12 page petition, the interview, and the court appearance and what facts can be confirmed.  If they are granted asylum, they enter the refugee program while their background is checked.
> 
> Mexican law prevent them from offering permanent residence, however some will be offered refugee status which unlike the US is not permanent residence.  I don't know if Mexico offers asylum.*
Click to expand...

/——-/ 
In 2017, 14,596 people asked for asylum in Mexico, a 66% increase over 2016. Of those, 1,907 requests were approved in 2017.

The 2017 increase was fueled in part by a spike in asylum requests from Venezuelans. Requests from El Salvador and Honduras rose by only about 9%.
Mexico fails to offer migrants asylum, Amnesty International reports


----------



## sparky

We helped 500,000 kids end their existence for the sake of democracy building in the M.E.

So the answer to the OP's query is, there is no limit of human sacrifice pursuant to our doctrine


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is to persuade the parents to waive a trial and plead guilty. Once they plead guilty, their deportation can be expedited and they will be united with their children in few days or weeks.  If they ask for their day in court, they won't see their children for months, or up to 1 year and they are told this.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of crap.
> 
> If that is the "real reason" and if Barry hasn't done anything wrong by doing it (with your silent approval), than Trump is doing nothing wrong neither.
> 
> Kids don't belong to jail. Their parents are lawbreakers, not them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What Obama did or did not do is irrelevant now.  However, Obama separated families when it was necessary, and certainly not as a deterrent or as punishment.  Trump did so as deterrent.  He would still be doing so now were it not for the backlash in congress and the outcry from the public.
> 
> In our immigration system, if you detain parents and take away the kids, parents will waive their right to trial because it's the fastest way to get their kids back.  If they ask for a trial they can be detained for up to a year.  If they ask for asylum, they could be away from the kids for 4-6 months.  What parent is going to take that kind of risk. In the countries these people come from, police take away kids and they are never seen again.
> 
> We created family detention center so families could be kept together.  There's no reason why we should not use them.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.  Don't create any kind of deterrent, and that will solve the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *We have a deterrent.  It's called deportation.  A few years ago we worked with the Mexican government to provide information to dissuade would be illegal immigrants from crossing the border. This booklets was available at consultant offices and post offices.  It apparent was working.  However, today the hatred Trump stirred up between the US and Mexico makes any cooperation unlikely.*
Click to expand...


And you really believe that? Ask yourself: what does Mexico have to lose by allowing their people over here, and then ask yourself, what do they have to gain?

Lord knows how many millions of dollars cross that border every year from legals and illegals working here and sending money home.  That's great for the Mexican economy.  Why would any authority in Mexico want to stop that?  

Whatever happened between DumBama and the Mexican government was all for show, just like with Iran.  It didn't accomplish anything.


----------



## sparky

Of course there's a relationship


We give them guns, they give us coke & kids


~S~


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.
> 
> Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.
> 
> Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls.  Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote.  Your motive is clear
> 
> 
> 
> *What a shocking revaluation.  Democrats don't have to say or do anything to attract Hispanic voters.  Donald Trump does it all.  He calls them rapist and murders.  Says migrants come from shit hole countries.  Blames our drug problems on Mexico. Wants to make Mexico pay the cost of defending our border with a wall. Wants to make it impossible for them to bring their families to the US. And he hovers over a taco salad proclaiming, "I love Hispanics."
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ One has nothing to do with the other. Maybe if you loved Americans you’d support a strong border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I believe it's our responsibility to protect our borders.  Asking Mexico a country whose GDP is 5% of ours to pay for defense our border is downright embarrassing.  If the mightiest nation on earth can't defend it's borders against peasants, mostly women and children, maybe it doesn't deserve those borders. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Mexico (who helped usher in this current group of people) have  no responsibility for what's going on?  They allow this to happen.  They encourage it to happen, but it's our fault.
> 
> What do you think Canada would say if we sent Mexicans to their border?  You know, allow them to ride a train all the way up north, then dump those people on them?
> 
> Of course it would be our fault.  We helped these people get to that border.  We didn't stop them, we didn't try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The Mexican government turned back 400 people at the border because they were not allowed to enter Mexico.
> 
> The Mexican government allowed the remainder to enter Mexico legally. The government had no legal grounds to stop them from traveling to the US border to petition for asylum.  The government did not transport, lodge or feed them.  Private organizations helped them and in some towns, food and lodging was provided by the people.
> 
> It appears the only people that encouraged any criminal act were border guards that refused to let petitioners put foot on US soil to petition for asylum leaving them no choice but to unlawfully enter the country.
> 
> I hope you're not saying Mexico allowing asylum seekers to petition the US is why they should pay for a 20 billion wall to protect the Unities States.  That's pretty far fetched.
> 
> Regardless of any action of Mexico, it is the responsibility of the US to protect it's border and certainly not Mexico's responsibility.  Asking the Mexican goverment to protect the US border is completely insane.
> 
> It appears Trump is trying to work some deal with Mexico so they will stop asylum seekers who can enter Mexico legally at Guatemalan border.  Hopefully, Mexico will give him the big FU.   *
Click to expand...


The Mexican border is Mexico's and the US.  We are both responsible for it.  We knew about these asylum seekers two weeks before they got here. Their journey was covered by the media almost daily.  So don't tell me Mexico didn't know a thing about it.  They let those people into their country for the sole purpose to get to the United States.  

At this point I don't care who pays for the wall, just as long as it's built.  These people would have never been able to enter this country except through legal ports if we had the wall this year.


----------



## candycorn

Ame®icano said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you/will you  gone/go  into a chicano bar and called the bartender a beaner and shown how much you love the race?
> 
> Are you going to dodge the question or answer it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recall I asked you question several times that you did provided answer to.
> 
> You don't get to ask me anything until you do so. Capisce?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cmon...beaner is a term of endearment right?
> 
> Sack up, find some manhood and call a Mexican a beaner to his face.  Then get ready for a nice warm hug.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda, just as they call us "burgers". It's not a racist term.
> 
> BTW, when will you answer the freaking question?
> 
> Oh, you're leftist loser, and you don't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same time you answer the question..if “beaner” is such a term of endearment, have you belled up to a Chicano bar and called the tender a “beaner” to his face?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you a question several times and you dodged every time. Then you asked me a question and demand I answer it immediately, and claimed I am dodging it.
> 
> I explained it to you, it's not how it works. Normal people live and learn. It seems you just live.
Click to expand...


lol....  again, if you don't think "beaner" is a racial slur, would you call a white person a beaner?  A black person a beaner?  An Asian person a "beaner"?  Of course not.  Only Hispanics get called that particular racial slur.  

Why you can't wrap your head around this simple fact and keep asking questions like "what race is Mexican" is just a sign of your continued and profound dishonesty and is the hallmark of all Trump supporters when you go one degree deep with them: dishonesty and "whataboutism"


----------



## Cellblock2429

sparky said:


> We helped 500,000 kids end their existence for the sake of democracy building in the M.E.
> 
> So the answer to the OP's query is, there is no limit of human sacrifice pursuant to our doctrine


/———/ Wowza. Good thing we don’t live in a democracy


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> As a typical leftist, I know you have no respect for our Constitution, especially the part that says nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. But if you are forced by law to participate in a ritual against your religion beliefs, then that part of the Constitution is violated.



Bullshit.... if you don't want to participate in certain activities, don't be in that line of work.







Ray From Cleveland said:


> If a person who owns a bakery shop decides he doesn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding, then that's his option. If he works for somebody and is told he has to make the cake, then he has to weigh his religious values. Take the job or don't take the job.



So you are all for religious rights for business OWNERS, not employees. 

Man, you are a battered housewife Republican, aren't you? 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cab drivers work for cab companies. They know ahead of time that it's just about the only way to travel in places like NYC. So there will be times they have to transport a pet, especially if the animal is there to assist in a handicap like a seeing eye dog.



But by your own logic, if someone has a religious right to refuse to do their jobs, they should have every right to keep an animal out of their cabs. 

And sorry, the "Service Animal" rule has been so abused at this point, it's pretty meaningless.

Pretty much any asshole puts a vest on their dog, and it's service animal.


----------



## sparky

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a typical leftist, I know you have no respect for our Constitution, especially the part that says nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. But if you are forced by law to participate in a ritual against your religion beliefs, then that part of the Constitution is violated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.... if you don't want to participate in certain activities, don't be in that line of work.
> 
> View attachment 200665
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a person who owns a bakery shop decides he doesn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding, then that's his option. If he works for somebody and is told he has to make the cake, then he has to weigh his religious values. Take the job or don't take the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are all for religious rights for business OWNERS, not employees.
> 
> Man, you are a battered housewife Republican, aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cab drivers work for cab companies. They know ahead of time that it's just about the only way to travel in places like NYC. So there will be times they have to transport a pet, especially if the animal is there to assist in a handicap like a seeing eye dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But by your own logic, if someone has a religious right to refuse to do their jobs, they should have every right to keep an animal out of their cabs.
> 
> And sorry, the "Service Animal" rule has been so abused at this point, it's pretty meaningless.
> 
> Pretty much any asshole puts a vest on their dog, and it's service animal.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Bullshit.... if you don't want to participate in certain activities, don't be in that line of work.



The Constitution doesn't have exceptions to rights.  Those rights are for anybody in this country particularly citizens.  



JoeB131 said:


> So you are all for religious rights for business OWNERS, not employees.
> 
> Man, you are a battered housewife Republican, aren't you?



If a business owner is being persecuted by our government, that's what the Constitution prohibits.  If your boss tells you to do something against your religious beliefs and fires you, it's the business owner that persecuted you. 

The Constitution was not written to protect you from everything, it was written to protect you from government. I can't go to my boss tomorrow, tell him to F himself, and if he fires me, claim my freedom of speech was violated.  That's because the Constitution was not written for me to have rights against my employer.  





JoeB131 said:


> But by your own logic, if someone has a religious right to refuse to do their jobs, they should have every right to keep an animal out of their cabs.
> 
> And sorry, the "Service Animal" rule has been so abused at this point, it's pretty meaningless.
> 
> Pretty much any asshole puts a vest on their dog, and it's service animal.



Joe, it's so obvious that you make shit up on the spot.  WTF ever heard of service animal abuse?


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a typical leftist, I know you have no respect for our Constitution, especially the part that says nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. But if you are forced by law to participate in a ritual against your religion beliefs, then that part of the Constitution is violated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.... if you don't want to participate in certain activities, don't be in that line of work.
> 
> View attachment 200665
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a person who owns a bakery shop decides he doesn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding, then that's his option. If he works for somebody and is told he has to make the cake, then he has to weigh his religious values. Take the job or don't take the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are all for religious rights for business OWNERS, not employees.
> 
> Man, you are a battered housewife Republican, aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cab drivers work for cab companies. They know ahead of time that it's just about the only way to travel in places like NYC. So there will be times they have to transport a pet, especially if the animal is there to assist in a handicap like a seeing eye dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But by your own logic, if someone has a religious right to refuse to do their jobs, they should have every right to keep an animal out of their cabs.
> 
> And sorry, the "Service Animal" rule has been so abused at this point, it's pretty meaningless.
> 
> Pretty much any asshole puts a vest on their dog, and it's service animal.
Click to expand...

/——-/ Maybe Sarah can sue like the Gaye couple 
Sarah Sanders says she was thrown out of Virginia restaurant because she works for Trump


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> But they are all against the law and have a penalty to pay if you get caught.



A penalty that usually doesn't involve having your kids thrown into a cage.  

In fact, when you do these things, you usually get released that night. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> That's because a majority of managers, bosses and company owners are white. You're talking about the law of odds here.



No, I'm talking about who I should really be upset about.  Illegal aliens have no effect on my life. Rich guys fucking with me does.  

Maybe if we had more women and minority managers, we would see the assclownery we have.  But I'd be happy with strong unions protecting workers rights from abuse. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> It's not my lack of initiative, it's that ugly commie you helped put in the white house. Until that time, every job I worked had health insurance. Today, no company I contacted for a job carries it any longer. It's not my lack of initiative that caused this problem.



Guy, first you need to stop looking for jobs on Craig's List.  Craig's list only has the fly by night half-ass companies on it. You know, like the one Kaz runs. He probably gets his employees from Craig's List. 

If you want to get a real job, you need to look on Indeed. In fact, I typed in "Truck Driver" and Cleveland, and the first job that came up offered medical.  oNly pay's 20.26 an hour... but it has medical. 

Second one I looked at, pays 55K a year and has medical... 

Hmmmm.... 

Now the Second thing you need to do is get a decent resume. Not that I'd want to do that, and I can't think of any of my competitors I dislike enough to wish you upon.  I did a quick google search and found about 10 resume writers in Cleveland...


----------



## sparky

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The Constitution doesn't have exceptions to rights




Yes it does

It's called the Patriot Act

~S~


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> If a business owner is being persecuted by our government, that's what the Constitution prohibits. If your boss tells you to do something against your religious beliefs and fires you, it's the business owner that persecuted you.
> 
> The Constitution was not written to protect you from everything, it was written to protect you from government. I can't go to my boss tomorrow, tell him to F himself, and if he fires me, claim my freedom of speech was violated. That's because the Constitution was not written for me to have rights against my employer.



Okay, you see, if the law applies equally to everyone, then it's not an abuse. 

You can't refuse service to gay people if you are an atheist who hates gays, and you can't refuse service to gay people if you are a religous person who hates gays.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Joe, it's so obvious that you make shit up on the spot. WTF ever heard of service animal abuse?



Sorry, I can't be responsible for your ignorance.  YOu need to get out more.  I can't tell you how many times I've seen people who are clearly NOT disabled bringing their dogs into a public place. 

Service Animal Scams: A Growing Problem

I also discovered a host of dubious service and emotional support animal "registries." For example, the United States Dog Registry will certify any dog as a “service dog” or a "therapy dog" for $58, and an outfit called ESA of America will happily certify your pet rat, hamster, or iguana as an “emotional support animal.” (Sample ESA customer testimonial–“I have now taken 3 flights with my dog, and the peace of mind of being able to just pack up and go anywhere I want with him is the greatest thing ever.")

Then I began to ask around about bogus assistance animals and immediately began to hear stories. A high profile animal activist confessed to me that several of his friends had purchased phony service vests so they could take their pets into restaurants (he refuses to go out to eat with those friends anymore). And my daughter told me about a woman she knows who got a free flight for her dog to Southeast Asia by having a social worker pal write letter a saying the pet provided her with emotional support (while the ruse worked, the dog did have to wear a canine diaper on the trip).


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> So your bull shit aside, what's your second job?



Don't have one. Make plenty of money writing resumes, and was able to get a good deal on personal health insurance. Didn't even have to tap into an ACA plan. 

But do keep fantasizing about my personal life, buddy... it's so adorable, but the neighbors have been complaining about the tissues you've been leaving in the bushes.


----------



## JoeB131

Ame®icano said:


> The leftists had an opportunity to address issue of separating children from parents and they did nothing. The media had an opportunity to report on this issue in the last decade (especially when Breitbart did it in 2014) and they did nothing.



The thing was, in 2014, they changed the policy to releasing people on their own recognizance.  Trump is the one who decided to start putting people in cages again.


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a business owner is being persecuted by our government, that's what the Constitution prohibits. If your boss tells you to do something against your religious beliefs and fires you, it's the business owner that persecuted you.
> 
> The Constitution was not written to protect you from everything, it was written to protect you from government. I can't go to my boss tomorrow, tell him to F himself, and if he fires me, claim my freedom of speech was violated. That's because the Constitution was not written for me to have rights against my employer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you see, if the law applies equally to everyone, then it's not an abuse.
> 
> You can't refuse service to gay people if you are an atheist who hates gays, and you can't refuse service to gay people if you are a religous person who hates gays.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe, it's so obvious that you make shit up on the spot. WTF ever heard of service animal abuse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I can't be responsible for your ignorance.  YOu need to get out more.  I can't tell you how many times I've seen people who are clearly NOT disabled bringing their dogs into a public place.
> 
> Service Animal Scams: A Growing Problem
> 
> I also discovered a host of dubious service and emotional support animal "registries." For example, the United States Dog Registry will certify any dog as a “service dog” or a "therapy dog" for $58, and an outfit called ESA of America will happily certify your pet rat, hamster, or iguana as an “emotional support animal.” (Sample ESA customer testimonial–“I have now taken 3 flights with my dog, and the peace of mind of being able to just pack up and go anywhere I want with him is the greatest thing ever.")
> 
> Then I began to ask around about bogus assistance animals and immediately began to hear stories. A high profile animal activist confessed to me that several of his friends had purchased phony service vests so they could take their pets into restaurants (he refuses to go out to eat with those friends anymore). And my daughter told me about a woman she knows who got a free flight for her dog to Southeast Asia by having a social worker pal write letter a saying the pet provided her with emotional support (while the ruse worked, the dog did have to wear a canine diaper on the trip).
Click to expand...

/----/* "You can't refuse service to gay people if you are an atheist who hates gays, and you can't refuse service to gay people if you are a religous person who hates gays. "  *But you can refuse service to a woman because you don't like her boss.  
FYI "*religous"  is spelt religious. *


----------



## JoeB131

Kondor3 said:


> And continued advocacy by White Folk, *FOR* White Folk, will ensure that they *CONTINUE* to have all the advantages.



Until we are a minority in this country, then we are kind of in for it. 

Hey, here's a crazy idea.. how about we actually have equality for all, so when we ARE a minority, they really can't excuse doing to us the same shit we've been doing to them? 

Naw... that would actually, you know, be a decent thing to do. 

Well, I'll probably be dead by then, so I don't care.


----------



## Cellblock2429

candycorn said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> I recall I asked you question several times that you did provided answer to.
> 
> You don't get to ask me anything until you do so. Capisce?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cmon...beaner is a term of endearment right?
> 
> Sack up, find some manhood and call a Mexican a beaner to his face.  Then get ready for a nice warm hug.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda, just as they call us "burgers". It's not a racist term.
> 
> BTW, when will you answer the freaking question?
> 
> Oh, you're leftist loser, and you don't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same time you answer the question..if “beaner” is such a term of endearment, have you belled up to a Chicano bar and called the tender a “beaner” to his face?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you a question several times and you dodged every time. Then you asked me a question and demand I answer it immediately, and claimed I am dodging it.
> 
> I explained it to you, it's not how it works. Normal people live and learn. It seems you just live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol....  again, if you don't think "beaner" is a racial slur, would you call a white person a beaner?  A black person a beaner?  An Asian person a "beaner"?  Of course not.  Only Hispanics get called that particular racial slur.
> 
> Why you can't wrap your head around this simple fact and keep asking questions like "what race is Mexican" is just a sign of your continued and profound dishonesty and is the hallmark of all Trump supporters when you go one degree deep with them: dishonesty and "whataboutism"
Click to expand...

/-----/ "lol.... again, if you don't think "beaner" is a racial slur, "
Ahhh shut up you _*Gringo*_


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, you see, if the law applies equally to everyone, then it's not an abuse.
> 
> You can't refuse service to gay people if you are an atheist who hates gays, and you can't refuse service to gay people if you are a religous person who hates gays.



It's not a law, it's a protection.  Learn the difference. 

Homosexuality is against most religious creeds.  It's in the Holy Bible.  You can't tell somebody you won't bake a cake because you hate them, but you can say you won't participate in their ritual because it goes against your religious beliefs.  

Religious beliefs aside, there is a moral or offensive part of this.  If the KKK came to your town for a party, and went to a black baker asking for a cake showing a black man being hung, should the government allow that black baker to be sued to the point of having to close up his business because he refused to make that particular cake?  





JoeB131 said:


> Sorry, I can't be responsible for your ignorance. YOu need to get out more. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people who are clearly NOT disabled bringing their dogs into a public place.
> 
> Service Animal Scams: A Growing Problem
> 
> I also discovered a host of dubious service and emotional support animal "registries." For example, the United States Dog Registry will certify any dog as a “service dog” or a "therapy dog" for $58, and an outfit called ESA of America will happily certify your pet rat, hamster, or iguana as an “emotional support animal.” (Sample ESA customer testimonial–“I have now taken 3 flights with my dog, and the peace of mind of being able to just pack up and go anywhere I want with him is the greatest thing ever.")
> 
> Then I began to ask around about bogus assistance animals and immediately began to hear stories. A high profile animal activist confessed to me that several of his friends had purchased phony service vests so they could take their pets into restaurants (he refuses to go out to eat with those friends anymore). And my daughter told me about a woman she knows who got a free flight for her dog to Southeast Asia by having a social worker pal write letter a saying the pet provided her with emotional support (while the ruse worked, the dog did have to wear a canine diaper on the trip).



Right, and people are going through all that just in case they get a Muslim cab driver that doesn't want their dog in the cab.


----------



## JoeB131

Cellblock2429 said:


> /----/* "You can't refuse service to gay people if you are an atheist who hates gays, and you can't refuse service to gay people if you are a religous person who hates gays. " *But you can refuse service to a woman because you don't like her boss.
> FYI "*religous" is spelt religious.*



Ohhhh you caught me in a typo. Good for you buddy.  Kaz will be masturbating all over his keyboard when he sees that.  

Um, yeah, you can totally can refuse someone service for being a Nazi Propagandist, apparently.


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And continued advocacy by White Folk, *FOR* White Folk, will ensure that they *CONTINUE* to have all the advantages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until we are a minority in this country, then we are kind of in for it.
> 
> Hey, here's a crazy idea.. how about we actually have equality for all, so when we ARE a minority, they really can't excuse doing to us the same shit we've been doing to them?
> 
> Naw... that would actually, you know, be a decent thing to do.
> 
> Well, I'll probably be dead by then, so I don't care.
Click to expand...

/----/ *" how about we actually have equality for all, " * And then maybe a woman who works for Donald Trump can get served in a restaurant.  Maybe.....


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> The leftists had an opportunity to address issue of separating children from parents and they did nothing. The media had an opportunity to report on this issue in the last decade (especially when Breitbart did it in 2014) and they did nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing was, in 2014, they changed the policy to releasing people on their own recognizance.  Trump is the one who decided to start putting people in cages again.
Click to expand...


DumBama didn't change anything.  He just decided not to follow the law.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why we have an illegal immigration problem is because there are jobs Americans just simply do not want to do, no matter how much you pay them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's such a lie.  Of course people will work for market wages.  What Americans (black or white) won't do is work for wages under market rates.  You push wages below market rates by importing millions of poor illegal aliens from a third world shit hole country who will do it for less.
> 
> Democrats have repeated that lie so many times that you actually believe it
Click to expand...

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage will solve that problem.


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/* "You can't refuse service to gay people if you are an atheist who hates gays, and you can't refuse service to gay people if you are a religous person who hates gays. " *But you can refuse service to a woman because you don't like her boss.
> FYI "*religous" is spelt religious.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhh you caught me in a typo. Good for you buddy.  Kaz will be masturbating all over his keyboard when he sees that.
> 
> Um, yeah, you can totally can refuse someone service for being a Nazi Propagandist, apparently.
Click to expand...

/----/ Where were you yesterday when I was lambasted by a tolerant Lib for my typo "we're" when I meant "were?" I could have used the support.


----------



## candycorn

Cellblock2429 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cmon...beaner is a term of endearment right?
> 
> Sack up, find some manhood and call a Mexican a beaner to his face.  Then get ready for a nice warm hug.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda, just as they call us "burgers". It's not a racist term.
> 
> BTW, when will you answer the freaking question?
> 
> Oh, you're leftist loser, and you don't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same time you answer the question..if “beaner” is such a term of endearment, have you belled up to a Chicano bar and called the tender a “beaner” to his face?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you a question several times and you dodged every time. Then you asked me a question and demand I answer it immediately, and claimed I am dodging it.
> 
> I explained it to you, it's not how it works. Normal people live and learn. It seems you just live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol....  again, if you don't think "beaner" is a racial slur, would you call a white person a beaner?  A black person a beaner?  An Asian person a "beaner"?  Of course not.  Only Hispanics get called that particular racial slur.
> 
> Why you can't wrap your head around this simple fact and keep asking questions like "what race is Mexican" is just a sign of your continued and profound dishonesty and is the hallmark of all Trump supporters when you go one degree deep with them: dishonesty and "whataboutism"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /-----/ "lol.... again, if you don't think "beaner" is a racial slur, "
> Ahhh shut up you _*Gringo*_
Click to expand...


See...Cellblock gets it. Gringo is a racial slur.  You wouldn't call someone who is not Anglo that word.  If Cellblock gets it-- We're talking someone who is near the bottom rung of society--you should be ashamed.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It's not a law, it's a protection. Learn the difference.
> 
> Homosexuality is against most religious creeds. It's in the Holy Bible. You can't tell somebody you won't bake a cake because you hate them, but you can say you won't participate in their ritual because it goes against your religious beliefs.



Where are Cakes mentioned anywhere in the bible?  

The Bible does mention that you need to check the bedsheets on the wedding night to make sure she still had a cherry to pop....and if she didn't, her parents were expected to take her ass out and have the town stone her.  

But there's not a mention of a cake ANYWHERE IN THE FUCKING BIBLE.  

So do you really want to argue for traditional bible marriages? 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Religious beliefs aside, there is a moral or offensive part of this. If the KKK came to your town for a party, and went to a black baker asking for a cake showing a black man being hung, should the government allow that black baker to be sued to the point of having to close up his business because he refused to make that particular cake?



no, because being a member of a hate group isn't protected under public accommodation laws... this isn't complicated, Ray.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Right, and people are going through all that just in case they get a Muslim cab driver that doesn't want their dog in the cab.



NO, they go through that to take their dogs into places that don't allow dogs.  A LOT of places don't allow dogs.


----------



## Cellblock2429

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why we have an illegal immigration problem is because there are jobs Americans just simply do not want to do, no matter how much you pay them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's such a lie.  Of course people will work for market wages.  What Americans (black or white) won't do is work for wages under market rates.  You push wages below market rates by importing millions of poor illegal aliens from a third world shit hole country who will do it for less.
> 
> Democrats have repeated that lie so many times that you actually believe it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage will solve that problem.
Click to expand...

/----/ Good news you big Dope:
*United States Average Hourly Wages  1964-2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar*
*Wages in the United States increased to 22.59 USD/Hour in May from 22.52 USD/Hour in April of 2018. *
*United States Average Hourly Wages | 1964-2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar*


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the left feels this kind of thing has never happened before---only with Trump.
> 
> The changes taking place because of foreigners is obvious.  It's time to stop migration until at least everybody can speak and read the language here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think immigration should be tied to their ability to support themselves rather than quotas.  You come here, support yourself for seven years, you can become a citizen.  They aren't going to be able to do that if they don't learn to speak English
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, but talking with people close to the border (I've never been there) the problem they have are illegals crowding 12 people into a two family home or apartment.  That brings down property value.  So they can work at McDonald's part time and still make claim of supporting themselves.  The other problem is anchor babies.  Come here and have a bunch of kids, and then you can share in their welfare plus be able to make claim they need you here because they are little Americans that cannot support themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are real issues that need to be solved.  We have a better chance to do that though if people can only come legally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well some of them are coming legally and that's what they do.  Again, no first hand experience, but just going by what people who live in the area tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It takes different amounts of time for sure.  I had a neighbor growing up who had a thick German accent.  He wouldn't speak a word of German though.  He said he came to the United States to be an American and speak English.
> 
> Anyway, they're all individuals, I agree on that.  Some will be faster and some slower.  As a whole though, legals assimilate on average a lot faster.  Remember they aren't like illegals in that they are required to earn a living ... legally ...
> 
> BTW, America is far better at assimilation than Europe.  Including with Muslims.  In Europe, they are virtually in all Muslim districts.  We have Muslim areas, but as a whole they are far better spread out.  Our law enforcement also gets a lot more tips from Muslims than European law enforcement does
Click to expand...

You all don't really care about the law, or anything else.  Why take y'all seriously .


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The Constitution doesn't have exceptions to rights. Those rights are for anybody in this country particularly citizens.



Sure they do. 

For instance, I considered declaring myself a follower of Quezacoatl, the Aztec Sun God, who demands that I cut the hearts out of my enemies and offer them up to him. 





Clearly, you are oppressing my sincerely held religious beliefs by denying me the right to hunt down my ex-boss, cut out his heart and offer it to Feathered Serpent!  Your silly oppressive murder laws!


----------



## JoeB131

Cellblock2429 said:


> /----/ *" how about we actually have equality for all, " * And then maybe a woman who works for Donald Trump can get served in a restaurant. Maybe.....



Meh, no, we still have a strict "Anti-Nazi (rhymes with hunt)" policy.


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> 
> 
> /——/
> There has to be limits to any immigration. The illegals are taking spots from the legals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There is.  The body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.  I don't think Trump is messing with that number.  It is .2% of the population, way too small.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.
> 
> Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.
> 
> Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls.  Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote.  Your motive is clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want a Visa in this country, you should have to make a down payment, say 2K or so.  If you don't turn it in and leave the country, you lose your deposit.  Plus if it's a work Visa, we keep 10% of your net pay in escrow for the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Ray, that sounds like a great way to increase Mexican and Central American exports of produce to the US.  Charge foreign workers $2,000 to get a work permit would turn a labor shortage into a disaster. *
Click to expand...


You're such a terrible reader.  You need to be deported for not assimilating.

Remember you didn't know what assimilating means?  You thought it meant becoming identical when it means blending in.

You thought to reduce legal immigration means to "eliminate" it.

And here you thought Ray said to charge a $2,000 fee when he said to charge it as a deposit and give it back when they leave


----------



## JoeB131

Cellblock2429 said:


> /----/ Where were you yesterday when I was lambasted by a tolerant Lib for my typo "we're" when I meant "were?" I could have used the support.



Meh, if that's the worst thing that happened to you yesterday, you probably have a pretty good life.


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a law, it's a protection. Learn the difference.
> 
> Homosexuality is against most religious creeds. It's in the Holy Bible. You can't tell somebody you won't bake a cake because you hate them, but you can say you won't participate in their ritual because it goes against your religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are Cakes mentioned anywhere in the bible?
> 
> The Bible does mention that you need to check the bedsheets on the wedding night to make sure she still had a cherry to pop....and if she didn't, her parents were expected to take her ass out and have the town stone her.
> 
> But there's not a mention of a cake ANYWHERE IN THE FUCKING BIBLE.
> 
> So do you really want to argue for traditional bible marriages?
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religious beliefs aside, there is a moral or offensive part of this. If the KKK came to your town for a party, and went to a black baker asking for a cake showing a black man being hung, should the government allow that black baker to be sued to the point of having to close up his business because he refused to make that particular cake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, because being a member of a hate group isn't protected under public accommodation laws... this isn't complicated, Ray.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, and people are going through all that just in case they get a Muslim cab driver that doesn't want their dog in the cab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, they go through that to take their dogs into places that don't allow dogs.  A LOT of places don't allow dogs.
Click to expand...

/----/ *"But there's not a mention of a cake ANYWHERE IN THE FUCKING BIBLE. " *I love it when Atheists try to use the Bible to make an argument. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Numbers 6:19
'The priest shall take the ram's shoulder when it has been boiled, and one unleavened cake out of the basket and one unleavened wafer, and shall put them on the hands of the Nazirite after he has shaved his dedicated hair.
1 Samuel 30:12
They gave him a piece of fig cake and two clusters of raisins, and he ate; then his spirit revived. For he had not eaten bread or drunk water for three days and three nights.
1 Chronicles 16:3
He distributed to everyone of Israel, both man and woman, to everyone a loaf of bread and a portion of meat and a raisin cake.
Ezekiel 4:12
Verse Concepts
"You shall eat it as a barley cake, having baked it in their sight over human dung."
More Verses on Cakes
Leviticus 2:4
'Now when you bring an offering of a grain offering baked in an oven, it shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour mixed with oil, or unleavened wafers spread with oil.
Exodus 29:23

and one cake of bread and one cake of bread mixed with oil and one wafer from the basket of unleavened bread which is set before the LORD;
Numbers 11:8

The people would go about and gather it and grind it between two millstones or beat it in the mortar, and boil it in the pot and make cakes with it; and its taste was as the taste of cakes baked with oil.
2 Samuel 13:6

So Amnon lay down and pretended to be ill; when the king came to see him, Amnon said to the king, "Please let my sister Tamar come and make me a couple of cakes in my sight, that I may eat from her hand."
Jeremiah 44:19

"And," said the women, "when we were burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and were pouring out drink offerings to her, was it without our husbands that we made for her sacrificial cakes in her image and poured out drink offerings to her?"
Judges 7:13

When Gideon came, behold, a man was relating a dream to his friend. And he said, "Behold, I had a dream; a loaf of barley bread was tumbling into the camp of Midian, and it came to the tent and struck it so that it fell, and turned it upside down so that the tent lay flat."
Hosea 7:8

Ephraim mixes himself with the nations; Ephraim has become a cake not turned.


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/
> There has to be limits to any immigration. The illegals are taking spots from the legals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There is.  The body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.  I don't think Trump is messing with that number.  It is .2% of the population, way too small.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.
> 
> Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.
> 
> Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls.  Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote.  Your motive is clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What a shocking revaluation.  Democrats don't have to say or do anything to attract Hispanic voters.  Donald Trump does it all.  He calls them rapist and murders.  Says migrants come from shit hole countries.  Blames our drug problems on Mexico. Wants to make Mexico pay the cost of defending our border with a wall. Wants to make it impossible for them to bring their families to the US. And he hovers over a taco salad proclaiming, "I love Hispanics."*
Click to expand...


More poor language comprehension.  Trump didn't call immigrants murderers and rapists.  He said murderers and rapists come here from Mexico, which is true.

Trump didn't blame our drug problems on Mexico, he said drugs come over the Mexican border.

Explains your grades, doesn't it, Pedro?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't have exceptions to rights. Those rights are for anybody in this country particularly citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they do.
> 
> For instance, I considered declaring myself a follower of Quezacoatl, the Aztec Sun God, who demands that I cut the hearts out of my enemies and offer them up to him.
> 
> View attachment 200669
> 
> Clearly, you are oppressing my sincerely held religious beliefs by denying me the right to hunt down my ex-boss, cut out his heart and offer it to Feathered Serpent!  Your silly oppressive murder laws!
Click to expand...


Really?  You are going to take it to ridiculous levels to try and make a point?  You can't harm or kill somebody out of religious beliefs because murder is against the law in this country and so is assault.  If that were the case, Muslims would be having a picnic in this country.  

But this is what leftists always do, make phony comparisons.


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There is.  The body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.  I don't think Trump is messing with that number.  It is .2% of the population, way too small.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.
> 
> Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.
> 
> Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls.  Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote.  Your motive is clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want a Visa in this country, you should have to make a down payment, say 2K or so.  If you don't turn it in and leave the country, you lose your deposit.  Plus if it's a work Visa, we keep 10% of your net pay in escrow for the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Ray, that sounds like a great way to increase Mexican and Central American exports of produce to the US.  Charge foreign workers $2,000 to get a work permit would turn a labor shortage into a disaster. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is that?  If you turn in your Visa on time and leave the country when you are supposed to, you get that $2,000 back just like when you rent a car or an apartment.  If not, we will use that money to track you or another like you down and have you deported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *U.S. and Mexican farmers are  increasingly competing for a dwindling supply of farm labor.
> 
> What you are neglecting is if poor farm workers can afford to pay $2000 a person to come to the US to work, they would probably stay in Mexico.  $8,000 for a family of 4 to come to the US to pick fruit is not gonna happen.
> 
> BTW, H1-B visas for high tech workers cost $4,000.*
Click to expand...


He never said to charge them $2,000, moron.  He said to charge it as a deposit and give it back when they leave.

You really are an idiot.  How did you not learn to read and speak English?  As I've been pointing out, it's a pattern


----------



## Cellblock2429

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/
> There has to be limits to any immigration. The illegals are taking spots from the legals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There is.  The body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.  I don't think Trump is messing with that number.  It is .2% of the population, way too small.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.
> 
> Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.
> 
> Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls.  Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote.  Your motive is clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What a shocking revaluation.  Democrats don't have to say or do anything to attract Hispanic voters.  Donald Trump does it all.  He calls them rapist and murders.  Says migrants come from shit hole countries.  Blames our drug problems on Mexico. Wants to make Mexico pay the cost of defending our border with a wall. Wants to make it impossible for them to bring their families to the US. And he hovers over a taco salad proclaiming, "I love Hispanics."*
Click to expand...

/----/ Ask your Special Ed teacher to explain the concept of a subset. It's obvious you don't have a clue.
Whereas *B* is all Mexicans coming across the border and subset *A* are the criminals.


----------



## Taz

Cellblock2429 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> 
> 
> /——/
> There has to be limits to any immigration. The illegals are taking spots from the legals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There is.  The body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.  I don't think Trump is messing with that number.  It is .2% of the population, way too small.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.
> 
> Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.
> 
> Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls.  Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote.  Your motive is clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What a shocking revaluation.  Democrats don't have to say or do anything to attract Hispanic voters.  Donald Trump does it all.  He calls them rapist and murders.  Says migrants come from shit hole countries.  Blames our drug problems on Mexico. Wants to make Mexico pay the cost of defending our border with a wall. Wants to make it impossible for them to bring their families to the US. And he hovers over a taco salad proclaiming, "I love Hispanics."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Ask your Special Ed teacher to explain the concept of a subset. It's obvious you don't have a clue.
> Whereas *B* is all Mexicans coming across the border and subset *A* are the criminals.
> View attachment 200670
Click to expand...

It's the other way around, B are the criminals, and A are their gang leaders.


----------



## JoeB131

Cellblock2429 said:


> /----/ *"But there's not a mention of a cake ANYWHERE IN THE FUCKING BIBLE. " *I love it when Atheists try to use the Bible to make an argument. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH



Where are any of those things described as a wedding cake?  

They aren't.  

I was specifically talking about WEDDING rituals, not any mention of 'cakes" in general.


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Where were you yesterday when I was lambasted by a tolerant Lib for my typo "we're" when I meant "were?" I could have used the support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, if that's the worst thing that happened to you yesterday, you probably have a pretty good life.
Click to expand...

/----/ You were the one complaining.


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean because there are only white citizens in this country, race baiting dickhead. And you really are a douche. He's talking about the ability to function here in English. Not making them deny their heritage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except he didn't say "ability to speak English", he said "assimilate".
> 
> Hey, maybe we should eliminate St. Paddy's Day, Oktoberfest, Columbus Day and the Polish Parade here in Chicago because, hey, those people need to "assimilate", right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can't speak or read English, guess what?  You're not assimilating very well. If the country has to accommodate you for that reason, you are not assimilating very well.  If you are a NYC cab driver, and refuse to pick up fares because they have a pet with them due to your religion, you are not assimilating very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Most legal immigrants to US are speaking English in a year, however like most people they are more comfortable speaking their native tongue.  It is natural to assume two people speaking Spanish are doing so because they don't speak English but that is often not the case.
> 
> Assimilation means adapting and adjusting to a culture.  It does not mean changing your culture.  An immigrant who's Hispanic, Russian, Italian, etc will carry their culture with them through out their lives.  They may become Americans but their ethnicity will not change.  Their children born in America will carry with them their American culture.*
Click to expand...


Congrats on finally looking up the word assimilation.  It's a start.  Before you said it would take "100 years" and they have to change their "skin color."

The children of legal immigrants who have parents who learn English and have jobs, like my wife, are typically very American and she came over when she was eleven.  She wouldn't know how to live in Korea.  Our kids and my wife's nieces and nephews are all just American.

And none of them changed their skin color, race whoring bitch


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Where are Cakes mentioned anywhere in the bible?
> 
> The Bible does mention that you need to check the bedsheets on the wedding night to make sure she still had a cherry to pop....and if she didn't, her parents were expected to take her ass out and have the town stone her.
> 
> But there's not a mention of a cake ANYWHERE IN THE FUCKING BIBLE.
> 
> So do you really want to argue for traditional bible marriages?



Where did I say cakes were mentioned in the Bible.  I can't believe you write anything for a living with your comprehension skills.  

The Bible and Koran are clearly against any kind of homosexual relationships.  Wedding cakes are custom made, and even delivered by the baker in most cases.  Asking somebody to custom make a cake for their gay wedding is involving them in their celebration.  Even the baker said he will make the cake, just not customize it for their event.  

Out of all the bakers, this gay couple chose this one because his religious beliefs were well known.  In the past, he refused to make a Halloween cake because it was against is religious beliefs.  Liberals are born troublemakers, and go out of their way to start a problem.  



JoeB131 said:


> no, because being a member of a hate group isn't protected under public accommodation laws... this isn't complicated, Ray.



Wait a minute, just a few posts ago you said if a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for anybody, they shouldn't be in business.  Now that the shoe is on the other foot, move the goalposts.


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ *"But there's not a mention of a cake ANYWHERE IN THE FUCKING BIBLE. " *I love it when Atheists try to use the Bible to make an argument. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are any of those things described as a wedding cake?
> 
> They aren't.
> 
> I was specifically talking about WEDDING rituals, not any mention of 'cakes" in general.
Click to expand...

/----/ Oh so now you move the goalposts and change your statement from *"But there's not a mention of a cake ANYWHERE IN THE FUCKING BIBLE. "  to wedding cake after you've been called out. *
The menu for first-century weddings feasts certainly included wedding cakes, but these cakes were nothing like their modern counterparts.
First-century cooks and bakers made their sweets and pastries without ingredients such as refined sugar and chocolate and without leavening agents like baking soda and baking powder.
First-century cakes were much more like flat cheese cakes or modern fruitcakes, using dried fruits like dates and apricots and honey or fruit syrup as the sweetener, or like raisin bread, small pieces of dried fruit added to standard bread recipes.
Throughout the Mediterranean, there were a number of different traditions involving the wedding cake. Ancient Romans used cakes made of wheat or barley, and a cake was broken over the wife's head as a symbol of her fertility. A First-Century Wedding Cake


----------



## Taz

Cellblock2429 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> 
> 
> /——/
> There has to be limits to any immigration. The illegals are taking spots from the legals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There is.  The body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.  I don't think Trump is messing with that number.  It is .2% of the population, way too small.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.
> 
> Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.
> 
> Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls.  Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote.  Your motive is clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What a shocking revaluation.  Democrats don't have to say or do anything to attract Hispanic voters.  Donald Trump does it all.  He calls them rapist and murders.  Says migrants come from shit hole countries.  Blames our drug problems on Mexico. Wants to make Mexico pay the cost of defending our border with a wall. Wants to make it impossible for them to bring their families to the US. And he hovers over a taco salad proclaiming, "I love Hispanics."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Ask your Special Ed teacher to explain the concept of a subset. It's obvious you don't have a clue.
> Whereas *B* is all Mexicans coming across the border and subset *A* are the criminals.
> View attachment 200670
Click to expand...

After thinking it over, it could be A are the people we don't want here, and B are the people that we REALLY don't want here.


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/
> There has to be limits to any immigration. The illegals are taking spots from the legals.
> 
> 
> 
> *There is.  The body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.  I don't think Trump is messing with that number.  It is .2% of the population, way too small.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.
> 
> Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.
> 
> Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls.  Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote.  Your motive is clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What a shocking revaluation.  Democrats don't have to say or do anything to attract Hispanic voters.  Donald Trump does it all.  He calls them rapist and murders.  Says migrants come from shit hole countries.  Blames our drug problems on Mexico. Wants to make Mexico pay the cost of defending our border with a wall. Wants to make it impossible for them to bring their families to the US. And he hovers over a taco salad proclaiming, "I love Hispanics."
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ One has nothing to do with the other. Maybe if you loved Americans you’d support a strong border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I believe it's our responsibility to protect our borders.  Asking Mexico a country whose GDP is 5% of ours to pay for defense our border is downright embarrassing.  If the mightiest nation on earth can't defend it's borders against peasants, mostly women and children, maybe it doesn't deserve those borders. *
Click to expand...


I agree on that point.  We should pay for the wall.  It's a pittance in our budget and a major expenditure for Mexico. 

I see Trump's point that the reason he thinks they should pay for it is that they've actively shipped their poor and criminals here. 

I still think we should just pay for it though.

BTW, it's also a small portion of the amount of money illegal aliens send to Mexico


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Really? You are going to take it to ridiculous levels to try and make a point? You can't harm or kill somebody out of religious beliefs because murder is against the law in this country and so is assault. If that were the case, Muslims would be having a picnic in this country.
> 
> But this is what leftists always do, make phony comparisons.



Why is it ridiculous. 

We've all agreed that murder is wrong .

We've all agreed that refusing people service based on their race, gender, religion, national origin and in _*some*_ (not all) states, sexual orientation is wrong. 

An atheist refusing to serve gays because he thinks the butt sex is icky when two guys do it doesn't have a leg to stand on. 

But what you guys are arguing for is that we should be able to ignore the law that was agreed upon because your imaginary friend in the sky says you have to. 

Well my imaginary friend in the sky says he wants his damned hearts!!!

And since neither of us can prove that Yahweh or Quezacoatl actually exists, you just have to take my word for it.


----------



## Taz

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There is.  The body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.  I don't think Trump is messing with that number.  It is .2% of the population, way too small.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.
> 
> Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.
> 
> Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls.  Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote.  Your motive is clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What a shocking revaluation.  Democrats don't have to say or do anything to attract Hispanic voters.  Donald Trump does it all.  He calls them rapist and murders.  Says migrants come from shit hole countries.  Blames our drug problems on Mexico. Wants to make Mexico pay the cost of defending our border with a wall. Wants to make it impossible for them to bring their families to the US. And he hovers over a taco salad proclaiming, "I love Hispanics."
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ One has nothing to do with the other. Maybe if you loved Americans you’d support a strong border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I believe it's our responsibility to protect our borders.  Asking Mexico a country whose GDP is 5% of ours to pay for defense our border is downright embarrassing.  If the mightiest nation on earth can't defend it's borders against peasants, mostly women and children, maybe it doesn't deserve those borders. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree on that point.  We should pay for the wall.  It's a pittance in our budget and a major expenditure for Mexico.
> 
> I see Trump's point that the reason he thinks they should pay for it is that they've actively shipped their poor and criminals here.
> 
> I still think we should just pay for it though.
> 
> BTW, it's also a small portion of the amount of money illegal aliens send to Mexico
Click to expand...

It's the neighbour with the rabid dogs running wild who should put up a fence.


----------



## danielpalos

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't have exceptions to rights. Those rights are for anybody in this country particularly citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they do.
> 
> For instance, I considered declaring myself a follower of Quezacoatl, the Aztec Sun God, who demands that I cut the hearts out of my enemies and offer them up to him.
> 
> View attachment 200669
> 
> Clearly, you are oppressing my sincerely held religious beliefs by denying me the right to hunt down my ex-boss, cut out his heart and offer it to Feathered Serpent!  Your silly oppressive murder laws!
Click to expand...

No wonder, "the whole world is your friend."


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> I agree on that point. We should pay for the wall. It's a pittance in our budget and a major expenditure for Mexico.



21 Billion is a pittance?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree on that point. We should pay for the wall. It's a pittance in our budget and a major expenditure for Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 21 Billion is a pittance?
Click to expand...


21 billion is less than one-third of what we spend on food stamps every single year.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> 
> 
> /——/
> There has to be limits to any immigration. The illegals are taking spots from the legals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There is.  The body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.  I don't think Trump is messing with that number.  It is .2% of the population, way too small.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.
> 
> Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.
> 
> Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls.  Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote.  Your motive is clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What a shocking revaluation.  Democrats don't have to say or do anything to attract Hispanic voters.  Donald Trump does it all.  He calls them rapist and murders.  Says migrants come from shit hole countries.  Blames our drug problems on Mexico. Wants to make Mexico pay the cost of defending our border with a wall. Wants to make it impossible for them to bring their families to the US. And he hovers over a taco salad proclaiming, "I love Hispanics."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More poor language comprehension.  Trump didn't call immigrants murderers and rapists.  He said murderers and rapists come here from Mexico, which is true.
> 
> Trump didn't blame our drug problems on Mexico, he said drugs come over the Mexican border.
> 
> Explains your grades, doesn't it, Pedro?
Click to expand...

Hey right wingers, how really really serious is our alleged invasion? 

10USC246 trumps federal immigration laws.

Let us know, so we can, Prioritize the resources of our Republic.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You are going to take it to ridiculous levels to try and make a point? You can't harm or kill somebody out of religious beliefs because murder is against the law in this country and so is assault. If that were the case, Muslims would be having a picnic in this country.
> 
> But this is what leftists always do, make phony comparisons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it ridiculous.
> 
> We've all agreed that murder is wrong .
> 
> We've all agreed that refusing people service based on their race, gender, religion, national origin and in _*some*_ (not all) states, sexual orientation is wrong.
> 
> An atheist refusing to serve gays because he thinks the butt sex is icky when two guys do it doesn't have a leg to stand on.
> 
> But what you guys are arguing for is that we should be able to ignore the law that was agreed upon because your imaginary friend in the sky says you have to.
> 
> Well my imaginary friend in the sky says he wants his damned hearts!!!
> 
> And since neither of us can prove that Yahweh or Quezacoatl actually exists, you just have to take my word for it.
Click to expand...


The Constitution gives you the protection to practice your religion.  It does not give you the right to practice hate.  It's not about right or wrong, it's about Constitutional or not Constitutional.  It's just like some people in the past made claim that dope is part of their religious ritual. Sorry, but recreational narcotics are against the law in this country for any reason.  You can still practice your religion just without the dope.


----------



## Cellblock2429

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There is.  The body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.  I don't think Trump is messing with that number.  It is .2% of the population, way too small.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.
> 
> Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.
> 
> Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls.  Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote.  Your motive is clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What a shocking revaluation.  Democrats don't have to say or do anything to attract Hispanic voters.  Donald Trump does it all.  He calls them rapist and murders.  Says migrants come from shit hole countries.  Blames our drug problems on Mexico. Wants to make Mexico pay the cost of defending our border with a wall. Wants to make it impossible for them to bring their families to the US. And he hovers over a taco salad proclaiming, "I love Hispanics."
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ One has nothing to do with the other. Maybe if you loved Americans you’d support a strong border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I believe it's our responsibility to protect our borders.  Asking Mexico a country whose GDP is 5% of ours to pay for defense our border is downright embarrassing.  If the mightiest nation on earth can't defend it's borders against peasants, mostly women and children, maybe it doesn't deserve those borders. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree on that point.  We should pay for the wall.  It's a pittance in our budget and a major expenditure for Mexico.
> 
> I see Trump's point that the reason he thinks they should pay for it is that they've actively shipped their poor and criminals here.
> 
> I still think we should just pay for it though.
> 
> BTW, it's also a small portion of the amount of money illegal aliens send to Mexico
Click to expand...

/---/ Sorry, but I have to disagree on the state of Mexico's wealth.
*Economy of Mexico - Wikipedia*
Economy of Mexico - Wikipedia
The economy of Mexico is the 15th largest in the world in nominal terms and the 11th largest by purchasing power parity, according to the International Monetary ...
*Economic aid*‎: ‎$189.4 million (2008)
*Exports*‎: ‎$406.5 billion (2017 est.)
*GDP rank*‎: ‎15th‎ (nominal) / ‎11th‎ (PPP)
*GDP growth*‎: ‎3.3% (2015), 2.9% (2016), 2.0%


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Where did I say cakes were mentioned in the Bible. I can't believe you write anything for a living with your comprehension skills.



You said that bakers should refuse to bake wedding cakes because they are being forced to participate in a ritual they consider immoral. 

Except that it isn't part of the ritual mentioned in the bible.  Doing a virgin check on your daughter and stoning her ass is, though. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> The Bible and Koran are clearly against any kind of homosexual relationships. Wedding cakes are custom made, and even delivered by the baker in most cases. Asking somebody to custom make a cake for their gay wedding is involving them in their celebration. Even the baker said he will make the cake, just not customize it for their event.



But they aren't part of the ritual and they aren't mentioned in the bible or the Koran.  

And, no, the bakers in question refused to provide the service at all.  

For those playing along at home, wedding cakes are actually a ROMAN pagan tradition that got carried over into Christianity because who doesn't like cake? 

(Actually, I don't... but never mind.) 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Out of all the bakers, this gay couple chose this one because his religious beliefs were well known. In the past, he refused to make a Halloween cake because it was against is religious beliefs. Liberals are born troublemakers, and go out of their way to start a problem.



Except they didn't signal him out.  They were recommended to his business by friends.  They didn't know he was a raging homophobe until they go there.  Same thing with the wife beater in Oregon. His wife actually INVITED the gay couple to use her shop, and their her husband started ranting at them when they came by.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wait a minute, just a few posts ago you said if a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for anybody, they shouldn't be in business. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, move the goalposts.



Um, no, what I said was if they can't follow the law, they shouldn't be in business.  

Sorry you were confused there.  

Hey, did you check out all those truck driving jobs on Indeed that actually offer health benefits?  Wow. Amazing.  I was able to find these things for you.  It's almost like I do that for a living.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> 21 billion is less than one-third of what we spend on food stamps every single year.



Food stamps actually accomplish some good. 

Do you know who the main beneficiaries of SNAP is? 

Farmers.  Keeps demand up high enough to keep prices going.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You are going to take it to ridiculous levels to try and make a point? You can't harm or kill somebody out of religious beliefs because murder is against the law in this country and so is assault. If that were the case, Muslims would be having a picnic in this country.
> 
> But this is what leftists always do, make phony comparisons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it ridiculous.
> 
> We've all agreed that murder is wrong .
> 
> We've all agreed that refusing people service based on their race, gender, religion, national origin and in _*some*_ (not all) states, sexual orientation is wrong.
> 
> An atheist refusing to serve gays because he thinks the butt sex is icky when two guys do it doesn't have a leg to stand on.
> 
> But what you guys are arguing for is that we should be able to ignore the law that was agreed upon because your imaginary friend in the sky says you have to.
> 
> Well my imaginary friend in the sky says he wants his damned hearts!!!
> 
> And since neither of us can prove that Yahweh or Quezacoatl actually exists, you just have to take my word for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution gives you the protection to practice your religion.  It does not give you the right to practice hate.  It's not about right or wrong, it's about Constitutional or not Constitutional.  It's just like some people in the past made claim that dope is part of their religious ritual. Sorry, but recreational narcotics are against the law in this country for any reason.  You can still practice your religion just without the dope.
Click to expand...

Our First Amendment should apply.  Do we need a, "religious drug" schedule?


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say cakes were mentioned in the Bible. I can't believe you write anything for a living with your comprehension skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said that bakers should refuse to bake wedding cakes because they are being forced to participate in a ritual they consider immoral.
> 
> Except that it isn't part of the ritual mentioned in the bible.  Doing a virgin check on your daughter and stoning her ass is, though.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible and Koran are clearly against any kind of homosexual relationships. Wedding cakes are custom made, and even delivered by the baker in most cases. Asking somebody to custom make a cake for their gay wedding is involving them in their celebration. Even the baker said he will make the cake, just not customize it for their event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they aren't part of the ritual and they aren't mentioned in the bible or the Koran.
> 
> And, no, the bakers in question refused to provide the service at all.
> 
> For those playing along at home, wedding cakes are actually a ROMAN pagan tradition that got carried over into Christianity because who doesn't like cake?
> 
> (Actually, I don't... but never mind.)
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Out of all the bakers, this gay couple chose this one because his religious beliefs were well known. In the past, he refused to make a Halloween cake because it was against is religious beliefs. Liberals are born troublemakers, and go out of their way to start a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except they didn't signal him out.  They were recommended to his business by friends.  They didn't know he was a raging homophobe until they go there.  Same thing with the wife beater in Oregon. His wife actually INVITED the gay couple to use her shop, and their her husband started ranting at them when they came by.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a minute, just a few posts ago you said if a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for anybody, they shouldn't be in business. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, move the goalposts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no, what I said was if they can't follow the law, they shouldn't be in business.
> 
> Sorry you were confused there.
> 
> Hey, did you check out all those truck driving jobs on Indeed that actually offer health benefits?  Wow. Amazing.  I was able to find these things for you.  It's almost like I do that for a living.
Click to expand...

/----/ You pathetic SPIN is laughable.


----------



## Unkotare

Ray From Cleveland said:


> ...
> 
> Sorry, but recreational narcotics are against the law in this country for any reason.  ....




Not so much anymore.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> You said that bakers should refuse to bake wedding cakes because they are being forced to participate in a ritual they consider immoral.
> 
> Except that it isn't part of the ritual mentioned in the bible. Doing a virgin check on your daughter and stoning her ass is, though.



If you are making a cake for a gay wedding, of course you are involved, just like you are involved if they call you to tape the wedding or custom make flower arrangements.  You are involved.  



JoeB131 said:


> But they aren't part of the ritual and they aren't mentioned in the bible or the Koran.
> 
> And, no, the bakers in question refused to provide the service at all.
> 
> For those playing along at home, wedding cakes are actually a ROMAN pagan tradition that got carried over into Christianity because who doesn't like cake?



I'm talking about the latest supreme court case.  The baker did say he would sell them a cake, just not custom make one.  They could buy any other cake in the shop.  



JoeB131 said:


> Except they didn't signal him out. They were recommended to his business by friends. They didn't know he was a raging homophobe until they go there.



Bull, it that was the case, they would have just gone to one of the many other bakers in the area.  They went there specifically to start trouble.  



JoeB131 said:


> Um, no, what I said was if they can't follow the law, they shouldn't be in business.
> 
> Sorry you were confused there.
> 
> Hey, did you check out all those truck driving jobs on Indeed that actually offer health benefits? Wow. Amazing. I was able to find these things for you. It's almost like I do that for a living.



Post 3530: 

_*"Bullshit.... if you don't want to participate in certain activities, don't be in that line of work."*_

Great.  Show me these jobs that I can apply for with my government restrictions: I can't leave state lines, I can't get Haz-Mat, I can't get a passenger endorsement.


----------



## JoeB131

Cellblock2429 said:


> /----/ You pathetic SPIN is laughable.



Let me know when you have something to add to the conversation, okay?


----------



## kaz

koshergrl said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean because there are only white citizens in this country, race baiting dickhead. And you really are a douche. He's talking about the ability to function here in English. Not making them deny their heritage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except he didn't say "ability to speak English", he said "assimilate".
> 
> Hey, maybe we should eliminate St. Paddy's Day, Oktoberfest, Columbus Day and the Polish Parade here in Chicago because, hey, those people need to "assimilate", right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can't speak or read English, guess what?  You're not assimilating very well. If the country has to accommodate you for that reason, you are not assimilating very well.  If you are a NYC cab driver, and refuse to pick up fares because they have a pet with them due to your religion, you are not assimilating very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Most legal immigrants to US are speaking English in a year, however like most people they are more comfortable speaking their native tongue.  It is natural to assume two people speaking Spanish are doing so because they don't speak English but that is often not the case.
> 
> Assimilation means adapting and adjusting to a culture.  It does not mean changing your culture.  An immigrant who's Hispanic, Russian, Italian, etc will carry their culture with them through out their lives.  They may become Americans but their ethnicity will not change.  Their children born in America will carry with them their American culture.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know the meaning of *assimilating* any more than you know the meaning of any of the other terms you bastardize.
> 
> "
> to absorb into the cultural tradition of a population or group
> 
> … the belief that tolerant hosts would be able to assimilate immigrants of whatever creed or colour.
> 
> —Brian Holmes"
> Definition of ASSIMILATE
Click to expand...


Yes, his understanding of the English language is dreadful.  My wife who was born in Korea and came here when she was 11 understands the English language far better than Flopper does.

And it isn't just grown up words.  He didn't know what "eliminate" means.  He thought it meant to reduce


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 21 billion is less than one-third of what we spend on food stamps every single year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Food stamps actually accomplish some good.
> 
> Do you know who the main beneficiaries of SNAP is?
> 
> Farmers.  Keeps demand up high enough to keep prices going.
Click to expand...


Do you know what benefits a wall would do?  They would reduce border jumpers, they would help keep out drugs that are killing more than 60,000 Americans every year, they would reduce the amount of border patrol agents we need.  

Right, the beneficiaries are farmers because without food stamps, people would just quit eating.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> If you are making a cake for a gay wedding, of course you are involved, just like you are involved if they call you to tape the wedding or custom make flower arrangements. You are involved.



That's not the ritual.  Flowers and videotaping are also not mentioned in the bible. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> "Bullshit.... if you don't want to participate in certain activities, don't be in that line of work."



Again, context.  Those activities are legally protected... being in a hate group isn't. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Great. Show me these jobs that I can apply for with my government restrictions: I can't leave state lines, I can't get Haz-Mat, I can't get a passenger endorsement.



Guy, I was able to find two without even looking that hard.  

Seriously, if you spent 1/10th of the time actually looking for a better job with insurance that you spend here whining about Obama, you'd have one by now


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Do you know what benefits a wall would do? They would reduce border jumpers, they would help keep out drugs that are killing more than 60,000 Americans every year, they would reduce the amount of border patrol agents we need.



Um, no, it wouldn't do any of those things. 

First, they'd just find ways around the wall.  Half of undocumented immigrants came in on a valid visa they overstayed. 

Second, most of those drugs were taken by people who wanted to take them. 

Third, a wall without border patrol agents would be kind of useless. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Right, the beneficiaries are farmers because without food stamps, people would just quit eating.



No, they just wouldn't be able to afford food.  People can't buy food, there's no point in growing it at a loss.  

God, are you fucking stupid.


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ You pathetic SPIN is laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know when you have something to add to the conversation, okay?
Click to expand...

/----/ You mean like no cake mentioned in the Bible? You mean like that?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Bullshit.... if you don't want to participate in certain activities, don't be in that line of work.





JoeB131 said:


> That's not the ritual. Flowers and videotaping are also not mentioned in the bible.



But gay relationships are.  Custom making a cake is involving yourself in their gay relationship.  



JoeB131 said:


> Again, context. Those activities are legally protected... being in a hate group isn't.



You didn't say that. Read your quote again. 



JoeB131 said:


> Guy, I was able to find two without even looking that hard.
> 
> Seriously, if you spent 1/10th of the time actually looking for a better job with insurance that you spend here whining about Obama, you'd have one by now



Right, and that's why you can't post any.  All major carriers require drivers to have Haz-Mat endorsements.  I've been doing this over 30 years, trust me, I know more about this field of work than a resume writer.


----------



## JoeB131

Cellblock2429 said:


> /----/ You mean like no cake mentioned in the Bible? You mean like that?



again, when you are ready to grow up and add substance to a conversation, let us know... 

Speaking of angry children... 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> But gay relationships are. Custom making a cake is involving yourself in their gay relationship.



Um, no, it's just delivering a product that you won't think about ever again. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Right, and that's why you can't post any. All major carriers require drivers to have Haz-Mat endorsements. I've been doing this over 30 years, trust me, I know more about this field of work than a resume writer.



Guy, I was able to find two jobs pretty easily with less than five minutes of work. 

Her's one right here. 

nothing in there about a HazMat endorsement. 

LOCAL CDL A TRUCK DRIVER | Guaranteed Salary | Off Most Weekends | Flatbed job - AIM Integrated Logistics - Cleveland, OH


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Um, no, it wouldn't do any of those things.
> 
> First, they'd just find ways around the wall. Half of undocumented immigrants came in on a valid visa they overstayed.
> 
> Second, most of those drugs were taken by people who wanted to take them.
> 
> Third, a wall without border patrol agents would be kind of useless.



Oh, so you know all this even though we don't have one?  My you are so good, in fact, you are so much better than all our agencies that said a wall would benefit them greatly; the same agencies that participated in the design of the wall that would help eliminate all the things you wrote above.  

But hey!  Hungary disagrees with you.  

Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration



JoeB131 said:


> No, they just wouldn't be able to afford food. People can't buy food, there's no point in growing it at a loss.
> 
> God, are you fucking stupid.



Asking me if I'm stupid when you think without good stamps, people would just starve to death?


----------



## danielpalos

Ame®icano said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ If there was a chance they were voting GOP, you Libtards would be volunteering to build the wall brick by brick. Besides law breakers looking for welfare fall into the democRAT camp, not ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except these people aren't looking for welfare.  They are willing to do the jobs the welfare collecting white trash in the trailer parks aren't willing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.
> 
> So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants.  Typical leftist thinking all the way.  Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let capitalism do the work.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another communist's great idea that's so good, it have to be forced on employers.
Click to expand...

in this case, it is; higher paid labor creates more in demand and pays more in taxes.  only the right wing, doesn't really care and never get's it.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Oh, so you know all this even though we don't have one? My you are so good, in fact, you are so much better than all our agencies that said a wall would benefit them greatly; the same agencies that participated in the design of the wall that would help eliminate all the things you wrote above.



Actually, the agencies aren't saying that at all. 

https://gizmodo.com/us-border-patrol-doesnt-want-a-wall-they-want-drones-an-1773661854

Even the conservative Cato Institute says a wall won't work. 

Why the Wall Won't Work


----------



## danielpalos

Ame®icano said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Point is, Gentlemen; that we have a Statue of Liberty.
> 
> If we have to give it back; the right wing gets the blame.
Click to expand...

The right wing does't really care about the People, only the Profit.

Vote Blue and not Red!


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your bull shit aside, what's your second job?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have one. Make plenty of money writing resumes
Click to expand...


Can't keep your lies straight, huh?



JoeB131 said:


> I work two jobs and pull down over 80K a year


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Asking me if I'm stupid when you think without good stamps, people would just starve to death?



No, they'd probably do things like "Rob people".   

Somehow, I don't want to be knifed because a poor person wanted to feed his family that night.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Um, no, it's just delivering a product that you won't think about ever again.



No, it's creating a product for a specific event.  Haven't you ever been to a wedding before?  



JoeB131 said:


> Guy, I was able to find two jobs pretty easily with less than five minutes of work.
> 
> Her's one right here.
> 
> nothing in there about a HazMat endorsement.
> 
> LOCAL CDL A TRUCK DRIVER | Guaranteed Salary | Off Most Weekends | Flatbed job - AIM Integrated Logistics - Cleveland, OH



It's also a shit paying job.  Flat bed jobs work you seven days a week and usually 12 hour days.  Most of them require experience.  It's not an hourly paid job. You get paid by the load which (depending on where you are at) can keep you there half of the day.  

This is what I'm talking about.  You have no idea about this line of work.  When somebody advertises you make X a year or X a week, they are hiding the fact of what you will actually make per hour.  It's an old gimmick that experienced drivers are well aware of.  The ad says guaranteed $1,000 a week, but if you have to work 60 hours for that money, you are talking less than 17 bucks an hour.


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why we have an illegal immigration problem is because there are jobs Americans just simply do not want to do, no matter how much you pay them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's such a lie.  Of course people will work for market wages.  What Americans (black or white) won't do is work for wages under market rates.  You push wages below market rates by importing millions of poor illegal aliens from a third world shit hole country who will do it for less.
> 
> Democrats have repeated that lie so many times that you actually believe it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage will solve that problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Good news you big Dope:
> *United States Average Hourly Wages  1964-2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar*
> *Wages in the United States increased to 22.59 USD/Hour in May from 22.52 USD/Hour in April of 2018. *
> *United States Average Hourly Wages | 1964-2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar*
Click to expand...

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage puts an upward pressure on wages, pays more in taxes, and creates more in demand.  It is a simple cost of living adjustment for Labor.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking me if I'm stupid when you think without good stamps, people would just starve to death?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they'd probably do things like "Rob people".
> 
> Somehow, I don't want to be knifed because a poor person wanted to feed his family that night.
Click to expand...


Yeah, sure they will.  They wouldn't just get a job, they'd commit murder instead.  That makes a lot of sense.  And how will this individual feed his family in prison for 25 years? 

Quite an imagination Joe.  But even if that was the case, he'd still be eating and farmers would still be growing.


----------



## kaz

Taz said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.
> 
> Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.
> 
> Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls.  Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote.  Your motive is clear
> 
> 
> 
> *What a shocking revaluation.  Democrats don't have to say or do anything to attract Hispanic voters.  Donald Trump does it all.  He calls them rapist and murders.  Says migrants come from shit hole countries.  Blames our drug problems on Mexico. Wants to make Mexico pay the cost of defending our border with a wall. Wants to make it impossible for them to bring their families to the US. And he hovers over a taco salad proclaiming, "I love Hispanics."
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ One has nothing to do with the other. Maybe if you loved Americans you’d support a strong border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I believe it's our responsibility to protect our borders.  Asking Mexico a country whose GDP is 5% of ours to pay for defense our border is downright embarrassing.  If the mightiest nation on earth can't defend it's borders against peasants, mostly women and children, maybe it doesn't deserve those borders. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree on that point.  We should pay for the wall.  It's a pittance in our budget and a major expenditure for Mexico.
> 
> I see Trump's point that the reason he thinks they should pay for it is that they've actively shipped their poor and criminals here.
> 
> I still think we should just pay for it though.
> 
> BTW, it's also a small portion of the amount of money illegal aliens send to Mexico
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the neighbour with the rabid dogs running wild who should put up a fence.
Click to expand...


Waste of money.  You keep saying fences don't work.  Now you're admitting they do?


----------



## Taz

kaz said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What a shocking revaluation.  Democrats don't have to say or do anything to attract Hispanic voters.  Donald Trump does it all.  He calls them rapist and murders.  Says migrants come from shit hole countries.  Blames our drug problems on Mexico. Wants to make Mexico pay the cost of defending our border with a wall. Wants to make it impossible for them to bring their families to the US. And he hovers over a taco salad proclaiming, "I love Hispanics."
> *
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ One has nothing to do with the other. Maybe if you loved Americans you’d support a strong border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I believe it's our responsibility to protect our borders.  Asking Mexico a country whose GDP is 5% of ours to pay for defense our border is downright embarrassing.  If the mightiest nation on earth can't defend it's borders against peasants, mostly women and children, maybe it doesn't deserve those borders. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree on that point.  We should pay for the wall.  It's a pittance in our budget and a major expenditure for Mexico.
> 
> I see Trump's point that the reason he thinks they should pay for it is that they've actively shipped their poor and criminals here.
> 
> I still think we should just pay for it though.
> 
> BTW, it's also a small portion of the amount of money illegal aliens send to Mexico
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the neighbour with the rabid dogs running wild who should put up a fence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Waste of money.  You keep saying fences don't work.  Now you're admitting they do?
Click to expand...

Never said any such thing. Mining the border would be the most effective in the short term.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree on that point. We should pay for the wall. It's a pittance in our budget and a major expenditure for Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 21 Billion is a pittance?
Click to expand...


Budget $4 Trillion a year

21 to build it once.  Far less to maintain it.

And it saves the people hundreds of billions a year at all levels of government.

But if you really want to see that $21 billion is a pittance in our budget, pretend it's a welfare program.  Then a $1T is a pittance to you


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree on that point. We should pay for the wall. It's a pittance in our budget and a major expenditure for Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 21 Billion is a pittance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 21 billion is less than one-third of what we spend on food stamps every single year.
Click to expand...


That example is so perfect considering we'd save billions specifically on food stamps alone


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, it's just delivering a product that you won't think about ever again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's creating a product for a specific event.  Haven't you ever been to a wedding before?
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I was able to find two jobs pretty easily with less than five minutes of work.
> 
> Her's one right here.
> 
> nothing in there about a HazMat endorsement.
> 
> LOCAL CDL A TRUCK DRIVER | Guaranteed Salary | Off Most Weekends | Flatbed job - AIM Integrated Logistics - Cleveland, OH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also a shit paying job.  Flat bed jobs work you seven days a week and usually 12 hour days.  Most of them require experience.  It's not an hourly paid job. You get paid by the load which (depending on where you are at) can keep you there half of the day.
> 
> This is what I'm talking about.  You have no idea about this line of work.  When somebody advertises you make X a year or X a week, they are hiding the fact of what you will actually make per hour.  It's an old gimmick that experienced drivers are well aware of.  The ad says guaranteed $1,000 a week, but if you have to work 60 hours for that money, you are talking less than 17 bucks an hour.
Click to expand...

in my case, that would be something i would do for, "extra money", not as a primary job.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking me if I'm stupid when you think without good stamps, people would just starve to death?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they'd probably do things like "Rob people".
> 
> Somehow, I don't want to be knifed because a poor person wanted to feed his family that night.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure they will.  They wouldn't just get a job, they'd commit murder instead.  That makes a lot of sense.  And how will this individual feed his family in prison for 25 years?
> 
> Quite an imagination Joe.  But even if that was the case, he'd still be eating and farmers would still be growing.
Click to expand...

You say that, like Jesus the Christ didn't inform us, it only takes Ten simple Commandments, not over two thousand years and the Expense of Government.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so you know all this even though we don't have one? My you are so good, in fact, you are so much better than all our agencies that said a wall would benefit them greatly; the same agencies that participated in the design of the wall that would help eliminate all the things you wrote above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the agencies aren't saying that at all.
> 
> https://gizmodo.com/us-border-patrol-doesnt-want-a-wall-they-want-drones-an-1773661854
> 
> Even the conservative Cato Institute says a wall won't work.
> 
> Why the Wall Won't Work
Click to expand...


Are you serious?  Gizmodo for your evidence?  Here, try a real source: 

Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree on that point. We should pay for the wall. It's a pittance in our budget and a major expenditure for Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 21 Billion is a pittance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 21 billion is less than one-third of what we spend on food stamps every single year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That example is so perfect considering we'd save billions specifically on food stamps alone
Click to expand...


Exactly.  Illegals don't get welfare benefits, but their kids do, and they give them well more than enough food to eat.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so you know all this even though we don't have one? My you are so good, in fact, you are so much better than all our agencies that said a wall would benefit them greatly; the same agencies that participated in the design of the wall that would help eliminate all the things you wrote above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the agencies aren't saying that at all.
> 
> https://gizmodo.com/us-border-patrol-doesnt-want-a-wall-they-want-drones-an-1773661854
> 
> Even the conservative Cato Institute says a wall won't work.
> 
> Why the Wall Won't Work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious?  Gizmodo for your evidence?  Here, try a real source:
> 
> Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds
Click to expand...

Some of the People back making money, not losing money on public policies.  

Applied Capitalism can solve our illegal problem on a permanent basis.

but, 

the Poor may Benefit, right wingers.  Can you handle it.


----------



## francoHFW

Cellblock2429 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except these people aren't looking for welfare.  They are willing to do the jobs the welfare collecting white trash in the trailer parks aren't willing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.
> 
> So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants.  Typical leftist thinking all the way.  Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let capitalism do the work.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another communist's great idea that's so good, it have to be forced on employers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The shortsighted GOP ones...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ And you long sighted commie libs see forced minimum wage as a good thing? Wowza.
Click to expand...

Every successful country has one-- a living wage to be exact. Your party is a giveaway to the rich screw the rest big lie disgrace.


----------



## Cellblock2429

francoHFW said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.
> 
> So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants.  Typical leftist thinking all the way.  Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.
> 
> 
> 
> Let capitalism do the work.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another communist's great idea that's so good, it have to be forced on employers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The shortsighted GOP ones...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ And you long sighted commie libs see forced minimum wage as a good thing? Wowza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every successful country has one-- a living wage to be exact. Your party is a giveaway to the rich screw the rest big lie disgrace.
Click to expand...

/——/ Welfare is a giveaway. The rich earned their wealth.


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so you know all this even though we don't have one? My you are so good, in fact, you are so much better than all our agencies that said a wall would benefit them greatly; the same agencies that participated in the design of the wall that would help eliminate all the things you wrote above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the agencies aren't saying that at all.
> 
> https://gizmodo.com/us-border-patrol-doesnt-want-a-wall-they-want-drones-an-1773661854
> 
> Even the conservative Cato Institute says a wall won't work.
> 
> Why the Wall Won't Work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious?  Gizmodo for your evidence?  Here, try a real source:
> 
> Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds
Click to expand...


DanielPalos is the only person I have on ignore just for being inane.  I got tired of his stupid, empty, platitude posts.  With all the leftists on this board, standing out for being inane is a remarkable skill.  I don't even have Moonglow or HappyJoy on ignore.

What a disappointing article that CATO one by David Bier was.  I was looking forward to reading that when I saw it hoping it was a rational analysis.  All he did was parrot the talking points of the Democrat party.  He also listed challenges with a wall, such as terrain as if the left's premise that 1 illegal alien = 1 million illegal aliens, one gets through the wall failed, is true

It was just Chuck Schumer level bull


----------



## Dragonlady

Cellblock2429 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let capitalism do the work.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another communist's great idea that's so good, it have to be forced on employers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The shortsighted GOP ones...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ And you long sighted commie libs see forced minimum wage as a good thing? Wowza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every successful country has one-- a living wage to be exact. Your party is a giveaway to the rich screw the rest big lie disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Welfare is a giveaway. The rich earned their wealth.
Click to expand...


The rich earned their wealth?  Are you that stupid?  The Walton’s earned nothing. Sam Walton earned their wealth. The Waltons sit on their asses and collect dividends off the work if others.

The rich have a tax code that keeps wealth flowing to the top. They have labour laws which allow them to deny health care or benefits to workers, and to pay them so little their workers need welfare to supplement their incomes.

They appoint a burger flipper as “manager” so they can work him/her 60 hours a week without paying overtime.

Other countries put their people first. America puts their corporations first, and the wealthy second. Working men and women, who make up the vast majority of your population are denigrated, abused and paid the least amount possible.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dragonlady said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another communist's great idea that's so good, it have to be forced on employers.
> 
> 
> 
> The shortsighted GOP ones...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ And you long sighted commie libs see forced minimum wage as a good thing? Wowza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every successful country has one-- a living wage to be exact. Your party is a giveaway to the rich screw the rest big lie disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Welfare is a giveaway. The rich earned their wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rich earned their wealth?  Are you that stupid?  The Walton’s earned nothing. Sam Walton earned their wealth. The Waltons sit on their asses and collect dividends off the work if others.
> 
> The rich have a tax code that keeps wealth flowing to the top. They have labour laws which allow them to deny health care or benefits to workers, and to pay them so little their workers need welfare to supplement their incomes.
> 
> They appoint a burger flipper as “manager” so they can work him/her 60 hours a week without paying overtime.
> 
> Other countries put their people first. America puts their corporations first, and the wealthy second. Working men and women, who make up the vast majority of your population are denigrated, abused and paid the least amount possible.
Click to expand...


If the Walton's don't do anything, why don't the workers leave and open up their own store?


----------



## Dragonlady

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The shortsighted GOP ones...
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/ And you long sighted commie libs see forced minimum wage as a good thing? Wowza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every successful country has one-- a living wage to be exact. Your party is a giveaway to the rich screw the rest big lie disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Welfare is a giveaway. The rich earned their wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rich earned their wealth?  Are you that stupid?  The Walton’s earned nothing. Sam Walton earned their wealth. The Waltons sit on their asses and collect dividends off the work if others.
> 
> The rich have a tax code that keeps wealth flowing to the top. They have labour laws which allow them to deny health care or benefits to workers, and to pay them so little their workers need welfare to supplement their incomes.
> 
> They appoint a burger flipper as “manager” so they can work him/her 60 hours a week without paying overtime.
> 
> Other countries put their people first. America puts their corporations first, and the wealthy second. Working men and women, who make up the vast majority of your population are denigrated, abused and paid the least amount possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Walton's don't do anything, why don't the workers leave and open up their own store?
Click to expand...


In a history of stupid posts, this is by far the dumbest thing ever. 

You bitch about your job endlessly. Why don’t you quit and open your own trucking company, or become an independent hauler?


----------



## kaz

Dragonlady said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another communist's great idea that's so good, it have to be forced on employers.
> 
> 
> 
> The shortsighted GOP ones...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ And you long sighted commie libs see forced minimum wage as a good thing? Wowza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every successful country has one-- a living wage to be exact. Your party is a giveaway to the rich screw the rest big lie disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Welfare is a giveaway. The rich earned their wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rich earned their wealth?  Are you that stupid?  The Walton’s earned nothing. Sam Walton earned their wealth. The Waltons sit on their asses and collect dividends off the work if others.
> 
> The rich have a tax code that keeps wealth flowing to the top. They have labour laws which allow them to deny health care or benefits to workers, and to pay them so little their workers need welfare to supplement their incomes.
> 
> They appoint a burger flipper as “manager” so they can work him/her 60 hours a week without paying overtime.
> 
> Other countries put their people first. America puts their corporations first, and the wealthy second. Working men and women, who make up the vast majority of your population are denigrated, abused and paid the least amount possible.
Click to expand...


Blah, blah, Marxist rhetoric from Mrs. Mao


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so you know all this even though we don't have one? My you are so good, in fact, you are so much better than all our agencies that said a wall would benefit them greatly; the same agencies that participated in the design of the wall that would help eliminate all the things you wrote above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the agencies aren't saying that at all.
> 
> https://gizmodo.com/us-border-patrol-doesnt-want-a-wall-they-want-drones-an-1773661854
> 
> Even the conservative Cato Institute says a wall won't work.
> 
> Why the Wall Won't Work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious?  Gizmodo for your evidence?  Here, try a real source:
> 
> Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DanielPalos is the only person I have on ignore just for being inane.  I got tired of his stupid, empty, platitude posts.  With all the leftists on this board, standing out for being inane is a remarkable skill.  I don't even have Moonglow or HappyJoy on ignore.
> 
> What a disappointing article that CATO one by David Bier was.  I was looking forward to reading that when I saw it hoping it was a rational analysis.  All he did was parrot the talking points of the Democrat party.  He also listed challenges with a wall, such as terrain as if the left's premise that 1 illegal alien = 1 million illegal aliens.  One gets through it failed.
> 
> It was just Chuck Schumer level bull
Click to expand...


Why, did he say somethings to me?  I wouldn't know since I have him on ignore too.  

Like Franko, he says the same things over and over again, but at least with Happy Joy and Moonglow, you understand what they are saying.  I have no idea what that guy is even talking about half of the time. 

The left is scared to death of that wall, so to the point they were even willing to shutdown the government to defeat it.  Right there tells you how important it is for that wall never to be erected.  I mean, if they really believed it wouldn't work, the best thing they could do politically is allow it to be built so the can haunt the Republicans for decades to come of it's failure.  

They are frightened for two reasons: One, it will work.  It's worked in other places that were tried.  Two, unlike policies and laws that can be reversed, once that wall is up, it's not reversible.  If they ever regained power and told Americans they were going to spend 30 billion dollars to take down a wall we paid 30 billion for, they would be hung out to dry by the voters, especially if it shows very positive effects on limiting illegals and narcotics.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dragonlady said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/ And you long sighted commie libs see forced minimum wage as a good thing? Wowza.
> 
> 
> 
> Every successful country has one-- a living wage to be exact. Your party is a giveaway to the rich screw the rest big lie disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Welfare is a giveaway. The rich earned their wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rich earned their wealth?  Are you that stupid?  The Walton’s earned nothing. Sam Walton earned their wealth. The Waltons sit on their asses and collect dividends off the work if others.
> 
> The rich have a tax code that keeps wealth flowing to the top. They have labour laws which allow them to deny health care or benefits to workers, and to pay them so little their workers need welfare to supplement their incomes.
> 
> They appoint a burger flipper as “manager” so they can work him/her 60 hours a week without paying overtime.
> 
> Other countries put their people first. America puts their corporations first, and the wealthy second. Working men and women, who make up the vast majority of your population are denigrated, abused and paid the least amount possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Walton's don't do anything, why don't the workers leave and open up their own store?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a history of stupid posts, this is by far the dumbest thing ever.
> 
> You bitch about your job endlessly. Why don’t you quit and open your own trucking company, or become an independent hauler?
Click to expand...


Yeah, I thought about that many times.  But I already have a side business that keeps me occupied.  I don't need two businesses.  

And why is my remark stupid?  Is it because you can't answer my question?  

Yes, the workers work.  That's what they get paid to do.  But the workers didn't come up with the hundreds of thousands of dollars to open up that store.  The workers couldn't pay the utilities or taxes.  The workers couldn't compete with similar stores if they paid themselves great money.  The workers don't have an office staff to handle government regulations, payroll, billers and paperwork pushers.  They don't have the resources to even open up such an office.  They don't have to spend the money for snow removal or lot maintenance.  

What the Walton's have done is provide a place for people to work.  Without them, some of those people wouldn't have any kind of job at all.  They spent money to create the idea, the structure, the organization.  They risked their own money.  That's what they do. 

Just because they don't sweep floors doesn't mean they are not earning their money.  In the event you didn't know, investment is where you do spend your own money hoping for a return plus profit.


----------



## francoHFW

kaz said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The shortsighted GOP ones...
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/ And you long sighted commie libs see forced minimum wage as a good thing? Wowza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every successful country has one-- a living wage to be exact. Your party is a giveaway to the rich screw the rest big lie disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Welfare is a giveaway. The rich earned their wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rich earned their wealth?  Are you that stupid?  The Walton’s earned nothing. Sam Walton earned their wealth. The Waltons sit on their asses and collect dividends off the work if others.
> 
> The rich have a tax code that keeps wealth flowing to the top. They have labour laws which allow them to deny health care or benefits to workers, and to pay them so little their workers need welfare to supplement their incomes.
> 
> They appoint a burger flipper as “manager” so they can work him/her 60 hours a week without paying overtime.
> 
> Other countries put their people first. America puts their corporations first, and the wealthy second. Working men and women, who make up the vast majority of your population are denigrated, abused and paid the least amount possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, Marxist rhetoric from Mrs. Mao
Click to expand...

Why are we the only modern country without Healthcare daycare good vacations cheap college and training good infrastructure living wage, super duper? 35 years of GOP giveaway to the rich.


----------



## Unkotare

Taz said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ One has nothing to do with the other. Maybe if you loved Americans you’d support a strong border.
> 
> 
> 
> *I believe it's our responsibility to protect our borders.  Asking Mexico a country whose GDP is 5% of ours to pay for defense our border is downright embarrassing.  If the mightiest nation on earth can't defend it's borders against peasants, mostly women and children, maybe it doesn't deserve those borders. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree on that point.  We should pay for the wall.  It's a pittance in our budget and a major expenditure for Mexico.
> 
> I see Trump's point that the reason he thinks they should pay for it is that they've actively shipped their poor and criminals here.
> 
> I still think we should just pay for it though.
> 
> BTW, it's also a small portion of the amount of money illegal aliens send to Mexico
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the neighbour with the rabid dogs running wild who should put up a fence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Waste of money.  You keep saying fences don't work.  Now you're admitting they do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never said any such thing. Mining the border would be the most effective in the short term.
Click to expand...


Stop wasting time with emo-nonsense.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every successful country has one-- a living wage to be exact. Your party is a giveaway to the rich screw the rest big lie disgrace.
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Welfare is a giveaway. The rich earned their wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rich earned their wealth?  Are you that stupid?  The Walton’s earned nothing. Sam Walton earned their wealth. The Waltons sit on their asses and collect dividends off the work if others.
> 
> The rich have a tax code that keeps wealth flowing to the top. They have labour laws which allow them to deny health care or benefits to workers, and to pay them so little their workers need welfare to supplement their incomes.
> 
> They appoint a burger flipper as “manager” so they can work him/her 60 hours a week without paying overtime.
> 
> Other countries put their people first. America puts their corporations first, and the wealthy second. Working men and women, who make up the vast majority of your population are denigrated, abused and paid the least amount possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Walton's don't do anything, why don't the workers leave and open up their own store?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a history of stupid posts, this is by far the dumbest thing ever.
> 
> You bitch about your job endlessly. Why don’t you quit and open your own trucking company, or become an independent hauler?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I thought about that many times.  But I already have a side business that keeps me occupied.  I don't need two businesses.
> 
> And why is my remark stupid?  Is it because you can't answer my question?
> 
> Yes, the workers work.  That's what they get paid to do.  But the workers didn't come up with the hundreds of thousands of dollars to open up that store.  The workers couldn't pay the utilities or taxes.  The workers couldn't compete with similar stores if they paid themselves great money.  The workers don't have an office staff to handle government regulations, payroll, billers and paperwork pushers.  They don't have the resources to even open up such an office.  They don't have to spend the money for snow removal or lot maintenance.
> 
> What the Walton's have done is provide a place for people to work.  Without them, some of those people wouldn't have any kind of job at all.  They spent money to create the idea, the structure, the organization.  They risked their own money.  That's what they do.
> 
> Just because they don't sweep floors doesn't mean they are not earning their money.  In the event you didn't know, investment is where you do spend your own money hoping for a return plus profit.
Click to expand...

Good for them now tax them please.... Your hero worship is touching.Why are we the only modern country without Healthcare daycare good vacations cheap college and training good infrastructure living wage, super duper? 35 years of GOP giveaway to the rich.


----------



## Cellblock2429

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Welfare is a giveaway. The rich earned their wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rich earned their wealth?  Are you that stupid?  The Walton’s earned nothing. Sam Walton earned their wealth. The Waltons sit on their asses and collect dividends off the work if others.
> 
> The rich have a tax code that keeps wealth flowing to the top. They have labour laws which allow them to deny health care or benefits to workers, and to pay them so little their workers need welfare to supplement their incomes.
> 
> They appoint a burger flipper as “manager” so they can work him/her 60 hours a week without paying overtime.
> 
> Other countries put their people first. America puts their corporations first, and the wealthy second. Working men and women, who make up the vast majority of your population are denigrated, abused and paid the least amount possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Walton's don't do anything, why don't the workers leave and open up their own store?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a history of stupid posts, this is by far the dumbest thing ever.
> 
> You bitch about your job endlessly. Why don’t you quit and open your own trucking company, or become an independent hauler?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I thought about that many times.  But I already have a side business that keeps me occupied.  I don't need two businesses.
> 
> And why is my remark stupid?  Is it because you can't answer my question?
> 
> Yes, the workers work.  That's what they get paid to do.  But the workers didn't come up with the hundreds of thousands of dollars to open up that store.  The workers couldn't pay the utilities or taxes.  The workers couldn't compete with similar stores if they paid themselves great money.  The workers don't have an office staff to handle government regulations, payroll, billers and paperwork pushers.  They don't have the resources to even open up such an office.  They don't have to spend the money for snow removal or lot maintenance.
> 
> What the Walton's have done is provide a place for people to work.  Without them, some of those people wouldn't have any kind of job at all.  They spent money to create the idea, the structure, the organization.  They risked their own money.  That's what they do.
> 
> Just because they don't sweep floors doesn't mean they are not earning their money.  In the event you didn't know, investment is where you do spend your own money hoping for a return plus profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for them now tax them please.... Your hero worship is touching.Why are we the only modern country without Healthcare daycare good vacations cheap college and training good infrastructure living wage, super duper? 35 years of GOP giveaway to the rich.
Click to expand...

/——-/ We have all of those things you goofball.


----------



## Cellblock2429

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Welfare is a giveaway. The rich earned their wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rich earned their wealth?  Are you that stupid?  The Walton’s earned nothing. Sam Walton earned their wealth. The Waltons sit on their asses and collect dividends off the work if others.
> 
> The rich have a tax code that keeps wealth flowing to the top. They have labour laws which allow them to deny health care or benefits to workers, and to pay them so little their workers need welfare to supplement their incomes.
> 
> They appoint a burger flipper as “manager” so they can work him/her 60 hours a week without paying overtime.
> 
> Other countries put their people first. America puts their corporations first, and the wealthy second. Working men and women, who make up the vast majority of your population are denigrated, abused and paid the least amount possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Walton's don't do anything, why don't the workers leave and open up their own store?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a history of stupid posts, this is by far the dumbest thing ever.
> 
> You bitch about your job endlessly. Why don’t you quit and open your own trucking company, or become an independent hauler?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I thought about that many times.  But I already have a side business that keeps me occupied.  I don't need two businesses.
> 
> And why is my remark stupid?  Is it because you can't answer my question?
> 
> Yes, the workers work.  That's what they get paid to do.  But the workers didn't come up with the hundreds of thousands of dollars to open up that store.  The workers couldn't pay the utilities or taxes.  The workers couldn't compete with similar stores if they paid themselves great money.  The workers don't have an office staff to handle government regulations, payroll, billers and paperwork pushers.  They don't have the resources to even open up such an office.  They don't have to spend the money for snow removal or lot maintenance.
> 
> What the Walton's have done is provide a place for people to work.  Without them, some of those people wouldn't have any kind of job at all.  They spent money to create the idea, the structure, the organization.  They risked their own money.  That's what they do.
> 
> Just because they don't sweep floors doesn't mean they are not earning their money.  In the event you didn't know, investment is where you do spend your own money hoping for a return plus profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for them now tax them please.... Your hero worship is touching.Why are we the only modern country without Healthcare daycare good vacations cheap college and training good infrastructure living wage, super duper? 35 years of GOP giveaway to the rich.
Click to expand...

/——/ The top 20% pay the bulk of taxes. 
Time to tax the 47% freeloaders


----------



## Kondor3

JoeB131 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And continued advocacy by White Folk, *FOR* White Folk, will ensure that they *CONTINUE* to have all the advantages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until we are a minority in this country, then we are kind of in for it.
> 
> Hey, here's a crazy idea.. how about we actually have equality for all, so when we ARE a minority, they really can't excuse doing to us the same shit we've been doing to them?
> 
> Naw... that would actually, you know, be a decent thing to do.
> 
> Well, I'll probably be dead by then, so I don't care.
Click to expand...

That is the doom-and-gloom scenario.

Personally, I don't buy into it; not so long as we remain vigilant and courageous, and I see no reason to support policies that actually *hasten* such an outcome.

Equality is one thing.

Bending over and "taking it" from Central America makes zero sense and I will both (a) be no part of that and (b) speak out against it, vigorously and persistently.


----------



## BrokeLoser

JoeB131 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And continued advocacy by White Folk, *FOR* White Folk, will ensure that they *CONTINUE* to have all the advantages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until we are a minority in this country, then we are kind of in for it.
> 
> Hey, here's a crazy idea.. how about we actually have equality for all, so when we ARE a minority, they really can't excuse doing to us the same shit we've been doing to them?
> 
> Naw... that would actually, you know, be a decent thing to do.
> 
> Well, I'll probably be dead by then, so I don't care.
Click to expand...


Hahaha...now that’s some funny shit. What’s this “we” shit?
NOBODY here believes you are “white”...NOBODY....haha...not for one second.
Nice try though Gustavo.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It's also a shit paying job. Flat bed jobs work you seven days a week and usually 12 hour days. Most of them require experience. It's not an hourly paid job. You get paid by the load which (depending on where you are at) can keep you there half of the day.



Guy you didn't put a salary on it... you just put a list of requirements that you wanted, and this job met them.  

Geezus, man, I'm spending more time looking at your failed career than you are.  

Five minutes on a job site, I found a job you qualified for that offered health insurance... so much for the whiny "I can't find a job" when you don't even fucking try.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> This is what I'm talking about. You have no idea about this line of work. When somebody advertises you make X a year or X a week, they are hiding the fact of what you will actually make per hour. It's an old gimmick that experienced drivers are well aware of. The ad says guaranteed $1,000 a week, but if you have to work 60 hours for that money, you are talking less than 17 bucks an hour.



You only make $14.00 an hour now, what are you whining about? 

Oh, did I let the secret out of the bag again?


----------



## JoeB131

Kondor3 said:


> That is the doom-and-gloom scenario.
> 
> Personally, I don't buy into it; not so long as we remain vigilant and courageous, and I see no reason to support policies that actually *hasten* such an outcome.
> 
> Equality is one thing.
> 
> Bending over and "taking it" from Central America makes zero sense and I will both (a) be no part of that and (b) speak out against it, vigorously and persistently.



You mean centuries of invading and screwing around in Central America, you are now whining because the chickens are coming home to roost? 

Really?


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yeah, sure they will. They wouldn't just get a job, they'd commit murder instead. That makes a lot of sense. And how will this individual feed his family in prison for 25 years?



again, working on the assumption they can get jobs, and that they are thinking rationally when they are starving.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> Budget $4 Trillion a year
> 
> 21 to build it once. Far less to maintain it.
> 
> And it saves the people hundreds of billions a year at all levels of government.
> 
> But if you really want to see that $21 billion is a pittance in our budget, pretend it's a welfare program. Then a $1T is a pittance to you



Welfare programs do a lot of good. 

Walls are fucking worthless.  People just climb over them. 

You see, this is where you are kind of confused.  The Rich People who run real businesses don't want illegal aliens to stop coming. They WANT that cheap labor as an option.


----------



## Kondor3

JoeB131 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the doom-and-gloom scenario.
> 
> Personally, I don't buy into it; not so long as we remain vigilant and courageous, and I see no reason to support policies that actually *hasten* such an outcome.
> 
> Equality is one thing.
> 
> Bending over and "taking it" from Central America makes zero sense and I will both (a) be no part of that and (b) speak out against it, vigorously and persistently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean centuries of invading and screwing around in Central America, you are now whining because the chickens are coming home to roost?
> 
> Really?
Click to expand...

Not whining.

Taking forceful action to repel the blowback.

Fun, ain't it?


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> What a disappointing article that CATO one by David Bier was. I was looking forward to reading that when I saw it hoping it was a rational analysis. All he did was parrot the talking points of the Democrat party. He also listed challenges with a wall, such as terrain as if the left's premise that 1 illegal alien = 1 million illegal aliens, one gets through the wall failed, is true



Again, if mountain ranges and oceans can be overcome, anything built by man can be overcome.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Are you serious?  Gizmodo for your evidence?  Here, try a real source:
> 
> Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds



Dude, you went with the newspaper owned by the Moonie Church, and you complain about other people's sources?


----------



## JoeB131

Kondor3 said:


> Not whining.
> 
> Taking forceful action to repel the blowback.
> 
> Fun, ain't it?



Naw, you'll lose, and people in the future will wonder what the fuck you were thinking. 

Hey, nobody looks back at the Segregationists and admires them.


----------



## Kondor3

JoeB131 said:


> ...Walls are fucking worthless.  People just climb over them...


Even broken clocks are right twice a day... and this was your turn to be right.



> ...You see, this is where you are kind of confused.  The Rich People who run real businesses don't want illegal aliens to stop coming. They WANT that cheap labor as an option.


This was your second time being right today... Pub Elites want your Beaner Buddies for the slave labor... Dem Elites want your Beaner Buddies for the votes.


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a disappointing article that CATO one by David Bier was. I was looking forward to reading that when I saw it hoping it was a rational analysis. All he did was parrot the talking points of the Democrat party. He also listed challenges with a wall, such as terrain as if the left's premise that 1 illegal alien = 1 million illegal aliens, one gets through the wall failed, is true
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if mountain ranges and oceans can be overcome, anything built by man can be overcome.
Click to expand...

/——-/ I suppose you don’t bother locking your doors and windows at night. I mean what’s the point?


----------



## Kondor3

JoeB131 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not whining.
> 
> Taking forceful action to repel the blowback.
> 
> Fun, ain't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, you'll lose, and people in the future will wonder what the fuck you were thinking.
> 
> Hey, nobody looks back at the Segregationists and admires them.
Click to expand...

False equivalency.


----------



## Kondor3

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a disappointing article that CATO one by David Bier was. I was looking forward to reading that when I saw it hoping it was a rational analysis. All he did was parrot the talking points of the Democrat party. He also listed challenges with a wall, such as terrain as if the left's premise that 1 illegal alien = 1 million illegal aliens, one gets through the wall failed, is true
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, *if mountain ranges and oceans can be overcome, anything built by man can be overcome.*
Click to expand...

You've watched "Patton" once too often


----------



## Thinker101

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious?  Gizmodo for your evidence?  Here, try a real source:
> 
> Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you went with the newspaper owned by the Moonie Church, and you complain about other people's sources?
Click to expand...


Dood, if some leftist rag covered the story you'd get their link.
Survey: Border agents want Trump’s wall

Poll: Border Patrol Agents Want Wall

Border patrol agents overwhelmingly back Trump on wall


----------



## JoeB131

Kondor3 said:


> This was your second time being right today... Pub Elites want your Beaner Buddies for the slave labor... Dem Elites want your Beaner Buddies for the votes.



Yup... except they can't actually vote for a long time, but never mind. 

The thing is, you dumb rednecks who live in mortal fear that a Mexican might date your daughter... you don't count. I'm sorry Trump let you think you did.


----------



## JoeB131

Thinker101 said:


> Dood, if some leftist rag covered the story you'd get their link.



WND and Newsmax... more crazy stuff. 

Did you find something on Stormfront yet?


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This was your second time being right today... Pub Elites want your Beaner Buddies for the slave labor... Dem Elites want your Beaner Buddies for the votes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup... except they can't actually vote for a long time, but never mind.
> 
> The thing is, you dumb rednecks who live in mortal fear that a Mexican might date your daughter... you don't count. I'm sorry Trump let you think you did.
Click to expand...

/——/ The reason you want the Beaners to invade is so your butt ugly daughter can finally get a date.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Yup... except they can't actually vote for a long time, but never mind.



At least not legally.  

The big plan is to stuff as many of these minorities into the country as they can.  If and when they regain total power of the federal government, grant citizenship to all the illegals who would then be eligible to vote.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious?  Gizmodo for your evidence?  Here, try a real source:
> 
> Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you went with the newspaper owned by the Moonie Church, and you complain about other people's sources?
Click to expand...


At least it's a legitimate source,  I have no idea WTF you found those other guys at.  

It's test time: who did the border patrol endorse for President, Trump or Hil-Liar?  And why?


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> At least not legally.
> 
> The big plan is to stuff as many of these minorities into the country as they can. If and when they regain total power of the federal government, grant citizenship to all the illegals who would then be eligible to vote.



Works for me.  

Here's the real problem your side has.  

You haven't won a straight up national vote save one time since 1988.  

If it werent' for shit like Gerrymandering and the Electoral College, you guys wouldn't be in power now.  

Now, Bush understood that the GOP needed to win over minorities, which is why he's the only Republican who won more than 50% since his daddy in 1988.  

But the nativists in your party said, "Fuck that!" and went full racist.


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Budget $4 Trillion a year
> 
> 21 to build it once. Far less to maintain it.
> 
> And it saves the people hundreds of billions a year at all levels of government.
> 
> But if you really want to see that $21 billion is a pittance in our budget, pretend it's a welfare program. Then a $1T is a pittance to you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare programs do a lot of good.
> 
> Walls are fucking worthless.  People just climb over them.
> 
> You see, this is where you are kind of confused.  The Rich People who run real businesses don't want illegal aliens to stop coming. They WANT that cheap labor as an option.
Click to expand...

/——/ But their cheap illegal labor undercuts the minimum wage you cherish. Dem Dianne Finestein said so in 1994. Google it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Budget $4 Trillion a year
> 
> 21 to build it once. Far less to maintain it.
> 
> And it saves the people hundreds of billions a year at all levels of government.
> 
> But if you really want to see that $21 billion is a pittance in our budget, pretend it's a welfare program. Then a $1T is a pittance to you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare programs do a lot of good.
> 
> Walls are fucking worthless.  People just climb over them.
> 
> You see, this is where you are kind of confused.  The Rich People who run real businesses don't want illegal aliens to stop coming. They WANT that cheap labor as an option.
Click to expand...


Yes they do, and this is why we citizens need to take action to stop them, such as building a wall.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> At least it's a legitimate source, I have no idea WTF you found those other guys at.



The Moonie Times isn't a legitimate source.  

One of those articles was from the Cato institute.  

You know, a respected conservative think tank before the GOP became the Cult of Trump. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> It's test time: who did the border patrol endorse for President, Trump or Hil-Liar? And why?



Who cares?  

Not even going to bother looking it up. I'm sure the Border Patrol, one of the least respected federal agencies, probably like the idea of Trump showering money on them like they were a cheap Adult Movie Actress.


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least it's a legitimate source, I have no idea WTF you found those other guys at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Moonie Times isn't a legitimate source.
> 
> One of those articles was from the Cato institute.
> 
> You know, a respected conservative think tank before the GOP became the Cult of Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's test time: who did the border patrol endorse for President, Trump or Hil-Liar? And why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?
> 
> Not even going to bother looking it up. I'm sure the Border Patrol, one of the least respected federal agencies, probably like the idea of Trump showering money on them like they were a cheap Adult Movie Actress.
Click to expand...

/——/ Border Patrol is the least respected??? Where besides your local DNC headquarters??


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least not legally.
> 
> The big plan is to stuff as many of these minorities into the country as they can. If and when they regain total power of the federal government, grant citizenship to all the illegals who would then be eligible to vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> Here's the real problem your side has.
> 
> You haven't won a straight up national vote save one time since 1988.
> 
> If it werent' for shit like Gerrymandering and the Electoral College, you guys wouldn't be in power now.
> 
> Now, Bush understood that the GOP needed to win over minorities, which is why he's the only Republican who won more than 50% since his daddy in 1988.
> 
> But the nativists in your party said, "Fuck that!" and went full racist.
Click to expand...


Bush is a moderate just like any other; Democrat lite.  

It's amazing how brainwashed you leftists are.  Your puppet masters tell you something, and you just believe it without thought: 

Trump won: Russia, Comey, electoral college, air time for Trump, 

Bush 2nd election: Diebold machines, gerrymandering. 

Bush 1st election: punch card ballots, Supreme Court, hanging chads. 

Republicans take leadership of Congress: Gerrymandering, Voter-ID.  

Are you starting to see a pattern here yet Joe?  Isn't it obvious what they are telling you?  

If the Democrats ever told you the truth, it would knock the wind out of your sails, and that is the GOP is long from dead.  It's just brainwashing trying to convince you Socialism has finally arrived.  If they told you the truth, many would not come out to vote any longer.  So they lie to try and convince you they were right all along, it's just that the Republicans cheated somehow.  But don't worry, conservatism is dead.........really......


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> The Moonie Times isn't a legitimate source.
> 
> One of those articles was from the Cato institute.
> 
> You know, a respected conservative think tank before the GOP became the Cult of Trump.



So?  Conservatives often differ in opinion.  We don't march in lockstep like Democrats doing whatever they say.  

The border patrol knows that a wall will make their life much easier.  Less effort into nabbing the SOB's and more time preventing it.  It may even save lives.  



JoeB131 said:


> Who cares?
> 
> Not even going to bother looking it up.



Can't blame you there.  



JoeB131 said:


> I'm sure the Border Patrol, one of the least respected federal agencies, probably like the idea of Trump showering money on them like they were a cheap Adult Movie Actress.



Who said they were one of the least respected agencies?  I would say the FBI wins that race.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure they will. They wouldn't just get a job, they'd commit murder instead. That makes a lot of sense. And how will this individual feed his family in prison for 25 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, working on the assumption they can get jobs, and that they are thinking rationally when they are starving.
Click to expand...


There are more jobs than workers today.  There is no reason to be on FS unless you are physically or mentally incapable of holding a job.  

I know you won't read the link, so I'll tell you what Maine did.  They instituted requirements to receive food stamps. These are people with no dependents: 

Have a job working at least 20 hours a week. 
Volunteer at least 20 hours a month. 
Be enrolled in a vocation program.  

Do you know what the results were?  Most of those people dropped out of the program.  Guess they weren't that hungry after all.  Many conservative run states did the same thing getting the same results, and guess what?  Nobody got killed.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Guy you didn't put a salary on it... you just put a list of requirements that you wanted, and this job met them.
> 
> Geezus, man, I'm spending more time looking at your failed career than you are.
> 
> Five minutes on a job site, I found a job you qualified for that offered health insurance... so much for the whiny "I can't find a job" when you don't even fucking try.



Under that guise, you can say I could work at McDonald's too, but that doesn't qualify for a real job.  

When we discuss minimum wage, I suggest that those people work more hours.  You on the left claim that's uncalled for.  Nobody should have to work more than 40 hours to make a living. 

And here you are, trying to tell me about jobs I already know pay shit.  You don't even know the company AIM. Their tractors are ten years old and pure garbage. You might make money when the thing is running or if the DOT cops don't have you pulled over for an inspection.  And guess what?  That job will be posted for the next several weeks or until a foreigner takes the job.  

I'm not 25 years old.  I can't be hopping up and down off of a flatbed even if it did pay anything.  And take note that they offer insurance, not provide it.  In other words, besides the crap money, they want an employee contribution as well.  



JoeB131 said:


> You only make $14.00 an hour now, what are you whining about?
> 
> Oh, did I let the secret out of the bag again?



You have no idea what I make, but I can tell you it's been many years since I worked for $14.00 an hour.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Welfare is a giveaway. The rich earned their wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rich earned their wealth?  Are you that stupid?  The Walton’s earned nothing. Sam Walton earned their wealth. The Waltons sit on their asses and collect dividends off the work if others.
> 
> The rich have a tax code that keeps wealth flowing to the top. They have labour laws which allow them to deny health care or benefits to workers, and to pay them so little their workers need welfare to supplement their incomes.
> 
> They appoint a burger flipper as “manager” so they can work him/her 60 hours a week without paying overtime.
> 
> Other countries put their people first. America puts their corporations first, and the wealthy second. Working men and women, who make up the vast majority of your population are denigrated, abused and paid the least amount possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Walton's don't do anything, why don't the workers leave and open up their own store?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a history of stupid posts, this is by far the dumbest thing ever.
> 
> You bitch about your job endlessly. Why don’t you quit and open your own trucking company, or become an independent hauler?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I thought about that many times.  But I already have a side business that keeps me occupied.  I don't need two businesses.
> 
> And why is my remark stupid?  Is it because you can't answer my question?
> 
> Yes, the workers work.  That's what they get paid to do.  But the workers didn't come up with the hundreds of thousands of dollars to open up that store.  The workers couldn't pay the utilities or taxes.  The workers couldn't compete with similar stores if they paid themselves great money.  The workers don't have an office staff to handle government regulations, payroll, billers and paperwork pushers.  They don't have the resources to even open up such an office.  They don't have to spend the money for snow removal or lot maintenance.
> 
> What the Walton's have done is provide a place for people to work.  Without them, some of those people wouldn't have any kind of job at all.  They spent money to create the idea, the structure, the organization.  They risked their own money.  That's what they do.
> 
> Just because they don't sweep floors doesn't mean they are not earning their money.  In the event you didn't know, investment is where you do spend your own money hoping for a return plus profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for them now tax them please.... Your hero worship is touching.Why are we the only modern country without Healthcare daycare good vacations cheap college and training good infrastructure living wage, super duper? 35 years of GOP giveaway to the rich.
Click to expand...


You mean we are the only country where people take care of themselves?  My Lord, what an awful place.


----------



## Flopper

Cellblock2429 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What a shocking revaluation.  Democrats don't have to say or do anything to attract Hispanic voters.  Donald Trump does it all.  He calls them rapist and murders.  Says migrants come from shit hole countries.  Blames our drug problems on Mexico. Wants to make Mexico pay the cost of defending our border with a wall. Wants to make it impossible for them to bring their families to the US. And he hovers over a taco salad proclaiming, "I love Hispanics."
> *
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ One has nothing to do with the other. Maybe if you loved Americans you’d support a strong border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I believe it's our responsibility to protect our borders.  Asking Mexico a country whose GDP is 5% of ours to pay for defense our border is downright embarrassing.  If the mightiest nation on earth can't defend it's borders against peasants, mostly women and children, maybe it doesn't deserve those borders. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Mexico (who helped usher in this current group of people) have  no responsibility for what's going on?  They allow this to happen.  They encourage it to happen, but it's our fault.
> 
> What do you think Canada would say if we sent Mexicans to their border?  You know, allow them to ride a train all the way up north, then dump those people on them?
> 
> Of course it would be our fault.  We helped these people get to that border.  We didn't stop them, we didn't try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The Mexican government turned back 400 people at the border because they were not allowed to enter Mexico.
> 
> The Mexican government allowed the remainder to enter Mexico legally. The government had no legal grounds to stop them from traveling to the US border to petition for asylum.  The government did not transport, lodge or feed them.  Private organizations helped them and in some towns, food and lodging was provided by the people.
> 
> It appears the only people that encouraged any criminal act were border guards that refused to let petitioners put foot on US soil to petition for asylum leaving them no choice but to unlawfully enter the country.
> 
> I hope you're not saying Mexico allowing asylum seekers to petition the US is why they should pay for a 20 billion wall to protect the Unities States.  That's pretty far fetched.
> 
> Regardless of any action of Mexico, it is the responsibility of the US to protect it's border and certainly not Mexico's responsibility.  Asking the Mexican goverment to protect the US border is completely insane.
> 
> It appears Trump is trying to work some deal with Mexico so they will stop asylum seekers who can enter Mexico legally at Guatemalan border.  Hopefully, Mexico will give him the big FU.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ You’re just making stuff up. Mexico has every legal right to stop anyone from entering their country for any reason. Your entire post is pure conjecture and wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

*Mexico has no reason whatsoever to stop migrants seeking asylum in the US.  They have broken no Mexican laws and can legally remain in Mexico for up to 180 days.  Again, you people are expecting Mexico to defend US boarders.  You accuse them of sending rapists and murders to the US, compare them to animals and then you expect their help.*


----------



## Kondor3

JoeB131 said:


> ...The thing is, you dumb rednecks who live in mortal fear that a Mexican might date your daughter....


Typical LibProg ploy attempting to portray their political opponents as less intelligent than they are.

They *DO* seem to resort to that most frequently when they realize that nobody's buying into their arguments any longer and there's nothing left to do but strike outwards.



> ...you don't count...


Incorrect... given the results of the November 8, 2016 election, it's more like the LibProgs who don't count in our present age. Enjoying your time on the sidelines?



> ...I'm sorry Trump let you think you did.


Most Republicans (I'm not one, myself) of my acquaintance think the Imperial Cheeto is full of $hit, but they're hopeful he'll come through on a couple of related promises.

Personally, I'm not holding my breath for any of those to materialize, but it *DOES* provide endless amusement, watching LibProg Children wailing and gnashing their teeth.


----------



## Kondor3

Flopper said:


> ...Mexico has no reason whatsoever to stop migrants seeking asylum in the US...


True.

It's time to *GIVE* them a reason to stop the flow.


----------



## Flopper

JoeB131 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And continued advocacy by White Folk, *FOR* White Folk, will ensure that they *CONTINUE* to have all the advantages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until we are a minority in this country, then we are kind of in for it.
> 
> Hey, here's a crazy idea.. how about we actually have equality for all, so when we ARE a minority, they really can't excuse doing to us the same shit we've been doing to them?
> 
> Naw... that would actually, you know, be a decent thing to do.
> 
> Well, I'll probably be dead by then, so I don't care.
Click to expand...

*Death rates of whites in America now exceed birth rates, a trend that started decades ago is accelerating. Also the number of mixed race marriages and births are increasing.  Maybe in a hundred years we'll see the end of discrimination based on skin color.  It will then be the blue eyes vs the brown eyes.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ One has nothing to do with the other. Maybe if you loved Americans you’d support a strong border.
> 
> 
> 
> *I believe it's our responsibility to protect our borders.  Asking Mexico a country whose GDP is 5% of ours to pay for defense our border is downright embarrassing.  If the mightiest nation on earth can't defend it's borders against peasants, mostly women and children, maybe it doesn't deserve those borders. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Mexico (who helped usher in this current group of people) have  no responsibility for what's going on?  They allow this to happen.  They encourage it to happen, but it's our fault.
> 
> What do you think Canada would say if we sent Mexicans to their border?  You know, allow them to ride a train all the way up north, then dump those people on them?
> 
> Of course it would be our fault.  We helped these people get to that border.  We didn't stop them, we didn't try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The Mexican government turned back 400 people at the border because they were not allowed to enter Mexico.
> 
> The Mexican government allowed the remainder to enter Mexico legally. The government had no legal grounds to stop them from traveling to the US border to petition for asylum.  The government did not transport, lodge or feed them.  Private organizations helped them and in some towns, food and lodging was provided by the people.
> 
> It appears the only people that encouraged any criminal act were border guards that refused to let petitioners put foot on US soil to petition for asylum leaving them no choice but to unlawfully enter the country.
> 
> I hope you're not saying Mexico allowing asylum seekers to petition the US is why they should pay for a 20 billion wall to protect the Unities States.  That's pretty far fetched.
> 
> Regardless of any action of Mexico, it is the responsibility of the US to protect it's border and certainly not Mexico's responsibility.  Asking the Mexican goverment to protect the US border is completely insane.
> 
> It appears Trump is trying to work some deal with Mexico so they will stop asylum seekers who can enter Mexico legally at Guatemalan border.  Hopefully, Mexico will give him the big FU.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ You’re just making stuff up. Mexico has every legal right to stop anyone from entering their country for any reason. Your entire post is pure conjecture and wishful thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Mexico has no reason whatsoever to stop migrants seeking asylum in the US.  They have broken no Mexican laws and can legally remain in Mexico for up to 180 days.  Again, you people are expecting Mexico to defend US boarders.  You accuse them of sending rapists and murders to the US, compare them to animals and then you expect their help.*
Click to expand...


Just because they aren't breaking any laws doesn't mean what they are doing is right.  If we had a totally closed border with no asylum, Mexico would have stopped those people the minute they crossed their border.  They never would have come close to the US.  

But because Mexico let them in and gave them their blessings, now it became our problem.


----------



## Flopper

Kondor3 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Mexico has no reason whatsoever to stop migrants seeking asylum in the US...
> 
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> It's time to *GIVE* them a reason to stop the flow.
Click to expand...

*Compared to the US, Mexican boarders are pretty open. People from Central America flow into Mexico as easy as US tourist enter Mexico. There are no visas or passports required.  Restricting travelers from Central America would be a difficult decision for Mexico. *


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you see, if the law applies equally to everyone, then it's not an abuse.
> 
> You can't refuse service to gay people if you are an atheist who hates gays, and you can't refuse service to gay people if you are a religous person who hates gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a law, it's a protection.  Learn the difference.
> 
> Homosexuality is against most religious creeds.  It's in the Holy Bible.  You can't tell somebody you won't bake a cake because you hate them, but you can say you won't participate in their ritual because it goes against your religious beliefs.
> 
> Religious beliefs aside, there is a moral or offensive part of this.  If the KKK came to your town for a party, and went to a black baker asking for a cake showing a black man being hung, should the government allow that black baker to be sued to the point of having to close up his business because he refused to make that particular cake?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I can't be responsible for your ignorance. YOu need to get out more. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people who are clearly NOT disabled bringing their dogs into a public place.
> 
> Service Animal Scams: A Growing Problem
> 
> I also discovered a host of dubious service and emotional support animal "registries." For example, the United States Dog Registry will certify any dog as a “service dog” or a "therapy dog" for $58, and an outfit called ESA of America will happily certify your pet rat, hamster, or iguana as an “emotional support animal.” (Sample ESA customer testimonial–“I have now taken 3 flights with my dog, and the peace of mind of being able to just pack up and go anywhere I want with him is the greatest thing ever.")
> 
> Then I began to ask around about bogus assistance animals and immediately began to hear stories. A high profile animal activist confessed to me that several of his friends had purchased phony service vests so they could take their pets into restaurants (he refuses to go out to eat with those friends anymore). And my daughter told me about a woman she knows who got a free flight for her dog to Southeast Asia by having a social worker pal write letter a saying the pet provided her with emotional support (while the ruse worked, the dog did have to wear a canine diaper on the trip).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and people are going through all that just in case they get a Muslim cab driver that doesn't want their dog in the cab.
Click to expand...

*It all depends on the type of discrimination and the public accommodations laws of the state which define what type of discrimination in public accommodations is illegal. Federal law prevents discrimination based on race, color, place of origin, religion, and disabilities.*


----------



## Flopper

Cellblock2429 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is proposing cutting legal immigration.
> 
> Republicans balk at Trump’s cuts to legal immigration
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I've conversed with a lot people about illegal immigration and the one thing that stands out is that most people that feel strongly about stopping illegal immigration think legal immigration should be reduced or abolished.  They just don't want all those Hispanics, Africans, and Asians in their country regardless of how they got here.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or maybe we feel that they are not assimilating in our country very well and need more time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That depends of what you mean by assimilation.  It's going to take quite a while to change their skin color and eliminate all trace of their heritage, like about 100 years.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ it has nothing to do with changing skin color you freakin moron. It means blending into our society
Click to expand...

*I said, "That depends of what you mean by assimilation. It's going to take quite a while to change their skin color and eliminate all trace of their heritage, like about 100 years."  That was not to be taken literally.  Maybe I should have said "like never" and you would understand.*


----------



## Cellblock2429

Flopper said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I've conversed with a lot people about illegal immigration and the one thing that stands out is that most people that feel strongly about stopping illegal immigration think legal immigration should be reduced or abolished.  They just don't want all those Hispanics, Africans, and Asians in their country regardless of how they got here.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or maybe we feel that they are not assimilating in our country very well and need more time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That depends of what you mean by assimilation.  It's going to take quite a while to change their skin color and eliminate all trace of their heritage, like about 100 years.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ it has nothing to do with changing skin color you freakin moron. It means blending into our society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I said, "That depends of what you mean by assimilation. It's going to take quite a while to change their skin color and eliminate all trace of their heritage, like about 100 years."  That was not to be taken literally.  Maybe I should have said "like never" and you would understand.*
Click to expand...

/——-/ Yeah, 100 years and never are often interchanged as in How long was the 100 years war?  It was never.


----------



## Flopper

Kondor3 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> We desperately need more legal immigrants...
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. We are a nation of 330,000,000 - one third of a billion - we already have the intellect and the warm bodies to produce whatever we need.
Click to expand...

*Our birth rate is much too low.  It just reached a 30 year low and if the trend continues as is likely, our birth rate will be less than the death rate within 10 to 15 years.  We also have 10,000 people a day going into retirement and we are generating 150,000 to 250,000 jobs a month. Immigration is limited to about 680,000 a year.  Do the math.  If we're going to continue to grow, we are going to need a lot more people in the 21 century.*


----------



## Cellblock2429

Flopper said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> We desperately need more legal immigrants...
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. We are a nation of 330,000,000 - one third of a billion - we already have the intellect and the warm bodies to produce whatever we need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Our birth rate is much too low.  It just reached a 30 year low and if the trend continues as is likely, our birth rate will be less than the death rate within 10 to 15 years.  We also have 10,000 people a day going into retirement and we are generating 150,000 to 250,000 jobs a month.  If we going to continue to grow, we are going to need a lot more people in the 21 century.*
Click to expand...

/——/ Time to cut back on abortions and rebuild the population.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ We restricted immigrants for decades so the ones here could assimilate. The *Immigration* Act *of* 1924 created a quota system that restricted entry to 2 percent *of* the total *number of* people *of* each nationality in America as *of* the 1890 national census–a system that favored *immigrants* from Western Europe–and prohibited *immigrants* from Asia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the left feels this kind of thing has never happened before---only with Trump.
> 
> The changes taking place because of foreigners is obvious.  It's time to stop migration until at least everybody can speak and read the language here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think immigration should be tied to their ability to support themselves rather than quotas.  You come here, support yourself for seven years, you can become a citizen.  They aren't going to be able to do that if they don't learn to speak English
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, but talking with people close to the border (I've never been there) the problem they have are illegals crowding 12 people into a two family home or apartment.  That brings down property value.  So they can work at McDonald's part time and still make claim of supporting themselves.  The other problem is anchor babies.  Come here and have a bunch of kids, and then you can share in their welfare plus be able to make claim they need you here because they are little Americans that cannot support themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are real issues that need to be solved.  We have a better chance to do that though if people can only come legally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well some of them are coming legally and that's what they do.  Again, no first hand experience, but just going by what people who live in the area tell me.
Click to expand...

*Some of them are coming legally.  We have just over 37 million legal immigrants living in the United States.  The best estimates of undocumented  immigrants are 11 to 12 million.  In other words we have about 3 times as many legal immigrants.  That's not just "some".*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> We desperately need more legal immigrants...
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. We are a nation of 330,000,000 - one third of a billion - we already have the intellect and the warm bodies to produce whatever we need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Our birth rate is much too low.  It just reached a 30 year low and if the trend continues as is likely, our birth rate will be less than the death rate within 10 to 15 years.  We also have 10,000 people a day going into retirement and we are generating 150,000 to 250,000 jobs a month. Immigration is limited to about 680,000 a year.  Do the math.  If we're going to continue to grow, we are going to need a lot more people in the 21 century.*
Click to expand...


What is this obsession with having to grow?  Do you realize we had over a 100 million less people here in 1970 than we do today and we did just fine?  And that was back in the day where automation wasn't even a concern.


----------



## Flopper

Cellblock2429 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.  A year or so ago he was supporting a plan to cut immigration in half.
> Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half*
> 
> 
> 
> /——/
> There has to be limits to any immigration. The illegals are taking spots from the legals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There is.  The body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.  I don't think Trump is messing with that number.  It is .2% of the population, way too small.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.
> 
> Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.
> 
> Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls.  Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote.  Your motive is clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What a shocking revaluation.  Democrats don't have to say or do anything to attract Hispanic voters.  Donald Trump does it all.  He calls them rapist and murders.  Says migrants come from shit hole countries.  Blames our drug problems on Mexico. Wants to make Mexico pay the cost of defending our border with a wall. Wants to make it impossible for them to bring their families to the US. And he hovers over a taco salad proclaiming, "I love Hispanics."
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ One has nothing to do with the other. Maybe if you loved Americans you’d support a strong border.
Click to expand...

*Our southern border is stronger than it has ever been and illegal immigration has been falling for nearly 2 decades.  In 2000 it was over 1.6 million, 1.3 million in 2005, 900,000 in 2010, and 310,000 in 2017.
3 Charts That Show What's Actually Happening Along The Southern Border*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you see, if the law applies equally to everyone, then it's not an abuse.
> 
> You can't refuse service to gay people if you are an atheist who hates gays, and you can't refuse service to gay people if you are a religous person who hates gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a law, it's a protection.  Learn the difference.
> 
> Homosexuality is against most religious creeds.  It's in the Holy Bible.  You can't tell somebody you won't bake a cake because you hate them, but you can say you won't participate in their ritual because it goes against your religious beliefs.
> 
> Religious beliefs aside, there is a moral or offensive part of this.  If the KKK came to your town for a party, and went to a black baker asking for a cake showing a black man being hung, should the government allow that black baker to be sued to the point of having to close up his business because he refused to make that particular cake?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I can't be responsible for your ignorance. YOu need to get out more. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people who are clearly NOT disabled bringing their dogs into a public place.
> 
> Service Animal Scams: A Growing Problem
> 
> I also discovered a host of dubious service and emotional support animal "registries." For example, the United States Dog Registry will certify any dog as a “service dog” or a "therapy dog" for $58, and an outfit called ESA of America will happily certify your pet rat, hamster, or iguana as an “emotional support animal.” (Sample ESA customer testimonial–“I have now taken 3 flights with my dog, and the peace of mind of being able to just pack up and go anywhere I want with him is the greatest thing ever.")
> 
> Then I began to ask around about bogus assistance animals and immediately began to hear stories. A high profile animal activist confessed to me that several of his friends had purchased phony service vests so they could take their pets into restaurants (he refuses to go out to eat with those friends anymore). And my daughter told me about a woman she knows who got a free flight for her dog to Southeast Asia by having a social worker pal write letter a saying the pet provided her with emotional support (while the ruse worked, the dog did have to wear a canine diaper on the trip).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and people are going through all that just in case they get a Muslim cab driver that doesn't want their dog in the cab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It all depends on the type of discrimination and the public accommodations laws of the state which define what type of discrimination in public accommodations is illegal. Federal law prevents discrimination based on race, color, place of origin, religion, and disabilities.*
Click to expand...


I didn't bring it up to have a discussion about law, I brought it up in context of assimilation.  These people don't care what the law is.  They refuse to allow animals in their cab and that's it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Mexico has no reason whatsoever to stop migrants seeking asylum in the US...
> 
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> It's time to *GIVE* them a reason to stop the flow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Compared to the US, Mexican boarders are pretty open. People from Central America flow into Mexico as easy as US tourist enter Mexico. There are no visas or passports required.  Restricting travelers from Central America would be a difficult decision for Mexico. *
Click to expand...


_*‐ Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years’ imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years’ imprisonment. Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country (see, for example, President Obama’s illegal-alien aunt — a fugitive from deportation for eight years who is awaiting a second decision on her previously rejected asylum claim).

‐ Law-enforcement officials at all levels — by national mandate — must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal-alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration-enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens’ arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.*_

How Mexico Treats Illegal Aliens | National Review


----------



## Flopper

Ame®icano said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is to persuade the parents to waive a trial and plead guilty. Once they plead guilty, their deportation can be expedited and they will be united with their children in few days or weeks.  If they ask for their day in court, they won't see their children for months, or up to 1 year and they are told this.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of crap.
> 
> If that is the "real reason" and if Barry hasn't done anything wrong by doing it (with your silent approval), than Trump is doing nothing wrong neither.
> 
> Kids don't belong to jail. Their parents are lawbreakers, not them.
Click to expand...

*The Obama administration placed nearly 90,000 children with a sponsor, after they were detained at the border without a legal guardian. The only time children split from their family under Obama was if the adult was suspected of not being a guardian, had an outstanding warrant, or federal agents suspected the adult of another serious crime like trafficking or smuggling.

The Trump administration policy was to separate all children from their parents with no exceptions and if there had not been the outcry from the public and pressure from congress he would still be doing it.  No law compelled him to do it.  He did as deterrent and to speed up deportations.  His actions were so deplorable that even his wife and daughter spoke out against it.
*
*Not real news: The truth about volcanic gems, and immigrant kids placed into care under Obama*


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Budget $4 Trillion a year
> 
> 21 to build it once. Far less to maintain it.
> 
> And it saves the people hundreds of billions a year at all levels of government.
> 
> But if you really want to see that $21 billion is a pittance in our budget, pretend it's a welfare program. Then a $1T is a pittance to you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare programs do a lot of good.
> 
> Walls are fucking worthless.  People just climb over them.
> 
> You see, this is where you are kind of confused.  The Rich People who run real businesses don't want illegal aliens to stop coming. They WANT that cheap labor as an option.
Click to expand...


So you're doing this for the rich people?  What a stupid ass you are to carry their water for them


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a disappointing article that CATO one by David Bier was. I was looking forward to reading that when I saw it hoping it was a rational analysis. All he did was parrot the talking points of the Democrat party. He also listed challenges with a wall, such as terrain as if the left's premise that 1 illegal alien = 1 million illegal aliens, one gets through the wall failed, is true
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if mountain ranges and oceans can be overcome, anything built by man can be overcome.
Click to expand...


Only a fraction of the people coming now will get through.  You know that very well, which is why you're so desperate to stop it


----------



## kaz

Cellblock2429 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a disappointing article that CATO one by David Bier was. I was looking forward to reading that when I saw it hoping it was a rational analysis. All he did was parrot the talking points of the Democrat party. He also listed challenges with a wall, such as terrain as if the left's premise that 1 illegal alien = 1 million illegal aliens, one gets through the wall failed, is true
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if mountain ranges and oceans can be overcome, anything built by man can be overcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ I suppose you don’t bother locking your doors and windows at night. I mean what’s the point?
Click to expand...


Yes, he's melting down because he knows it will work.  He's trying to make the border wall sound like a chain link fence.

So Joe, you don't want fences around nuclear power plants either, right?  I mean they don't work


----------



## kaz

Cellblock2429 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Budget $4 Trillion a year
> 
> 21 to build it once. Far less to maintain it.
> 
> And it saves the people hundreds of billions a year at all levels of government.
> 
> But if you really want to see that $21 billion is a pittance in our budget, pretend it's a welfare program. Then a $1T is a pittance to you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare programs do a lot of good.
> 
> Walls are fucking worthless.  People just climb over them.
> 
> You see, this is where you are kind of confused.  The Rich People who run real businesses don't want illegal aliens to stop coming. They WANT that cheap labor as an option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ But their cheap illegal labor undercuts the minimum wage you cherish. Dem Dianne Finestein said so in 1994. Google it.
Click to expand...


Yes, illegal aliens take the jobs from poor Americans and both vote for Democrats.  It's win-win for Joe.  He doesn't want the gravy train to stop.  He doesn't just lose the illegal aliens from voting.  As the poor get jobs, more and more will siphon off the Democrat pipeline.  That's why Joe's sweating so profusely


----------



## Cellblock2429

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


/——-/ Young Senator gets it right on illegal immigration,


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the left feels this kind of thing has never happened before---only with Trump.
> 
> The changes taking place because of foreigners is obvious.  It's time to stop migration until at least everybody can speak and read the language here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think immigration should be tied to their ability to support themselves rather than quotas.  You come here, support yourself for seven years, you can become a citizen.  They aren't going to be able to do that if they don't learn to speak English
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, but talking with people close to the border (I've never been there) the problem they have are illegals crowding 12 people into a two family home or apartment.  That brings down property value.  So they can work at McDonald's part time and still make claim of supporting themselves.  The other problem is anchor babies.  Come here and have a bunch of kids, and then you can share in their welfare plus be able to make claim they need you here because they are little Americans that cannot support themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are real issues that need to be solved.  We have a better chance to do that though if people can only come legally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well some of them are coming legally and that's what they do.  Again, no first hand experience, but just going by what people who live in the area tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Some of them are coming legally.  We have just over 37 million legal immigrants living in the United States.  The best estimates of undocumented  immigrants are 11 to 12 million.  In other words we have about 3 times as many legal immigrants.  That's not just "some".*
Click to expand...


Actually, no experts actually believe 11 to 12 million.  That estimate is over a decade old and would suggest that no one has come here, which is of course crap.  Most put the real number at 25 to 30 million


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/
> There has to be limits to any immigration. The illegals are taking spots from the legals.
> 
> 
> 
> *There is.  The body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.  I don't think Trump is messing with that number.  It is .2% of the population, way too small.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.
> 
> Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.
> 
> Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls.  Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote.  Your motive is clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What a shocking revaluation.  Democrats don't have to say or do anything to attract Hispanic voters.  Donald Trump does it all.  He calls them rapist and murders.  Says migrants come from shit hole countries.  Blames our drug problems on Mexico. Wants to make Mexico pay the cost of defending our border with a wall. Wants to make it impossible for them to bring their families to the US. And he hovers over a taco salad proclaiming, "I love Hispanics."
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ One has nothing to do with the other. Maybe if you loved Americans you’d support a strong border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Our southern border is stronger than it has ever been and illegal immigration has been falling for nearly 2 decades.  In 2000 it was over 1.6 million, 1.3 million in 2005, 900,000 in 2010, and 310,000 in 2017.
> 3 Charts That Show What's Actually Happening Along The Southern Border*
Click to expand...


And it's back up, it ebbs and flows.  Regardless, you talk about 310 THOUSAND people like it's nothing.  That's still a massive number of people entering our country illegally


----------



## Flopper

Ame®icano said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is to persuade the parents to waive a trial and plead guilty. Once they plead guilty, their deportation can be expedited and they will be united with their children in few days or weeks.  If they ask for their day in court, they won't see their children for months, or up to 1 year and they are told this.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of crap.
> 
> If that is the "real reason" and if Barry hasn't done anything wrong by doing it (with your silent approval), than Trump is doing nothing wrong neither.
> 
> Kids don't belong to jail. Their parents are lawbreakers, not them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What Obama did or did not do is irrelevant now.  However, Obama separated families when it was necessary, and certainly not as a deterrent or as punishment.  Trump did so as deterrent.  He would still be doing so now were it not for the backlash in congress and the outcry from the public.
> 
> In our immigration system, if you detain parents and take away the kids, parents will waive their right to trial because it's the fastest way to get their kids back.  If they ask for a trial they can be detained for up to a year.  If they ask for asylum, they could be away from the kids for 4-6 months.  What parent is going to take that kind of risk. In the countries these people come from, police take away kids and they are never seen again.
> 
> We created family detention center so families could be kept together.  There's no reason why we should not use them.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Barry and Trump are doing the same thing, and what Barry did is irrelevant, how come what Trump is doing is relevant? Second, this is not about what Barry did and Trump doing, my point is that you leftists suddenly start caring about children, only after you were doing the same thing, on even larger care. That makes you hypocrites, all over again.
> 
> And, family detention centers that were built by Bush were unacceptable to you lefties, so you demanded changes in policies. Bush caved in, Barry continued the same thing, Trump too. Now you want family detention centers again, that you were against during Bush era.
Click to expand...

*Trump and Obama were not doing the same thing. 

Obama was putting unescorted children with a sponsor.  The only spiting of families occurred when there were outstanding warrants against parents or there was evidence of human trafficking.

Trump separated kids from all families detained, zero tolerance. Children as young as 5 years old were routinely being taken from mothers.  In one case a 9 month old was taken.  His actions created a huge backlash.  It was so deplorable that his wife and daughter spoke out against it.

A federal count order released 1700 families in family detention centers because the facilities were not complete; that is they did not meet all requirement for housing children.  The only change in policy was to not hold the families in detention until the centers were upgraded.  When Obama left office the family detention centers were being used.*


----------



## francoHFW

Cellblock2429 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich earned their wealth?  Are you that stupid?  The Walton’s earned nothing. Sam Walton earned their wealth. The Waltons sit on their asses and collect dividends off the work if others.
> 
> The rich have a tax code that keeps wealth flowing to the top. They have labour laws which allow them to deny health care or benefits to workers, and to pay them so little their workers need welfare to supplement their incomes.
> 
> They appoint a burger flipper as “manager” so they can work him/her 60 hours a week without paying overtime.
> 
> Other countries put their people first. America puts their corporations first, and the wealthy second. Working men and women, who make up the vast majority of your population are denigrated, abused and paid the least amount possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Walton's don't do anything, why don't the workers leave and open up their own store?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a history of stupid posts, this is by far the dumbest thing ever.
> 
> You bitch about your job endlessly. Why don’t you quit and open your own trucking company, or become an independent hauler?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I thought about that many times.  But I already have a side business that keeps me occupied.  I don't need two businesses.
> 
> And why is my remark stupid?  Is it because you can't answer my question?
> 
> Yes, the workers work.  That's what they get paid to do.  But the workers didn't come up with the hundreds of thousands of dollars to open up that store.  The workers couldn't pay the utilities or taxes.  The workers couldn't compete with similar stores if they paid themselves great money.  The workers don't have an office staff to handle government regulations, payroll, billers and paperwork pushers.  They don't have the resources to even open up such an office.  They don't have to spend the money for snow removal or lot maintenance.
> 
> What the Walton's have done is provide a place for people to work.  Without them, some of those people wouldn't have any kind of job at all.  They spent money to create the idea, the structure, the organization.  They risked their own money.  That's what they do.
> 
> Just because they don't sweep floors doesn't mean they are not earning their money.  In the event you didn't know, investment is where you do spend your own money hoping for a return plus profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for them now tax them please.... Your hero worship is touching.Why are we the only modern country without Healthcare daycare good vacations cheap college and training good infrastructure living wage, super duper? 35 years of GOP giveaway to the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ We have all of those things you goofball.
Click to expand...

You are out of your tiny little mind...


----------



## francoHFW

Cellblock2429 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich earned their wealth?  Are you that stupid?  The Walton’s earned nothing. Sam Walton earned their wealth. The Waltons sit on their asses and collect dividends off the work if others.
> 
> The rich have a tax code that keeps wealth flowing to the top. They have labour laws which allow them to deny health care or benefits to workers, and to pay them so little their workers need welfare to supplement their incomes.
> 
> They appoint a burger flipper as “manager” so they can work him/her 60 hours a week without paying overtime.
> 
> Other countries put their people first. America puts their corporations first, and the wealthy second. Working men and women, who make up the vast majority of your population are denigrated, abused and paid the least amount possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Walton's don't do anything, why don't the workers leave and open up their own store?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a history of stupid posts, this is by far the dumbest thing ever.
> 
> You bitch about your job endlessly. Why don’t you quit and open your own trucking company, or become an independent hauler?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I thought about that many times.  But I already have a side business that keeps me occupied.  I don't need two businesses.
> 
> And why is my remark stupid?  Is it because you can't answer my question?
> 
> Yes, the workers work.  That's what they get paid to do.  But the workers didn't come up with the hundreds of thousands of dollars to open up that store.  The workers couldn't pay the utilities or taxes.  The workers couldn't compete with similar stores if they paid themselves great money.  The workers don't have an office staff to handle government regulations, payroll, billers and paperwork pushers.  They don't have the resources to even open up such an office.  They don't have to spend the money for snow removal or lot maintenance.
> 
> What the Walton's have done is provide a place for people to work.  Without them, some of those people wouldn't have any kind of job at all.  They spent money to create the idea, the structure, the organization.  They risked their own money.  That's what they do.
> 
> Just because they don't sweep floors doesn't mean they are not earning their money.  In the event you didn't know, investment is where you do spend your own money hoping for a return plus profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for them now tax them please.... Your hero worship is touching.Why are we the only modern country without Healthcare daycare good vacations cheap college and training good infrastructure living wage, super duper? 35 years of GOP giveaway to the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ The top 20% pay the bulk of taxes.
> Time to tax the 47% freeloaders
Click to expand...

If you count all taxes and fees, everyone pays between 20 and 30%, super duper, and the rich laugh all the way to the bank...


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich earned their wealth?  Are you that stupid?  The Walton’s earned nothing. Sam Walton earned their wealth. The Waltons sit on their asses and collect dividends off the work if others.
> 
> The rich have a tax code that keeps wealth flowing to the top. They have labour laws which allow them to deny health care or benefits to workers, and to pay them so little their workers need welfare to supplement their incomes.
> 
> They appoint a burger flipper as “manager” so they can work him/her 60 hours a week without paying overtime.
> 
> Other countries put their people first. America puts their corporations first, and the wealthy second. Working men and women, who make up the vast majority of your population are denigrated, abused and paid the least amount possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Walton's don't do anything, why don't the workers leave and open up their own store?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a history of stupid posts, this is by far the dumbest thing ever.
> 
> You bitch about your job endlessly. Why don’t you quit and open your own trucking company, or become an independent hauler?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I thought about that many times.  But I already have a side business that keeps me occupied.  I don't need two businesses.
> 
> And why is my remark stupid?  Is it because you can't answer my question?
> 
> Yes, the workers work.  That's what they get paid to do.  But the workers didn't come up with the hundreds of thousands of dollars to open up that store.  The workers couldn't pay the utilities or taxes.  The workers couldn't compete with similar stores if they paid themselves great money.  The workers don't have an office staff to handle government regulations, payroll, billers and paperwork pushers.  They don't have the resources to even open up such an office.  They don't have to spend the money for snow removal or lot maintenance.
> 
> What the Walton's have done is provide a place for people to work.  Without them, some of those people wouldn't have any kind of job at all.  They spent money to create the idea, the structure, the organization.  They risked their own money.  That's what they do.
> 
> Just because they don't sweep floors doesn't mean they are not earning their money.  In the event you didn't know, investment is where you do spend your own money hoping for a return plus profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for them now tax them please.... Your hero worship is touching.Why are we the only modern country without Healthcare daycare good vacations cheap college and training good infrastructure living wage, super duper? 35 years of GOP giveaway to the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean we are the only country where people take care of themselves?  My Lord, what an awful place.
Click to expand...

Also why we have the the worst inequality, poverty, upward Mobility and infrastructure and everything else in the modern world. Thanks GOP and silly dupes like you. We're number 23!!


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is to persuade the parents to waive a trial and plead guilty. Once they plead guilty, their deportation can be expedited and they will be united with their children in few days or weeks.  If they ask for their day in court, they won't see their children for months, or up to 1 year and they are told this.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of crap.
> 
> If that is the "real reason" and if Barry hasn't done anything wrong by doing it (with your silent approval), than Trump is doing nothing wrong neither.
> 
> Kids don't belong to jail. Their parents are lawbreakers, not them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What Obama did or did not do is irrelevant now.  However, Obama separated families when it was necessary, and certainly not as a deterrent or as punishment.  Trump did so as deterrent.  He would still be doing so now were it not for the backlash in congress and the outcry from the public.
> 
> In our immigration system, if you detain parents and take away the kids, parents will waive their right to trial because it's the fastest way to get their kids back.  If they ask for a trial they can be detained for up to a year.  If they ask for asylum, they could be away from the kids for 4-6 months.  What parent is going to take that kind of risk. In the countries these people come from, police take away kids and they are never seen again.
> 
> We created family detention center so families could be kept together.  There's no reason why we should not use them.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Barry and Trump are doing the same thing, and what Barry did is irrelevant, how come what Trump is doing is relevant? Second, this is not about what Barry did and Trump doing, my point is that you leftists suddenly start caring about children, only after you were doing the same thing, on even larger care. That makes you hypocrites, all over again.
> 
> And, family detention centers that were built by Bush were unacceptable to you lefties, so you demanded changes in policies. Bush caved in, Barry continued the same thing, Trump too. Now you want family detention centers again, that you were against during Bush era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump and Obama were not doing the same thing.
> 
> Obama was putting unescorted children with a sponsor.  The only spiting of families occurred when there were outstanding warrants against parents or there was evidence of human trafficking.
> 
> Trump separated kids from all families detained, zero tolerance. Children as young as 5 years old were routinely being taken from mothers.  In one case a 9 month old was taken.  His actions created a huge backlash.  It was so deplorable that his wife and daughter spoke out against it.
> 
> A federal count order released 1700 families in family detention centers because the facilities were not complete; that is they did not meet all requirement for housing children.  The only change in policy was to not hold the families in detention until the centers were upgraded.  When Obama left office the family detention centers were being used.*
Click to expand...


Keep your eye on the sparrow


----------



## Cellblock2429

francoHFW said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Walton's don't do anything, why don't the workers leave and open up their own store?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a history of stupid posts, this is by far the dumbest thing ever.
> 
> You bitch about your job endlessly. Why don’t you quit and open your own trucking company, or become an independent hauler?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I thought about that many times.  But I already have a side business that keeps me occupied.  I don't need two businesses.
> 
> And why is my remark stupid?  Is it because you can't answer my question?
> 
> Yes, the workers work.  That's what they get paid to do.  But the workers didn't come up with the hundreds of thousands of dollars to open up that store.  The workers couldn't pay the utilities or taxes.  The workers couldn't compete with similar stores if they paid themselves great money.  The workers don't have an office staff to handle government regulations, payroll, billers and paperwork pushers.  They don't have the resources to even open up such an office.  They don't have to spend the money for snow removal or lot maintenance.
> 
> What the Walton's have done is provide a place for people to work.  Without them, some of those people wouldn't have any kind of job at all.  They spent money to create the idea, the structure, the organization.  They risked their own money.  That's what they do.
> 
> Just because they don't sweep floors doesn't mean they are not earning their money.  In the event you didn't know, investment is where you do spend your own money hoping for a return plus profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for them now tax them please.... Your hero worship is touching.Why are we the only modern country without Healthcare daycare good vacations cheap college and training good infrastructure living wage, super duper? 35 years of GOP giveaway to the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ The top 20% pay the bulk of taxes.
> Time to tax the 47% freeloaders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you count all taxes and fees, everyone pays between 20 and 30%, super duper, and the rich laugh all the way to the bank...
Click to expand...

/——-/ I was just counting income tax but you make a valid point, add sales and use tax, fees and tolls then the rich are hit even harder and pay far more than their fair share.


----------



## Flopper

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think immigration should be tied to their ability to support themselves rather than quotas.  You come here, support yourself for seven years, you can become a citizen.  They aren't going to be able to do that if they don't learn to speak English
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, but talking with people close to the border (I've never been there) the problem they have are illegals crowding 12 people into a two family home or apartment.  That brings down property value.  So they can work at McDonald's part time and still make claim of supporting themselves.  The other problem is anchor babies.  Come here and have a bunch of kids, and then you can share in their welfare plus be able to make claim they need you here because they are little Americans that cannot support themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are real issues that need to be solved.  We have a better chance to do that though if people can only come legally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well some of them are coming legally and that's what they do.  Again, no first hand experience, but just going by what people who live in the area tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Some of them are coming legally.  We have just over 37 million legal immigrants living in the United States.  The best estimates of undocumented  immigrants are 11 to 12 million.  In other words we have about 3 times as many legal immigrants.  That's not just "some".*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, no experts actually believe 11 to 12 million.  That estimate is over a decade old and would suggest that no one has come here, which is of course crap.  Most put the real number at 25 to 30 million
Click to expand...

*Compete nonsense.  Most all reputable research organization puts the numbers between 11 and 12 million. 

Pants on fire Trump.  "It could be 3 million. It could be 30 million," Trump said.  

Homeland Security estimated 12 million in 2012 

11.4 million  Migration Policy Institute (MPI) analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2014
11.1 million Statistics Portal 2014
11.3 million Pew Research Center 2015
10.8 million Center for Immigration Studies 2016

Profile of the Unauthorized Population - US 
5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S.
Unauthorized immigrant population U.S. 1990-2014 | Statistic
Looking at the New Estimates of the Illegal Population*


----------



## Kondor3

Flopper said:


> Death rates of whites in America now exceed birth rates, a trend that started decades ago is accelerating...


Quite probably true. And that's OK. Too many people in this country already as it is. We could trim 50,000,000 off of our 300,000,000 and not bat an eye.



> ...





> Also the number of mixed race marriages and births are increasing...


Quite probably true. Neither a good thing nor a bad thing in its own right. Demonstrates more acceptance and tolerance within society on the macro level. That's positive.



> ...Maybe in a hundred years we'll see the end of discrimination based on skin color.  It will then be the blue eyes vs the brown eyes.


A fine little LibProg orgasmic fantasy.


----------



## danielpalos

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, but talking with people close to the border (I've never been there) the problem they have are illegals crowding 12 people into a two family home or apartment.  That brings down property value.  So they can work at McDonald's part time and still make claim of supporting themselves.  The other problem is anchor babies.  Come here and have a bunch of kids, and then you can share in their welfare plus be able to make claim they need you here because they are little Americans that cannot support themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are real issues that need to be solved.  We have a better chance to do that though if people can only come legally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well some of them are coming legally and that's what they do.  Again, no first hand experience, but just going by what people who live in the area tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Some of them are coming legally.  We have just over 37 million legal immigrants living in the United States.  The best estimates of undocumented  immigrants are 11 to 12 million.  In other words we have about 3 times as many legal immigrants.  That's not just "some".*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, no experts actually believe 11 to 12 million.  That estimate is over a decade old and would suggest that no one has come here, which is of course crap.  Most put the real number at 25 to 30 million
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Compete nonsense.  Most all reputable research organization puts the numbers between 11 and 12 million.
> 
> Pants on fire Trump.  "It could be 3 million. It could be 30 million," Trump said.
> 
> Homeland Security estimated 12 million in 2012
> 
> 11.4 million  Migration Policy Institute (MPI) analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2014
> 11.1 million Statistics Portal 2014
> 11.3 million Pew Research Center 2015
> 10.8 million Center for Immigration Studies 2016
> 
> Profile of the Unauthorized Population - US
> 5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S.
> Unauthorized immigrant population U.S. 1990-2014 | Statistic
> Looking at the New Estimates of the Illegal Population*
Click to expand...

We should be making money (not losing money) from around twelve million people by providing a federal id. for Government purposes.  A fee or a fine, can make that happen.

Applied Capitalism can result in (a market friendly visa) times around twelve million persons to collect revenue from. 

No, visa "taxation", no Republic "representation!"


----------



## Dragonlady

Cellblock2429 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> We desperately need more legal immigrants...
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. We are a nation of 330,000,000 - one third of a billion - we already have the intellect and the warm bodies to produce whatever we need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Our birth rate is much too low.  It just reached a 30 year low and if the trend continues as is likely, our birth rate will be less than the death rate within 10 to 15 years.  We also have 10,000 people a day going into retirement and we are generating 150,000 to 250,000 jobs a month.  If we going to continue to grow, we are going to need a lot more people in the 21 century.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Time to cut back on abortions and rebuild the population.
Click to expand...


80% of women having abortions can’t afford to raise the children. If you turn women into breeding cattle, you’ll be added one million babies per year who are poor, and who  require substantial income supports to raise them. Since health care, education and nutrition for the poor is well below standard, these kids are likely to remain a drain on the public purse throughout their lives.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Dragonlady said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> We desperately need more legal immigrants...
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. We are a nation of 330,000,000 - one third of a billion - we already have the intellect and the warm bodies to produce whatever we need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Our birth rate is much too low.  It just reached a 30 year low and if the trend continues as is likely, our birth rate will be less than the death rate within 10 to 15 years.  We also have 10,000 people a day going into retirement and we are generating 150,000 to 250,000 jobs a month.  If we going to continue to grow, we are going to need a lot more people in the 21 century.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Time to cut back on abortions and rebuild the population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 80% of women having abortions can’t afford to raise the children. If you turn women into breeding cattle, you’ll be added one million babies per year who are poor, and who  require substantial income supports to raise them. Since health care, education and nutrition for the poor is well below standard, these kids are likely to remain a drain on the public purse throughout their lives.
Click to expand...

/——/ turn women into breeding cattle? What a ridiculous, idiotic Strawman argument. Do you think women have no say in having sex? Do you still believe they are slaves to a man’s whim? Come up with a reasonable argument and you just might win someone over.


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> We desperately need more legal immigrants...
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. We are a nation of 330,000,000 - one third of a billion - we already have the intellect and the warm bodies to produce whatever we need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Our birth rate is much too low.  It just reached a 30 year low and if the trend continues as is likely, our birth rate will be less than the death rate within 10 to 15 years.  We also have 10,000 people a day going into retirement and we are generating 150,000 to 250,000 jobs a month.  If we going to continue to grow, we are going to need a lot more people in the 21 century.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Time to cut back on abortions and rebuild the population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 80% of women having abortions can’t afford to raise the children. If you turn women into breeding cattle, you’ll be added one million babies per year who are poor, and who  require substantial income supports to raise them. Since health care, education and nutrition for the poor is well below standard, these kids are likely to remain a drain on the public purse throughout their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ turn women into breeding cattle? What a ridiculous, idiotic Strawman argument. Do you think women have no say in having sex? Do you still believe they are slaves to a man’s whim? Come up with a reasonable argument and you just might win someone over.
Click to expand...

Public policy pays them when they reproduce, not be more productive.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Are you starting to see a pattern here yet Joe? Isn't it obvious what they are telling you?



Um, not really.  

I never disputed Bush won 2004 somewhat honestly, if you think that scaring the shit out of people with fake wars is honest. 

But in 2000 and 2016, Republicans lost the popular vote.  Period.  They also lost in 2008 and 2012 and 1996 and 1992.


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you starting to see a pattern here yet Joe? Isn't it obvious what they are telling you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, not really.
> 
> I never disputed Bush won 2004 somewhat honestly, if you think that scaring the shit out of people with fake wars is honest.
> 
> But in 2000 and 2016, Republicans lost the popular vote.  Period.  They also lost in 2008 and 2012 and 1996 and 1992.
Click to expand...

/——/ Good thong the popular vote doesn’t count.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> There are more jobs than workers today. There is no reason to be on FS unless you are physically or mentally incapable of holding a job.



Except a lot of those jobs don't pay enough.  Actually, we had the same issue under Obama, but back then, you didn't think less than 5% unemployment was a bad thing.  

The thing is, 40% of people on SNAP have jobs.  Most of the rest are retired, disabled or children. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> I know you won't read the link, so I'll tell you what Maine did. They instituted requirements to receive food stamps. These are people with no dependents:
> 
> Have a job working at least 20 hours a week.
> Volunteer at least 20 hours a month.
> Be enrolled in a vocation program.
> 
> Do you know what the results were? Most of those people dropped out of the program. Guess they weren't that hungry after all. Many conservative run states did the same thing getting the same results, and guess what? Nobody got killed.



Actually, Maine didn't see any bit of a reduction in SNAP usage than anyone else did. 

Our View: On food stamps, don’t follow Maine’s example

In this experiment, Gov. LePage took from tens of thousands of poor residents benefits from the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, more commonly known as SNAP or food stamps, under the idea that it would force those residents to find work and thus remove themselves from government dependency.

Not many got jobs they wouldn’t have eventually found otherwise, and most of those who did find work likely still qualified for assistance. Meanwhile, hunger in Maine got worse, even as it improved almost everywhere else.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Walton's don't do anything, why don't the workers leave and open up their own store?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a history of stupid posts, this is by far the dumbest thing ever.
> 
> You bitch about your job endlessly. Why don’t you quit and open your own trucking company, or become an independent hauler?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I thought about that many times.  But I already have a side business that keeps me occupied.  I don't need two businesses.
> 
> And why is my remark stupid?  Is it because you can't answer my question?
> 
> Yes, the workers work.  That's what they get paid to do.  But the workers didn't come up with the hundreds of thousands of dollars to open up that store.  The workers couldn't pay the utilities or taxes.  The workers couldn't compete with similar stores if they paid themselves great money.  The workers don't have an office staff to handle government regulations, payroll, billers and paperwork pushers.  They don't have the resources to even open up such an office.  They don't have to spend the money for snow removal or lot maintenance.
> 
> What the Walton's have done is provide a place for people to work.  Without them, some of those people wouldn't have any kind of job at all.  They spent money to create the idea, the structure, the organization.  They risked their own money.  That's what they do.
> 
> Just because they don't sweep floors doesn't mean they are not earning their money.  In the event you didn't know, investment is where you do spend your own money hoping for a return plus profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for them now tax them please.... Your hero worship is touching.Why are we the only modern country without Healthcare daycare good vacations cheap college and training good infrastructure living wage, super duper? 35 years of GOP giveaway to the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean we are the only country where people take care of themselves?  My Lord, what an awful place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also why we have the the worst inequality, poverty, upward Mobility and infrastructure and everything else in the modern world. Thanks GOP and silly dupes like you. We're number 23!!
Click to expand...


The US produces close to a  half-million new millionaires every year.  How much more upward mobility do you want than that?  The main reason we have poverty if because the Democrats have promoted irresponsibility.  Single parent homes (which Democrats also promoted) is a leading reason for poverty.  

_*"Folks, if you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't." *_
Rush Limbaugh


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a history of stupid posts, this is by far the dumbest thing ever.
> 
> You bitch about your job endlessly. Why don’t you quit and open your own trucking company, or become an independent hauler?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I thought about that many times.  But I already have a side business that keeps me occupied.  I don't need two businesses.
> 
> And why is my remark stupid?  Is it because you can't answer my question?
> 
> Yes, the workers work.  That's what they get paid to do.  But the workers didn't come up with the hundreds of thousands of dollars to open up that store.  The workers couldn't pay the utilities or taxes.  The workers couldn't compete with similar stores if they paid themselves great money.  The workers don't have an office staff to handle government regulations, payroll, billers and paperwork pushers.  They don't have the resources to even open up such an office.  They don't have to spend the money for snow removal or lot maintenance.
> 
> What the Walton's have done is provide a place for people to work.  Without them, some of those people wouldn't have any kind of job at all.  They spent money to create the idea, the structure, the organization.  They risked their own money.  That's what they do.
> 
> Just because they don't sweep floors doesn't mean they are not earning their money.  In the event you didn't know, investment is where you do spend your own money hoping for a return plus profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for them now tax them please.... Your hero worship is touching.Why are we the only modern country without Healthcare daycare good vacations cheap college and training good infrastructure living wage, super duper? 35 years of GOP giveaway to the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean we are the only country where people take care of themselves?  My Lord, what an awful place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also why we have the the worst inequality, poverty, upward Mobility and infrastructure and everything else in the modern world. Thanks GOP and silly dupes like you. We're number 23!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US produces close to a  half-million new millionaires every year.  How much more upward mobility do you want than that?  The main reason we have poverty if because the Democrats have promoted irresponsibility.  Single parent homes (which Democrats also promoted) is a leading reason for poverty.
> 
> _*"Folks, if you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't." *_
> Rush Limbaugh
Click to expand...

Capitalism has a _natural_ rate of unemployment.  Don't be fooled if we have to play games with a "rigged system".


----------



## Flopper

Cellblock2429 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What a shocking revaluation.  Democrats don't have to say or do anything to attract Hispanic voters.  Donald Trump does it all.  He calls them rapist and murders.  Says migrants come from shit hole countries.  Blames our drug problems on Mexico. Wants to make Mexico pay the cost of defending our border with a wall. Wants to make it impossible for them to bring their families to the US. And he hovers over a taco salad proclaiming, "I love Hispanics."
> *
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ One has nothing to do with the other. Maybe if you loved Americans you’d support a strong border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I believe it's our responsibility to protect our borders.  Asking Mexico a country whose GDP is 5% of ours to pay for defense our border is downright embarrassing.  If the mightiest nation on earth can't defend it's borders against peasants, mostly women and children, maybe it doesn't deserve those borders. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Mexico (who helped usher in this current group of people) have  no responsibility for what's going on?  They allow this to happen.  They encourage it to happen, but it's our fault.
> 
> What do you think Canada would say if we sent Mexicans to their border?  You know, allow them to ride a train all the way up north, then dump those people on them?
> 
> Of course it would be our fault.  We helped these people get to that border.  We didn't stop them, we didn't try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The Mexican government turned back 400 people at the border because they were not allowed to enter Mexico.
> 
> The Mexican government allowed the remainder to enter Mexico legally. The government had no legal grounds to stop them from traveling to the US border to petition for asylum.  The government did not transport, lodge or feed them.  Private organizations helped them and in some towns, food and lodging was provided by the people.
> 
> It appears the only people that encouraged any criminal act were border guards that refused to let petitioners put foot on US soil to petition for asylum leaving them no choice but to unlawfully enter the country.
> 
> I hope you're not saying Mexico allowing asylum seekers to petition the US is why they should pay for a 20 billion wall to protect the Unities States.  That's pretty far fetched.
> 
> Regardless of any action of Mexico, it is the responsibility of the US to protect it's border and certainly not Mexico's responsibility.  Asking the Mexican goverment to protect the US border is completely insane.
> 
> It appears Trump is trying to work some deal with Mexico so they will stop asylum seekers who can enter Mexico legally at Guatemalan border.  Hopefully, Mexico will give him the big FU.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ You’re just making stuff up. Mexico has every legal right to stop anyone from entering their country for any reason. Your entire post is pure conjecture and wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

*Mexico like the US has immigration laws that bar certain groups.  The difference is Mexico has a very lax immigration policy compared to the US.  Their main thrust is stopping drug and human trafficking.  

The last time I was in the Yucatan, I flew into Cancun.  There was a long line at Mexican immigration.  A number of people were bypassing immigration going out an exit.  A young boy in a uniform was standing by the exit.  I ask him if I can go out the exit and he said yes and opened the door and I caught a cab.  It was the next day that I realized, I was in the country illegally.  

The border with Guatemala is 700 miles with 10 border crossing but there are 350 unofficial crossing mostly unmonitored.  Thousands of people cross between the two countries daily much as people crossed our southern border a hundred years ago.

Could Mexican immigration stop asylum seeks, probably with some difficulty but why should they? These people aren't violating their laws.  Before Trump the US and Mexico had very good relations and I suspect they would have been willing to cooperate.  Today, I doubt it.   *


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> And here you are, trying to tell me about jobs I already know pay shit. You don't even know the company AIM. Their tractors are ten years old and pure garbage. You might make money when the thing is running or if the DOT cops don't have you pulled over for an inspection. And guess what? That job will be posted for the next several weeks or until a foreigner takes the job.
> 
> I'm not 25 years old. I can't be hopping up and down off of a flatbed even if it did pay anything. And take note that they offer insurance, not provide it. In other words, besides the crap money, they want an employee contribution as well.



Oh, noes, not an employee contribution.... 

Okay, looking at this company AIM. On indeed, it gets a rating of 3 stars on Indeed from employees.   3.1 on Glassdoor.  That's actually not bad, considering most of those reviews are left by ex-employees.


----------



## Dragonlady

Kondor3 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Death rates of whites in America now exceed birth rates, a trend that started decades ago is accelerating...
> 
> 
> 
> Quite probably true. And that's OK. Too many people in this country already as it is. We could trim 50,000,000 off of our 300,000,000 and not bat an eye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also the number of mixed race marriages and births are increasing...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite probably true. Neither a good thing nor a bad thing in its own right. Demonstrates more acceptance and tolerance within society on the macro level. That's positive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Maybe in a hundred years we'll see the end of discrimination based on skin color.  It will then be the blue eyes vs the brown eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fine little LibProg orgasmic fantasy.
Click to expand...


Hardly. In Europe it was French vs English for centuries.  Rulers have used tribalism and “us vs. them” since the dawn of time. It riles up the population and allows demagogues and despots to commit atrocities.

The language, rhetoric and fear mongering Trump is using against immigrants is the same language that Hitler used against the Jews.

What’s worse is that those Jews who tried to flee Nazi Germany were turned away. The US wouldn’t let them in, nor would Canada. Some fled to other European countries but were shipped to camps after Hitler conquered Europe.

What Trump is doing to those Central American immigrants seeking asylum is no different than what Hitler did. He divided Germany in racial groups. Aryans were superior race. Roma, Catholics, and the disabled were undesirable. First he vilified them. Called them subhuman, animals. Said they were destroying Germany. Then he built camps. And then came the Final Solution.

Trump has been vilifying immigrants, Muslims, blacks and Latinos since he announced his candidacy. Now he’s jailing them, separating families.

Now he’s building concentration camps.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is to persuade the parents to waive a trial and plead guilty. Once they plead guilty, their deportation can be expedited and they will be united with their children in few days or weeks.  If they ask for their day in court, they won't see their children for months, or up to 1 year and they are told this.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of crap.
> 
> If that is the "real reason" and if Barry hasn't done anything wrong by doing it (with your silent approval), than Trump is doing nothing wrong neither.
> 
> Kids don't belong to jail. Their parents are lawbreakers, not them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The Obama administration placed nearly 90,000 children with a sponsor, after they were detained at the border without a legal guardian. The only time children split from their family under Obama was if the adult was suspected of not being a guardian, had an outstanding warrant, or federal agents suspected the adult of another serious crime like trafficking or smuggling.
> 
> The Trump administration policy was to separate all children from their parents with no exceptions and if there had not been the outcry from the public and pressure from congress he would still be doing it.  No law compelled him to do it.  He did as deterrent and to speed up deportations.  His actions were so deplorable that even his wife and daughter spoke out against it.
> *
> *Not real news: The truth about volcanic gems, and immigrant kids placed into care under Obama*
Click to expand...



Wrong: 

The number of immigrant children held in custody has surged under Trump's crackdown–but Obama held many more

Immigrant children: Here's what's happening with kids at the border, policywise


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> So you're doing this for the rich people? What a stupid ass you are to carry their water for them



not at all.. 

My solution to illegal aliens would be go after the places that hire them, not try to top them at the border, which is useless since they will always find another way in.  

You see, what we do with the Mexicans we catch? We send them back  to Mexico and they try again a few weeks later.  You have to get it right every time.  they just have to get it right, once.  

It's the detainees and refugees from Central America that are causing the current problem with the ugly images.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> Only a fraction of the people coming now will get through. You know that very well, which is why you're so desperate to stop it



Actually, they'll just get more clever about getting across.  Most undocumented workers don't come in across the southern border to start with.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here you are, trying to tell me about jobs I already know pay shit. You don't even know the company AIM. Their tractors are ten years old and pure garbage. You might make money when the thing is running or if the DOT cops don't have you pulled over for an inspection. And guess what? That job will be posted for the next several weeks or until a foreigner takes the job.
> 
> I'm not 25 years old. I can't be hopping up and down off of a flatbed even if it did pay anything. And take note that they offer insurance, not provide it. In other words, besides the crap money, they want an employee contribution as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, noes, not an employee contribution....
> 
> Okay, looking at this company AIM. On indeed, it gets a rating of 3 stars on Indeed from employees.   3.1 on Glassdoor.  That's actually not bad, considering most of those reviews are left by ex-employees.
Click to expand...


That's probably because they interviewed hourly employees and not percentage employees.  AIM does a lot of subcontracting.  What that means is a company hires them to do their daily deliveries instead of getting their own trucks and drivers.  This is also known as dedicated services.  So in essence, the employees never deals with AIM.  They deal with their customer whoever that may be.  They are dedicated to work only for that customer and their deliveries.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> Yes, he's melting down because he knows it will work. He's trying to make the border wall sound like a chain link fence.
> 
> So Joe, you don't want fences around nuclear power plants either, right? I mean they don't work



NObody really wants to get into a nuclear power plant, but let's look at that. 

The plant is a limited bit of real estate.  you can't go two or three miles down the road to find another place to get at it.  The whole permiter you are defending is only a few miles.  

the Southern Border is over 2000 miles long.  The Border Patrol only has 20,000 agents.  That's 10 agents per mile, to guard it 24/7.  

They'll find ways through, just like they do now.  

Now, if you REALLY wanted to stop the flow, you do what we've already done, cracked down on workplace enforcement, which is why it's gone from flood to a trickle.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're doing this for the rich people? What a stupid ass you are to carry their water for them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not at all..
> 
> My solution to illegal aliens would be go after the places that hire them, not try to top them at the border, which is useless since they will always find another way in.
> 
> You see, what we do with the Mexicans we catch? We send them back  to Mexico and they try again a few weeks later.  You have to get it right every time.  they just have to get it right, once.
> 
> It's the detainees and refugees from Central America that are causing the current problem with the ugly images.
Click to expand...


The first time you enter this country illegally is a misdemeanor.  The second time you get caught it's a felony.


----------



## danielpalos

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're doing this for the rich people? What a stupid ass you are to carry their water for them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not at all..
> 
> My solution to illegal aliens would be go after the places that hire them, not try to top them at the border, which is useless since they will always find another way in.
> 
> You see, what we do with the Mexicans we catch? We send them back  to Mexico and they try again a few weeks later.  You have to get it right every time.  they just have to get it right, once.
> 
> It's the detainees and refugees from Central America that are causing the current problem with the ugly images.
Click to expand...

The solution, for some on the left, is to ask the right wing, if they are really really serious about their alleged, War on Terror.

The security of a free State takes Precedence over _any_ federal immigration laws.

That means, 10USC246 has precedence over federal immigration laws.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> That's probably because they interviewed hourly employees and not percentage employees. AIM does a lot of subcontracting. What that means is a company hires them to do their daily deliveries instead of getting their own trucks and drivers. This is also known as dedicated services. So in essence, the employees never deals with AIM. They deal with their customer whoever that may be. They are dedicated to work only for that customer and their deliveries.



You made it sound like a horrible place to work, and the employees said, "Meh, not so much."  

Actually, just looked up the last three companies I've worked for over the last 16 years... and they all rate about the same, about 3 stars.  Two are actually below that.


----------



## Flopper

candycorn said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda, just as they call us "burgers". It's not a racist term.
> 
> BTW, when will you answer the freaking question?
> 
> Oh, you're leftist loser, and you don't do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same time you answer the question..if “beaner” is such a term of endearment, have you belled up to a Chicano bar and called the tender a “beaner” to his face?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you a question several times and you dodged every time. Then you asked me a question and demand I answer it immediately, and claimed I am dodging it.
> 
> I explained it to you, it's not how it works. Normal people live and learn. It seems you just live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol....  again, if you don't think "beaner" is a racial slur, would you call a white person a beaner?  A black person a beaner?  An Asian person a "beaner"?  Of course not.  Only Hispanics get called that particular racial slur.
> 
> Why you can't wrap your head around this simple fact and keep asking questions like "what race is Mexican" is just a sign of your continued and profound dishonesty and is the hallmark of all Trump supporters when you go one degree deep with them: dishonesty and "whataboutism"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /-----/ "lol.... again, if you don't think "beaner" is a racial slur, "
> Ahhh shut up you _*Gringo*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See...Cellblock gets it. Gringo is a racial slur.  You wouldn't call someone who is not Anglo that word.  If Cellblock gets it-- We're talking someone who is near the bottom rung of society--you should be ashamed.
Click to expand...

*If you know any mexican people then you'll know this is a non-derogatory term used to refer to US citizens. Mostly because the term "American" does not make sense to the rest of the Americans (all those people who live in the continent named "America", which is every body from Alaska to argentina), and the word "Estadounidense" (UnitedStatean)is too long. 

Folklore says it was generated when the US invaded mexico, wearing green uniforms, and the people shouted at them "Green Go Home". 

With time it lost all derogatory status and was turned into the most common word to refer to any US citizen.
Urban Dictionary: gringo
*


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The first time you enter this country illegally is a misdemeanor. The second time you get caught it's a felony.



Okay... and you do a short jail stint, and they send you back. 

Remember, this was your big whine with the guy who accidentally shot the Steinele woman. He was caught five times entering the country illegally.  And this guy just couldn't keep out of trouble.


----------



## Dragonlady

Cellblock2429 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> We desperately need more legal immigrants...
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. We are a nation of 330,000,000 - one third of a billion - we already have the intellect and the warm bodies to produce whatever we need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Our birth rate is much too low.  It just reached a 30 year low and if the trend continues as is likely, our birth rate will be less than the death rate within 10 to 15 years.  We also have 10,000 people a day going into retirement and we are generating 150,000 to 250,000 jobs a month.  If we going to continue to grow, we are going to need a lot more people in the 21 century.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Time to cut back on abortions and rebuild the population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 80% of women having abortions can’t afford to raise the children. If you turn women into breeding cattle, you’ll be added one million babies per year who are poor, and who  require substantial income supports to raise them. Since health care, education and nutrition for the poor is well below standard, these kids are likely to remain a drain on the public purse throughout their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ turn women into breeding cattle? What a ridiculous, idiotic Strawman argument. Do you think women have no say in having sex? Do you still believe they are slaves to a man’s whim? Come up with a reasonable argument and you just might win someone over.
Click to expand...


Your post is idiocy at its best. I point out that forcing poor women to have babies they can’t afford is going to make poverty worse in the US and blather on about women having sex. 

Scratch an anti-abortionist and you get a right winger who wants to punish women for having sex. Every. Single. Time.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Dragonlady said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. We are a nation of 330,000,000 - one third of a billion - we already have the intellect and the warm bodies to produce whatever we need.
> 
> 
> 
> *Our birth rate is much too low.  It just reached a 30 year low and if the trend continues as is likely, our birth rate will be less than the death rate within 10 to 15 years.  We also have 10,000 people a day going into retirement and we are generating 150,000 to 250,000 jobs a month.  If we going to continue to grow, we are going to need a lot more people in the 21 century.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Time to cut back on abortions and rebuild the population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 80% of women having abortions can’t afford to raise the children. If you turn women into breeding cattle, you’ll be added one million babies per year who are poor, and who  require substantial income supports to raise them. Since health care, education and nutrition for the poor is well below standard, these kids are likely to remain a drain on the public purse throughout their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ turn women into breeding cattle? What a ridiculous, idiotic Strawman argument. Do you think women have no say in having sex? Do you still believe they are slaves to a man’s whim? Come up with a reasonable argument and you just might win someone over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is idiocy at its best. I point out that forcing poor women to have babies they can’t afford is going to make poverty worse in the US and blather on about women having sex.
> 
> Scratch an anti-abortionist and you get a right winger who wants to punish women for having sex. Every. Single. Time.
Click to expand...

/——-/  Deflecting from your Strawman argument I see.


----------



## Cecilie1200

bripat9643 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not pissy.  I didn't want to have this big discussion about it.  I just made a passing comment.  No offense intended.
> 
> Now would everyone get off my case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not you, dear.  Happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At some point bripat should have asked himself, WTF, I'm arguing on HappyJoy's side, obviously I'm completely lost.  But he didn't, he continued to be HJ's nut sack
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have plenty problems with Bripat, but I have to give him credit, he's more knowledgeable than you and like it or not Bripat I want to say thank you.
> 
> Kaz, may you shut the fuck up for a change, be humble and learn something:]
> 
> sic definition - Google Search
> 
> sic
> sik/
> _adverb_
> 
> used in brackets after a copied or quoted word that appears odd or erroneous to show that the word is quoted exactly as it stands in the original, as in _a story must hold a child's interest and “enrich his [_sic _] life.”_.
> You didn't quote or copy what I had stated, illiterate prick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ouch, Bripat defends you and you slam him.  Nice job.
> 
> Sic can be a direct quote or not.  It can be used for anything that sounds awkward or not right.  You are citing one use of sic.   It's hilarious that you didn't get the joke.  Cecile did, she kept trying to explain it to you to no avail.
> 
> How many times did they tell you this in special ed?  Dude, this is't that hard?  How can you possibly not get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HappyJoy never gets the point, no matter how many times you explain it.  Pretending to be brain damaged is his favorite tactic.
Click to expand...


I dispute the claim that he's _pretending _to be brain-damaged.


----------



## Cecilie1200

kaz said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bad attitude is keeping you poor. That's why I fired you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you couldn't afford me... I probably wouldn't have sent your chicken shit company a resume...
> 
> You're a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.
> 
> I watch little companies like yours go out of business because of their half-assery all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already told me your max salary was $80K.  Now you make less than $25K.  It's not the money I can't afford, that's for sure.  I wouldn't do you to my staff though.
> 
> After I had bought and merged three companies, I had picked up a lot of good employees and of course a lot of dead wood.  I was working with my management team on our plan to replace the bad staff.  But we didn't know how many people we would need to replace them.
> 
> After a lot of discussion, I finally decided we fire all the bad ones immediately and the same day, no dragging it out.  Let's rip off the bandaid.  We'll identify the gaps and be ready to replace them at once.
> 
> So that Friday, we did it.  We fired 30% of the company.  All of them had either personally bad attitudes or just bad attitudes about doing any work.  You were a marginal worker, it was your bad attitude that got you fired.
> 
> Here's what you didn't know because you were gone.  You know how many of you we had to replace?  Zero.  It wasn't just you I didn't replace, I didn't need to replace any of you.  The place seemed so much roomier and wow, it was so much more enjoyable being there without the lazy, useless and bad attitudes.  Over time we replaced you as we grew, but that Friday you all left, your pay and benefits were all just savings
Click to expand...


Turns out, your good employees were spending a bunch of their time corrected the errors of the bad apples, I'll bet.  Without the lousy co-workers, they probably had more time to be effective at their own jobs.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Except a lot of those jobs don't pay enough. Actually, we had the same issue under Obama, but back then, you didn't think less than 5% unemployment was a bad thing.
> 
> The thing is, 40% of people on SNAP have jobs. Most of the rest are retired, disabled or children.



If they are disabled, they can apply for disability.  Yes, they have jobs.  Some of our customers use temps.  When they ask temps if they could work more hours, most of them refuse.  Why?  Because that would interfere with their stipend.  And it's not like these places have them working 40 hours a week to start off with.  The temp agencies often switch employees around during the week so they can keep their hours down by the request of the workers.  

Believe me, they know how to play the  game.  



JoeB131 said:


> Actually, Maine didn't see any bit of a reduction in SNAP usage than anyone else did.
> 
> Our View: On food stamps, don’t follow Maine’s example
> 
> In this experiment, Gov. LePage took from tens of thousands of poor residents benefits from the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, more commonly known as SNAP or food stamps, under the idea that it would force those residents to find work and thus remove themselves from government dependency.
> 
> Not many got jobs they wouldn’t have eventually found otherwise, and most of those who did find work likely still qualified for assistance. Meanwhile, hunger in Maine got worse, even as it improved almost everywhere else.



This article is such a leftist piece of trash I don't know where to begin.  Oh, they would have found jobs anyway?  Well then why didn't they find them before the new requirements?  They live in rural areas?  Then move to where the work is.  They are taking care of somebody at home?  We have services for that.  It's just an excuse to stay home.  And as your article points out, they went from food stamps to food pantries and raided them instead of getting  job.  

This is exactly the response I would expect from the party of excuses.  The truth is the requirements worked.  It got a lot of people off of food stamps who shouldn't have been on them in the first place.


----------



## Cecilie1200

IM2 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bad attitude is keeping you poor. That's why I fired you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you couldn't afford me... I probably wouldn't have sent your chicken shit company a resume...
> 
> You're a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.
> 
> I watch little companies like yours go out of business because of their half-assery all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already told me your max salary was $80K.  Now you make less than $25K.  It's not the money I can't afford, that's for sure.  I wouldn't do you to my staff though.
> 
> After I had bought and merged three companies, I had picked up a lot of good employees and of course a lot of dead wood.  I was working with my management team on our plan to replace the bad staff.  But we didn't know how many people we would need to replace them.
> 
> After a lot of discussion, I finally decided we fire all the bad ones immediately and the same day, no dragging it out.  Let's rip off the bandaid.  We'll identify the gaps and be ready to replace them at once.
> 
> So that Friday, we did it.  We fired 30% of the company.  All of them had either personally bad attitudes or just bad attitudes about doing any work.  You were a marginal worker, it was your bad attitude that got you fired.
> 
> Here's what you didn't know because you were gone.  You know how many of you we had to replace?  Zero.  It wasn't just you I didn't replace, I didn't need to replace any of you.  The place seemed so much roomier and wow, it was so much more enjoyable being there without the lazy, useless and bad attitudes.  Over time we replaced you as we grew, but that Friday you all left, your pay and benefits were all just savings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bad actors influence others as well.  One of our customers just got rid of their shipper.  The guy came to work explicitly to make problems for everybody.  I hated to pickup there, but it was not only me, other drivers from other companies told me how they hated dealing with this Ahole.  In fact some years ago, a driver punched him out he got so pissed; probably lost his job too.
> 
> Now that he's gone there is a new spring in everybody's step.  The workers are happier and work better.  They are not prevented from using their ideas to better the place, and the dock has never looked better.  They don't sit in the shipping office all day playing on the internet, they are always doing something.  It wasn't until the company got rid of the guy his coworkers expressed how much they hated working there.  Now they say it's once again enjoyable to go to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I guess  this applies to every business there is.
Click to expand...


Actually, most businesses DO have someone who's a lot less pleasant than his/her co-workers.  That's just the law of averages.


----------



## MikeK

Coyote said:


> And another one who thinks punishing children is a suitable response.  Way to go dude.


If there are children who are dependent on you and you consciously endeavor to commit an offense which is punishable by confinement, who is responsible for harming the children?  Should you be forgiven for your criminal offense and set free rather than cause discomfort to the children?  

Too many border jumpers are confident that having children will insulate them from punishment if they are caught.  So President Trump's aggressive action will substantially reduce illegal immigration.  It is the parents who are punishing their children via their irresponsible conduct.  

Simply stated, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.


----------



## Flopper

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There is.  The body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.  I don't think Trump is messing with that number.  It is .2% of the population, way too small.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.
> 
> Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.
> 
> Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls.  Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote.  Your motive is clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What a shocking revaluation.  Democrats don't have to say or do anything to attract Hispanic voters.  Donald Trump does it all.  He calls them rapist and murders.  Says migrants come from shit hole countries.  Blames our drug problems on Mexico. Wants to make Mexico pay the cost of defending our border with a wall. Wants to make it impossible for them to bring their families to the US. And he hovers over a taco salad proclaiming, "I love Hispanics."
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ One has nothing to do with the other. Maybe if you loved Americans you’d support a strong border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I believe it's our responsibility to protect our borders.  Asking Mexico a country whose GDP is 5% of ours to pay for defense our border is downright embarrassing.  If the mightiest nation on earth can't defend it's borders against peasants, mostly women and children, maybe it doesn't deserve those borders. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree on that point.  We should pay for the wall.  It's a pittance in our budget and a major expenditure for Mexico.
> 
> I see Trump's point that the reason he thinks they should pay for it is that they've actively shipped their poor and criminals here.
> 
> I still think we should just pay for it though.
> 
> BTW, it's also a small portion of the amount of money illegal aliens send to Mexico
Click to expand...

*I have no problem with a wall built where it is needed.  There're probably some places on the border that would benefit.  However, there are others where it would be a waste of money.  In other words we need to put the type of security that is needed considering the terrain and other factors. Running a wall the length of the border would be a huge waste of money that would create more problems than it would solve.  With the decrease in estimated illegal crossing which have fallen by 80% over the last 18 years, there are more cost effective solutions in most places. 

Everything about undocumented immigrants is an estimate, the number of crossing, number living in US, the number using tax payer dollars, the amount they pay in taxes, the amount they pay in social security, the amount of money wired home, etc.  Some estimates are pretty good other are little more than guesses.  My point is people say things about undocumented immigrates including myself as if it were facts written in stone when it is really little more than a guess.  One of the few really intelligent things I have heard Trump say is that maybe there are 30 million illegal immigrants or maybe there are 3 million.  We just don't know for sure.

*


----------



## Kondor3

Dragonlady said:


> ...80% of women having abortions can’t afford to raise the children. If you turn women into breeding cattle, you’ll be added one million babies per year who are poor, and who  require substantial income supports to raise them. Since health care, education and nutrition for the poor is well below standard, these kids are likely to remain a drain on the public purse throughout their lives.


True. Too much of that and we'll turn into a Third World $hithole...


----------



## Cellblock2429

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.
> 
> Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.
> 
> Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls.  Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote.  Your motive is clear
> 
> 
> 
> *What a shocking revaluation.  Democrats don't have to say or do anything to attract Hispanic voters.  Donald Trump does it all.  He calls them rapist and murders.  Says migrants come from shit hole countries.  Blames our drug problems on Mexico. Wants to make Mexico pay the cost of defending our border with a wall. Wants to make it impossible for them to bring their families to the US. And he hovers over a taco salad proclaiming, "I love Hispanics."
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ One has nothing to do with the other. Maybe if you loved Americans you’d support a strong border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I believe it's our responsibility to protect our borders.  Asking Mexico a country whose GDP is 5% of ours to pay for defense our border is downright embarrassing.  If the mightiest nation on earth can't defend it's borders against peasants, mostly women and children, maybe it doesn't deserve those borders. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree on that point.  We should pay for the wall.  It's a pittance in our budget and a major expenditure for Mexico.
> 
> I see Trump's point that the reason he thinks they should pay for it is that they've actively shipped their poor and criminals here.
> 
> I still think we should just pay for it though.
> 
> BTW, it's also a small portion of the amount of money illegal aliens send to Mexico
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I have no problem with a wall built where it is needed.  There're probably some places on the border that would benefit.  However, there are others where it would be a waste of money.  In other words we need to put the type of security that is needed considering the terrain and other factors. Running a wall the length of the boarder would be a huge waste of money that would create more problems than it would solve.  With the decrease in estimated illegal crossing which have fallen by 80% over the last 18 years, there are more cost effective solutions in most places.
> 
> Everything about undocumented immigrants is an estimate, the number of crossing, number living in US, the number using tax payer dollars, the amount they pay in taxes, the amount they pay in social security, the amount of money wired home, etc.  Some estimates are pretty good other are little more than guesses.  My point is people say things about undocumented immigrates as if it were fact written in stone when it is really little more than a guess. *
Click to expand...

/——/ So you agree with Trump. Nice


----------



## JoeB131

Cecilie1200 said:


> Turns out, your good employees were spending a bunch of their time corrected the errors of the bad apples, I'll bet. Without the lousy co-workers, they probably had more time to be effective at their own jobs.



Meh, what I usually find is the bad employees get promoted for ass-kissing people like Kaz, and the good employees end up doing more work.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> If they are disabled, they can apply for disability. Yes, they have jobs. Some of our customers use temps. When they ask temps if they could work more hours, most of them refuse. Why? Because that would interfere with their stipend. And it's not like these places have them working 40 hours a week to start off with. The temp agencies often switch employees around during the week so they can keep their hours down by the request of the workers.
> 
> Believe me, they know how to play the game.



Yes, I'm sure they do.  So does the construction guy who collects unemployment in the off season and does off the books work around the neighborhood.  

So does the retired person who still does off the books business while collecting social security.   

Guess what, buddy, EVERYONE GAMES THE SYSTEM.


----------



## Kondor3

Dragonlady said:


> ...The language, rhetoric and fear mongering Trump is using against immigrants is the same language that Hitler used against the Jews...


Maybe. Maybe not. But the language was there long before the Imperial Cheeto showed up. A wave of 11-12,000,000 Invaders upon US soil will tend to do that.



> ...What’s worse is that those Jews who tried to flee Nazi Germany were turned away. The US wouldn’t let them in, nor would Canada. Some fled to other European countries but were shipped to camps after Hitler conquered Europe...


Last I looked, the Mexicans and Guatamalens were not gassing Mestizos on an industrial scale. And even if they were... not our problem.



> ...What Trump is doing to those Central American immigrants seeking asylum is no different than what Hitler did. He divided Germany in racial groups. Aryans were superior race. Roma, Catholics, and the disabled were undesirable. First he vilified them. Called them subhuman, animals. Said they were destroying Germany. Then he built camps. And then came the Final Solution....


I did not realize that the Jews and Roma were invading Germany by the millions and were herded into concentration camps rather than simply being sent back home.



> ...Trump has been vilifying immigrants, Muslims, blacks and Latinos since he announced his candidacy. Now he’s jailing them, separating families...


Doesn't matter. Whatever gets the populace riled up to kick their nasty little asses out of our country and back to their own. Want to come here? You must get permission.



> ...Now he’s building concentration camps.


Incorrect. Temporary detention camps until they are processed. Some will stay. The vast majority will be sent home again. As it should be.

It's about goddamned time that somebody enforced US immigration law and facilitated border control and Zero Tolerance for violators and pressed charges against them.

By the way... give it up. on playing the "Asylum" card... for every legitimate asylum seeker there are a thousand just trying to sneak in for the jobs and the money.

Americans are finally "on" to your shop-worn arguments, and those tired old arguments no longer "_play (well) in Peoria_"... you went to that well once too often.

The long-term presence of 11-12,000,000 Illegal Alien invaders, and decades of LibProgs browbeating us that they are untouchable, will do that.

They are now "touchable", and bringing their brats with them no longer shields them from deportation.

Nobody likes to see a sucker wise-up, eh, LibProgs?

You should have made a deal while you still could.

Too late now, you silly, arrogant fools.


----------



## Sahba

OKTexas said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans tend to lack basic empathy for things they don’t directly witness. They don’t have the emotional maturity or complexity of thought for such a thing. As a result, they don’t bother thinking about the well being of kids. They just know brown people have crossed the border and their GOP masters tell them it’s a bad thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The parents are responsible for anything that happens to the kids, they put them in the situation.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using that logic we could murder the kids in their sleep and completely escape culpability. Your argument is weak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Many are raped, beaten and yes some killed even before they reach the border. Many are trafficked and sold once they reach the US, brought here by people they aren't even related to. That's way Sessions is insisting on DNA tests, to prove paternity. Many are given to supposed relatives who are illegal themselves, that's why they don't answer when DHS calls to check on the kids. All because the parents or who ever they are are using them hoping to get a free pass to disappear into the population. Sessions ins't giving any more free passes.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of this has anything to do with a reason for separating families, if you can't defend the policy then why post at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You might look at my first post in this thread. I don't have to defend anything, it's the law. Don't like it, tell you congresscritters to get off their lazy asses and change it.
> 
> BTW, how do you know the people that brought the kids here are even their parents? You're just assuming they are.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

*What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?*

What was that 'Gun Grabber' mantra...?  "if it saves even one life..."  Well I don't subscribe to that as I recognize that hundreds of thousands have died in securing and maintaining our freedoms afforded us under this Constitution.  If a few more have to die in carrying on the torch of freedom, and in sovernty as a Nation (as defined tangibly by our borders)... well, to that I say, there are far less noble ways to lay down ones life.


----------



## danielpalos

Capitalism, all the way!  No need for right wing Socialism on a National basis!


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said that bakers should refuse to bake wedding cakes because they are being forced to participate in a ritual they consider immoral.
> 
> Except that it isn't part of the ritual mentioned in the bible. Doing a virgin check on your daughter and stoning her ass is, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are making a cake for a gay wedding, of course you are involved, just like you are involved if they call you to tape the wedding or custom make flower arrangements.  You are involved.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they aren't part of the ritual and they aren't mentioned in the bible or the Koran.
> 
> And, no, the bakers in question refused to provide the service at all.
> 
> For those playing along at home, wedding cakes are actually a ROMAN pagan tradition that got carried over into Christianity because who doesn't like cake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm talking about the latest supreme court case.  The baker did say he would sell them a cake, just not custom make one.  They could buy any other cake in the shop.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except they didn't signal him out. They were recommended to his business by friends. They didn't know he was a raging homophobe until they go there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull, it that was the case, they would have just gone to one of the many other bakers in the area.  They went there specifically to start trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, what I said was if they can't follow the law, they shouldn't be in business.
> 
> Sorry you were confused there.
> 
> Hey, did you check out all those truck driving jobs on Indeed that actually offer health benefits? Wow. Amazing. I was able to find these things for you. It's almost like I do that for a living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 3530:
> 
> _*"Bullshit.... if you don't want to participate in certain activities, don't be in that line of work."*_
> 
> Great.  Show me these jobs that I can apply for with my government restrictions: I can't leave state lines, I can't get Haz-Mat, I can't get a passenger endorsement.
Click to expand...

*From the brief, it appears that there was no discussion of the type of wedding cake.  The couple ask to purchase a wedding cake for a gay marriage and the baker said no.

This case and all public accommodation suits boils down to one question.  Does a person who opens his business to the public have a right to choose his customers based on his own personal prejudices?

You can be in business without being a public accommodation.  For example, the baker could sell his goods privately through churches are clubs.  He also could sell his goods wholesale or he do a combination, selling decorated cakes privately or wholesale and standard bake goods to the public.  There are a number of options if he doesn't won't to sell to the public.  The courts position has been for over 50 years, if you are open to public, you got to be open to the public.  You can't yes to the white guy and no to the black guy or in Colorado, yes to straight couple and no to the gay couple.*


----------



## Dragonlady

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a history of stupid posts, this is by far the dumbest thing ever.
> 
> You bitch about your job endlessly. Why don’t you quit and open your own trucking company, or become an independent hauler?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I thought about that many times.  But I already have a side business that keeps me occupied.  I don't need two businesses.
> 
> And why is my remark stupid?  Is it because you can't answer my question?
> 
> Yes, the workers work.  That's what they get paid to do.  But the workers didn't come up with the hundreds of thousands of dollars to open up that store.  The workers couldn't pay the utilities or taxes.  The workers couldn't compete with similar stores if they paid themselves great money.  The workers don't have an office staff to handle government regulations, payroll, billers and paperwork pushers.  They don't have the resources to even open up such an office.  They don't have to spend the money for snow removal or lot maintenance.
> 
> What the Walton's have done is provide a place for people to work.  Without them, some of those people wouldn't have any kind of job at all.  They spent money to create the idea, the structure, the organization.  They risked their own money.  That's what they do.
> 
> Just because they don't sweep floors doesn't mean they are not earning their money.  In the event you didn't know, investment is where you do spend your own money hoping for a return plus profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for them now tax them please.... Your hero worship is touching.Why are we the only modern country without Healthcare daycare good vacations cheap college and training good infrastructure living wage, super duper? 35 years of GOP giveaway to the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean we are the only country where people take care of themselves?  My Lord, what an awful place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also why we have the the worst inequality, poverty, upward Mobility and infrastructure and everything else in the modern world. Thanks GOP and silly dupes like you. We're number 23!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US produces close to a  half-million new millionaires every year.  How much more upward mobility do you want than that?  The main reason we have poverty if because the Democrats have promoted irresponsibility.  Single parent homes (which Democrats also promoted) is a leading reason for poverty.
> 
> _*"Folks, if you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't." *_
> Rush Limbaugh
Click to expand...


Did you read the whole article Ray, or did you stop after the part about 500,000 new millionaires ever year?  

Did you read the part which said that these new millionaires are being created by a tax code which transfers wealth from the working class to the investment class?  People aren’t getting rich from their own efforts, but rather by a tax code which transfers money from those who work to those who don’t. 

Did you read that 75% of American families are struggling to make ends meet?  

Or that 3/4 of all wealthy individuals say inheritance was a factor in their accumulation of wealth?

1,700 People in America Are Becoming Millionaires Every Day

Try reading the WHOLE article this time Ray. 

There are 4 million babies born in the US each year. Even with a half a million millionaires being created each year, this means the other 3 million children who are being born this year are not going to be “thrivers”. 3/4 of these children will grow up poor because Donald Trump is accelerating that transfer of wealth with the new tax code. 

Upthread someone whinged that 30% of all immigrants are on welfare. That’s substantially less than the 47% of American citizens who are currently receiving social assistance?  The people Mitt Romney labelled as “takers”. 

The ignorance of right wingers on matters of the economy makes it easy for Republicans to fool you into thinking they know what they’re doing.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so you know all this even though we don't have one? My you are so good, in fact, you are so much better than all our agencies that said a wall would benefit them greatly; the same agencies that participated in the design of the wall that would help eliminate all the things you wrote above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the agencies aren't saying that at all.
> 
> https://gizmodo.com/us-border-patrol-doesnt-want-a-wall-they-want-drones-an-1773661854
> 
> Even the conservative Cato Institute says a wall won't work.
> 
> Why the Wall Won't Work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious?  Gizmodo for your evidence?  Here, try a real source:
> 
> Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds
Click to expand...

*Your survey says they want a wall in strategic locations.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so you know all this even though we don't have one? My you are so good, in fact, you are so much better than all our agencies that said a wall would benefit them greatly; the same agencies that participated in the design of the wall that would help eliminate all the things you wrote above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the agencies aren't saying that at all.
> 
> https://gizmodo.com/us-border-patrol-doesnt-want-a-wall-they-want-drones-an-1773661854
> 
> Even the conservative Cato Institute says a wall won't work.
> 
> Why the Wall Won't Work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious?  Gizmodo for your evidence?  Here, try a real source:
> 
> Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Your survey says they want a wall in strategic locations.*
Click to expand...


And????????


----------



## AZGAL

There is a GIANT misunderstanding about what has happened to the (illegal) children both under the Obama presidency, and what has just happened because of "zero tolerance". Zero tolerance refers to CHARGING a misdemeanor when an ADULT enters the USA illegally. BECAUSE of the FLORES law NO CHILDREN could be held in detention with the parent/s awaiting a hearing. THEREFORe the CHILDREN who arrived WITH PARENTS recently had to be placed elsewhere temporarily, not permanently. MOST of these children were NOT of TENDER AGE (under 13), and in FACT only a handful of toddler/ infants ever went away from their parents. THERE were NO CHILDREN in "CAGES" as the LYIN' liberal media claimed, just families who were being "processed" at the border. The UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN who came in the highest record ever- about 70,000 CAME DURING THE OBAMA administration and were also "processed" at the border. NO, not all of them got sponsors. MANY had to live in children only facilities because THEIR PARENTS set them off on a dangerous journey with teenagers and coyotes THROUGH MEXICO by way of trains, buses, on foot and WITHOUT PARENTS. The record number of unaccompanied children was in 2014. It was called a "surge" of children. SOME were granted temporary or permanent status (stay or asylum) and MANY were returned to their home countries.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENNY LISETTE FLORES, et al, Plaintiffs
v.
JANET RENO, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants

Case No. CV 85-4544-RJK(Px)

The Flores lawsuit went all the way to the Supreme Court. Eventually, in 1997, the two sides signed a settlement that has governed treatment of migrant children in detention ever since. The Flores settlement has been revisited multiple times, most recently in 2015 when the Obama administration sought to carve out an exception for minors who had arrived in the U.S. with their parents. It came amid a surge in migrant families from Central America, and the administration wanted to detain some of them for as long as it took to process their cases. A federal judge in California said no, which brings us to yesterday when the Trump administration submitted a very similar request. And the same federal judge, Dolly Gee, is set to hear the case 33 years after Carlos Holguin first brought suit on behalf of Jenny Flores.


----------



## AZGAL

"Did you read that 75% of American families are struggling to make ends meet?"...so then LETS*  PRIORITIZE *HELPING OUR FAMILIES HERE. *In addition, this nation is in debt and the President is improving the economy. The USA always takes in some asylum seekers and immigrants, but we cannot and will not take in the whole world. *


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup... except they can't actually vote for a long time, but never mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least not legally.
> 
> The big plan is to stuff as many of these minorities into the country as they can.  If and when they regain total power of the federal government, grant citizenship to all the illegals who would then be eligible to vote.
Click to expand...

*By the time they would make any difference the political landscape will probably be entirely different.  I can remember when democrats thought free trade was horrible and republicans thought it was the greatest thing since pancakes. Before Reagan, Hispanics divided pretty equally between the parties.  Not too long ago Democrats were hanging blacks from the old cypress tree and republicans were selling civil rights.  Democrats use to fight immigration because they feared it hurt the unions while republicans were championing immigration.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dragonlady said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I thought about that many times.  But I already have a side business that keeps me occupied.  I don't need two businesses.
> 
> And why is my remark stupid?  Is it because you can't answer my question?
> 
> Yes, the workers work.  That's what they get paid to do.  But the workers didn't come up with the hundreds of thousands of dollars to open up that store.  The workers couldn't pay the utilities or taxes.  The workers couldn't compete with similar stores if they paid themselves great money.  The workers don't have an office staff to handle government regulations, payroll, billers and paperwork pushers.  They don't have the resources to even open up such an office.  They don't have to spend the money for snow removal or lot maintenance.
> 
> What the Walton's have done is provide a place for people to work.  Without them, some of those people wouldn't have any kind of job at all.  They spent money to create the idea, the structure, the organization.  They risked their own money.  That's what they do.
> 
> Just because they don't sweep floors doesn't mean they are not earning their money.  In the event you didn't know, investment is where you do spend your own money hoping for a return plus profit.
> 
> 
> 
> Good for them now tax them please.... Your hero worship is touching.Why are we the only modern country without Healthcare daycare good vacations cheap college and training good infrastructure living wage, super duper? 35 years of GOP giveaway to the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean we are the only country where people take care of themselves?  My Lord, what an awful place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also why we have the the worst inequality, poverty, upward Mobility and infrastructure and everything else in the modern world. Thanks GOP and silly dupes like you. We're number 23!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US produces close to a  half-million new millionaires every year.  How much more upward mobility do you want than that?  The main reason we have poverty if because the Democrats have promoted irresponsibility.  Single parent homes (which Democrats also promoted) is a leading reason for poverty.
> 
> _*"Folks, if you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't." *_
> Rush Limbaugh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read the whole article Ray, or did you stop after the part about 500,000 new millionaires ever year?
> 
> Did you read the part which said that these new millionaires are being created by a tax code which transfers wealth from the working class to the investment class?  People aren’t getting rich from their own efforts, but rather by a tax code which transfers money from those who work to those who don’t.
> 
> Did you read that 75% of American families are struggling to make ends meet?
> 
> Or that 3/4 of all wealthy individuals say inheritance was a factor in their accumulation of wealth?
> 
> 1,700 People in America Are Becoming Millionaires Every Day
> 
> Try reading the WHOLE article this time Ray.
> 
> There are 4 million babies born in the US each year. Even with a half a million millionaires being created each year, this means the other 3 million children who are being born this year are not going to be “thrivers”. 3/4 of these children will grow up poor because Donald Trump is accelerating that transfer of wealth with the new tax code.
> 
> Upthread someone whinged that 30% of all immigrants are on welfare. That’s substantially less than the 47% of American citizens who are currently receiving social assistance?  The people Mitt Romney labelled as “takers”.
> 
> The ignorance of right wingers on matters of the economy makes it easy for Republicans to fool you into thinking they know what they’re doing.
Click to expand...


I didn't read any article because I didn't post an article.  However I did read yours by Nanny Bloomberg.  

What it said in a Clintonizing way was that inheritance was a factor--not the direct reason people became wealthy.  

Now I'm a working class guy.  I don't remember any deduction out of my paycheck that went to the rich.  I do transfer money to the rich just like you do, but it's an option and not a mandate by my employer.  You and I both transfer our wealth to the top several times a week.  Nobody is holding a gun to our heads to do it either. 

And your article didn't say anything about the tax code.  Even if the tax code played a part, it's not the reason people become wealthy.  All Trump's tax code did was allow people to keep more of THEIR MONEY THAT THEY EARNED!  

To your chagrin, all money does not belong to government, and what they allow us to keep is a gift from them to us.  Money is property no different than your car or home.  You earned it, you created it, and it's rightfully yours.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup... except they can't actually vote for a long time, but never mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least not legally.
> 
> The big plan is to stuff as many of these minorities into the country as they can.  If and when they regain total power of the federal government, grant citizenship to all the illegals who would then be eligible to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *By the time they would make any difference the political landscape will probably be entirely different.  I can remember when democrats thought free trade was horrible and republicans thought it was the greatest thing since pancakes. Before Reagan, Hispanics divided pretty equally between the parties.  Not too long ago Democrats were hanging blacks from the old cypress tree and republicans were selling civil rights.  Democrats use to fight immigration because they feared it hurt the unions while republicans were championing immigration.*
Click to expand...


All other groups of people vote a majority Democrat.  That's why the Democrats want to wipe out whites.  Hispanics heavily vote Democrat.  Middle-Easterners vote Democrat.  The Jewish vote Democrat.  The Asians vote Democrat.  Blacks?  Forget about it. 

Once we are the minority, we will be on the path to a one-party country forever, and when that happens, it will be the end of the Great Experiment.  We will fall into a Socialist hellhole like so many others, and perhaps even advance to Communism.  

And don't say "by then" because we have elections every two years.  Things can change on a dime like we seen during the last administration.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for them now tax them please.... Your hero worship is touching.Why are we the only modern country without Healthcare daycare good vacations cheap college and training good infrastructure living wage, super duper? 35 years of GOP giveaway to the rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean we are the only country where people take care of themselves?  My Lord, what an awful place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also why we have the the worst inequality, poverty, upward Mobility and infrastructure and everything else in the modern world. Thanks GOP and silly dupes like you. We're number 23!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US produces close to a  half-million new millionaires every year.  How much more upward mobility do you want than that?  The main reason we have poverty if because the Democrats have promoted irresponsibility.  Single parent homes (which Democrats also promoted) is a leading reason for poverty.
> 
> _*"Folks, if you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't." *_
> Rush Limbaugh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read the whole article Ray, or did you stop after the part about 500,000 new millionaires ever year?
> 
> Did you read the part which said that these new millionaires are being created by a tax code which transfers wealth from the working class to the investment class?  People aren’t getting rich from their own efforts, but rather by a tax code which transfers money from those who work to those who don’t.
> 
> Did you read that 75% of American families are struggling to make ends meet?
> 
> Or that 3/4 of all wealthy individuals say inheritance was a factor in their accumulation of wealth?
> 
> 1,700 People in America Are Becoming Millionaires Every Day
> 
> Try reading the WHOLE article this time Ray.
> 
> There are 4 million babies born in the US each year. Even with a half a million millionaires being created each year, this means the other 3 million children who are being born this year are not going to be “thrivers”. 3/4 of these children will grow up poor because Donald Trump is accelerating that transfer of wealth with the new tax code.
> 
> Upthread someone whinged that 30% of all immigrants are on welfare. That’s substantially less than the 47% of American citizens who are currently receiving social assistance?  The people Mitt Romney labelled as “takers”.
> 
> The ignorance of right wingers on matters of the economy makes it easy for Republicans to fool you into thinking they know what they’re doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't read any article because I didn't post an article.  However I did read yours by Nanny Bloomberg.
> 
> What it said in a Clintonizing way was that inheritance was a factor--not the direct reason people became wealthy.
> 
> Now I'm a working class guy.  I don't remember any deduction out of my paycheck that went to the rich.  I do transfer money to the rich just like you do, but it's an option and not a mandate by my employer.  You and I both transfer our wealth to the top several times a week.  Nobody is holding a gun to our heads to do it either.
> 
> And your article didn't say anything about the tax code.  Even if the tax code played a part, it's not the reason people become wealthy.  All Trump's tax code did was allow people to keep more of THEIR MONEY THAT THEY EARNED!
> 
> To your chagrin, all money does not belong to government, and what they allow us to keep is a gift from them to us.  Money is property no different than your car or home.  You earned it, you created it, and it's rightfully yours.
Click to expand...

35 years of GOP giveaway to the rich, super duper. And screwing the rest...
*Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.*

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

*1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.*

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105%  – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 =  96%
2007 =  92%

*A 13% drop since 1980*

*2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.*

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

*An increase of 16% since Reagan.*

*3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.*

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

*A 12.3% drop after Reagan.*

*4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.*

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

*5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.*

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

*A 5.6 times increase.*

*6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.*

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 =  6%
1990 =  3%
2000 =  2%

*A 10% Decrease.*

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = The Fed - Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = ht


----------



## AZGAL

And to all the Lyin' media: *OBAMA government filled the "cages"... and sorry TIME magazine you lie too...*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said that bakers should refuse to bake wedding cakes because they are being forced to participate in a ritual they consider immoral.
> 
> Except that it isn't part of the ritual mentioned in the bible. Doing a virgin check on your daughter and stoning her ass is, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are making a cake for a gay wedding, of course you are involved, just like you are involved if they call you to tape the wedding or custom make flower arrangements.  You are involved.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they aren't part of the ritual and they aren't mentioned in the bible or the Koran.
> 
> And, no, the bakers in question refused to provide the service at all.
> 
> For those playing along at home, wedding cakes are actually a ROMAN pagan tradition that got carried over into Christianity because who doesn't like cake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm talking about the latest supreme court case.  The baker did say he would sell them a cake, just not custom make one.  They could buy any other cake in the shop.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except they didn't signal him out. They were recommended to his business by friends. They didn't know he was a raging homophobe until they go there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull, it that was the case, they would have just gone to one of the many other bakers in the area.  They went there specifically to start trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, what I said was if they can't follow the law, they shouldn't be in business.
> 
> Sorry you were confused there.
> 
> Hey, did you check out all those truck driving jobs on Indeed that actually offer health benefits? Wow. Amazing. I was able to find these things for you. It's almost like I do that for a living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 3530:
> 
> _*"Bullshit.... if you don't want to participate in certain activities, don't be in that line of work."*_
> 
> Great.  Show me these jobs that I can apply for with my government restrictions: I can't leave state lines, I can't get Haz-Mat, I can't get a passenger endorsement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *From the brief, it appears that there was no discussion of the type of wedding cake.  The couple ask to purchase a wedding cake for a gay marriage and the baker said no.
> 
> This case and all public accommodation suits boils down to one question.  Does a person who opens his business to the public have a right to choose his customers based on his own personal prejudices?
> 
> You can be in business without being a public accommodation.  For example, the baker could sell his goods privately through churches are clubs.  He also could sell his goods wholesale or he do a combination, selling decorated cakes privately or wholesale and standard bake goods to the public.  There are a number of options if he doesn't won't to sell to the public.  The courts position has been for over 50 years, if you are open to public, you got to be open to the public.  You can't yes to the white guy and no to the black guy or in Colorado, yes to straight couple and no to the gay couple.*
Click to expand...


The court seen it differently......at least in the last case. 

The US Constitution protects your right to practice your religion as you see fit.  Homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible and even Koran.  In fact very few religions accept a gay relationship of any kind.  

It's less a personal prejudice than it is a religious one.  There are no exemptions for freedom of religion just because you own a business.


----------



## Ame®icano

danielpalos said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ If there was a chance they were voting GOP, you Libtards would be volunteering to build the wall brick by brick. Besides law breakers looking for welfare fall into the democRAT camp, not ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except these people aren't looking for welfare.  They are willing to do the jobs the welfare collecting white trash in the trailer parks aren't willing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.
> 
> So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants.  Typical leftist thinking all the way.  Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let capitalism do the work.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another communist's great idea that's so good, it have to be forced on employers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in this case, it is; higher paid labor creates more in demand and pays more in taxes.  only the right wing, doesn't really care and never get's it.
Click to expand...


You failed to explain what more of demand is created? 

Second, unlike communist leach such as yourself, I believe minimum wage should be zero, and also... federal tax should be zero percent and feds should be financed by the states.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they are disabled, they can apply for disability. Yes, they have jobs. Some of our customers use temps. When they ask temps if they could work more hours, most of them refuse. Why? Because that would interfere with their stipend. And it's not like these places have them working 40 hours a week to start off with. The temp agencies often switch employees around during the week so they can keep their hours down by the request of the workers.
> 
> Believe me, they know how to play the game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm sure they do.  So does the construction guy who collects unemployment in the off season and does off the books work around the neighborhood.
> 
> So does the retired person who still does off the books business while collecting social security.
> 
> Guess what, buddy, EVERYONE GAMES THE SYSTEM.
Click to expand...


So that's a reason to let others do the same?  We and our employers pay into SS.  We and our employers pay into unemployment.  People on food stamps likely never paid a dime into our federal income tax system.  How do I figure that?  Because nearly half the people in our country don't pay into the system. 

So you are trying to make the comparison of people getting back what they paid in,  to people who take and never put in a dime.  Sorry.  You are speaking apples and I'm talking about oranges.


----------



## candycorn

Flopper said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same time you answer the question..if “beaner” is such a term of endearment, have you belled up to a Chicano bar and called the tender a “beaner” to his face?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you a question several times and you dodged every time. Then you asked me a question and demand I answer it immediately, and claimed I am dodging it.
> 
> I explained it to you, it's not how it works. Normal people live and learn. It seems you just live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol....  again, if you don't think "beaner" is a racial slur, would you call a white person a beaner?  A black person a beaner?  An Asian person a "beaner"?  Of course not.  Only Hispanics get called that particular racial slur.
> 
> Why you can't wrap your head around this simple fact and keep asking questions like "what race is Mexican" is just a sign of your continued and profound dishonesty and is the hallmark of all Trump supporters when you go one degree deep with them: dishonesty and "whataboutism"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /-----/ "lol.... again, if you don't think "beaner" is a racial slur, "
> Ahhh shut up you _*Gringo*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See...Cellblock gets it. Gringo is a racial slur.  You wouldn't call someone who is not Anglo that word.  If Cellblock gets it-- We're talking someone who is near the bottom rung of society--you should be ashamed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you know any mexican people then you'll know this is a non-derogatory term used to refer to US citizens. Mostly because the term "American" does not make sense to the rest of the Americans (all those people who live in the continent named "America", which is every body from Alaska to argentina), and the word "Estadounidense" (UnitedStatean)is too long.
> 
> Folklore says it was generated when the US invaded mexico, wearing green uniforms, and the people shouted at them "Green Go Home".
> 
> With time it lost all derogatory status and was turned into the most common word to refer to any US citizen.
> Urban Dictionary: gringo*
Click to expand...


Know about a billion "mexican people", Gringo is used sparingly if ever.  Never in polite company.  I know several words in Spanish (Spanglish) which are far worse that are used daily if not hourly.


----------



## Ame®icano

Dragonlady said:


> The rich earned their wealth?  Are you that stupid?  The Walton’s earned nothing. Sam Walton earned their wealth. The Waltons sit on their asses and collect dividends off the work if others.
> 
> The rich have a tax code that keeps wealth flowing to the top. They have labour laws which allow them to deny health care or benefits to workers, and to pay them so little their workers need welfare to supplement their incomes.
> 
> They appoint a burger flipper as “manager” so they can work him/her 60 hours a week without paying overtime.
> 
> Other countries put their people first. America puts their corporations first, and the wealthy second. Working men and women, who make up the vast majority of your population are denigrated, abused and paid the least amount possible.



Envy is a bitch.


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, but talking with people close to the border (I've never been there) the problem they have are illegals crowding 12 people into a two family home or apartment.  That brings down property value.  So they can work at McDonald's part time and still make claim of supporting themselves.  The other problem is anchor babies.  Come here and have a bunch of kids, and then you can share in their welfare plus be able to make claim they need you here because they are little Americans that cannot support themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are real issues that need to be solved.  We have a better chance to do that though if people can only come legally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well some of them are coming legally and that's what they do.  Again, no first hand experience, but just going by what people who live in the area tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Some of them are coming legally.  We have just over 37 million legal immigrants living in the United States.  The best estimates of undocumented  immigrants are 11 to 12 million.  In other words we have about 3 times as many legal immigrants.  That's not just "some".*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, no experts actually believe 11 to 12 million.  That estimate is over a decade old and would suggest that no one has come here, which is of course crap.  Most put the real number at 25 to 30 million
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Compete nonsense.  Most all reputable research organization puts the numbers between 11 and 12 million.
> 
> Pants on fire Trump.  "It could be 3 million. It could be 30 million," Trump said.
> 
> Homeland Security estimated 12 million in 2012
> 
> 11.4 million  Migration Policy Institute (MPI) analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2014
> 11.1 million Statistics Portal 2014
> 11.3 million Pew Research Center 2015
> 10.8 million Center for Immigration Studies 2016
> 
> Profile of the Unauthorized Population - US
> 5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S.
> Unauthorized immigrant population U.S. 1990-2014 | Statistic
> Looking at the New Estimates of the Illegal Population*
Click to expand...


Right, and if you actually read the HLS report, it says it has significant "non-sampling error."  Since you aren't a very good reader, I'll explain what that means.  They only counted the people they could count and reported that.  They did not attempt try to estimate the ones they couldn't count, which is exactly the point with illegal aliens, we can't count them.

The 25-30 million estimate is based on estimates of the numbers of illegal and overstays that were projected to have entered the US and stayed since the early 90s.  There is no possible way that illegal entries and overstays since added up to only ~10 million based on the number of people continuing to enter the country since that time.

The number of illegal aliens in our healthcare system, educational system and prisons shows that the 10 millionish estimates are not remotely possible, there are far more illegal aliens here.  The ones that estimate in that range are all like the HLS estimates where they are only reporting what they can count.  HLS is just honest about that insufficiency in their sampling


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're doing this for the rich people? What a stupid ass you are to carry their water for them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not at all..
> 
> My solution to illegal aliens would be go after the places that hire them, not try to top them at the border, which is useless since they will always find another way in.
> 
> You see, what we do with the Mexicans we catch? We send them back  to Mexico and they try again a few weeks later.  You have to get it right every time.  they just have to get it right, once.
> 
> It's the detainees and refugees from Central America that are causing the current problem with the ugly images.
Click to expand...


If you believed that, you wouldn't be hyperventalating about the wall.   You'd say go ahead and build it.  Other countries around the world that have built walls all say they do work.

The point is that sure, SOME will still get in.  But nowhere near the numbers.  You actually think a Mexican is going to bring his wife and kids through dangerous mountains?  And they would still be electronically surveilled.  No, you want illegal immigration.  It's the only thing that explains your arguments.  Illegals are poor, exactly what the Democrats want in voters


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fraction of the people coming now will get through. You know that very well, which is why you're so desperate to stop it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they'll just get more clever about getting across.  Most undocumented workers don't come in across the southern border to start with.
Click to expand...


That's a lie.  Even the leftists who provided links said overstays are less than those walking in.  They just didn't read the links.

And again, the ones walking across the border are far more dangerous.  They are unchecked.  At least the overstays were checked at one point for their criminal record


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he's melting down because he knows it will work. He's trying to make the border wall sound like a chain link fence.
> 
> So Joe, you don't want fences around nuclear power plants either, right? I mean they don't work
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NObody really wants to get into a nuclear power plant, but let's look at that.
> 
> The plant is a limited bit of real estate.  you can't go two or three miles down the road to find another place to get at it.  The whole permiter you are defending is only a few miles.
> 
> the Southern Border is over 2000 miles long.  The Border Patrol only has 20,000 agents.  That's 10 agents per mile, to guard it 24/7.
> 
> They'll find ways through, just like they do now.
> 
> Now, if you REALLY wanted to stop the flow, you do what we've already done, cracked down on workplace enforcement, which is why it's gone from flood to a trickle.
Click to expand...


With all the electronics, a border wall would be surveiled just like a fence around a nuclear power plant.

And no one wants to get into a nuclear power plant?  You're just chugging the kool-aid now


----------



## kaz

Cecilie1200 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bad attitude is keeping you poor. That's why I fired you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you couldn't afford me... I probably wouldn't have sent your chicken shit company a resume...
> 
> You're a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.
> 
> I watch little companies like yours go out of business because of their half-assery all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already told me your max salary was $80K.  Now you make less than $25K.  It's not the money I can't afford, that's for sure.  I wouldn't do you to my staff though.
> 
> After I had bought and merged three companies, I had picked up a lot of good employees and of course a lot of dead wood.  I was working with my management team on our plan to replace the bad staff.  But we didn't know how many people we would need to replace them.
> 
> After a lot of discussion, I finally decided we fire all the bad ones immediately and the same day, no dragging it out.  Let's rip off the bandaid.  We'll identify the gaps and be ready to replace them at once.
> 
> So that Friday, we did it.  We fired 30% of the company.  All of them had either personally bad attitudes or just bad attitudes about doing any work.  You were a marginal worker, it was your bad attitude that got you fired.
> 
> Here's what you didn't know because you were gone.  You know how many of you we had to replace?  Zero.  It wasn't just you I didn't replace, I didn't need to replace any of you.  The place seemed so much roomier and wow, it was so much more enjoyable being there without the lazy, useless and bad attitudes.  Over time we replaced you as we grew, but that Friday you all left, your pay and benefits were all just savings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turns out, your good employees were spending a bunch of their time corrected the errors of the bad apples, I'll bet.  Without the lousy co-workers, they probably had more time to be effective at their own jobs.
Click to expand...


Yes, that's exactly what was happening as I learned.  They said their jobs were actually easier


----------



## Dragonlady

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for them now tax them please.... Your hero worship is touching.Why are we the only modern country without Healthcare daycare good vacations cheap college and training good infrastructure living wage, super duper? 35 years of GOP giveaway to the rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean we are the only country where people take care of themselves?  My Lord, what an awful place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also why we have the the worst inequality, poverty, upward Mobility and infrastructure and everything else in the modern world. Thanks GOP and silly dupes like you. We're number 23!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US produces close to a  half-million new millionaires every year.  How much more upward mobility do you want than that?  The main reason we have poverty if because the Democrats have promoted irresponsibility.  Single parent homes (which Democrats also promoted) is a leading reason for poverty.
> 
> _*"Folks, if you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't." *_
> Rush Limbaugh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read the whole article Ray, or did you stop after the part about 500,000 new millionaires ever year?
> 
> Did you read the part which said that these new millionaires are being created by a tax code which transfers wealth from the working class to the investment class?  People aren’t getting rich from their own efforts, but rather by a tax code which transfers money from those who work to those who don’t.
> 
> Did you read that 75% of American families are struggling to make ends meet?
> 
> Or that 3/4 of all wealthy individuals say inheritance was a factor in their accumulation of wealth?
> 
> 1,700 People in America Are Becoming Millionaires Every Day
> 
> Try reading the WHOLE article this time Ray.
> 
> There are 4 million babies born in the US each year. Even with a half a million millionaires being created each year, this means the other 3 million children who are being born this year are not going to be “thrivers”. 3/4 of these children will grow up poor because Donald Trump is accelerating that transfer of wealth with the new tax code.
> 
> Upthread someone whinged that 30% of all immigrants are on welfare. That’s substantially less than the 47% of American citizens who are currently receiving social assistance?  The people Mitt Romney labelled as “takers”.
> 
> The ignorance of right wingers on matters of the economy makes it easy for Republicans to fool you into thinking they know what they’re doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't read any article because I didn't post an article.  However I did read yours by Nanny Bloomberg.
> 
> What it said in a Clintonizing way was that inheritance was a factor--not the direct reason people became wealthy.
> 
> Now I'm a working class guy.  I don't remember any deduction out of my paycheck that went to the rich.  I do transfer money to the rich just like you do, but it's an option and not a mandate by my employer.  You and I both transfer our wealth to the top several times a week.  Nobody is holding a gun to our heads to do it either.
> 
> And your article didn't say anything about the tax code.  Even if the tax code played a part, it's not the reason people become wealthy.  All Trump's tax code did was allow people to keep more of THEIR MONEY THAT THEY EARNED!
> 
> To your chagrin, all money does not belong to government, and what they allow us to keep is a gift from them to us.  Money is property no different than your car or home.  You earned it, you created it, and it's rightfully yours.
Click to expand...


As a Canadian, my tax dollars do NOT go to the rich. They go to Canadian citizens - in child benefits to young families, for universal health care, and for old age income supplements. They go to roads, bridges and infrastructure. 

What they don’t pay for is a massive bloated military protecting “Canadian interests” around the globe. They don’t pay for income supplements for underpaid corporate employees, nor do we have a bloated government paying out income supplements to working people. Corporations in Canada are required to pay a living wage to their employees. 

While the US middle class is watching their wealth shrink to create those 500,000 millionaires each year, the Canadian middle class has the fastest growth in the world.


----------



## Ame®icano

Flopper said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is to persuade the parents to waive a trial and plead guilty. Once they plead guilty, their deportation can be expedited and they will be united with their children in few days or weeks.  If they ask for their day in court, they won't see their children for months, or up to 1 year and they are told this.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of crap.
> 
> If that is the "real reason" and if Barry hasn't done anything wrong by doing it (with your silent approval), than Trump is doing nothing wrong neither.
> 
> Kids don't belong to jail. Their parents are lawbreakers, not them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The Obama administration placed nearly 90,000 children with a sponsor, after they were detained at the border without a legal guardian. The only time children split from their family under Obama was if the adult was suspected of not being a guardian, had an outstanding warrant, or federal agents suspected the adult of another serious crime like trafficking or smuggling.
> 
> The Trump administration policy was to separate all children from their parents with no exceptions and if there had not been the outcry from the public and pressure from congress he would still be doing it.  No law compelled him to do it.  He did as deterrent and to speed up deportations.  His actions were so deplorable that even his wife and daughter spoke out against it.
> *
> *Not real news: The truth about volcanic gems, and immigrant kids placed into care under Obama*
Click to expand...


You're parroting Schumer's talking points that President can solve the problem with his pen. Sure he can, under the Section 212F of INA, President have full authority to shut down all immigration when he deems it of national interest. Just so you know and you don't complain about it later.

Now, let's talk about what you said: "*No law compelled him to do it."*

Back in 1997, there was law where they agree that we cannot detain unaccompanied children. Now, have you heard of Barry appointee district judge Dolly Gee? Not so long ago, in June 2016 she applied the 1997 agreement of not detaining unaccompanied children to all children, including when they cross the border illegally with their parents. You lefties are simply ignoring the law and going solely by the interpretation of the law from one leftist district judge.

The fact is, what president is doing is completely within a law. You lefties and your media are saying there is no such law and having meltdown over it. What you pretty much "forced" Trump to sign is gonna hit you in the ass. Yeah, you may celebrate the "victory", but it's not going to last. What's going to happen is, if Trump can't separate the families while they're being processed, he'll keep them together and deport them together before 20 days of legally being detained expire. 

I know you lefties don't care about sovereignty of this country, but there are plenty of us who does including the president. He can stop all the immigration into the country, family based, employment based etc. He can reject every asylum at the border and redirect all asylum claims to be filed in US Embassies. You lefties surely don't want that, but you just might get it.

"The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty. The right to do so stems not alone from legislative power, but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation." - Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950)


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dragonlady said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean we are the only country where people take care of themselves?  My Lord, what an awful place.
> 
> 
> 
> Also why we have the the worst inequality, poverty, upward Mobility and infrastructure and everything else in the modern world. Thanks GOP and silly dupes like you. We're number 23!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US produces close to a  half-million new millionaires every year.  How much more upward mobility do you want than that?  The main reason we have poverty if because the Democrats have promoted irresponsibility.  Single parent homes (which Democrats also promoted) is a leading reason for poverty.
> 
> _*"Folks, if you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't." *_
> Rush Limbaugh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read the whole article Ray, or did you stop after the part about 500,000 new millionaires ever year?
> 
> Did you read the part which said that these new millionaires are being created by a tax code which transfers wealth from the working class to the investment class?  People aren’t getting rich from their own efforts, but rather by a tax code which transfers money from those who work to those who don’t.
> 
> Did you read that 75% of American families are struggling to make ends meet?
> 
> Or that 3/4 of all wealthy individuals say inheritance was a factor in their accumulation of wealth?
> 
> 1,700 People in America Are Becoming Millionaires Every Day
> 
> Try reading the WHOLE article this time Ray.
> 
> There are 4 million babies born in the US each year. Even with a half a million millionaires being created each year, this means the other 3 million children who are being born this year are not going to be “thrivers”. 3/4 of these children will grow up poor because Donald Trump is accelerating that transfer of wealth with the new tax code.
> 
> Upthread someone whinged that 30% of all immigrants are on welfare. That’s substantially less than the 47% of American citizens who are currently receiving social assistance?  The people Mitt Romney labelled as “takers”.
> 
> The ignorance of right wingers on matters of the economy makes it easy for Republicans to fool you into thinking they know what they’re doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't read any article because I didn't post an article.  However I did read yours by Nanny Bloomberg.
> 
> What it said in a Clintonizing way was that inheritance was a factor--not the direct reason people became wealthy.
> 
> Now I'm a working class guy.  I don't remember any deduction out of my paycheck that went to the rich.  I do transfer money to the rich just like you do, but it's an option and not a mandate by my employer.  You and I both transfer our wealth to the top several times a week.  Nobody is holding a gun to our heads to do it either.
> 
> And your article didn't say anything about the tax code.  Even if the tax code played a part, it's not the reason people become wealthy.  All Trump's tax code did was allow people to keep more of THEIR MONEY THAT THEY EARNED!
> 
> To your chagrin, all money does not belong to government, and what they allow us to keep is a gift from them to us.  Money is property no different than your car or home.  You earned it, you created it, and it's rightfully yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a Canadian, my tax dollars do NOT go to the rich. They go to Canadian citizens - in child benefits to young families, for universal health care, and for old age income supplements. They go to roads, bridges and infrastructure.
> 
> What they don’t pay for is a massive bloated military protecting “Canadian interests” around the globe. They don’t pay for income supplements for underpaid corporate employees, nor do we have a bloated government paying out income supplements to working people. Corporations in Canada are required to pay a living wage to their employees.
> 
> While the US middle class is watching their wealth shrink to create those 500,000 millionaires each year, the Canadian middle class has the fastest growth in the world.
Click to expand...


Then you do things your way and we'll do things ours.  My tax dollars do not go to the rich either.  They may keep more of their own money, but they are not getting mine unless I personally give it to them.  You leftists really believe that all money belongs to government instead of the individual.  That's a very disturbing way of thinking.  

Now how long has Canada required corporations to pay a living wage?   Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you do.  We don't need the competition.  In fact I hope you keep increasing it.  So do other Americans I'm sure. 

Yes, we do spend a lot for military defense.  But ask yourself, who would you call if you ever got attacked by a major superpower in the world, the Canadian Guard?


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also why we have the the worst inequality, poverty, upward Mobility and infrastructure and everything else in the modern world. Thanks GOP and silly dupes like you. We're number 23!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US produces close to a  half-million new millionaires every year.  How much more upward mobility do you want than that?  The main reason we have poverty if because the Democrats have promoted irresponsibility.  Single parent homes (which Democrats also promoted) is a leading reason for poverty.
> 
> _*"Folks, if you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't." *_
> Rush Limbaugh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read the whole article Ray, or did you stop after the part about 500,000 new millionaires ever year?
> 
> Did you read the part which said that these new millionaires are being created by a tax code which transfers wealth from the working class to the investment class?  People aren’t getting rich from their own efforts, but rather by a tax code which transfers money from those who work to those who don’t.
> 
> Did you read that 75% of American families are struggling to make ends meet?
> 
> Or that 3/4 of all wealthy individuals say inheritance was a factor in their accumulation of wealth?
> 
> 1,700 People in America Are Becoming Millionaires Every Day
> 
> Try reading the WHOLE article this time Ray.
> 
> There are 4 million babies born in the US each year. Even with a half a million millionaires being created each year, this means the other 3 million children who are being born this year are not going to be “thrivers”. 3/4 of these children will grow up poor because Donald Trump is accelerating that transfer of wealth with the new tax code.
> 
> Upthread someone whinged that 30% of all immigrants are on welfare. That’s substantially less than the 47% of American citizens who are currently receiving social assistance?  The people Mitt Romney labelled as “takers”.
> 
> The ignorance of right wingers on matters of the economy makes it easy for Republicans to fool you into thinking they know what they’re doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't read any article because I didn't post an article.  However I did read yours by Nanny Bloomberg.
> 
> What it said in a Clintonizing way was that inheritance was a factor--not the direct reason people became wealthy.
> 
> Now I'm a working class guy.  I don't remember any deduction out of my paycheck that went to the rich.  I do transfer money to the rich just like you do, but it's an option and not a mandate by my employer.  You and I both transfer our wealth to the top several times a week.  Nobody is holding a gun to our heads to do it either.
> 
> And your article didn't say anything about the tax code.  Even if the tax code played a part, it's not the reason people become wealthy.  All Trump's tax code did was allow people to keep more of THEIR MONEY THAT THEY EARNED!
> 
> To your chagrin, all money does not belong to government, and what they allow us to keep is a gift from them to us.  Money is property no different than your car or home.  You earned it, you created it, and it's rightfully yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a Canadian, my tax dollars do NOT go to the rich. They go to Canadian citizens - in child benefits to young families, for universal health care, and for old age income supplements. They go to roads, bridges and infrastructure.
> 
> What they don’t pay for is a massive bloated military protecting “Canadian interests” around the globe. They don’t pay for income supplements for underpaid corporate employees, nor do we have a bloated government paying out income supplements to working people. Corporations in Canada are required to pay a living wage to their employees.
> 
> While the US middle class is watching their wealth shrink to create those 500,000 millionaires each year, the Canadian middle class has the fastest growth in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you do things your way and we'll do things ours.  My tax dollars do not go to the rich either.  They may keep more of their own money, but they are not getting mine unless I personally give it to them.  You leftists really believe that all money belongs to government instead of the individual.  That's a very disturbing way of thinking.
> 
> Now how long has Canada required corporations to pay a living wage?   Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you do.  We don't need the competition.  In fact I hope you keep increasing it.  So do other Americans I'm sure.
> 
> Yes, we do spend a lot for military defense.  But ask yourself, who would you call if you ever got attacked by a major superpower in the world, the Canadian Guard?
Click to expand...

I caramba what a brainwashed tool of the greedy idiot GOP....


----------



## Ame®icano

Back to the topic.

*Mexican kids held for months as punishment for border-crossing - Washington Post, March 11, 2015*


> Last spring, as Central American children flooded into Texas in a way he had never seen in his three-decade career, Border Patrol agent Robert Harris decided to experiment. His intelligence analysts estimated that *78 percent of the guides smuggling other migrants were Mexicans younger than 18* — *teenagers often hired or conscripted by drug cartels that knew they would not be prosecuted if caught* — and he wanted to attack this loophole.
> 
> “Why don’t we remove these juveniles from the smuggling cycle?” Harris, the outgoing commander of the Laredo sector of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, recalled thinking.
> 
> Now, as a result of that decision, young Mexicans are being held for months without charge in shelters across the United States, sometimes without their parents’ knowledge. Since the program began in May, 536 juveniles have been held — 248 of whom have been deported to Mexico after an average stay of 75 days, according to Border Patrol statistics. Mexican authorities say *some of these repeat border-crossers have spent as much as six months in U.S. custody while they await an appearance before an immigration judge*.



Information like this never appeared on Jake Tapper show or similar in leftist media. Not three years ago, not today. All they have to do is little bit of research on themselves to know that this problem with separating families did not started with Trump, and it was big problem much before he became president. There was 9th circuit court decision on this issue before Trump became president. Children have been separated from the parents before Trump became president. There were photographs of detention centers before Trump became president.

Let's continue, shall we?

*Obama administration placed children with human traffickers, report says - Washington Post, January 28, 2016*


> The Obama administration failed to protect thousands of Central American children who have flooded across the U.S. border since 2011, *leaving them vulnerable to traffickers and to abuses at the hands of government-approved caretakers*, a Senate investigation has found.
> 
> The Office of Refugee Resettlement, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, failed to do proper background checks of adults who claimed the children, *allowed sponsors to take custody of multiple unrelated children, and regularly placed children in homes without visiting the locations*, according to a 56-page investigative report released Thursday.
> 
> And once the children left federally funded shelters, the report said, the agency permitted their adult sponsors to prevent caseworkers from providing them post-release services.



Here we have an example of another of Barry's policies that Trump have to deal with. Leftist are attacking Trump for trying to end such policies that are inhumane and without compassion. It's untolerable that human trafficking could occur in our own backyard, all with approval of previous administration, and what makes it even more alarming is that US government agencies are responsible for delivering some of the victims to the hands of their abusers. No, the leftist media doesn't want to talk about this, they want to talk how Trump is Nazi, and how he separate children in concentration camps. And Barry has a gut to put the statement out the other day about Trump?

These leftist lunatics knew all along what was going on for years and they never raised the question, until Trump attempted to resolve the status quo and attack the core of the problem. I haven't seen any executive orders from Barry, or even demands for executive orders about this problem, has anyone else?

But wait, there is more.

*Obama Administration Handed Child Migrants Over to Human Traffickers - New York Magazine, January 29, 2016*


> The United States government *placed an unknown number of Central American migrant children into the custody of human traffickers after neglecting to run the most basic checks on these so-called “caregivers*,” according to a Senate report released on Thursday.
> 
> In the fall of 2013, tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors traveled to the U.S. southern border, in flight from poverty and gang violence in Central America. At least six of those children were eventually resettled on an egg farm in Marion, Ohio, where their sponsors forced them to work 12 hours a day under threats of death. Local law enforcement uncovered the operation last year, prompting the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to open an inquiry into the federal government’s handling of migrants.



When Trump said he inherited these problems, that those were Democrats policies, he was right 100%. He want's to secure the border so fewer illegals can get into the country. The leftist media and Democrats , and even some Republicans will not accept it. They don't want to secure the border, they want open border. Those who are crossing the border illegally are criminals, many of them are rapists, human traffickers, even pedophiles. And Democrats wants to protect them. And they attack Trump? And us? Not just Democrats, but leftist media, two former Flotuses, two former Presidents under whom those policies took place.


----------



## francoHFW

Ame®icano said:


> Back to the topic.
> 
> *Mexican kids held for months as punishment for border-crossing - Washington Post, March 11, 2015*
> 
> 
> 
> Last spring, as Central American children flooded into Texas in a way he had never seen in his three-decade career, Border Patrol agent Robert Harris decided to experiment. His intelligence analysts estimated that *78 percent of the guides smuggling other migrants were Mexicans younger than 18* — *teenagers often hired or conscripted by drug cartels that knew they would not be prosecuted if caught* — and he wanted to attack this loophole.
> 
> “Why don’t we remove these juveniles from the smuggling cycle?” Harris, the outgoing commander of the Laredo sector of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, recalled thinking.
> 
> Now, as a result of that decision, young Mexicans are being held for months without charge in shelters across the United States, sometimes without their parents’ knowledge. Since the program began in May, 536 juveniles have been held — 248 of whom have been deported to Mexico after an average stay of 75 days, according to Border Patrol statistics. Mexican authorities say *some of these repeat border-crossers have spent as much as six months in U.S. custody while they await an appearance before an immigration judge*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Information like this never appeared on Jake Tapper show or similar in leftist media. Not three years ago, not today. All they have to do is little bit of research on themselves to know that this problem with separating families did not started with Trump, and it was big problem much before he became president. There was 9th circuit court decision on this issue before Trump became president. Children have been separated from the parents before Trump became president. There were photographs of detention centers before Trump became president.
> 
> Let's continue, shall we?
> 
> *Obama administration placed children with human traffickers, report says - Washington Post, January 28, 2016*
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration failed to protect thousands of Central American children who have flooded across the U.S. border since 2011, *leaving them vulnerable to traffickers and to abuses at the hands of government-approved caretakers*, a Senate investigation has found.
> 
> The Office of Refugee Resettlement, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, failed to do proper background checks of adults who claimed the children, *allowed sponsors to take custody of multiple unrelated children, and regularly placed children in homes without visiting the locations*, according to a 56-page investigative report released Thursday.
> 
> And once the children left federally funded shelters, the report said, the agency permitted their adult sponsors to prevent caseworkers from providing them post-release services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we have an example of another of Barry's policies that Trump have to deal with. Leftist are attacking Trump for trying to end such policies that are inhumane and without compassion. It's untolerable that human trafficking could occur in our own backyard, all with approval of previous administration, and what makes it even more alarming is that US government agencies are responsible for delivering some of the victims to the hands of their abusers. No, the leftist media doesn't want to talk about this, they want to talk how Trump is Nazi, and how he separate children in concentration camps. And Barry has a gut to put the statement out the other day about Trump?
> 
> These leftist lunatics knew all along what was going on for years and they never raised the question, until Trump attempted to resolve the status quo and attack the core of the problem. I haven't seen any executive orders from Barry, or even demands for executive orders about this problem, has anyone else?
> 
> But wait, there is more.
> 
> *Obama Administration Handed Child Migrants Over to Human Traffickers - New York Magazine, January 29, 2016*
> 
> 
> 
> The United States government *placed an unknown number of Central American migrant children into the custody of human traffickers after neglecting to run the most basic checks on these so-called “caregivers*,” according to a Senate report released on Thursday.
> 
> In the fall of 2013, tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors traveled to the U.S. southern border, in flight from poverty and gang violence in Central America. At least six of those children were eventually resettled on an egg farm in Marion, Ohio, where their sponsors forced them to work 12 hours a day under threats of death. Local law enforcement uncovered the operation last year, prompting the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to open an inquiry into the federal government’s handling of migrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Trump said he inherited these problems, that those were Democrats policies, he was right 100%. He want's to secure the border so fewer illegals can get into the country. The leftist media and Democrats , and even some Republicans will not accept it. They don't want to secure the border, they want open border. Those who are crossing the border illegally are criminals, many of them are rapists, human traffickers, even pedophiles. And Democrats wants to protect them. And they attack Trump? And us? Not just Democrats, but leftist media, two former Flotuses, two former Presidents under whom those policies took place.
Click to expand...

Nobody wants an open border and Obama only separated children from parents in very rare cases, super duper Dupe.


----------



## Ame®icano

francoHFW said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the topic.
> 
> *Mexican kids held for months as punishment for border-crossing - Washington Post, March 11, 2015*
> 
> 
> 
> Last spring, as Central American children flooded into Texas in a way he had never seen in his three-decade career, Border Patrol agent Robert Harris decided to experiment. His intelligence analysts estimated that *78 percent of the guides smuggling other migrants were Mexicans younger than 18* — *teenagers often hired or conscripted by drug cartels that knew they would not be prosecuted if caught* — and he wanted to attack this loophole.
> 
> “Why don’t we remove these juveniles from the smuggling cycle?” Harris, the outgoing commander of the Laredo sector of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, recalled thinking.
> 
> Now, as a result of that decision, young Mexicans are being held for months without charge in shelters across the United States, sometimes without their parents’ knowledge. Since the program began in May, 536 juveniles have been held — 248 of whom have been deported to Mexico after an average stay of 75 days, according to Border Patrol statistics. Mexican authorities say *some of these repeat border-crossers have spent as much as six months in U.S. custody while they await an appearance before an immigration judge*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Information like this never appeared on Jake Tapper show or similar in leftist media. Not three years ago, not today. All they have to do is little bit of research on themselves to know that this problem with separating families did not started with Trump, and it was big problem much before he became president. There was 9th circuit court decision on this issue before Trump became president. Children have been separated from the parents before Trump became president. There were photographs of detention centers before Trump became president.
> 
> Let's continue, shall we?
> 
> *Obama administration placed children with human traffickers, report says - Washington Post, January 28, 2016*
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration failed to protect thousands of Central American children who have flooded across the U.S. border since 2011, *leaving them vulnerable to traffickers and to abuses at the hands of government-approved caretakers*, a Senate investigation has found.
> 
> The Office of Refugee Resettlement, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, failed to do proper background checks of adults who claimed the children, *allowed sponsors to take custody of multiple unrelated children, and regularly placed children in homes without visiting the locations*, according to a 56-page investigative report released Thursday.
> 
> And once the children left federally funded shelters, the report said, the agency permitted their adult sponsors to prevent caseworkers from providing them post-release services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we have an example of another of Barry's policies that Trump have to deal with. Leftist are attacking Trump for trying to end such policies that are inhumane and without compassion. It's untolerable that human trafficking could occur in our own backyard, all with approval of previous administration, and what makes it even more alarming is that US government agencies are responsible for delivering some of the victims to the hands of their abusers. No, the leftist media doesn't want to talk about this, they want to talk how Trump is Nazi, and how he separate children in concentration camps. And Barry has a gut to put the statement out the other day about Trump?
> 
> These leftist lunatics knew all along what was going on for years and they never raised the question, until Trump attempted to resolve the status quo and attack the core of the problem. I haven't seen any executive orders from Barry, or even demands for executive orders about this problem, has anyone else?
> 
> But wait, there is more.
> 
> *Obama Administration Handed Child Migrants Over to Human Traffickers - New York Magazine, January 29, 2016*
> 
> 
> 
> The United States government *placed an unknown number of Central American migrant children into the custody of human traffickers after neglecting to run the most basic checks on these so-called “caregivers*,” according to a Senate report released on Thursday.
> 
> In the fall of 2013, tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors traveled to the U.S. southern border, in flight from poverty and gang violence in Central America. At least six of those children were eventually resettled on an egg farm in Marion, Ohio, where their sponsors forced them to work 12 hours a day under threats of death. Local law enforcement uncovered the operation last year, prompting the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to open an inquiry into the federal government’s handling of migrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Trump said he inherited these problems, that those were Democrats policies, he was right 100%. He want's to secure the border so fewer illegals can get into the country. The leftist media and Democrats , and even some Republicans will not accept it. They don't want to secure the border, they want open border. Those who are crossing the border illegally are criminals, many of them are rapists, human traffickers, even pedophiles. And Democrats wants to protect them. And they attack Trump? And us? Not just Democrats, but leftist media, two former Flotuses, two former Presidents under whom those policies took place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody wants an open border and Obama only separated children from parents in very rare cases, super duper Dupe.
Click to expand...


I just provided you with three articles that say otherwise, and you're still denying it.

What I do know is, today is not special occasion, you're always so stupid. But keep talking, someday you might even say something intelligent.


----------



## francoHFW

Ame®icano said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the topic.
> 
> *Mexican kids held for months as punishment for border-crossing - Washington Post, March 11, 2015*
> 
> 
> 
> Last spring, as Central American children flooded into Texas in a way he had never seen in his three-decade career, Border Patrol agent Robert Harris decided to experiment. His intelligence analysts estimated that *78 percent of the guides smuggling other migrants were Mexicans younger than 18* — *teenagers often hired or conscripted by drug cartels that knew they would not be prosecuted if caught* — and he wanted to attack this loophole.
> 
> “Why don’t we remove these juveniles from the smuggling cycle?” Harris, the outgoing commander of the Laredo sector of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, recalled thinking.
> 
> Now, as a result of that decision, young Mexicans are being held for months without charge in shelters across the United States, sometimes without their parents’ knowledge. Since the program began in May, 536 juveniles have been held — 248 of whom have been deported to Mexico after an average stay of 75 days, according to Border Patrol statistics. Mexican authorities say *some of these repeat border-crossers have spent as much as six months in U.S. custody while they await an appearance before an immigration judge*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Information like this never appeared on Jake Tapper show or similar in leftist media. Not three years ago, not today. All they have to do is little bit of research on themselves to know that this problem with separating families did not started with Trump, and it was big problem much before he became president. There was 9th circuit court decision on this issue before Trump became president. Children have been separated from the parents before Trump became president. There were photographs of detention centers before Trump became president.
> 
> Let's continue, shall we?
> 
> *Obama administration placed children with human traffickers, report says - Washington Post, January 28, 2016*
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration failed to protect thousands of Central American children who have flooded across the U.S. border since 2011, *leaving them vulnerable to traffickers and to abuses at the hands of government-approved caretakers*, a Senate investigation has found.
> 
> The Office of Refugee Resettlement, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, failed to do proper background checks of adults who claimed the children, *allowed sponsors to take custody of multiple unrelated children, and regularly placed children in homes without visiting the locations*, according to a 56-page investigative report released Thursday.
> 
> And once the children left federally funded shelters, the report said, the agency permitted their adult sponsors to prevent caseworkers from providing them post-release services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we have an example of another of Barry's policies that Trump have to deal with. Leftist are attacking Trump for trying to end such policies that are inhumane and without compassion. It's untolerable that human trafficking could occur in our own backyard, all with approval of previous administration, and what makes it even more alarming is that US government agencies are responsible for delivering some of the victims to the hands of their abusers. No, the leftist media doesn't want to talk about this, they want to talk how Trump is Nazi, and how he separate children in concentration camps. And Barry has a gut to put the statement out the other day about Trump?
> 
> These leftist lunatics knew all along what was going on for years and they never raised the question, until Trump attempted to resolve the status quo and attack the core of the problem. I haven't seen any executive orders from Barry, or even demands for executive orders about this problem, has anyone else?
> 
> But wait, there is more.
> 
> *Obama Administration Handed Child Migrants Over to Human Traffickers - New York Magazine, January 29, 2016*
> 
> 
> 
> The United States government *placed an unknown number of Central American migrant children into the custody of human traffickers after neglecting to run the most basic checks on these so-called “caregivers*,” according to a Senate report released on Thursday.
> 
> In the fall of 2013, tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors traveled to the U.S. southern border, in flight from poverty and gang violence in Central America. At least six of those children were eventually resettled on an egg farm in Marion, Ohio, where their sponsors forced them to work 12 hours a day under threats of death. Local law enforcement uncovered the operation last year, prompting the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to open an inquiry into the federal government’s handling of migrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Trump said he inherited these problems, that those were Democrats policies, he was right 100%. He want's to secure the border so fewer illegals can get into the country. The leftist media and Democrats , and even some Republicans will not accept it. They don't want to secure the border, they want open border. Those who are crossing the border illegally are criminals, many of them are rapists, human traffickers, even pedophiles. And Democrats wants to protect them. And they attack Trump? And us? Not just Democrats, but leftist media, two former Flotuses, two former Presidents under whom those policies took place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody wants an open border and Obama only separated children from parents in very rare cases, super duper Dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just provided you with three articles that say otherwise, and you're still denying it.
> 
> What I do know is, today is not special occasion, you're always so stupid. But keep talking, someday you might even say something intelligent.
Click to expand...

Very rare cases dingbat.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> We desperately need more legal immigrants...
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. We are a nation of 330,000,000 - one third of a billion - we already have the intellect and the warm bodies to produce whatever we need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Our birth rate is much too low.  It just reached a 30 year low and if the trend continues as is likely, our birth rate will be less than the death rate within 10 to 15 years.  We also have 10,000 people a day going into retirement and we are generating 150,000 to 250,000 jobs a month. Immigration is limited to about 680,000 a year.  Do the math.  If we're going to continue to grow, we are going to need a lot more people in the 21 century.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is this obsession with having to grow?  Do you realize we had over a 100 million less people here in 1970 than we do today and we did just fine?  And that was back in the day where automation wasn't even a concern.
Click to expand...

*A republican trumpster is asking about the need for growth?  That's usually something we hear from liberal environmentalists.

Our economy is based on consumption and increased production of goods and services which is closely linked to growth in population.  You need more people to consume and you need more people to produce otherwise you have no economic growth.*


----------



## francoHFW

Ame®icano said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the topic.
> 
> *Mexican kids held for months as punishment for border-crossing - Washington Post, March 11, 2015*
> 
> 
> 
> Last spring, as Central American children flooded into Texas in a way he had never seen in his three-decade career, Border Patrol agent Robert Harris decided to experiment. His intelligence analysts estimated that *78 percent of the guides smuggling other migrants were Mexicans younger than 18* — *teenagers often hired or conscripted by drug cartels that knew they would not be prosecuted if caught* — and he wanted to attack this loophole.
> 
> “Why don’t we remove these juveniles from the smuggling cycle?” Harris, the outgoing commander of the Laredo sector of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, recalled thinking.
> 
> Now, as a result of that decision, young Mexicans are being held for months without charge in shelters across the United States, sometimes without their parents’ knowledge. Since the program began in May, 536 juveniles have been held — 248 of whom have been deported to Mexico after an average stay of 75 days, according to Border Patrol statistics. Mexican authorities say *some of these repeat border-crossers have spent as much as six months in U.S. custody while they await an appearance before an immigration judge*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Information like this never appeared on Jake Tapper show or similar in leftist media. Not three years ago, not today. All they have to do is little bit of research on themselves to know that this problem with separating families did not started with Trump, and it was big problem much before he became president. There was 9th circuit court decision on this issue before Trump became president. Children have been separated from the parents before Trump became president. There were photographs of detention centers before Trump became president.
> 
> Let's continue, shall we?
> 
> *Obama administration placed children with human traffickers, report says - Washington Post, January 28, 2016*
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration failed to protect thousands of Central American children who have flooded across the U.S. border since 2011, *leaving them vulnerable to traffickers and to abuses at the hands of government-approved caretakers*, a Senate investigation has found.
> 
> The Office of Refugee Resettlement, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, failed to do proper background checks of adults who claimed the children, *allowed sponsors to take custody of multiple unrelated children, and regularly placed children in homes without visiting the locations*, according to a 56-page investigative report released Thursday.
> 
> And once the children left federally funded shelters, the report said, the agency permitted their adult sponsors to prevent caseworkers from providing them post-release services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we have an example of another of Barry's policies that Trump have to deal with. Leftist are attacking Trump for trying to end such policies that are inhumane and without compassion. It's untolerable that human trafficking could occur in our own backyard, all with approval of previous administration, and what makes it even more alarming is that US government agencies are responsible for delivering some of the victims to the hands of their abusers. No, the leftist media doesn't want to talk about this, they want to talk how Trump is Nazi, and how he separate children in concentration camps. And Barry has a gut to put the statement out the other day about Trump?
> 
> These leftist lunatics knew all along what was going on for years and they never raised the question, until Trump attempted to resolve the status quo and attack the core of the problem. I haven't seen any executive orders from Barry, or even demands for executive orders about this problem, has anyone else?
> 
> But wait, there is more.
> 
> *Obama Administration Handed Child Migrants Over to Human Traffickers - New York Magazine, January 29, 2016*
> 
> 
> 
> The United States government *placed an unknown number of Central American migrant children into the custody of human traffickers after neglecting to run the most basic checks on these so-called “caregivers*,” according to a Senate report released on Thursday.
> 
> In the fall of 2013, tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors traveled to the U.S. southern border, in flight from poverty and gang violence in Central America. At least six of those children were eventually resettled on an egg farm in Marion, Ohio, where their sponsors forced them to work 12 hours a day under threats of death. Local law enforcement uncovered the operation last year, prompting the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to open an inquiry into the federal government’s handling of migrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Trump said he inherited these problems, that those were Democrats policies, he was right 100%. He want's to secure the border so fewer illegals can get into the country. The leftist media and Democrats , and even some Republicans will not accept it. They don't want to secure the border, they want open border. Those who are crossing the border illegally are criminals, many of them are rapists, human traffickers, even pedophiles. And Democrats wants to protect them. And they attack Trump? And us? Not just Democrats, but leftist media, two former Flotuses, two former Presidents under whom those policies took place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody wants an open border and Obama only separated children from parents in very rare cases, super duper Dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just provided you with three articles that say otherwise, and you're still denying it.
> 
> What I do know is, today is not special occasion, you're always so stupid. But keep talking, someday you might even say something intelligent.
Click to expand...

I just stick to the facts... I know it's repetitive...truth is like that, dimwit doupe.


----------



## francoHFW

Ame®icano said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the topic.
> 
> *Mexican kids held for months as punishment for border-crossing - Washington Post, March 11, 2015*
> 
> 
> 
> Last spring, as Central American children flooded into Texas in a way he had never seen in his three-decade career, Border Patrol agent Robert Harris decided to experiment. His intelligence analysts estimated that *78 percent of the guides smuggling other migrants were Mexicans younger than 18* — *teenagers often hired or conscripted by drug cartels that knew they would not be prosecuted if caught* — and he wanted to attack this loophole.
> 
> “Why don’t we remove these juveniles from the smuggling cycle?” Harris, the outgoing commander of the Laredo sector of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, recalled thinking.
> 
> Now, as a result of that decision, young Mexicans are being held for months without charge in shelters across the United States, sometimes without their parents’ knowledge. Since the program began in May, 536 juveniles have been held — 248 of whom have been deported to Mexico after an average stay of 75 days, according to Border Patrol statistics. Mexican authorities say *some of these repeat border-crossers have spent as much as six months in U.S. custody while they await an appearance before an immigration judge*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Information like this never appeared on Jake Tapper show or similar in leftist media. Not three years ago, not today. All they have to do is little bit of research on themselves to know that this problem with separating families did not started with Trump, and it was big problem much before he became president. There was 9th circuit court decision on this issue before Trump became president. Children have been separated from the parents before Trump became president. There were photographs of detention centers before Trump became president.
> 
> Let's continue, shall we?
> 
> *Obama administration placed children with human traffickers, report says - Washington Post, January 28, 2016*
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration failed to protect thousands of Central American children who have flooded across the U.S. border since 2011, *leaving them vulnerable to traffickers and to abuses at the hands of government-approved caretakers*, a Senate investigation has found.
> 
> The Office of Refugee Resettlement, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, failed to do proper background checks of adults who claimed the children, *allowed sponsors to take custody of multiple unrelated children, and regularly placed children in homes without visiting the locations*, according to a 56-page investigative report released Thursday.
> 
> And once the children left federally funded shelters, the report said, the agency permitted their adult sponsors to prevent caseworkers from providing them post-release services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we have an example of another of Barry's policies that Trump have to deal with. Leftist are attacking Trump for trying to end such policies that are inhumane and without compassion. It's untolerable that human trafficking could occur in our own backyard, all with approval of previous administration, and what makes it even more alarming is that US government agencies are responsible for delivering some of the victims to the hands of their abusers. No, the leftist media doesn't want to talk about this, they want to talk how Trump is Nazi, and how he separate children in concentration camps. And Barry has a gut to put the statement out the other day about Trump?
> 
> These leftist lunatics knew all along what was going on for years and they never raised the question, until Trump attempted to resolve the status quo and attack the core of the problem. I haven't seen any executive orders from Barry, or even demands for executive orders about this problem, has anyone else?
> 
> But wait, there is more.
> 
> *Obama Administration Handed Child Migrants Over to Human Traffickers - New York Magazine, January 29, 2016*
> 
> 
> 
> The United States government *placed an unknown number of Central American migrant children into the custody of human traffickers after neglecting to run the most basic checks on these so-called “caregivers*,” according to a Senate report released on Thursday.
> 
> In the fall of 2013, tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors traveled to the U.S. southern border, in flight from poverty and gang violence in Central America. At least six of those children were eventually resettled on an egg farm in Marion, Ohio, where their sponsors forced them to work 12 hours a day under threats of death. Local law enforcement uncovered the operation last year, prompting the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to open an inquiry into the federal government’s handling of migrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Trump said he inherited these problems, that those were Democrats policies, he was right 100%. He want's to secure the border so fewer illegals can get into the country. The leftist media and Democrats , and even some Republicans will not accept it. They don't want to secure the border, they want open border. Those who are crossing the border illegally are criminals, many of them are rapists, human traffickers, even pedophiles. And Democrats wants to protect them. And they attack Trump? And us? Not just Democrats, but leftist media, two former Flotuses, two former Presidents under whom those policies took place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody wants an open border and Obama only separated children from parents in very rare cases, super duper Dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just provided you with three articles that say otherwise, and you're still denying it.
> 
> What I do know is, today is not special occasion, you're always so stupid. But keep talking, someday you might even say something intelligent.
Click to expand...

I don't see everything about children being separated from their parents at all in those articles, dingbat super dupe.


----------



## Flopper

Kondor3 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Death rates of whites in America now exceed birth rates, a trend that started decades ago is accelerating...
> 
> 
> 
> Quite probably true. And that's OK. Too many people in this country already as it is. We could trim 50,000,000 off of our 300,000,000 and not bat an eye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also the number of mixed race marriages and births are increasing...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite probably true. Neither a good thing nor a bad thing in its own right. Demonstrates more acceptance and tolerance within society on the macro level. That's positive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Maybe in a hundred years we'll see the end of discrimination based on skin color.  It will then be the blue eyes vs the brown eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fine little LibProg orgasmic fantasy.
Click to expand...

*The loss of 50 million people would create a sizable recession.  Consumption would be down about 20% and GDP would be down 12%. Since we are at full employment, losing 20% of the work force would probably have and even greater effect on economic growth. We current have 3 million jobs openings.
Wouldn't want to be in market when those 50 million people disappear.*


----------



## Flopper

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he's melting down because he knows it will work. He's trying to make the border wall sound like a chain link fence.
> 
> So Joe, you don't want fences around nuclear power plants either, right? I mean they don't work
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NObody really wants to get into a nuclear power plant, but let's look at that.
> 
> The plant is a limited bit of real estate.  you can't go two or three miles down the road to find another place to get at it.  The whole permiter you are defending is only a few miles.
> 
> the Southern Border is over 2000 miles long.  The Border Patrol only has 20,000 agents.  That's 10 agents per mile, to guard it 24/7.
> 
> They'll find ways through, just like they do now.
> 
> Now, if you REALLY wanted to stop the flow, you do what we've already done, cracked down on workplace enforcement, which is why it's gone from flood to a trickle.
Click to expand...

*We increased the border security from 4,000 to 20,000 and we saw illegal entry drop from 1.6 million in 2000 to 340,000 in 2017.
I just talked to a friend that spends the winters in Mexico.  He said worker shortage is critical in resort towns. Shortage of farm workers is worse than the US.  I really believe this is a very significant factor in decrease in illegally crossings.   It could be that jobs may not be as large as an incentive as it once was.  With the size of the Hispanic population in the US, it would seem that a lot of Mexicans would be entering the country primary to join their family.*


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so you know all this even though we don't have one? My you are so good, in fact, you are so much better than all our agencies that said a wall would benefit them greatly; the same agencies that participated in the design of the wall that would help eliminate all the things you wrote above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the agencies aren't saying that at all.
> 
> https://gizmodo.com/us-border-patrol-doesnt-want-a-wall-they-want-drones-an-1773661854
> 
> Even the conservative Cato Institute says a wall won't work.
> 
> Why the Wall Won't Work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious?  Gizmodo for your evidence?  Here, try a real source:
> 
> Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Your survey says they want a wall in strategic locations.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And????????
Click to expand...

*Meaning we do not need a wall across the country, only in strategic locations.  We already have over 700 miles of reinforced fencing and areas that terrain is so bad, or border patrol presence is so large,  or other factors that we have few crossings.  *


----------



## JoeB131

Kondor3 said:


> Maybe. Maybe not. But the language was there long before the Imperial Cheeto showed up. A wave of 11-12,000,000 Invaders upon US soil will tend to do that.



again, only for the bigots... the Majority of Americans looked at the Orange Shitgibbon and said 'no'.  

The sad thing is, it used to be that when a political party shit the bed and nominated someone who had no business being president (Goldwater, McGovern) enough people crossed party lines to decisively beat them, and the stupidity of the Electoral College didn't matter. 

This time, there were a crapload of Republicans who knew damned well Trump had no business being president, but went along anyway.  



Kondor3 said:


> Last I looked, the Mexicans and Guatamalens were not gassing Mestizos on an industrial scale. And even if they were... not our problem.



Yeah, they are only brown people.  Here was the thing, in the 1930's the Nazis weren't gassing the Jews, and someone like you said, "Not our problem".  

The thing is, what is going on IS our problem, because of the refugees, and more importantly, it's our fault, because we encouraged the drug trade that is causing all the violence. 

The LEAST we could do is take these people in.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> All other groups of people vote a majority Democrat. That's why the Democrats want to wipe out whites. Hispanics heavily vote Democrat. Middle-Easterners vote Democrat. The Jewish vote Democrat. The Asians vote Democrat. Blacks? Forget about it.



Okay, but the reason for that is is not because they want to "Wipe out White People", but because after Nixon and the Southern Strategy, the GOP decided that they were going to play on White insecurities... 

In short. 








Ray From Cleveland said:


> Once we are the minority, we will be on the path to a one-party country forever, and when that happens, it will be the end of the Great Experiment. We will fall into a Socialist hellhole like so many others, and perhaps even advance to Communism.



Oh, noes, we might actually be able to get you health insurance, and that would be awful!!! Here's the thing, if Capitalism weren't such a shit sandwich for those of us who do the work, then the GOP wouldn't need racism to sell it.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The court seen it differently......at least in the last case.
> 
> The US Constitution protects your right to practice your religion as you see fit. Homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible and even Koran. In fact very few religions accept a gay relationship of any kind.
> 
> It's less a personal prejudice than it is a religious one. There are no exemptions for freedom of religion just because you own a business.



So when do I get to start cutting people's hearts out to appease Queztacoatl?


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> With all the electronics, a border wall would be surveiled just like a fence around a nuclear power plant.
> 
> And no one wants to get into a nuclear power plant? You're just chugging the kool-aid now



Oh, I guess terrorists do... but here's the thing, as much as you guys have been whining about 'terrorists" for the last 20 years, not a single one got in through the Southern Border.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Then you do things your way and we'll do things ours. My tax dollars do not go to the rich either. They may keep more of their own money, but they are not getting mine unless I personally give it to them. You leftists really believe that all money belongs to government instead of the individual. That's a very disturbing way of thinking.



Um, last time I checked, money was issued by the government.  

Here's where you are not terribly bright, Ray.  Every time the GOP cuts taxes for rich people, they usually find ways for you to pay more. For instance, most of that $18.00 you got in tax cuts will be eaten up by Trump's new tariffs...


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all the electronics, a border wall would be surveiled just like a fence around a nuclear power plant.
> 
> And no one wants to get into a nuclear power plant? You're just chugging the kool-aid now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I guess terrorists do... but here's the thing, as much as you guys have been whining about 'terrorists" for the last 20 years, not a single one got in through the Southern Border.
Click to expand...


And that proves what, Joe?


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> And that proves what, Joe?



That you guys are great at hysterics... did you ever find the owners of those imaginary muslim prayer rugs you found on the Southern Border?


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that proves what, Joe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you guys are great at hysterics... did you ever find the owners of those imaginary muslim prayer rugs you found on the Southern Border?
Click to expand...


I'm not one of the voices in your head.  What is your point, Joe?  I never said terrorists had crossed the southern border.  Don't know.  You're arguing a point not in contention.

Are you arguing that means there is no danger from that terrorists can walk across the border?  What is your point?


----------



## danielpalos

Ame®icano said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except these people aren't looking for welfare.  They are willing to do the jobs the welfare collecting white trash in the trailer parks aren't willing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.
> 
> So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants.  Typical leftist thinking all the way.  Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let capitalism do the work.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another communist's great idea that's so good, it have to be forced on employers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in this case, it is; higher paid labor creates more in demand and pays more in taxes.  only the right wing, doesn't really care and never get's it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You failed to explain what more of demand is created?
> 
> Second, unlike communist leach such as yourself, I believe minimum wage should be zero, and also... federal tax should be zero percent and feds should be financed by the states.
Click to expand...

It should be a self-evident truth for anyone who knows anything about economics.  The poor tend to spend most of their income.  Higher paid labor creates more demand by spending more when they have more money to spend.

Crony capitalists don't care about anything but their profit. Government costs.  Capitalist, "leaches" only care about profit, not cost.  And, dear clueless capitalists, it is not Your money if we have any Problems in our Republic.  Congress has the Power to Tax, for any problems the right wing whines about.

Any more Problems, right wingers.


----------



## danielpalos

Ame®icano said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich earned their wealth?  Are you that stupid?  The Walton’s earned nothing. Sam Walton earned their wealth. The Waltons sit on their asses and collect dividends off the work if others.
> 
> The rich have a tax code that keeps wealth flowing to the top. They have labour laws which allow them to deny health care or benefits to workers, and to pay them so little their workers need welfare to supplement their incomes.
> 
> They appoint a burger flipper as “manager” so they can work him/her 60 hours a week without paying overtime.
> 
> Other countries put their people first. America puts their corporations first, and the wealthy second. Working men and women, who make up the vast majority of your population are denigrated, abused and paid the least amount possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Envy is a bitch.
Click to expand...

Stop whining about a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, right wingers.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he's melting down because he knows it will work. He's trying to make the border wall sound like a chain link fence.
> 
> So Joe, you don't want fences around nuclear power plants either, right? I mean they don't work
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NObody really wants to get into a nuclear power plant, but let's look at that.
> 
> The plant is a limited bit of real estate.  you can't go two or three miles down the road to find another place to get at it.  The whole permiter you are defending is only a few miles.
> 
> the Southern Border is over 2000 miles long.  The Border Patrol only has 20,000 agents.  That's 10 agents per mile, to guard it 24/7.
> 
> They'll find ways through, just like they do now.
> 
> Now, if you REALLY wanted to stop the flow, you do what we've already done, cracked down on workplace enforcement, which is why it's gone from flood to a trickle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all the electronics, a border wall would be surveiled just like a fence around a nuclear power plant.
> 
> And no one wants to get into a nuclear power plant?  You're just chugging the kool-aid now
Click to expand...

Just increasing costs, right wingers?  

Why should the left, take the right wing seriously about our southern border, if they refuse to pay really really serious tax rates for it.


----------



## danielpalos

Ame®icano said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is to persuade the parents to waive a trial and plead guilty. Once they plead guilty, their deportation can be expedited and they will be united with their children in few days or weeks.  If they ask for their day in court, they won't see their children for months, or up to 1 year and they are told this.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of crap.
> 
> If that is the "real reason" and if Barry hasn't done anything wrong by doing it (with your silent approval), than Trump is doing nothing wrong neither.
> 
> Kids don't belong to jail. Their parents are lawbreakers, not them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The Obama administration placed nearly 90,000 children with a sponsor, after they were detained at the border without a legal guardian. The only time children split from their family under Obama was if the adult was suspected of not being a guardian, had an outstanding warrant, or federal agents suspected the adult of another serious crime like trafficking or smuggling.
> 
> The Trump administration policy was to separate all children from their parents with no exceptions and if there had not been the outcry from the public and pressure from congress he would still be doing it.  No law compelled him to do it.  He did as deterrent and to speed up deportations.  His actions were so deplorable that even his wife and daughter spoke out against it.
> *
> *Not real news: The truth about volcanic gems, and immigrant kids placed into care under Obama*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're parroting Schumer's talking points that President can solve the problem with his pen. Sure he can, under the Section 212F of INA, President have full authority to shut down all immigration when he deems it of national interest. Just so you know and you don't complain about it later.
> 
> Now, let's talk about what you said: "*No law compelled him to do it."*
> 
> Back in 1997, there was law where they agree that we cannot detain unaccompanied children. Now, have you heard of Barry appointee district judge Dolly Gee? Not so long ago, in June 2016 she applied the 1997 agreement of not detaining unaccompanied children to all children, including when they cross the border illegally with their parents. You lefties are simply ignoring the law and going solely by the interpretation of the law from one leftist district judge.
> 
> The fact is, what president is doing is completely within a law. You lefties and your media are saying there is no such law and having meltdown over it. What you pretty much "forced" Trump to sign is gonna hit you in the ass. Yeah, you may celebrate the "victory", but it's not going to last. What's going to happen is, if Trump can't separate the families while they're being processed, he'll keep them together and deport them together before 20 days of legally being detained expire.
> 
> I know you lefties don't care about sovereignty of this country, but there are plenty of us who does including the president. He can stop all the immigration into the country, family based, employment based etc. He can reject every asylum at the border and redirect all asylum claims to be filed in US Embassies. You lefties surely don't want that, but you just might get it.
> 
> "The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty. The right to do so stems not alone from legislative power, but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation." - Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950)
Click to expand...

should we start with, "misuse of process"?  10USC246 has precedent whenever the "security of our free States", is involved.


----------



## blastoff

kaz said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that proves what, Joe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you guys are great at hysterics... did you ever find the owners of those imaginary muslim prayer rugs you found on the Southern Border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not one of the voices in your head.  What is your point, Joe?  I never said terrorists had crossed the southern border.  Don't know.  You're arguing a point not in contention.
> 
> Are you arguing that means there is no danger from that terrorists can walk across the border?  What is your point?
Click to expand...

Be patient.  He’ll make something up to fit his argument.  It’s his M O.


----------



## Kondor3

JoeB131 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe. Maybe not. But the language was there long before the Imperial Cheeto showed up. A wave of 11-12,000,000 Invaders upon US soil will tend to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, only for the bigots... the Majority of Americans looked at the Orange Shitgibbon and said 'no'.
> 
> The sad thing is, it used to be that when a political party shit the bed and nominated someone who had no business being president (Goldwater, McGovern) enough people crossed party lines to decisively beat them, and the stupidity of the Electoral College didn't matter.
> 
> This time, there were a crapload of Republicans who knew damned well Trump had no business being president, but went along anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last I looked, the Mexicans and Guatamalens were not gassing Mestizos on an industrial scale. And even if they were... not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, they are only brown people.  Here was the thing, in the 1930's the Nazis weren't gassing the Jews, and someone like you said, "Not our problem".
> 
> The thing is, what is going on IS our problem, because of the refugees, and more importantly, it's our fault, because we encouraged the drug trade that is causing all the violence.
> 
> The LEAST we could do is take these people in.
Click to expand...

Nope.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that proves what, Joe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you guys are great at hysterics... did you ever find the owners of those imaginary muslim prayer rugs you found on the Southern Border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not one of the voices in your head.  What is your point, Joe?  I never said terrorists had crossed the southern border.  Don't know.  You're arguing a point not in contention.
> 
> Are you arguing that means there is no danger from that terrorists can walk across the border?  What is your point?
Click to expand...

No.  I am arguing that 10USC246, trumps Any federal immigration laws.  We have an alleged, War on Terror, don'tcha know.


----------



## Cecilie1200

kaz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bad attitude is keeping you poor. That's why I fired you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you couldn't afford me... I probably wouldn't have sent your chicken shit company a resume...
> 
> You're a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.
> 
> I watch little companies like yours go out of business because of their half-assery all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already told me your max salary was $80K.  Now you make less than $25K.  It's not the money I can't afford, that's for sure.  I wouldn't do you to my staff though.
> 
> After I had bought and merged three companies, I had picked up a lot of good employees and of course a lot of dead wood.  I was working with my management team on our plan to replace the bad staff.  But we didn't know how many people we would need to replace them.
> 
> After a lot of discussion, I finally decided we fire all the bad ones immediately and the same day, no dragging it out.  Let's rip off the bandaid.  We'll identify the gaps and be ready to replace them at once.
> 
> So that Friday, we did it.  We fired 30% of the company.  All of them had either personally bad attitudes or just bad attitudes about doing any work.  You were a marginal worker, it was your bad attitude that got you fired.
> 
> Here's what you didn't know because you were gone.  You know how many of you we had to replace?  Zero.  It wasn't just you I didn't replace, I didn't need to replace any of you.  The place seemed so much roomier and wow, it was so much more enjoyable being there without the lazy, useless and bad attitudes.  Over time we replaced you as we grew, but that Friday you all left, your pay and benefits were all just savings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turns out, your good employees were spending a bunch of their time corrected the errors of the bad apples, I'll bet.  Without the lousy co-workers, they probably had more time to be effective at their own jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's exactly what was happening as I learned.  They said their jobs were actually easier
Click to expand...


I can understand that.  When I was hired at my current job, there were three people doing more or less what I do, including myself.  One of them was useless AND a pain in the ass.  We got rid of her right after I was hired, and never missed her.  A couple of months ago, the company got rid of the other guy, and I just absorbed his work.  He was very nice, but I spent a good part of my day checking his work because he was careless and didn't have the best grasp of spelling and grammar.  It's actually easier and faster for me to do all the work myself than to do my job and double-check his.

Now if that will just translate into a pay raise, since I'm basically doing single-handedly what originally had three people assigned to it . . .


----------



## Cecilie1200

MikeK said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And another one who thinks punishing children is a suitable response.  Way to go dude.
> 
> 
> 
> If there are children who are dependent on you and you consciously endeavor to commit an offense which is punishable by confinement, who is responsible for harming the children?  Should you be forgiven for your criminal offense and set free rather than cause discomfort to the children?
> 
> Too many border jumpers are confident that having children will insulate them from punishment if they are caught.  So President Trump's aggressive action will substantially reduce illegal immigration.  It is the parents who are punishing their children via their irresponsible conduct.
> 
> Simply stated, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
Click to expand...


You're ultimately not benefiting children through policies which encourage people to put them in risky situations in order to use them as human shields.  When there are no ideal choices, you have to go with the one which is least-bad for everyone involved.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean we are the only country where people take care of themselves?  My Lord, what an awful place.
> 
> 
> 
> Also why we have the the worst inequality, poverty, upward Mobility and infrastructure and everything else in the modern world. Thanks GOP and silly dupes like you. We're number 23!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US produces close to a  half-million new millionaires every year.  How much more upward mobility do you want than that?  The main reason we have poverty if because the Democrats have promoted irresponsibility.  Single parent homes (which Democrats also promoted) is a leading reason for poverty.
> 
> _*"Folks, if you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't." *_
> Rush Limbaugh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read the whole article Ray, or did you stop after the part about 500,000 new millionaires ever year?
> 
> Did you read the part which said that these new millionaires are being created by a tax code which transfers wealth from the working class to the investment class?  People aren’t getting rich from their own efforts, but rather by a tax code which transfers money from those who work to those who don’t.
> 
> Did you read that 75% of American families are struggling to make ends meet?
> 
> Or that 3/4 of all wealthy individuals say inheritance was a factor in their accumulation of wealth?
> 
> 1,700 People in America Are Becoming Millionaires Every Day
> 
> Try reading the WHOLE article this time Ray.
> 
> There are 4 million babies born in the US each year. Even with a half a million millionaires being created each year, this means the other 3 million children who are being born this year are not going to be “thrivers”. 3/4 of these children will grow up poor because Donald Trump is accelerating that transfer of wealth with the new tax code.
> 
> Upthread someone whinged that 30% of all immigrants are on welfare. That’s substantially less than the 47% of American citizens who are currently receiving social assistance?  The people Mitt Romney labelled as “takers”.
> 
> The ignorance of right wingers on matters of the economy makes it easy for Republicans to fool you into thinking they know what they’re doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't read any article because I didn't post an article.  However I did read yours by Nanny Bloomberg.
> 
> What it said in a Clintonizing way was that inheritance was a factor--not the direct reason people became wealthy.
> 
> Now I'm a working class guy.  I don't remember any deduction out of my paycheck that went to the rich.  I do transfer money to the rich just like you do, but it's an option and not a mandate by my employer.  You and I both transfer our wealth to the top several times a week.  Nobody is holding a gun to our heads to do it either.
> 
> And your article didn't say anything about the tax code.  Even if the tax code played a part, it's not the reason people become wealthy.  All Trump's tax code did was allow people to keep more of THEIR MONEY THAT THEY EARNED!
> 
> To your chagrin, all money does not belong to government, and what they allow us to keep is a gift from them to us.  Money is property no different than your car or home.  You earned it, you created it, and it's rightfully yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a Canadian, my tax dollars do NOT go to the rich. They go to Canadian citizens - in child benefits to young families, for universal health care, and for old age income supplements. They go to roads, bridges and infrastructure.
> 
> What they don’t pay for is a massive bloated military protecting “Canadian interests” around the globe. They don’t pay for income supplements for underpaid corporate employees, nor do we have a bloated government paying out income supplements to working people. Corporations in Canada are required to pay a living wage to their employees.
> 
> While the US middle class is watching their wealth shrink to create those 500,000 millionaires each year, the Canadian middle class has the fastest growth in the world.
Click to expand...


Fascinating.

You say, "My tax dollars do NOT go to the rich, they go to Canadian citizens" . . . as though you think "rich" and "citizen" are somehow mutually exclusive.  Are you telling us there are no rich Canadian citizens, or just that rich Canadians are barred by law from gleaning any benefit or value from the government whatsoever?  

Then you begin telling us all the "wonders" that your government doles out of your pocket, as though rich people HERE are getting all of those things free, but rich people THERE aren't . . . even though that's ridiculous on several levels.  

One of the main reasons WE spend so much on our military is so that we can protect craven little hangers-on like Canada, and allow them to lounge around, touting their "moral superiority".  Do not go there, Sparkles.  Seriously.  Your government is GLAD that the US is "barbaric" enough to spend on the military, even if YOU are too damned dumb to understand it.

I'm laughing at your "look at all these freebies we hand out, but NONE of it goes to corporate employees".  Uh huh.  "NO income supplements to working people."  Well, except for child care, universal healthcare, all that other stuff you mentioned . . .

"Corporations in Canada pay a living wage to their employees."  Could be one of many reasons why Canada ain't a major business hub of the world, hmmmm?

If you really think being middle-class in Canada is better than the US, you go with whatever makes living there tolerable.  God knows, we have plenty of idiots here already, and have NO desire to add the likes of you.  But there are a few things you're not considering in your simpleton's rush to believe any flattery you get:

The study cited by the NYTimes looks at Canada as a whole, rather than breaking it down by region.  In actual fact, a handful of places with booming economies are boosting the averages for other places that aren't doing well.

The time period addressed in the study happens to have coincided with a recession in the United States, which included a housing crisis.  Housing is, of course, one of the largest portions of wealth in the middle class.

Canada's middle class has one of the highest rates of personal debt.

While Canada's middle class saw gains during the study's time period, it continues to have the lowest growth rate of the nation's studied.

The study didn't factor in the impact of high taxes on the middle class at all.


----------



## francoHFW

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also why we have the the worst inequality, poverty, upward Mobility and infrastructure and everything else in the modern world. Thanks GOP and silly dupes like you. We're number 23!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US produces close to a  half-million new millionaires every year.  How much more upward mobility do you want than that?  The main reason we have poverty if because the Democrats have promoted irresponsibility.  Single parent homes (which Democrats also promoted) is a leading reason for poverty.
> 
> _*"Folks, if you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't." *_
> Rush Limbaugh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read the whole article Ray, or did you stop after the part about 500,000 new millionaires ever year?
> 
> Did you read the part which said that these new millionaires are being created by a tax code which transfers wealth from the working class to the investment class?  People aren’t getting rich from their own efforts, but rather by a tax code which transfers money from those who work to those who don’t.
> 
> Did you read that 75% of American families are struggling to make ends meet?
> 
> Or that 3/4 of all wealthy individuals say inheritance was a factor in their accumulation of wealth?
> 
> 1,700 People in America Are Becoming Millionaires Every Day
> 
> Try reading the WHOLE article this time Ray.
> 
> There are 4 million babies born in the US each year. Even with a half a million millionaires being created each year, this means the other 3 million children who are being born this year are not going to be “thrivers”. 3/4 of these children will grow up poor because Donald Trump is accelerating that transfer of wealth with the new tax code.
> 
> Upthread someone whinged that 30% of all immigrants are on welfare. That’s substantially less than the 47% of American citizens who are currently receiving social assistance?  The people Mitt Romney labelled as “takers”.
> 
> The ignorance of right wingers on matters of the economy makes it easy for Republicans to fool you into thinking they know what they’re doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't read any article because I didn't post an article.  However I did read yours by Nanny Bloomberg.
> 
> What it said in a Clintonizing way was that inheritance was a factor--not the direct reason people became wealthy.
> 
> Now I'm a working class guy.  I don't remember any deduction out of my paycheck that went to the rich.  I do transfer money to the rich just like you do, but it's an option and not a mandate by my employer.  You and I both transfer our wealth to the top several times a week.  Nobody is holding a gun to our heads to do it either.
> 
> And your article didn't say anything about the tax code.  Even if the tax code played a part, it's not the reason people become wealthy.  All Trump's tax code did was allow people to keep more of THEIR MONEY THAT THEY EARNED!
> 
> To your chagrin, all money does not belong to government, and what they allow us to keep is a gift from them to us.  Money is property no different than your car or home.  You earned it, you created it, and it's rightfully yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a Canadian, my tax dollars do NOT go to the rich. They go to Canadian citizens - in child benefits to young families, for universal health care, and for old age income supplements. They go to roads, bridges and infrastructure.
> 
> What they don’t pay for is a massive bloated military protecting “Canadian interests” around the globe. They don’t pay for income supplements for underpaid corporate employees, nor do we have a bloated government paying out income supplements to working people. Corporations in Canada are required to pay a living wage to their employees.
> 
> While the US middle class is watching their wealth shrink to create those 500,000 millionaires each year, the Canadian middle class has the fastest growth in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fascinating.
> 
> You say, "My tax dollars do NOT go to the rich, they go to Canadian citizens" . . . as though you think "rich" and "citizen" are somehow mutually exclusive.  Are you telling us there are no rich Canadian citizens, or just that rich Canadians are barred by law from gleaning any benefit or value from the government whatsoever?
> 
> Then you begin telling us all the "wonders" that your government doles out of your pocket, as though rich people HERE are getting all of those things free, but rich people THERE aren't . . . even though that's ridiculous on several levels.
> 
> One of the main reasons WE spend so much on our military is so that we can protect craven little hangers-on like Canada, and allow them to lounge around, touting their "moral superiority".  Do not go there, Sparkles.  Seriously.  Your government is GLAD that the US is "barbaric" enough to spend on the military, even if YOU are too damned dumb to understand it.
> 
> I'm laughing at your "look at all these freebies we hand out, but NONE of it goes to corporate employees".  Uh huh.  "NO income supplements to working people."  Well, except for child care, universal healthcare, all that other stuff you mentioned . . .
> 
> "Corporations in Canada pay a living wage to their employees."  Could be one of many reasons why Canada ain't a major business hub of the world, hmmmm?
> 
> If you really think being middle-class in Canada is better than the US, you go with whatever makes living there tolerable.  God knows, we have plenty of idiots here already, and have NO desire to add the likes of you.  But there are a few things you're not considering in your simpleton's rush to believe any flattery you get:
> 
> The study cited by the NYTimes looks at Canada as a whole, rather than breaking it down by region.  In actual fact, a handful of places with booming economies are boosting the averages for other places that aren't doing well.
> 
> The time period addressed in the study happens to have coincided with a recession in the United States, which included a housing crisis.  Housing is, of course, one of the largest portions of wealth in the middle class.
> 
> Canada's middle class has one of the highest rates of personal debt.
> 
> While Canada's middle class saw gains during the study's time period, it continues to have the lowest growth rate of the nation's studied.
> 
> The study didn't factor in the impact of high taxes on the middle class at all.
Click to expand...

After 35 years of GOP GIVEAWAY 2 the rich, the United States is a Mess of inequality and ignorance. We are number 23!! Thanks scumbag disastrous GOP and silly Dupes.


----------



## MikeK

Cecilie1200 said:


> You're ultimately not benefiting children through policies which encourage people to put them in risky situations in order to use them as human shields.  When there are no ideal choices, you have to go with the one which is least-bad for everyone involved.


I don't understand who it is you are criticizing here.  What _policies_ encourage people to put children in risky situations?  Whose _policies?_ are you referring to?


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


_The statists gave the government this authority, and in response, they used it to establish a border with which to mark the boundaries of this state. They then decided that crossing the boarder illegally, thus violating the laws they created, would have consequences._

_The illegals chose to cross the border illegally, thus showing that they have decided that the consequences were worth risking. They suffer the consequences through their own choices. If they couldn't stand being separated from their children, they wouldn't have taken the risk._

_The left would complain whether Trump separated the families, deported both, or deported neither, even though the third option, not enforcing the law at all, is leftist policy._

_Just further evidence that the left operates on emotion rather than logic. _


----------



## Cecilie1200

MikeK said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're ultimately not benefiting children through policies which encourage people to put them in risky situations in order to use them as human shields.  When there are no ideal choices, you have to go with the one which is least-bad for everyone involved.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand who it is you are criticizing here.  What _policies_ encourage people to put children in risky situations?  Whose _policies?_ are you referring to?
Click to expand...


US immigration policies which give adults a pass on incarceration and prosecution when they're caught if they have children with them only encourage more people to drag children along on their border-crossings.  The leftists' short-term, emotion-driven concept of "Awwww, the poor little kiddies" SOUNDS good - to them, anyway - but ultimately encourages people to put more children at risk.


----------



## danielpalos

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also why we have the the worst inequality, poverty, upward Mobility and infrastructure and everything else in the modern world. Thanks GOP and silly dupes like you. We're number 23!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US produces close to a  half-million new millionaires every year.  How much more upward mobility do you want than that?  The main reason we have poverty if because the Democrats have promoted irresponsibility.  Single parent homes (which Democrats also promoted) is a leading reason for poverty.
> 
> _*"Folks, if you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't." *_
> Rush Limbaugh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read the whole article Ray, or did you stop after the part about 500,000 new millionaires ever year?
> 
> Did you read the part which said that these new millionaires are being created by a tax code which transfers wealth from the working class to the investment class?  People aren’t getting rich from their own efforts, but rather by a tax code which transfers money from those who work to those who don’t.
> 
> Did you read that 75% of American families are struggling to make ends meet?
> 
> Or that 3/4 of all wealthy individuals say inheritance was a factor in their accumulation of wealth?
> 
> 1,700 People in America Are Becoming Millionaires Every Day
> 
> Try reading the WHOLE article this time Ray.
> 
> There are 4 million babies born in the US each year. Even with a half a million millionaires being created each year, this means the other 3 million children who are being born this year are not going to be “thrivers”. 3/4 of these children will grow up poor because Donald Trump is accelerating that transfer of wealth with the new tax code.
> 
> Upthread someone whinged that 30% of all immigrants are on welfare. That’s substantially less than the 47% of American citizens who are currently receiving social assistance?  The people Mitt Romney labelled as “takers”.
> 
> The ignorance of right wingers on matters of the economy makes it easy for Republicans to fool you into thinking they know what they’re doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't read any article because I didn't post an article.  However I did read yours by Nanny Bloomberg.
> 
> What it said in a Clintonizing way was that inheritance was a factor--not the direct reason people became wealthy.
> 
> Now I'm a working class guy.  I don't remember any deduction out of my paycheck that went to the rich.  I do transfer money to the rich just like you do, but it's an option and not a mandate by my employer.  You and I both transfer our wealth to the top several times a week.  Nobody is holding a gun to our heads to do it either.
> 
> And your article didn't say anything about the tax code.  Even if the tax code played a part, it's not the reason people become wealthy.  All Trump's tax code did was allow people to keep more of THEIR MONEY THAT THEY EARNED!
> 
> To your chagrin, all money does not belong to government, and what they allow us to keep is a gift from them to us.  Money is property no different than your car or home.  You earned it, you created it, and it's rightfully yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a Canadian, my tax dollars do NOT go to the rich. They go to Canadian citizens - in child benefits to young families, for universal health care, and for old age income supplements. They go to roads, bridges and infrastructure.
> 
> What they don’t pay for is a massive bloated military protecting “Canadian interests” around the globe. They don’t pay for income supplements for underpaid corporate employees, nor do we have a bloated government paying out income supplements to working people. Corporations in Canada are required to pay a living wage to their employees.
> 
> While the US middle class is watching their wealth shrink to create those 500,000 millionaires each year, the Canadian middle class has the fastest growth in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fascinating.
> 
> You say, "My tax dollars do NOT go to the rich, they go to Canadian citizens" . . . as though you think "rich" and "citizen" are somehow mutually exclusive.  Are you telling us there are no rich Canadian citizens, or just that rich Canadians are barred by law from gleaning any benefit or value from the government whatsoever?
> 
> Then you begin telling us all the "wonders" that your government doles out of your pocket, as though rich people HERE are getting all of those things free, but rich people THERE aren't . . . even though that's ridiculous on several levels.
> 
> One of the main reasons WE spend so much on our military is so that we can protect craven little hangers-on like Canada, and allow them to lounge around, touting their "moral superiority".  Do not go there, Sparkles.  Seriously.  Your government is GLAD that the US is "barbaric" enough to spend on the military, even if YOU are too damned dumb to understand it.
> 
> I'm laughing at your "look at all these freebies we hand out, but NONE of it goes to corporate employees".  Uh huh.  "NO income supplements to working people."  Well, except for child care, universal healthcare, all that other stuff you mentioned . . .
> 
> "Corporations in Canada pay a living wage to their employees."  Could be one of many reasons why Canada ain't a major business hub of the world, hmmmm?
> 
> If you really think being middle-class in Canada is better than the US, you go with whatever makes living there tolerable.  God knows, we have plenty of idiots here already, and have NO desire to add the likes of you.  But there are a few things you're not considering in your simpleton's rush to believe any flattery you get:
> 
> The study cited by the NYTimes looks at Canada as a whole, rather than breaking it down by region.  In actual fact, a handful of places with booming economies are boosting the averages for other places that aren't doing well.
> 
> The time period addressed in the study happens to have coincided with a recession in the United States, which included a housing crisis.  Housing is, of course, one of the largest portions of wealth in the middle class.
> 
> Canada's middle class has one of the highest rates of personal debt.
> 
> While Canada's middle class saw gains during the study's time period, it continues to have the lowest growth rate of the nation's studied.
> 
> The study didn't factor in the impact of high taxes on the middle class at all.
Click to expand...

Some on the left think we can simply raise our minimum wage to collect more in taxes and create more in demand; and have a good excuse to "solve our problem with the right whining the poor are not paying enough in personal income taxes."


----------



## Flopper

JoeB131 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe. Maybe not. But the language was there long before the Imperial Cheeto showed up. A wave of 11-12,000,000 Invaders upon US soil will tend to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, only for the bigots... the Majority of Americans looked at the Orange Shitgibbon and said 'no'.
> 
> The sad thing is, it used to be that when a political party shit the bed and nominated someone who had no business being president (Goldwater, McGovern) enough people crossed party lines to decisively beat them, and the stupidity of the Electoral College didn't matter.
> 
> This time, there were a crapload of Republicans who knew damned well Trump had no business being president, but went along anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last I looked, the Mexicans and Guatamalens were not gassing Mestizos on an industrial scale. And even if they were... not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, they are only brown people.  Here was the thing, in the 1930's the Nazis weren't gassing the Jews, and someone like you said, "Not our problem".
> 
> The thing is, what is going on IS our problem, because of the refugees, and more importantly, it's our fault, because we encouraged the drug trade that is causing all the violence.
> 
> The LEAST we could do is take these people in.
Click to expand...

*One thing I have learned about politics is that there are plenty of people in both parties that will support the leader of their party, no matter how awful he or she might be.  Trump or Obama could confess to child molestation and murder and they would still support him to the very end. It's the nature of the beast.  Remember when Trump was leading in the primaries and only a handful of congressmen were endorsing him.  Then it became clear he was going to be the nominee and they all went into lockstep in their support.   *


----------



## Flopper

Cecilie1200 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bad attitude is keeping you poor. That's why I fired you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you couldn't afford me... I probably wouldn't have sent your chicken shit company a resume...
> 
> You're a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.
> 
> I watch little companies like yours go out of business because of their half-assery all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already told me your max salary was $80K.  Now you make less than $25K.  It's not the money I can't afford, that's for sure.  I wouldn't do you to my staff though.
> 
> After I had bought and merged three companies, I had picked up a lot of good employees and of course a lot of dead wood.  I was working with my management team on our plan to replace the bad staff.  But we didn't know how many people we would need to replace them.
> 
> After a lot of discussion, I finally decided we fire all the bad ones immediately and the same day, no dragging it out.  Let's rip off the bandaid.  We'll identify the gaps and be ready to replace them at once.
> 
> So that Friday, we did it.  We fired 30% of the company.  All of them had either personally bad attitudes or just bad attitudes about doing any work.  You were a marginal worker, it was your bad attitude that got you fired.
> 
> Here's what you didn't know because you were gone.  You know how many of you we had to replace?  Zero.  It wasn't just you I didn't replace, I didn't need to replace any of you.  The place seemed so much roomier and wow, it was so much more enjoyable being there without the lazy, useless and bad attitudes.  Over time we replaced you as we grew, but that Friday you all left, your pay and benefits were all just savings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turns out, your good employees were spending a bunch of their time corrected the errors of the bad apples, I'll bet.  Without the lousy co-workers, they probably had more time to be effective at their own jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's exactly what was happening as I learned.  They said their jobs were actually easier
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can understand that.  When I was hired at my current job, there were three people doing more or less what I do, including myself.  One of them was useless AND a pain in the ass.  We got rid of her right after I was hired, and never missed her.  A couple of months ago, the company got rid of the other guy, and I just absorbed his work.  He was very nice, but I spent a good part of my day checking his work because he was careless and didn't have the best grasp of spelling and grammar.  It's actually easier and faster for me to do all the work myself than to do my job and double-check his.
> 
> Now if that will just translate into a pay raise, since I'm basically doing single-handedly what originally had three people assigned to it . . .
Click to expand...

*In recent years, I've found employers give raises to people they want to keep and feel they will loose them it they don't.  The last full time job I had before I retired I told my employer I had to have a raise or I was leaving.  I got the raise in my next paycheck.  I don't think it was like that 50 years ago.  People seem to get raises because they proved their worth.*


----------



## danielpalos

Cecilie1200 said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're ultimately not benefiting children through policies which encourage people to put them in risky situations in order to use them as human shields.  When there are no ideal choices, you have to go with the one which is least-bad for everyone involved.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand who it is you are criticizing here.  What _policies_ encourage people to put children in risky situations?  Whose _policies?_ are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> US immigration policies which give adults a pass on incarceration and prosecution when they're caught if they have children with them only encourage more people to drag children along on their border-crossings.  The leftists' short-term, emotion-driven concept of "Awwww, the poor little kiddies" SOUNDS good - to them, anyway - but ultimately encourages people to put more children at risk.
Click to expand...

Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror merely create more of the problem the right wing likes to complain about.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you couldn't afford me... I probably wouldn't have sent your chicken shit company a resume...
> 
> You're a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.
> 
> I watch little companies like yours go out of business because of their half-assery all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You already told me your max salary was $80K.  Now you make less than $25K.  It's not the money I can't afford, that's for sure.  I wouldn't do you to my staff though.
> 
> After I had bought and merged three companies, I had picked up a lot of good employees and of course a lot of dead wood.  I was working with my management team on our plan to replace the bad staff.  But we didn't know how many people we would need to replace them.
> 
> After a lot of discussion, I finally decided we fire all the bad ones immediately and the same day, no dragging it out.  Let's rip off the bandaid.  We'll identify the gaps and be ready to replace them at once.
> 
> So that Friday, we did it.  We fired 30% of the company.  All of them had either personally bad attitudes or just bad attitudes about doing any work.  You were a marginal worker, it was your bad attitude that got you fired.
> 
> Here's what you didn't know because you were gone.  You know how many of you we had to replace?  Zero.  It wasn't just you I didn't replace, I didn't need to replace any of you.  The place seemed so much roomier and wow, it was so much more enjoyable being there without the lazy, useless and bad attitudes.  Over time we replaced you as we grew, but that Friday you all left, your pay and benefits were all just savings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turns out, your good employees were spending a bunch of their time corrected the errors of the bad apples, I'll bet.  Without the lousy co-workers, they probably had more time to be effective at their own jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's exactly what was happening as I learned.  They said their jobs were actually easier
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can understand that.  When I was hired at my current job, there were three people doing more or less what I do, including myself.  One of them was useless AND a pain in the ass.  We got rid of her right after I was hired, and never missed her.  A couple of months ago, the company got rid of the other guy, and I just absorbed his work.  He was very nice, but I spent a good part of my day checking his work because he was careless and didn't have the best grasp of spelling and grammar.  It's actually easier and faster for me to do all the work myself than to do my job and double-check his.
> 
> Now if that will just translate into a pay raise, since I'm basically doing single-handedly what originally had three people assigned to it . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In recent years, I've found employers give raises to people they want to keep and feel they will loose them it they don't.  The last full time job I had before I retired I told my employer I had to have a raise or I was leaving.  I got the raise in my next paycheck.  I don't think it was like that 50 years ago.  People seem to get raises because they proved their worth.*
Click to expand...


I understand that's the plan, because they DON'T want to lose me.  However, things process very slowly, due to the spread-out nature of our company.  The owner is in Israel, the manager-_uber-alles_ is in another city here in the US, and the manager and supervisor with whom I actually work are here in Phoenix.  Bit of a logistics hassle, and since I have no desire to leave, it's a bit difficult for me to push it effectively.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you do things your way and we'll do things ours. My tax dollars do not go to the rich either. They may keep more of their own money, but they are not getting mine unless I personally give it to them. You leftists really believe that all money belongs to government instead of the individual. That's a very disturbing way of thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, last time I checked, money was issued by the government.
> 
> Here's where you are not terribly bright, Ray.  Every time the GOP cuts taxes for rich people, they usually find ways for you to pay more. For instance, most of that $18.00 you got in tax cuts will be eaten up by Trump's new tariffs...
Click to expand...


The government issues notes, it does not (or is not supposed to) keep what you earn and redistribute it the way they like.  

If my tax cuts are eaten up, then that's fine as long as it brings more jobs to the US.  After all, in my line of work, I depend on successful and busy companies.  The more they work, the more work they have for our company. 

However when Democrats take, they usually give nothing in return.  They take from the responsible working and give it to the irresponsible non-working or those who work very little.  

Every time Democrats get leadership, it somehow costs me more money.  When Republicans are in charge, I may not get more money, but at least it's not costing me any money either.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The court seen it differently......at least in the last case.
> 
> The US Constitution protects your right to practice your religion as you see fit. Homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible and even Koran. In fact very few religions accept a gay relationship of any kind.
> 
> It's less a personal prejudice than it is a religious one. There are no exemptions for freedom of religion just because you own a business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when do I get to start cutting people's hearts out to appease Queztacoatl?
Click to expand...


If you have to go there, it only shows your desperation.  As I pointed out to you earlier, freedom of religion does not negate laws--especially laws that severely hurt or kill people.  Your comparison is as stupid as saying Christians should be allowed to execute gays.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, but the reason for that is is not because they want to "Wipe out White People", but because after Nixon and the Southern Strategy, the GOP decided that they were going to play on White insecurities...



This is as obvious as the nose on your face.  Why would the Democrats be so hell bent on stopping the wall they would even shutdown the government for it?  Why did they stop Kate's Law; a law that would have imprisoned foreign felons who returned after deportation?  Why would they be fighting like hell to keep their sanctuary cities?  

There is only one reason for this, because it sure as hell doesn't benefit this country--it benefits the Democrat party.  

They can't tell you their real reasons, but then again, when are they ever honest with their constituents?  



JoeB131 said:


> Oh, noes, we might actually be able to get you health insurance, and that would be awful!!! Here's the thing, if Capitalism weren't such a shit sandwich for those of us who do the work, then the GOP wouldn't need racism to sell it.



When did the Republicans ever use racism to sell capitalism?  Have any examples?  We've been a capitalist society for many years Joe. It's not a new concept.  If you didn't get ahead in the capitalist system, it probably means you never been involved in capitalism.  You get your paycheck, spend it or save some, and never invest a dime of your personal money outside of a savings account.


----------



## Coyote

People keep insisting the parents are horrible for parents for attempting to illegally immigrate with their children.  I saw this meme and boy...it says all that needs to be said.

(disclaimer - not an endorsement of open borders etc - just maybe we shouldn't be so judgemental on the people that are fleeing horrible situations, it's not a decision undertake lightly).


----------



## Coyote

''ghh



Cecilie1200 said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're ultimately not benefiting children through policies which encourage people to put them in risky situations in order to use them as human shields.  When there are no ideal choices, you have to go with the one which is least-bad for everyone involved.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand who it is you are criticizing here.  What _policies_ encourage people to put children in risky situations?  Whose _policies?_ are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> US immigration policies which give adults a pass on incarceration and prosecution when they're caught if they have children with them only encourage more people to drag children along on their border-crossings.  The leftists' short-term, emotion-driven concept of "Awwww, the poor little kiddies" SOUNDS good - to them, anyway - but ultimately encourages people to put more children at risk.
Click to expand...


What if the risk to the child is greater if they are left behind?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> again, only for the bigots... the Majority of Americans looked at the Orange Shitgibbon and said 'no'.
> 
> The sad thing is, it used to be that when a political party shit the bed and nominated someone who had no business being president (Goldwater, McGovern) enough people crossed party lines to decisively beat them, and the stupidity of the Electoral College didn't matter.
> 
> This time, there were a crapload of Republicans who knew damned well Trump had no business being president, but went along anyway.



So what were they supposed to do, go against the vote of the people?  Our electoral college votes according to how the voters voted.  It can't be more fair than that.  

It's a system that we've been using since damn near the founding of this country.  The only reason Democrats don't like it now is because they are losing.  Prior to that, they never complained about the EC.  



JoeB131 said:


> Yeah, they are only brown people. Here was the thing, in the 1930's the Nazis weren't gassing the Jews, and someone like you said, "Not our problem".
> 
> The thing is, what is going on IS our problem, because of the refugees, and more importantly, it's our fault, because we encouraged the drug trade that is causing all the violence.
> 
> The LEAST we could do is take these people in.



How do we encourage the drug trade?  So what you're saying is that they bring drugs into our country, killing tens of thousands of Americans every year, and we are supposed to reward them by accepting them into this country. 

Only a liberal can have this distorted kind of thinking.  Blame the USA first.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so you know all this even though we don't have one? My you are so good, in fact, you are so much better than all our agencies that said a wall would benefit them greatly; the same agencies that participated in the design of the wall that would help eliminate all the things you wrote above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the agencies aren't saying that at all.
> 
> https://gizmodo.com/us-border-patrol-doesnt-want-a-wall-they-want-drones-an-1773661854
> 
> Even the conservative Cato Institute says a wall won't work.
> 
> Why the Wall Won't Work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious?  Gizmodo for your evidence?  Here, try a real source:
> 
> Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Your survey says they want a wall in strategic locations.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Meaning we do not need a wall across the country, only in strategic locations.  We already have over 700 miles of reinforced fencing and areas that terrain is so bad, or border patrol presence is so large,  or other factors that we have few crossings.  *
Click to expand...


Trump even said only in strategic locations.  Now that we have this problem with people using asylum to get in, we need it more than ever now.  As for the older borders, those need to be torn down and rebuilt using the latest technology.


----------



## MikeK

danielpalos said:


> Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror merely create more of the problem the right wing likes to complain about.


I will agree with you that the so-called _war on drugs_ is wholly counterproductive, operating to create more problems than it solves.  But I fail to understand how fighting crime and terrorism is problematic.  

If you disagree, please explain your position.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> We desperately need more legal immigrants...
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. We are a nation of 330,000,000 - one third of a billion - we already have the intellect and the warm bodies to produce whatever we need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Our birth rate is much too low.  It just reached a 30 year low and if the trend continues as is likely, our birth rate will be less than the death rate within 10 to 15 years.  We also have 10,000 people a day going into retirement and we are generating 150,000 to 250,000 jobs a month. Immigration is limited to about 680,000 a year.  Do the math.  If we're going to continue to grow, we are going to need a lot more people in the 21 century.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is this obsession with having to grow?  Do you realize we had over a 100 million less people here in 1970 than we do today and we did just fine?  And that was back in the day where automation wasn't even a concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A republican trumpster is asking about the need for growth?  That's usually something we hear from liberal environmentalists.
> 
> Our economy is based on consumption and increased production of goods and services which is closely linked to growth in population.  You need more people to consume and you need more people to produce otherwise you have no economic growth.*
Click to expand...


Okay, so we have 320 million now.  What about 400 million?  And if 400 million is good, then 700 million is better, right?  And if 700 million is good, then 1.3 billion is the best, right?


----------



## MikeK

Coyote said:


> What if the risk to the child is greater if they are left behind?


Then don't leave them behind.  Stay with them, which is the logically natural position.  Borders exist for a reason.  To illegally cross a border is a crime -- kids or no kids.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> People keep insisting the parents are horrible for parents for attempting to illegally immigrate with their children.  I saw this meme and boy...it says all that needs to be said.
> 
> (disclaimer - not an endorsement of open borders etc - just maybe we shouldn't be so judgemental on the people that are fleeing horrible situations, it's not a decision undertake lightly).
> 
> View attachment 201075



It's so funny how the left tries to use religion when they think it supports their cause.  Other than that, it's a false belief about a magic man in the sky.  

So how many countries would you like to move into the US Coyote?  Two, three, ten?  How many?


----------



## basquebromance

Trump manufactured the immigration issue so he can win the midterms. he is using the demise of children for his own political gain, which is sick.

don't get distracted, Democrats. stay focused on issues where Trump is vulnerable like the economy and North Korea and issues Americans care about like Stormy Daniels and Russia, and you will win in a landslide.


----------



## Cellblock2429

basquebromance said:


> Trump manufactured the immigration issue so he can win the midterms. he is using the demise of children for his own political gain, which is sick.
> 
> don't get distracted, Democrats. stay focused on issues where Trump is vulnerable like the economy and North Korea and issues Americans care about like Stormy Daniels and Russia, and you will win in a landslide.


/——/ Yeah, there was no illegals scampering over the border till Trump was sworn in. Proven fact Bwhahahaha Bwhahahaha


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> People keep insisting the parents are horrible for parents for attempting to illegally immigrate with their children.  I saw this meme and boy...it says all that needs to be said.
> 
> (disclaimer - not an endorsement of open borders etc - just maybe we shouldn't be so judgemental on the people that are fleeing horrible situations, it's not a decision undertake lightly).
> 
> View attachment 201075



Boy, Joseph and Mary didn't break any laws.  I realize that you consider this a mere nothing - why the fuck do people keep bringing it up like it's IMPORTANT, or something?! - but it's actually sort of relevant.

Just MAYBE we should stop drawing false analogies and conflating multiple types of people into one big, amorphous mass for the sole purpose of confusing the issue, because our agenda is best served by obfuscation, confusion, hostility, and outright lying (and by "we", I mean YOU, Coyote).  I realize that to you, all brown people look alike, and they don't REALLY matter except as tools to be used to get your way, but there actually is a difference between legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, and refugees.  They ARE NOT comparable to each other.

Joseph and Mary were refugees.  No one here has a problem with real, actual refugees, who DO NOT need to break our laws in any way to gain asylum.

The more you try to substitute hysterical emotionalism for actual thought, the more I know you're full of shit, and aware of it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> ''ghh
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're ultimately not benefiting children through policies which encourage people to put them in risky situations in order to use them as human shields.  When there are no ideal choices, you have to go with the one which is least-bad for everyone involved.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand who it is you are criticizing here.  What _policies_ encourage people to put children in risky situations?  Whose _policies?_ are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> US immigration policies which give adults a pass on incarceration and prosecution when they're caught if they have children with them only encourage more people to drag children along on their border-crossings.  The leftists' short-term, emotion-driven concept of "Awwww, the poor little kiddies" SOUNDS good - to them, anyway - but ultimately encourages people to put more children at risk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if the risk to the child is greater if they are left behind?
Click to expand...


Give me an example of the risk to the child being so great that it outweighs being smuggled illegally across the border, AND absolutely requires that the family sneak across the border, rather than asking for asylum through the proper legal methods.

By all means, share with me your latest hypothetical sob story that bears no relation to reality.  I'm all agog.


----------



## MikeK

basquebromance said:


> Trump manufactured the immigration issue so he can win the midterms. he is using the demise of children for his own political gain, which is sick.
> 
> don't get distracted, Democrats. stay focused on issues where Trump is vulnerable like the economy and North Korea and issues Americans care about like Stormy Daniels and Russia, and you will win in a landslide.


Trump manufactured the immigration issue???   Where did he get all the Muslims and Beaners?  Did he truck them in?  

Re: Stormy Daniels:  Who really gives a damn?  Did the Democrats really care when President Blowjob got caught?  

Re: North Korea: At the very least, Trump has put the little dictator in his place.  

Re: Russia:  The best thing we can do is form a strong conditional alliance with Russia for the express purpose of controlling the growing Islamic threat.

So all in all, Mr. Trump is looking pretty good.  The spiteful nonsense being spewed by Liberal interests is impotent.


----------



## basquebromance

MikeK said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump manufactured the immigration issue so he can win the midterms. he is using the demise of children for his own political gain, which is sick.
> 
> don't get distracted, Democrats. stay focused on issues where Trump is vulnerable like the economy and North Korea and issues Americans care about like Stormy Daniels and Russia, and you will win in a landslide.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump manufactured the immigration issue???   Where did he get all the Muslims and Beaners?  Did he truck them in?
> 
> Re: Stormy Daniels:  Who really gives a damn?  Did the Democrats really care when President Blowjob got caught?
> 
> Re: North Korea: At the very least, Trump has put the little dictator in his place.
> 
> Re: Russia:  The best thing we can do is form a strong conditional alliance with Russia for the express purpose of controlling the growing Islamic threat.
> 
> So all in all, Mr. Trump is looking pretty good.  The spiteful nonsense being spewed by Liberal interests is impotent.
Click to expand...


i was being sarcastic, dummy. the opposite of what i said is true. liberals are the ones who manufactured this issue, OBVIOUSLY.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, but the reason for that is is not because they want to "Wipe out White People", but because after Nixon and the Southern Strategy, the GOP decided that they were going to play on Whit
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the agencies aren't saying that at all.
> 
> https://gizmodo.com/us-border-patrol-doesnt-want-a-wall-they-want-drones-an-1773661854
> 
> Even the conservative Cato Institute says a wall won't work.
> 
> Why the Wall Won't Work
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious?  Gizmodo for your evidence?  Here, try a real source:
> 
> Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Your survey says they want a wall in strategic locations.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Meaning we do not need a wall across the country, only in strategic locations.  We already have over 700 miles of reinforced fencing and areas that terrain is so bad, or border patrol presence is so large,  or other factors that we have few crossings.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump even said only in strategic locations.  Now that we have this problem with people using asylum to get in, we need it more than ever now.  As for the older borders, those need to be torn down and rebuilt using the latest technology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> e insecurities...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is as obvious as the nose on your face.  Why would the Democrats be so hell bent on stopping the wall they would even shutdown the government for it?  Why did they stop Kate's Law; a law that would have imprisoned foreign felons who returned after deportation?  Why would they be fighting like hell to keep their sanctuary cities?
> 
> There is only one reason for this, because it sure as hell doesn't benefit this country--it benefits the Democrat party.
> 
> They can't tell you their real reasons, but then again, when are they ever honest with their constituents?
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, noes, we might actually be able to get you health insurance, and that would be awful!!! Here's the thing, if Capitalism weren't such a shit sandwich for those of us who do the work, then the GOP wouldn't need racism to sell it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did the Republicans ever use racism to sell capitalism?  Have any examples?  We've been a capitalist society for many years Joe. It's not a new concept.  If you didn't get ahead in the capitalist system, it probably means you never been involved in capitalism.  You get your paycheck, spend it or save some, and never invest a dime of your personal money outside of a savings account.
Click to expand...

*Trump said lots of things, most of them contradictory.  The Wall is complete nonsense.  It was when he first proposed and is even more so today.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, but the reason for that is is not because they want to "Wipe out White People", but because after Nixon and the Southern Strategy, the GOP decided that they were going to play on Whit
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And????????
> 
> 
> 
> *Meaning we do not need a wall across the country, only in strategic locations.  We already have over 700 miles of reinforced fencing and areas that terrain is so bad, or border patrol presence is so large,  or other factors that we have few crossings.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump even said only in strategic locations.  Now that we have this problem with people using asylum to get in, we need it more than ever now.  As for the older borders, those need to be torn down and rebuilt using the latest technology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> e insecurities...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is as obvious as the nose on your face.  Why would the Democrats be so hell bent on stopping the wall they would even shutdown the government for it?  Why did they stop Kate's Law; a law that would have imprisoned foreign felons who returned after deportation?  Why would they be fighting like hell to keep their sanctuary cities?
> 
> There is only one reason for this, because it sure as hell doesn't benefit this country--it benefits the Democrat party.
> 
> They can't tell you their real reasons, but then again, when are they ever honest with their constituents?
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, noes, we might actually be able to get you health insurance, and that would be awful!!! Here's the thing, if Capitalism weren't such a shit sandwich for those of us who do the work, then the GOP wouldn't need racism to sell it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did the Republicans ever use racism to sell capitalism?  Have any examples?  We've been a capitalist society for many years Joe. It's not a new concept.  If you didn't get ahead in the capitalist system, it probably means you never been involved in capitalism.  You get your paycheck, spend it or save some, and never invest a dime of your personal money outside of a savings account.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump said lots of things, most of them contradictory.  The Wall is complete nonsense.  It was when he first proposed and is even more so today.*
Click to expand...


Well, if the wall is nonsense, let him build it.  Nothing could be better for the Democrat party than to allow Republicans to build this wall and have it be a complete failure.  They would be able to rub our noses in it for decades to come.  They could remind voters ever election on what a waste of money it was. 

But the truth is you and I both know a wall would accomplish what we on the right want, and that is a drastic reduction in illegals and deadly narcotics coming to this country.   That's one of the things the left is afraid of. The other thing is a wall is not something they could remove.  It's there for good.


----------



## Coyote

MikeK said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if the risk to the child is greater if they are left behind?
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't leave them behind.  Stay with them, which is the logically natural position.  Borders exist for a reason.  To illegally cross a border is a crime -- kids or no kids.
Click to expand...


Damn those criminals Mary and Joseph.  They should have stayed where they were.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ''ghh
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're ultimately not benefiting children through policies which encourage people to put them in risky situations in order to use them as human shields.  When there are no ideal choices, you have to go with the one which is least-bad for everyone involved.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand who it is you are criticizing here.  What _policies_ encourage people to put children in risky situations?  Whose _policies?_ are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> US immigration policies which give adults a pass on incarceration and prosecution when they're caught if they have children with them only encourage more people to drag children along on their border-crossings.  The leftists' short-term, emotion-driven concept of "Awwww, the poor little kiddies" SOUNDS good - to them, anyway - but ultimately encourages people to put more children at risk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if the risk to the child is greater if they are left behind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me an example of the risk to the child being so great that it outweighs being smuggled illegally across the border, AND absolutely requires that the family sneak across the border, rather than asking for asylum through the proper legal methods.
> 
> By all means, share with me your latest hypothetical sob story that bears no relation to reality.  I'm all agog.
Click to expand...


If I show you an example, you will label it a sob story that "bears no relation to reality" - I don't think you are very cognizant of the reality in some of those Central and South American countries.  I have no desire to educate you.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if the risk to the child is greater if they are left behind?
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't leave them behind.  Stay with them, which is the logically natural position.  Borders exist for a reason.  To illegally cross a border is a crime -- kids or no kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn those criminals Mary and Joseph.  They should have stayed where they were.
Click to expand...


So what laws did Mary and Joseph break when they entered their new destination?


----------



## Ame®icano

francoHFW said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the topic.
> 
> *Mexican kids held for months as punishment for border-crossing - Washington Post, March 11, 2015*
> 
> 
> 
> Last spring, as Central American children flooded into Texas in a way he had never seen in his three-decade career, Border Patrol agent Robert Harris decided to experiment. His intelligence analysts estimated that *78 percent of the guides smuggling other migrants were Mexicans younger than 18* — *teenagers often hired or conscripted by drug cartels that knew they would not be prosecuted if caught* — and he wanted to attack this loophole.
> 
> “Why don’t we remove these juveniles from the smuggling cycle?” Harris, the outgoing commander of the Laredo sector of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, recalled thinking.
> 
> Now, as a result of that decision, young Mexicans are being held for months without charge in shelters across the United States, sometimes without their parents’ knowledge. Since the program began in May, 536 juveniles have been held — 248 of whom have been deported to Mexico after an average stay of 75 days, according to Border Patrol statistics. Mexican authorities say *some of these repeat border-crossers have spent as much as six months in U.S. custody while they await an appearance before an immigration judge*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Information like this never appeared on Jake Tapper show or similar in leftist media. Not three years ago, not today. All they have to do is little bit of research on themselves to know that this problem with separating families did not started with Trump, and it was big problem much before he became president. There was 9th circuit court decision on this issue before Trump became president. Children have been separated from the parents before Trump became president. There were photographs of detention centers before Trump became president.
> 
> Let's continue, shall we?
> 
> *Obama administration placed children with human traffickers, report says - Washington Post, January 28, 2016*
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration failed to protect thousands of Central American children who have flooded across the U.S. border since 2011, *leaving them vulnerable to traffickers and to abuses at the hands of government-approved caretakers*, a Senate investigation has found.
> 
> The Office of Refugee Resettlement, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, failed to do proper background checks of adults who claimed the children, *allowed sponsors to take custody of multiple unrelated children, and regularly placed children in homes without visiting the locations*, according to a 56-page investigative report released Thursday.
> 
> And once the children left federally funded shelters, the report said, the agency permitted their adult sponsors to prevent caseworkers from providing them post-release services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we have an example of another of Barry's policies that Trump have to deal with. Leftist are attacking Trump for trying to end such policies that are inhumane and without compassion. It's untolerable that human trafficking could occur in our own backyard, all with approval of previous administration, and what makes it even more alarming is that US government agencies are responsible for delivering some of the victims to the hands of their abusers. No, the leftist media doesn't want to talk about this, they want to talk how Trump is Nazi, and how he separate children in concentration camps. And Barry has a gut to put the statement out the other day about Trump?
> 
> These leftist lunatics knew all along what was going on for years and they never raised the question, until Trump attempted to resolve the status quo and attack the core of the problem. I haven't seen any executive orders from Barry, or even demands for executive orders about this problem, has anyone else?
> 
> But wait, there is more.
> 
> *Obama Administration Handed Child Migrants Over to Human Traffickers - New York Magazine, January 29, 2016*
> 
> 
> 
> The United States government *placed an unknown number of Central American migrant children into the custody of human traffickers after neglecting to run the most basic checks on these so-called “caregivers*,” according to a Senate report released on Thursday.
> 
> In the fall of 2013, tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors traveled to the U.S. southern border, in flight from poverty and gang violence in Central America. At least six of those children were eventually resettled on an egg farm in Marion, Ohio, where their sponsors forced them to work 12 hours a day under threats of death. Local law enforcement uncovered the operation last year, prompting the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to open an inquiry into the federal government’s handling of migrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Trump said he inherited these problems, that those were Democrats policies, he was right 100%. He want's to secure the border so fewer illegals can get into the country. The leftist media and Democrats , and even some Republicans will not accept it. They don't want to secure the border, they want open border. Those who are crossing the border illegally are criminals, many of them are rapists, human traffickers, even pedophiles. And Democrats wants to protect them. And they attack Trump? And us? Not just Democrats, but leftist media, two former Flotuses, two former Presidents under whom those policies took place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody wants an open border and Obama only separated children from parents in very rare cases, super duper Dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just provided you with three articles that say otherwise, and you're still denying it.
> 
> What I do know is, today is not special occasion, you're always so stupid. But keep talking, someday you might even say something intelligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very rare cases dingbat.
Click to expand...


You don't say how rare, throw in some numbers, for previous admina dn this one.

However, it's OK to do it, if "your guy" does it "rarely". No reason to protest at all.


----------



## Ame®icano

francoHFW said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the topic.
> 
> *Mexican kids held for months as punishment for border-crossing - Washington Post, March 11, 2015*
> 
> 
> 
> Last spring, as Central American children flooded into Texas in a way he had never seen in his three-decade career, Border Patrol agent Robert Harris decided to experiment. His intelligence analysts estimated that *78 percent of the guides smuggling other migrants were Mexicans younger than 18* — *teenagers often hired or conscripted by drug cartels that knew they would not be prosecuted if caught* — and he wanted to attack this loophole.
> 
> “Why don’t we remove these juveniles from the smuggling cycle?” Harris, the outgoing commander of the Laredo sector of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, recalled thinking.
> 
> Now, as a result of that decision, young Mexicans are being held for months without charge in shelters across the United States, sometimes without their parents’ knowledge. Since the program began in May, 536 juveniles have been held — 248 of whom have been deported to Mexico after an average stay of 75 days, according to Border Patrol statistics. Mexican authorities say *some of these repeat border-crossers have spent as much as six months in U.S. custody while they await an appearance before an immigration judge*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Information like this never appeared on Jake Tapper show or similar in leftist media. Not three years ago, not today. All they have to do is little bit of research on themselves to know that this problem with separating families did not started with Trump, and it was big problem much before he became president. There was 9th circuit court decision on this issue before Trump became president. Children have been separated from the parents before Trump became president. There were photographs of detention centers before Trump became president.
> 
> Let's continue, shall we?
> 
> *Obama administration placed children with human traffickers, report says - Washington Post, January 28, 2016*
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration failed to protect thousands of Central American children who have flooded across the U.S. border since 2011, *leaving them vulnerable to traffickers and to abuses at the hands of government-approved caretakers*, a Senate investigation has found.
> 
> The Office of Refugee Resettlement, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, failed to do proper background checks of adults who claimed the children, *allowed sponsors to take custody of multiple unrelated children, and regularly placed children in homes without visiting the locations*, according to a 56-page investigative report released Thursday.
> 
> And once the children left federally funded shelters, the report said, the agency permitted their adult sponsors to prevent caseworkers from providing them post-release services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we have an example of another of Barry's policies that Trump have to deal with. Leftist are attacking Trump for trying to end such policies that are inhumane and without compassion. It's untolerable that human trafficking could occur in our own backyard, all with approval of previous administration, and what makes it even more alarming is that US government agencies are responsible for delivering some of the victims to the hands of their abusers. No, the leftist media doesn't want to talk about this, they want to talk how Trump is Nazi, and how he separate children in concentration camps. And Barry has a gut to put the statement out the other day about Trump?
> 
> These leftist lunatics knew all along what was going on for years and they never raised the question, until Trump attempted to resolve the status quo and attack the core of the problem. I haven't seen any executive orders from Barry, or even demands for executive orders about this problem, has anyone else?
> 
> But wait, there is more.
> 
> *Obama Administration Handed Child Migrants Over to Human Traffickers - New York Magazine, January 29, 2016*
> 
> 
> 
> The United States government *placed an unknown number of Central American migrant children into the custody of human traffickers after neglecting to run the most basic checks on these so-called “caregivers*,” according to a Senate report released on Thursday.
> 
> In the fall of 2013, tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors traveled to the U.S. southern border, in flight from poverty and gang violence in Central America. At least six of those children were eventually resettled on an egg farm in Marion, Ohio, where their sponsors forced them to work 12 hours a day under threats of death. Local law enforcement uncovered the operation last year, prompting the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to open an inquiry into the federal government’s handling of migrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Trump said he inherited these problems, that those were Democrats policies, he was right 100%. He want's to secure the border so fewer illegals can get into the country. The leftist media and Democrats , and even some Republicans will not accept it. They don't want to secure the border, they want open border. Those who are crossing the border illegally are criminals, many of them are rapists, human traffickers, even pedophiles. And Democrats wants to protect them. And they attack Trump? And us? Not just Democrats, but leftist media, two former Flotuses, two former Presidents under whom those policies took place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody wants an open border and Obama only separated children from parents in very rare cases, super duper Dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just provided you with three articles that say otherwise, and you're still denying it.
> 
> What I do know is, today is not special occasion, you're always so stupid. But keep talking, someday you might even say something intelligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just stick to the facts... I know it's repetitive...truth is like that, dimwit doupe.
Click to expand...


Your opinions are not facts. Post the data, shitstain.


----------



## Ame®icano

danielpalos said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.
> 
> So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants.  Typical leftist thinking all the way.  Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.
> 
> 
> 
> Let capitalism do the work.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another communist's great idea that's so good, it have to be forced on employers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in this case, it is; higher paid labor creates more in demand and pays more in taxes.  only the right wing, doesn't really care and never get's it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You failed to explain what more of demand is created?
> 
> Second, unlike communist leach such as yourself, I believe minimum wage should be zero, and also... federal tax should be zero percent and feds should be financed by the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It should be a self-evident truth for anyone who knows anything about economics.  The poor tend to spend most of their income.  Higher paid labor creates more demand by spending more when they have more money to spend.
> 
> Crony capitalists don't care about anything but their profit. Government costs.  Capitalist, "leaches" only care about profit, not cost.  And, dear clueless capitalists, it is not Your money if we have any Problems in our Republic.  Congress has the Power to Tax, for any problems the right wing whines about.
> 
> Any more Problems, right wingers.
Click to expand...


It's self evident, from your posts, that you have no clue about economics. You're advertising communist models, yet can't provide the example of single one that worked.

You're saying that increase of wages create more demand, because spending is increased. Let's test it. 

If labor cost increases 10 percent, and that cause increase of product price 10 percent, now much more of demand for the product is created?


----------



## Ame®icano

danielpalos said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich earned their wealth?  Are you that stupid?  The Walton’s earned nothing. Sam Walton earned their wealth. The Waltons sit on their asses and collect dividends off the work if others.
> 
> The rich have a tax code that keeps wealth flowing to the top. They have labour laws which allow them to deny health care or benefits to workers, and to pay them so little their workers need welfare to supplement their incomes.
> 
> They appoint a burger flipper as “manager” so they can work him/her 60 hours a week without paying overtime.
> 
> Other countries put their people first. America puts their corporations first, and the wealthy second. Working men and women, who make up the vast majority of your population are denigrated, abused and paid the least amount possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Envy is a bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop whining about a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, right wingers.
Click to expand...


Funny how lefties always settle for a minimum, even if/when minimum is increased.


----------



## Ame®icano

danielpalos said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is to persuade the parents to waive a trial and plead guilty. Once they plead guilty, their deportation can be expedited and they will be united with their children in few days or weeks.  If they ask for their day in court, they won't see their children for months, or up to 1 year and they are told this.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of crap.
> 
> If that is the "real reason" and if Barry hasn't done anything wrong by doing it (with your silent approval), than Trump is doing nothing wrong neither.
> 
> Kids don't belong to jail. Their parents are lawbreakers, not them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The Obama administration placed nearly 90,000 children with a sponsor, after they were detained at the border without a legal guardian. The only time children split from their family under Obama was if the adult was suspected of not being a guardian, had an outstanding warrant, or federal agents suspected the adult of another serious crime like trafficking or smuggling.
> 
> The Trump administration policy was to separate all children from their parents with no exceptions and if there had not been the outcry from the public and pressure from congress he would still be doing it.  No law compelled him to do it.  He did as deterrent and to speed up deportations.  His actions were so deplorable that even his wife and daughter spoke out against it.
> *
> *Not real news: The truth about volcanic gems, and immigrant kids placed into care under Obama*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're parroting Schumer's talking points that President can solve the problem with his pen. Sure he can, under the Section 212F of INA, President have full authority to shut down all immigration when he deems it of national interest. Just so you know and you don't complain about it later.
> 
> Now, let's talk about what you said: "*No law compelled him to do it."*
> 
> Back in 1997, there was law where they agree that we cannot detain unaccompanied children. Now, have you heard of Barry appointee district judge Dolly Gee? Not so long ago, in June 2016 she applied the 1997 agreement of not detaining unaccompanied children to all children, including when they cross the border illegally with their parents. You lefties are simply ignoring the law and going solely by the interpretation of the law from one leftist district judge.
> 
> The fact is, what president is doing is completely within a law. You lefties and your media are saying there is no such law and having meltdown over it. What you pretty much "forced" Trump to sign is gonna hit you in the ass. Yeah, you may celebrate the "victory", but it's not going to last. What's going to happen is, if Trump can't separate the families while they're being processed, he'll keep them together and deport them together before 20 days of legally being detained expire.
> 
> I know you lefties don't care about sovereignty of this country, but there are plenty of us who does including the president. He can stop all the immigration into the country, family based, employment based etc. He can reject every asylum at the border and redirect all asylum claims to be filed in US Embassies. You lefties surely don't want that, but you just might get it.
> 
> "The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty. The right to do so stems not alone from legislative power, but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation." - Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> should we start with, "misuse of process"?  10USC246 has precedent whenever the "security of our free States", is involved.
Click to expand...


So how many joined the armed forces to ensure the security of the free state?

I got one for you.

8 U.S.C. §1182(f) of the U.S. Code confers on the president the power to turn away immigrants at the border. It provides:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.


----------



## toobfreak

*3800 posts later*, all we have is the usual posts from Leftards issuing verbal insults that have nothing to do with the OP and no one has admitted there can be no unacceptable human cost to controlling the borders because as soon as you set a limit beyond which is UNacceptable, you've just thrown away your borders and your nation.  The solution is to ELIMINATE THE PROBLEM. Creating an effective border barrier immediately eliminates the problem of human cost!  Everyone stays on their side and orderly, effective, legal immigration resumes.


----------



## MaryL

Exactly what is the  is the acceptable cost of controlling immigration? I have seen the loss of hundreds of thousands  if not millions of middle or lowers class jobs to cheap foreign nationals of questionable status in the last 30 years.  Now the uber  rich white  Koch brothers cynically profit from this, fund & support "Hispanic trusts"  and otherwise support are being quoted as reliable sources as to  the benefit of illegal immigrants...I might be a little less cynical.  I listen to NPR too.How many times have I heard their sponsors being  the Koch brothers? Or some other shill for them?


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, but the reason for that is is not because they want to "Wipe out White People", but because after Nixon and the Southern Strategy, the GOP decided that they were going to play on Whit
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Meaning we do not need a wall across the country, only in strategic locations.  We already have over 700 miles of reinforced fencing and areas that terrain is so bad, or border patrol presence is so large,  or other factors that we have few crossings.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump even said only in strategic locations.  Now that we have this problem with people using asylum to get in, we need it more than ever now.  As for the older borders, those need to be torn down and rebuilt using the latest technology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> e insecurities...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is as obvious as the nose on your face.  Why would the Democrats be so hell bent on stopping the wall they would even shutdown the government for it?  Why did they stop Kate's Law; a law that would have imprisoned foreign felons who returned after deportation?  Why would they be fighting like hell to keep their sanctuary cities?
> 
> There is only one reason for this, because it sure as hell doesn't benefit this country--it benefits the Democrat party.
> 
> They can't tell you their real reasons, but then again, when are they ever honest with their constituents?
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, noes, we might actually be able to get you health insurance, and that would be awful!!! Here's the thing, if Capitalism weren't such a shit sandwich for those of us who do the work, then the GOP wouldn't need racism to sell it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did the Republicans ever use racism to sell capitalism?  Have any examples?  We've been a capitalist society for many years Joe. It's not a new concept.  If you didn't get ahead in the capitalist system, it probably means you never been involved in capitalism.  You get your paycheck, spend it or save some, and never invest a dime of your personal money outside of a savings account.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump said lots of things, most of them contradictory.  The Wall is complete nonsense.  It was when he first proposed and is even more so today.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if the wall is nonsense, let him build it.  Nothing could be better for the Democrat party than to allow Republicans to build this wall and have it be a complete failure.  They would be able to rub our noses in it for decades to come.  They could remind voters ever election on what a waste of money it was.
> 
> But the truth is you and I both know a wall would accomplish what we on the right want, and that is a drastic reduction in illegals and deadly narcotics coming to this country.   That's one of the things the left is afraid of. The other thing is a wall is not something they could remove.  It's there for good.
Click to expand...

*Sorry about the length of the post.
Democrats as well as a lot of republicans are against building a wall for very sound reasons.

First, it's not going to solve the illegal immigration problem or ever come close. Approximately half of the people in the country illegally are overstays of visas and the problem is getting worst not better. For every three border crossers in 1992, there was one overstay. But by 2012, visa overstays accounted for 58 percent of all new unauthorized immigrants. A wall not only will do nothing to stop these people from entering, but it may actually incentivize more people to stick around without authorization.

Illegal entries are going down and there is good reason to believe they will continue to do so as increasing demand for low wage workers in Mexico increases and border security continues to improve.  Demand for workers in the US will eventually persuade congress to increase work permits which will  increase the number of overstays and decrease illegal entries.

Second, there is no plan for the wall.  Trump has build 8 different protypes but how he plans to spend 25 billion dollars is a mystery to congress and likely his own  administration.  For example where is he going to build the wall.  Trump has said 1500 miles of the border will be wall and he also said 1,000 miles.  He said he would use reinforce fencing and he said he will replace all reinforced.  He said the wall will be 30 feet high and he said the wall will be 50 feet high.  He's not giving congress any real details except he wants 25 billion dollars to build some kind of wall somewhere along the border.  This is nuts.

Lastly, Trump has committed to building a wall fast, easy, and on schedule.  He has said this over and over.  Is that really possible?

70% of the US border is in the hands of private individuals.  Many of the owners of larger parcels have said they will fight any attempt to seize their land.  To get just 1000 miles of right away for the wall could easy take 10 years.  Getting the land to build a freeway that covers 50 miles typical takes 5 to 7 years.  Just a few of the obstacles are a large Indian reservation which is about half in the US and half in Mexico.  The tribe has said they will fight any attempt to run a wall through the reservation.  It would take an act congress to force the tribe to accept the wall thru their land.  Then there's a water reservoir jointly managed by the US and Mexico providing water for irrigation and cattle on both sides of the border. Since this is covered by treaty, again it would take an act of congress to resolve the problem.  Then there are environmental problems which will very likely bring lawsuits from a number of organizations.  And all this is just for starters.

Then there's the untended consequences.  
Many of our border patrol officers have stated a wall has one big drawback.  You can't see through it.  People can stand behind the wall with ropes and ladders waiting for a patrol to pass and then they're over the wall.  With fences officers can observe the area for miles and spot people approaching the fence.  In cities, ladders ropes and pulleys can be used to sail over a wall.  And of course tunnels and simply flying over the wall are real possibilities.

Until the first fence was built in 1990, workers could circulate freely across the border, coming to harvest crops during the summer and then returning home in the winter. They crossed with a goal of bettering their lives south of the border, not to live in US. Prior to 1980 we had a relatively small permanent population of illegal immigrants compared to today.  However, as fencing and border patrols increased, crossing became more difficult so once people crossed they stayed longer.  If we actually complete a wall and it is really difficult to cross, it seem likely that those who come into the country will be here to stay.

Lastly, Trump will have about 2 years left on his term to build his wall which would be virtually impossible even to complete a small portion.  Maybe he would be re-elected but maybe not.  Given that republicans have never been very supported of the wall and democrats would do there best to tear it down as soon as they got control of congress, does this project really make sense? Whenever, the country has gone into a major project with cost in the many billions lasting many years, we have always had strong support from at least one party and at least acceptance from the other and generally good support from the public.  This project has none of the above.
Why the Wall Won't Work*


----------



## francoHFW

Ame®icano said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the topic.
> 
> *Mexican kids held for months as punishment for border-crossing - Washington Post, March 11, 2015*
> 
> 
> 
> Last spring, as Central American children flooded into Texas in a way he had never seen in his three-decade career, Border Patrol agent Robert Harris decided to experiment. His intelligence analysts estimated that *78 percent of the guides smuggling other migrants were Mexicans younger than 18* — *teenagers often hired or conscripted by drug cartels that knew they would not be prosecuted if caught* — and he wanted to attack this loophole.
> 
> “Why don’t we remove these juveniles from the smuggling cycle?” Harris, the outgoing commander of the Laredo sector of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, recalled thinking.
> 
> Now, as a result of that decision, young Mexicans are being held for months without charge in shelters across the United States, sometimes without their parents’ knowledge. Since the program began in May, 536 juveniles have been held — 248 of whom have been deported to Mexico after an average stay of 75 days, according to Border Patrol statistics. Mexican authorities say *some of these repeat border-crossers have spent as much as six months in U.S. custody while they await an appearance before an immigration judge*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Information like this never appeared on Jake Tapper show or similar in leftist media. Not three years ago, not today. All they have to do is little bit of research on themselves to know that this problem with separating families did not started with Trump, and it was big problem much before he became president. There was 9th circuit court decision on this issue before Trump became president. Children have been separated from the parents before Trump became president. There were photographs of detention centers before Trump became president.
> 
> Let's continue, shall we?
> 
> *Obama administration placed children with human traffickers, report says - Washington Post, January 28, 2016*
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration failed to protect thousands of Central American children who have flooded across the U.S. border since 2011, *leaving them vulnerable to traffickers and to abuses at the hands of government-approved caretakers*, a Senate investigation has found.
> 
> The Office of Refugee Resettlement, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, failed to do proper background checks of adults who claimed the children, *allowed sponsors to take custody of multiple unrelated children, and regularly placed children in homes without visiting the locations*, according to a 56-page investigative report released Thursday.
> 
> And once the children left federally funded shelters, the report said, the agency permitted their adult sponsors to prevent caseworkers from providing them post-release services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we have an example of another of Barry's policies that Trump have to deal with. Leftist are attacking Trump for trying to end such policies that are inhumane and without compassion. It's untolerable that human trafficking could occur in our own backyard, all with approval of previous administration, and what makes it even more alarming is that US government agencies are responsible for delivering some of the victims to the hands of their abusers. No, the leftist media doesn't want to talk about this, they want to talk how Trump is Nazi, and how he separate children in concentration camps. And Barry has a gut to put the statement out the other day about Trump?
> 
> These leftist lunatics knew all along what was going on for years and they never raised the question, until Trump attempted to resolve the status quo and attack the core of the problem. I haven't seen any executive orders from Barry, or even demands for executive orders about this problem, has anyone else?
> 
> But wait, there is more.
> 
> *Obama Administration Handed Child Migrants Over to Human Traffickers - New York Magazine, January 29, 2016*
> 
> 
> 
> The United States government *placed an unknown number of Central American migrant children into the custody of human traffickers after neglecting to run the most basic checks on these so-called “caregivers*,” according to a Senate report released on Thursday.
> 
> In the fall of 2013, tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors traveled to the U.S. southern border, in flight from poverty and gang violence in Central America. At least six of those children were eventually resettled on an egg farm in Marion, Ohio, where their sponsors forced them to work 12 hours a day under threats of death. Local law enforcement uncovered the operation last year, prompting the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to open an inquiry into the federal government’s handling of migrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Trump said he inherited these problems, that those were Democrats policies, he was right 100%. He want's to secure the border so fewer illegals can get into the country. The leftist media and Democrats , and even some Republicans will not accept it. They don't want to secure the border, they want open border. Those who are crossing the border illegally are criminals, many of them are rapists, human traffickers, even pedophiles. And Democrats wants to protect them. And they attack Trump? And us? Not just Democrats, but leftist media, two former Flotuses, two former Presidents under whom those policies took place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody wants an open border and Obama only separated children from parents in very rare cases, super duper Dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just provided you with three articles that say otherwise, and you're still denying it.
> 
> What I do know is, today is not special occasion, you're always so stupid. But keep talking, someday you might even say something intelligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very rare cases dingbat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't say how rare, throw in some numbers, for previous admina dn this one.
> 
> However, it's OK to do it, if "your guy" does it "rarely". No reason to protest at all.
Click to expand...

There are no numbers... Very rarely very very rarely or our press would have noticed. It is not humane is against Geneva convention in these cases.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cwAA&usg=AOvVaw1anMn664CXbtG7i7NS6S4K&ampcf=1


----------



## francoHFW

Ame®icano said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let capitalism do the work.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another communist's great idea that's so good, it have to be forced on employers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in this case, it is; higher paid labor creates more in demand and pays more in taxes.  only the right wing, doesn't really care and never get's it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You failed to explain what more of demand is created?
> 
> Second, unlike communist leach such as yourself, I believe minimum wage should be zero, and also... federal tax should be zero percent and feds should be financed by the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It should be a self-evident truth for anyone who knows anything about economics.  The poor tend to spend most of their income.  Higher paid labor creates more demand by spending more when they have more money to spend.
> 
> Crony capitalists don't care about anything but their profit. Government costs.  Capitalist, "leaches" only care about profit, not cost.  And, dear clueless capitalists, it is not Your money if we have any Problems in our Republic.  Congress has the Power to Tax, for any problems the right wing whines about.
> 
> Any more Problems, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's self evident, from your posts, that you have no clue about economics. You're advertising communist models, yet can't provide the example of single one that worked.
> 
> You're saying that increase of wages create more demand, because spending is increased. Let's test it.
> 
> If labor cost increases 10 percent, and that cause increase of product price 10 percent, now much more of demand for the product is created?
Click to expand...

Of course labor is not 100% of cost, more like 10%. So you raise the salaries 100% and and price of product goes up 10%. We are dying for DEMAND IN THIS COUNTRY DUH!


----------



## francoHFW

Ame®icano said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the topic.
> 
> *Mexican kids held for months as punishment for border-crossing - Washington Post, March 11, 2015*
> 
> 
> 
> Last spring, as Central American children flooded into Texas in a way he had never seen in his three-decade career, Border Patrol agent Robert Harris decided to experiment. His intelligence analysts estimated that *78 percent of the guides smuggling other migrants were Mexicans younger than 18* — *teenagers often hired or conscripted by drug cartels that knew they would not be prosecuted if caught* — and he wanted to attack this loophole.
> 
> “Why don’t we remove these juveniles from the smuggling cycle?” Harris, the outgoing commander of the Laredo sector of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, recalled thinking.
> 
> Now, as a result of that decision, young Mexicans are being held for months without charge in shelters across the United States, sometimes without their parents’ knowledge. Since the program began in May, 536 juveniles have been held — 248 of whom have been deported to Mexico after an average stay of 75 days, according to Border Patrol statistics. Mexican authorities say *some of these repeat border-crossers have spent as much as six months in U.S. custody while they await an appearance before an immigration judge*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Information like this never appeared on Jake Tapper show or similar in leftist media. Not three years ago, not today. All they have to do is little bit of research on themselves to know that this problem with separating families did not started with Trump, and it was big problem much before he became president. There was 9th circuit court decision on this issue before Trump became president. Children have been separated from the parents before Trump became president. There were photographs of detention centers before Trump became president.
> 
> Let's continue, shall we?
> 
> *Obama administration placed children with human traffickers, report says - Washington Post, January 28, 2016*
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration failed to protect thousands of Central American children who have flooded across the U.S. border since 2011, *leaving them vulnerable to traffickers and to abuses at the hands of government-approved caretakers*, a Senate investigation has found.
> 
> The Office of Refugee Resettlement, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, failed to do proper background checks of adults who claimed the children, *allowed sponsors to take custody of multiple unrelated children, and regularly placed children in homes without visiting the locations*, according to a 56-page investigative report released Thursday.
> 
> And once the children left federally funded shelters, the report said, the agency permitted their adult sponsors to prevent caseworkers from providing them post-release services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we have an example of another of Barry's policies that Trump have to deal with. Leftist are attacking Trump for trying to end such policies that are inhumane and without compassion. It's untolerable that human trafficking could occur in our own backyard, all with approval of previous administration, and what makes it even more alarming is that US government agencies are responsible for delivering some of the victims to the hands of their abusers. No, the leftist media doesn't want to talk about this, they want to talk how Trump is Nazi, and how he separate children in concentration camps. And Barry has a gut to put the statement out the other day about Trump?
> 
> These leftist lunatics knew all along what was going on for years and they never raised the question, until Trump attempted to resolve the status quo and attack the core of the problem. I haven't seen any executive orders from Barry, or even demands for executive orders about this problem, has anyone else?
> 
> But wait, there is more.
> 
> *Obama Administration Handed Child Migrants Over to Human Traffickers - New York Magazine, January 29, 2016*
> 
> 
> 
> The United States government *placed an unknown number of Central American migrant children into the custody of human traffickers after neglecting to run the most basic checks on these so-called “caregivers*,” according to a Senate report released on Thursday.
> 
> In the fall of 2013, tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors traveled to the U.S. southern border, in flight from poverty and gang violence in Central America. At least six of those children were eventually resettled on an egg farm in Marion, Ohio, where their sponsors forced them to work 12 hours a day under threats of death. Local law enforcement uncovered the operation last year, prompting the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to open an inquiry into the federal government’s handling of migrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Trump said he inherited these problems, that those were Democrats policies, he was right 100%. He want's to secure the border so fewer illegals can get into the country. The leftist media and Democrats , and even some Republicans will not accept it. They don't want to secure the border, they want open border. Those who are crossing the border illegally are criminals, many of them are rapists, human traffickers, even pedophiles. And Democrats wants to protect them. And they attack Trump? And us? Not just Democrats, but leftist media, two former Flotuses, two former Presidents under whom those policies took place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody wants an open border and Obama only separated children from parents in very rare cases, super duper Dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just provided you with three articles that say otherwise, and you're still denying it.
> 
> What I do know is, today is not special occasion, you're always so stupid. But keep talking, someday you might even say something intelligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just stick to the facts... I know it's repetitive...truth is like that, dimwit doupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinions are not facts. Post the data, shitstain.
Click to expand...

Well in fact there are no numbers s*** head as I have linked to before several times. Learn something read something don't be a dupe.


----------



## Dragonlady

toobfreak said:


> *3800 posts later*, all we have is the usual posts from Leftards issuing verbal insults that have nothing to do with the OP and no one has admitted there can be no unacceptable human cost to controlling the borders because as soon as you set a limit beyond which is UNacceptable, you've just thrown away your borders and your nation.  The solution is to ELIMINATE THE PROBLEM. Creating an effective border barrier immediately eliminates the problem of human cost!  Everyone stays on their side and orderly, effective, legal immigration resumes.



Building a border wall is expensive and basically useless because border crossings are at such low levels. The government still hasn’t settled all the law suits from the last attempt at building a wall so there are issues with getting the land they would need. 

A wall does NOTHING to stop people from flying in with tourist or student visas and overstaying their visas, which is how most illegal immigrants enter the country. Most of the illegal drugs cross into the US by plane or boat.


----------



## Slyhunter

Dragonlady said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *3800 posts later*, all we have is the usual posts from Leftards issuing verbal insults that have nothing to do with the OP and no one has admitted there can be no unacceptable human cost to controlling the borders because as soon as you set a limit beyond which is UNacceptable, you've just thrown away your borders and your nation.  The solution is to ELIMINATE THE PROBLEM. Creating an effective border barrier immediately eliminates the problem of human cost!  Everyone stays on their side and orderly, effective, legal immigration resumes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Building a border wall is expensive and basically useless because border crossings are at such low levels. The government still hasn’t settled all the law suits from the last attempt at building a wall so there are issues with getting the land they would need.
> 
> A wall does NOTHING to stop people from flying in with tourist or student visas and overstaying their visas, which is how most illegal immigrants enter the country. Most of the illegal drugs cross into the US by plane or boat.
Click to expand...

40,000 people cross the border illegally every month. Those are the people the wall will stop.


----------



## Flopper

Dragonlady said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *3800 posts later*, all we have is the usual posts from Leftards issuing verbal insults that have nothing to do with the OP and no one has admitted there can be no unacceptable human cost to controlling the borders because as soon as you set a limit beyond which is UNacceptable, you've just thrown away your borders and your nation.  The solution is to ELIMINATE THE PROBLEM. Creating an effective border barrier immediately eliminates the problem of human cost!  Everyone stays on their side and orderly, effective, legal immigration resumes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Building a border wall is expensive and basically useless because border crossings are at such low levels. The government still hasn’t settled all the law suits from the last attempt at building a wall so there are issues with getting the land they would need.
> 
> A wall does NOTHING to stop people from flying in with tourist or student visas and overstaying their visas, which is how most illegal immigrants enter the country. Most of the illegal drugs cross into the US by plane or boat.
Click to expand...

*The Border Patrol said a big disadvantage to a wall is they can't see through.  So people can be on the other side with ladders and ropes waiting till the patrol passes.  Currently the officers can see through fences and see people approaching the boarder.

The biggest problem as you pointed out is the decreasing number of people attempting to cross the boarder and the increasing number of visa overstays.  The border does nothing to solve the visa overstay problem which accounts for about half of the undocumented immigrants and is growing.  In 25 years when there is no illegal immigrant problem and people need better access to both sides of the border, what do you do with this thing other than tear it down.*


----------



## Clementine

The left is suddenly ignoring years of Obama bragging about deporting more people than anyone.   He separated more families than anyone.

Now, the midterms are coming and the left has manufactured yet another "crisis."    That's all this is.

Suddenly, those politicians who campaigned by promising to get tough on illegal immigration are now apparently demanding open borders.    

It would seem the left is insisting that all the people pouring through our borders illegally are all innocent parents with their children.    No criminals to be found in the lot of them.   

And we are monsters for even asking them to check in at the border.    

Meanwhile, the serious issue of human trafficking is a real danger.    The MS-24 gangs, whose motto is "Kill, Rape, Control" continue to gain strength in our cities.    Drug smugglers come and go with ease.   Even weapons smugglers are finding it a breeze to do business with the gangs here in the states.    And the left wants us to welcome them all with open arms.   

We need to clamp down fast and get the border under control.    I'm sure there are deserving people we should let in.   People who do work hard and want to become U.S. citizens.    Some do want to take advantage of us.  

There is a huge backlog of people waiting to be processed.    When they sneak across the border and get caught, they should expect some hardships.   Only 1 in 5 bother to come through a legal entry port.   Yes, we should detain anyone coming illegally.   And if they are criminals who have been deported before, they should be arrested and separated from any children that are with them.    

The left didn't care about the atrocities at the border when Obama was president.   Now, Trump is supposed to roll out the red carpet for anyone coming in.     I'm sure we should have fancy housing for them to move into and no process to find out who they are or why they are here.   

The ones who get separated from children are ones who get arrested for committing a crime.   I guess the left is okay with criminals living in the family centers with all the innocent children.    Because they care, you know.   

Trump is willing to give a break to some whose only crime is crossing the border illegally.    First time is considered a misdemeanor.   Second time is a felony.    Many have been deported numerous times after committing other crimes while in the country.    But, the left wants them all treated the same.    

We should be sending as many agents to the border as possible to weed out the scum.    If we weren't spending so much money and effort trying to keep up with the scum and the animals, maybe we could do more for those who are deserving.   

The left loves chaos.    And they love fake news and inciting riots.     Here we go again with another effort from the left wing radicals to encourage violence in our streets.    It seems that this is their favorite tactic for trying to win elections. 

As far as the question in the thread title- how many Americans must be killed by illegal aliens before we secure the borders?    What human cost is acceptable for the left to win?     If the left really gives a shit about children or anyone else, you'd think national security would be a top priority, not pandering to criminals who see America as a rich target.


----------



## francoHFW

toobfreak said:


> *3800 posts later*, all we have is the usual posts from Leftards issuing verbal insults that have nothing to do with the OP and no one has admitted there can be no unacceptable human cost to controlling the borders because as soon as you set a limit beyond which is UNacceptable, you've just thrown away your borders and your nation.  The solution is to ELIMINATE THE PROBLEM. Creating an effective border barrier immediately eliminates the problem of human cost!  Everyone stays on their side and orderly, effective, legal immigration resumes.


Pass the 2010 Democratic comprehensive bill with SS ID card that cannot be faked and enforce it just like every other successful country, the only solution. The wall won't work and 58% just overstay their visas.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> I'm not one of the voices in your head. What is your point, Joe? I never said terrorists had crossed the southern border. Don't know. You're arguing a point not in contention.
> 
> Are you arguing that means there is no danger from that terrorists can walk across the border? What is your point?



I'm arguing that no terrorists ever walked across the second border, but your side (not you personally; you don't take responsibility for the things you actually say, much less the other nuts on your side) claimed that they were all disguised as Mexicans and the Southern Border was littered with abandoned prayer rugs. 



blastoff said:


> Be patient. He’ll make something up to fit his argument. It’s his M O.



Don't have to... just look at what your side said. 

Texas Lt. Gov: 'Prayer Rugs' Found On Texas Side Of Mexican Border

Now mind you, this was back in 2014, so these must be the most patient terrorists int he world.


----------



## JoeB131

Cecilie1200 said:


> I can understand that. When I was hired at my current job, there were three people doing more or less what I do, including myself. One of them was useless AND a pain in the ass. We got rid of her right after I was hired, and never missed her. A couple of months ago, the company got rid of the other guy, and I just absorbed his work. He was very nice, but I spent a good part of my day checking his work because he was careless and didn't have the best grasp of spelling and grammar. It's actually easier and faster for me to do all the work myself than to do my job and double-check his.



And did you get a 200% pay raise for taking on the work of two other people? 

I'm guessing you didn't. 

I was in a situation like that.  I joined a purchasing team of 8 people and a Material Manager in 2008.  By the time I left, it was down to three people, one of whom was only on the Purchasing Team because she was fucking her boss in Customer Service, and they had to move her. 

Despite saving the company over $400,000 over an 7 year period, including one project that improved the quality of a major product line, meh, I barely got raises that kept up with inflation. 

And this was one of the BETTER companies I've worked for.

Capitalism is a shit sandwich for most people.  Sorry you are too dumb to realize that.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Now if that will just translate into a pay raise, since I'm basically doing single-handedly what originally had three people assigned to it . . .



See, you made my point... why should they give you a pay raise?


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The government issues notes, it does not (or is not supposed to) keep what you earn and redistribute it the way they like.



Sorry, man, that's totally their job. It costs money to have civilization,and we all need to do our part.  But being a battered housewife Republican, you'll whine all day about the pittance given poor people and not about the huge giveaways the rich get. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> If my tax cuts are eaten up, then that's fine as long as it brings more jobs to the US. After all, in my line of work, I depend on successful and busy companies. The more they work, the more work they have for our company.



Why, it's not like you'll see any of that money.  

Here's how you get better pay.  You take money away from the rich and pay for public works.... Then your boss has to pay you better lest you take one of those government jobs.  

It's why every recession in history hasn't ended until we spent a shitload of government money. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> However when Democrats take, they usually give nothing in return. They take from the responsible working and give it to the irresponsible non-working or those who work very little.



Buddy, most of the money the government gives out is WHITE PEOPLE WELFARE -  Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment Insurance.  

You know, entitlements given to WHITE PEOPLE.  Those people on social security are sucking up a lot more money than a working mom getting food stamps to supplement her minimum wage job, and producing far less.  

Seriously, go fuck yourself, you racist ****. You are confused poor and don't even know it.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> This is as obvious as the nose on your face. Why would the Democrats be so hell bent on stopping the wall they would even shutdown the government for it?



Because it's a waste of money and it sends an ugly message.. Oh yeah,also bad for the environment, requires seizing private land, and won't solve the underlying problem that doesn't really exist.  You know, all that. 




Ray From Cleveland said:


> Why did they stop Kate's Law; a law that would have imprisoned foreign felons who returned after deportation?



Because we don't have enough room in the prisons for real criminals, much less misdemeanors. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Why would they be fighting like hell to keep their sanctuary cities?



Because ICE can't be trusted.  They are going after resident aliens and even naturalized citizens now.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> There is only one reason for this, because it sure as hell doesn't benefit this country--it benefits the Democrat party.



Actually, there are a lot of benefits to undocumented labor... they take the jobs Americans won't. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> When did the Republicans ever use racism to sell capitalism? Have any examples? We've been a capitalist society for many years Joe.



And we've been racist for our entire fucking history. Imagine that.  

Ronald Reagan didn't go out in 2008 and talk about 'Hey, you are going to work harder for less money because I'm going to make it easier to bust up your union and ship your job overseas!"  

He ran talking about "Welfare Queens" and "Young Bucks"... and you stupid fucks bought it.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> It's not a new concept. If you didn't get ahead in the capitalist system, it probably means you never been involved in capitalism. You get your paycheck, spend it or save some, and never invest a dime of your personal money outside of a savings account.



Buddy, sweetie, i probably make more money than you do.  I don't live in a slum like you do.  ANd I can get Health Insurance.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not one of the voices in your head. What is your point, Joe? I never said terrorists had crossed the southern border. Don't know. You're arguing a point not in contention.
> 
> Are you arguing that means there is no danger from that terrorists can walk across the border? What is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm arguing that no terrorists ever walked across the second border, but your side (not you personally; you don't take responsibility for the things you actually say, much less the other nuts on your side) claimed that they were all disguised as Mexicans and the Southern Border was littered with abandoned prayer rugs
> 
> You're too nuts for me this morning.  That doesn't make sense like your last post didn't.  Just inane prattling
Click to expand...


----------



## danielpalos

Ame®icano said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich earned their wealth?  Are you that stupid?  The Walton’s earned nothing. Sam Walton earned their wealth. The Waltons sit on their asses and collect dividends off the work if others.
> 
> The rich have a tax code that keeps wealth flowing to the top. They have labour laws which allow them to deny health care or benefits to workers, and to pay them so little their workers need welfare to supplement their incomes.
> 
> They appoint a burger flipper as “manager” so they can work him/her 60 hours a week without paying overtime.
> 
> Other countries put their people first. America puts their corporations first, and the wealthy second. Working men and women, who make up the vast majority of your population are denigrated, abused and paid the least amount possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Envy is a bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop whining about a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how lefties always settle for a minimum, even if/when minimum is increased.
Click to expand...

even funnier how the right wing even envies a minimum wage enough to whine about the cost.


----------



## danielpalos

Ame®icano said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is to persuade the parents to waive a trial and plead guilty. Once they plead guilty, their deportation can be expedited and they will be united with their children in few days or weeks.  If they ask for their day in court, they won't see their children for months, or up to 1 year and they are told this.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of crap.
> 
> If that is the "real reason" and if Barry hasn't done anything wrong by doing it (with your silent approval), than Trump is doing nothing wrong neither.
> 
> Kids don't belong to jail. Their parents are lawbreakers, not them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The Obama administration placed nearly 90,000 children with a sponsor, after they were detained at the border without a legal guardian. The only time children split from their family under Obama was if the adult was suspected of not being a guardian, had an outstanding warrant, or federal agents suspected the adult of another serious crime like trafficking or smuggling.
> 
> The Trump administration policy was to separate all children from their parents with no exceptions and if there had not been the outcry from the public and pressure from congress he would still be doing it.  No law compelled him to do it.  He did as deterrent and to speed up deportations.  His actions were so deplorable that even his wife and daughter spoke out against it.
> *
> *Not real news: The truth about volcanic gems, and immigrant kids placed into care under Obama*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're parroting Schumer's talking points that President can solve the problem with his pen. Sure he can, under the Section 212F of INA, President have full authority to shut down all immigration when he deems it of national interest. Just so you know and you don't complain about it later.
> 
> Now, let's talk about what you said: "*No law compelled him to do it."*
> 
> Back in 1997, there was law where they agree that we cannot detain unaccompanied children. Now, have you heard of Barry appointee district judge Dolly Gee? Not so long ago, in June 2016 she applied the 1997 agreement of not detaining unaccompanied children to all children, including when they cross the border illegally with their parents. You lefties are simply ignoring the law and going solely by the interpretation of the law from one leftist district judge.
> 
> The fact is, what president is doing is completely within a law. You lefties and your media are saying there is no such law and having meltdown over it. What you pretty much "forced" Trump to sign is gonna hit you in the ass. Yeah, you may celebrate the "victory", but it's not going to last. What's going to happen is, if Trump can't separate the families while they're being processed, he'll keep them together and deport them together before 20 days of legally being detained expire.
> 
> I know you lefties don't care about sovereignty of this country, but there are plenty of us who does including the president. He can stop all the immigration into the country, family based, employment based etc. He can reject every asylum at the border and redirect all asylum claims to be filed in US Embassies. You lefties surely don't want that, but you just might get it.
> 
> "The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty. The right to do so stems not alone from legislative power, but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation." - Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> should we start with, "misuse of process"?  10USC246 has precedent whenever the "security of our free States", is involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how many joined the armed forces to ensure the security of the free state?
> 
> I got one for you.
> 
> 8 U.S.C. §1182(f) of the U.S. Code confers on the president the power to turn away immigrants at the border. It provides:
> 
> Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Click to expand...

do we have alleged Wars on crime, drugs, and terror or not, right wingers.

10USC246 takes, State security and Union security, precedence.


----------



## Slyhunter

Flopper said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *3800 posts later*, all we have is the usual posts from Leftards issuing verbal insults that have nothing to do with the OP and no one has admitted there can be no unacceptable human cost to controlling the borders because as soon as you set a limit beyond which is UNacceptable, you've just thrown away your borders and your nation.  The solution is to ELIMINATE THE PROBLEM. Creating an effective border barrier immediately eliminates the problem of human cost!  Everyone stays on their side and orderly, effective, legal immigration resumes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Building a border wall is expensive and basically useless because border crossings are at such low levels. The government still hasn’t settled all the law suits from the last attempt at building a wall so there are issues with getting the land they would need.
> 
> A wall does NOTHING to stop people from flying in with tourist or student visas and overstaying their visas, which is how most illegal immigrants enter the country. Most of the illegal drugs cross into the US by plane or boat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The Border Patrol said a big disadvantage to a wall is they can't see through.  So people can be on the other side with ladders and ropes waiting till the patrol passes.  Currently the officers can see through fences and see people approaching the boarder.
> 
> The biggest problem as you pointed out is the decreasing number of people attempting to cross the boarder and the increasing number of visa overstays.  The border does nothing to solve the visa overstay problem which accounts for about half of the undocumented immigrants and is growing.  In 25 years when there is no illegal immigrant problem and people need better access to both sides of the border, what do you do with this thing other than tear it down.*
Click to expand...

The trash cross the border illegally, it's the trash we want to keep out.
The visa overstay is a different problem to be handled differently and separately from the illegal border crossers.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *3800 posts later*, all we have is the usual posts from Leftards issuing verbal insults that have nothing to do with the OP and no one has admitted there can be no unacceptable human cost to controlling the borders because as soon as you set a limit beyond which is UNacceptable, you've just thrown away your borders and your nation.  The solution is to ELIMINATE THE PROBLEM. Creating an effective border barrier immediately eliminates the problem of human cost!  Everyone stays on their side and orderly, effective, legal immigration resumes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Building a border wall is expensive and basically useless because border crossings are at such low levels. The government still hasn’t settled all the law suits from the last attempt at building a wall so there are issues with getting the land they would need.
> 
> A wall does NOTHING to stop people from flying in with tourist or student visas and overstaying their visas, which is how most illegal immigrants enter the country. Most of the illegal drugs cross into the US by plane or boat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The Border Patrol said a big disadvantage to a wall is they can't see through.  So people can be on the other side with ladders and ropes waiting till the patrol passes.  Currently the officers can see through fences and see people approaching the boarder.
> 
> The biggest problem as you pointed out is the decreasing number of people attempting to cross the boarder and the increasing number of visa overstays.  The border does nothing to solve the visa overstay problem which accounts for about half of the undocumented immigrants and is growing.  In 25 years when there is no illegal immigrant problem and people need better access to both sides of the border, what do you do with this thing other than tear it down.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The trash cross the border illegally, it's the trash we want to keep out.
> The visa overstay is a different problem to be handled differently and separately from the illegal border crossers.
Click to expand...

People, right wingers.


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeB131 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand that. When I was hired at my current job, there were three people doing more or less what I do, including myself. One of them was useless AND a pain in the ass. We got rid of her right after I was hired, and never missed her. A couple of months ago, the company got rid of the other guy, and I just absorbed his work. He was very nice, but I spent a good part of my day checking his work because he was careless and didn't have the best grasp of spelling and grammar. It's actually easier and faster for me to do all the work myself than to do my job and double-check his.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And did you get a 200% pay raise for taking on the work of two other people?
> 
> I'm guessing you didn't.
> 
> I was in a situation like that.  I joined a purchasing team of 8 people and a Material Manager in 2008.  By the time I left, it was down to three people, one of whom was only on the Purchasing Team because she was fucking her boss in Customer Service, and they had to move her.
> 
> Despite saving the company over $400,000 over an 7 year period, including one project that improved the quality of a major product line, meh, I barely got raises that kept up with inflation.
> 
> And this was one of the BETTER companies I've worked for.
> 
> Capitalism is a shit sandwich for most people.  Sorry you are too dumb to realize that.
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now if that will just translate into a pay raise, since I'm basically doing single-handedly what originally had three people assigned to it . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, you made my point... why should they give you a pay raise?
Click to expand...

I was given an opportunity by someone who tested my abilities and then hired me when others wouldn't give me the time of day. He then gave me a company car on the first day of employment. Then a company expense account, and a company pager. In time he reimbursed me for expenses on a cell phone. Back 1992 I made $10.00 an hour.

He put me answering phones even though I was a programmer. I was bi-polar, didn't know it, and impatient. So between phone calls I used VB to create a program that would do a fast lookup of third party settings. He put my program on the line for Help desk and promoted me to field service tech without a pay raise.

I travelled the country solving customers problems. There was a 15-30 hour update that I had to do for drug interactions.  I had to sit there and watch the computer while it works in case it crashed and then hit ctrl-c then cancel to pop it past the error. I also had to change disks in drive A 3 times when the computer requested it. I created a directory and copied all the floppy files to that directory then made the computer think that directory was drive A. Then I looked at the data file, I had no access to the source code of the update software, but I found a space after the year in the data file which is what was causing the crash, so I removed it. I picked up 5 computers from 5 customers on a Friday night and installed them back on a Sunday night before they opened on Monday. Boss decided to keep me out longer, when I was in New Hampshire, so he sent someone out with more parts for repairs and that person discovered me drunk in the Hotel bar instead of watching the computers. He Immediately called me back using that guy to finish my work. I showed the boss what I did when I got back and he promoted me to the Programming department with no pay raise and a loss of my expense account, but I kept the car and the cell phone. 

The program was screwed, written in spaghetti code. I fixed the accounting program they had been working for years on and couldn't fix. I would run into problems where my fellow programmers would tell me "were not allowed to do that", I'd do it anyhow because it was what was needed to fix the program. I convinced my boss in the creation of the testing dept and he put me in charge of it with no increase in pay.

Boss would joke that it took me forever to write anything so if you want it fast you give it to someone else. But if you want it right you give it to me. I was a perfectionist and it was rare anyones program made it past me the first time without rewrites. 

Anyhow there was a situation where the guy who was on call didn't answer the call and then they couldn't reach me because I was in a strip club and my phone didn't have signal while in the club. Boss gave me ultimatum, as long as I had company car I would be on call 24/7. I told him to take the car and stuff it up his ass. So he did. 
Then he gave me two weeks off without pay. I told unemployment he fired me and lived on it for a couple of months. Then I moved to Florida and became a assembly line worker. If I had gone back to him and apologized he would've hired me back. My pride wouldn't let me. If I had been properly diagnosed with bipolar disorder back then and properly medicated maybe things would've been different. I have not written code since then.

1992, now its 2018 and I still make $10.00 per hour.


----------



## Dragonlady

Slyhunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *3800 posts later*, all we have is the usual posts from Leftards issuing verbal insults that have nothing to do with the OP and no one has admitted there can be no unacceptable human cost to controlling the borders because as soon as you set a limit beyond which is UNacceptable, you've just thrown away your borders and your nation.  The solution is to ELIMINATE THE PROBLEM. Creating an effective border barrier immediately eliminates the problem of human cost!  Everyone stays on their side and orderly, effective, legal immigration resumes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Building a border wall is expensive and basically useless because border crossings are at such low levels. The government still hasn’t settled all the law suits from the last attempt at building a wall so there are issues with getting the land they would need.
> 
> A wall does NOTHING to stop people from flying in with tourist or student visas and overstaying their visas, which is how most illegal immigrants enter the country. Most of the illegal drugs cross into the US by plane or boat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The Border Patrol said a big disadvantage to a wall is they can't see through.  So people can be on the other side with ladders and ropes waiting till the patrol passes.  Currently the officers can see through fences and see people approaching the boarder.
> 
> The biggest problem as you pointed out is the decreasing number of people attempting to cross the boarder and the increasing number of visa overstays.  The border does nothing to solve the visa overstay problem which accounts for about half of the undocumented immigrants and is growing.  In 25 years when there is no illegal immigrant problem and people need better access to both sides of the border, what do you do with this thing other than tear it down.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The trash cross the border illegally, it's the trash we want to keep out.
> The visa overstay is a different problem to be handled differently and separately from the illegal border crossers.
Click to expand...


They’re people, human beings, fleeing for their lives.  Dehumanizing people, calling them “trash”, or “vermin” is done to make it seem reasonable to treat them badly. 

It’s not acceptable, it’s not Christian, and it violates the Constitution.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dragonlady said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *3800 posts later*, all we have is the usual posts from Leftards issuing verbal insults that have nothing to do with the OP and no one has admitted there can be no unacceptable human cost to controlling the borders because as soon as you set a limit beyond which is UNacceptable, you've just thrown away your borders and your nation.  The solution is to ELIMINATE THE PROBLEM. Creating an effective border barrier immediately eliminates the problem of human cost!  Everyone stays on their side and orderly, effective, legal immigration resumes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Building a border wall is expensive and basically useless because border crossings are at such low levels. The government still hasn’t settled all the law suits from the last attempt at building a wall so there are issues with getting the land they would need.
> 
> A wall does NOTHING to stop people from flying in with tourist or student visas and overstaying their visas, which is how most illegal immigrants enter the country. Most of the illegal drugs cross into the US by plane or boat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The Border Patrol said a big disadvantage to a wall is they can't see through.  So people can be on the other side with ladders and ropes waiting till the patrol passes.  Currently the officers can see through fences and see people approaching the boarder.
> 
> The biggest problem as you pointed out is the decreasing number of people attempting to cross the boarder and the increasing number of visa overstays.  The border does nothing to solve the visa overstay problem which accounts for about half of the undocumented immigrants and is growing.  In 25 years when there is no illegal immigrant problem and people need better access to both sides of the border, what do you do with this thing other than tear it down.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The trash cross the border illegally, it's the trash we want to keep out.
> The visa overstay is a different problem to be handled differently and separately from the illegal border crossers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They’re people, human beings, fleeing for their lives.  Dehumanizing people, calling them “trash”, or “vermin” is done to make it seem reasonable to treat them badly.
> 
> It’s not acceptable, it’s not Christian, and it violates the Constitution.
Click to expand...


What part of the Constitution does it violate?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Because it's a waste of money and it sends an ugly message.. Oh yeah,also bad for the environment, requires seizing private land, and won't solve the underlying problem that doesn't really exist. You know, all that.



Over 12 million illegals doesn't exist?  People trying to sneak into the country doesn't exist?  What rock are you living under? 

Yeah, the wall does send a message: STF out of this country.  There is nothing ugly about it.  And the Democrats are worried about wasting money?   They really got you hook, line and sinker Joe.  

The Democrats are scared of the wall because it will greatly reduce illegals and drug flow into this country.  Then they will have to think of all kinds of excuses how the reduction had nothing to do with the wall.  When are you going to come to terms that the Democrats want as many foreigners in this country that they can fit in?  



JoeB131 said:


> Because we don't have enough room in the prisons for real criminals, much less misdemeanors.



Oh, it that it?  So instead, let the real criminals roam American streets to sell drugs, rape, rob and murder Americans.  Yeah, that's the Democrat way.  



JoeB131 said:


> Because ICE can't be trusted. They are going after resident aliens and even naturalized citizens now.



Bullshit.  They are still going after illegals.  You are so dense you don't see a common denominator in all this yet?  You must be as blind as a bat.  



JoeB131 said:


> ctually, there are a lot of benefits to undocumented labor... they take the jobs Americans won't.



They take jobs Americans won't and will.  That brings down our pay scale for all Americans.  The Dummycrats have you believe the only thing these illegals do is pick grapes.  



JoeB131 said:


> And we've been racist for our entire fucking history. Imagine that.
> 
> Ronald Reagan didn't go out in 2008 and talk about 'Hey, you are going to work harder for less money because I'm going to make it easier to bust up your union and ship your job overseas!"
> 
> He ran talking about "Welfare Queens" and "Young Bucks"... and you stupid fucks bought it.



Name one thing Reagan did to make it easier to beak up unions.  Name one thing he did to send jobs overseas. 

The reason jobs went overseas is because of unions, taxation and consistent increasing expensive government regulation.  It had nothing to do with Reagan.  

And I see you couldn't answer the question.  So one more time:  when did Republicans ever use racism to promote capitalism?  



JoeB131 said:


> Buddy, sweetie, i probably make more money than you do. I don't live in a slum like you do. ANd I can get Health Insurance.



What does that have to do with what I said?  Capitalism is investments--not working a job.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Sorry, man, that's totally their job. It costs money to have civilization,and we all need to do our part. But being a battered housewife Republican, you'll whine all day about the pittance given poor people and not about the huge giveaways the rich get.



Letting people keep more of THEIR OWN MONEY is not a giveaway to anybody.  But even if we did, it's way more beneficial than giving it to people who produce nothing; people who don't create jobs; people who don't donate to charities. 



JoeB131 said:


> Why, it's not like you'll see any of that money.
> 
> Here's how you get better pay. You take money away from the rich and pay for public works.... Then your boss has to pay you better lest you take one of those government jobs.
> 
> It's why every recession in history hasn't ended until we spent a shitload of government money.



Utter bull.  Government jobs doesn't help an economy.  Take more money from the rich?  The rich already pay most of the income taxes for all of us. 



JoeB131 said:


> Buddy, most of the money the government gives out is WHITE PEOPLE WELFARE - Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment Insurance.
> 
> You know, entitlements given to WHITE PEOPLE. Those people on social security are sucking up a lot more money than a working mom getting food stamps to supplement her minimum wage job, and producing far less.
> 
> Seriously, go fuck yourself, you racist ****. You are confused poor and don't even know it



So what about the people who paid into the programs that never collected a dime?  Yeah, all those white working people who died before 65?  If you want to criticize anybody, how about the great society creator instead of all white people?  You know, one of the very kind of people you support today.  Sit there talking about getting more than you pay in, and in the same breath, talk about government healthcare.  Well WTF do you think would happen to that program?  And if and when it does, will you then be complaining that socialized healthcare is white welfare too?  Probably so.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> The Border Patrol said a big disadvantage to a wall is they can't see through. So people can be on the other side with ladders and ropes waiting till the patrol passes. Currently the officers can see through fences and see people approaching the boarder.



Well if the border patrol can't see people on the Mexican side, how are the people on the Mexican side able to see when the border patrol leaves the area?  

They got this new thing out today.  It's called cameras.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, but the reason for that is is not because they want to "Wipe out White People", but because after Nixon and the Southern Strategy, the GOP decided that they were going to play on Whit
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump even said only in strategic locations.  Now that we have this problem with people using asylum to get in, we need it more than ever now.  As for the older borders, those need to be torn down and rebuilt using the latest technology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> e insecurities...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is as obvious as the nose on your face.  Why would the Democrats be so hell bent on stopping the wall they would even shutdown the government for it?  Why did they stop Kate's Law; a law that would have imprisoned foreign felons who returned after deportation?  Why would they be fighting like hell to keep their sanctuary cities?
> 
> There is only one reason for this, because it sure as hell doesn't benefit this country--it benefits the Democrat party.
> 
> They can't tell you their real reasons, but then again, when are they ever honest with their constituents?
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, noes, we might actually be able to get you health insurance, and that would be awful!!! Here's the thing, if Capitalism weren't such a shit sandwich for those of us who do the work, then the GOP wouldn't need racism to sell it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did the Republicans ever use racism to sell capitalism?  Have any examples?  We've been a capitalist society for many years Joe. It's not a new concept.  If you didn't get ahead in the capitalist system, it probably means you never been involved in capitalism.  You get your paycheck, spend it or save some, and never invest a dime of your personal money outside of a savings account.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump said lots of things, most of them contradictory.  The Wall is complete nonsense.  It was when he first proposed and is even more so today.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if the wall is nonsense, let him build it.  Nothing could be better for the Democrat party than to allow Republicans to build this wall and have it be a complete failure.  They would be able to rub our noses in it for decades to come.  They could remind voters ever election on what a waste of money it was.
> 
> But the truth is you and I both know a wall would accomplish what we on the right want, and that is a drastic reduction in illegals and deadly narcotics coming to this country.   That's one of the things the left is afraid of. The other thing is a wall is not something they could remove.  It's there for good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Sorry about the length of the post.
> Democrats as well as a lot of republicans are against building a wall for very sound reasons.
> 
> First, it's not going to solve the illegal immigration problem or ever come close. Approximately half of the people in the country illegally are overstays of visas and the problem is getting worst not better. For every three border crossers in 1992, there was one overstay. But by 2012, visa overstays accounted for 58 percent of all new unauthorized immigrants. A wall not only will do nothing to stop these people from entering, but it may actually incentivize more people to stick around without authorization.
> 
> Illegal entries are going down and there is good reason to believe they will continue to do so as increasing demand for low wage workers in Mexico increases and border security continues to improve.  Demand for workers in the US will eventually persuade congress to increase work permits which will  increase the number of overstays and decrease illegal entries.
> 
> Second, there is no plan for the wall.  Trump has build 8 different protypes but how he plans to spend 25 billion dollars is a mystery to congress and likely his own  administration.  For example where is he going to build the wall.  Trump has said 1500 miles of the border will be wall and he also said 1,000 miles.  He said he would use reinforce fencing and he said he will replace all reinforced.  He said the wall will be 30 feet high and he said the wall will be 50 feet high.  He's not giving congress any real details except he wants 25 billion dollars to build some kind of wall somewhere along the border.  This is nuts.
> 
> Lastly, Trump has committed to building a wall fast, easy, and on schedule.  He has said this over and over.  Is that really possible?
> 
> 70% of the US border is in the hands of private individuals.  Many of the owners of larger parcels have said they will fight any attempt to seize their land.  To get just 1000 miles of right away for the wall could easy take 10 years.  Getting the land to build a freeway that covers 50 miles typical takes 5 to 7 years.  Just a few of the obstacles are a large Indian reservation which is about half in the US and half in Mexico.  The tribe has said they will fight any attempt to run a wall through the reservation.  It would take an act congress to force the tribe to accept the wall thru their land.  Then there's a water reservoir jointly managed by the US and Mexico providing water for irrigation and cattle on both sides of the border. Since this is covered by treaty, again it would take an act of congress to resolve the problem.  Then there are environmental problems which will very likely bring lawsuits from a number of organizations.  And all this is just for starters.
> 
> Then there's the untended consequences.
> Many of our border patrol officers have stated a wall has one big drawback.  You can't see through it.  People can stand behind the wall with ropes and ladders waiting for a patrol to pass and then they're over the wall.  With fences officers can observe the area for miles and spot people approaching the fence.  In cities, ladders ropes and pulleys can be used to sail over a wall.  And of course tunnels and simply flying over the wall are real possibilities.
> 
> Until the first fence was built in 1990, workers could circulate freely across the border, coming to harvest crops during the summer and then returning home in the winter. They crossed with a goal of bettering their lives south of the border, not to live in US. Prior to 1980 we had a relatively small permanent population of illegal immigrants compared to today.  However, as fencing and border patrols increased, crossing became more difficult so once people crossed they stayed longer.  If we actually complete a wall and it is really difficult to cross, it seem likely that those who come into the country will be here to stay.
> 
> Lastly, Trump will have about 2 years left on his term to build his wall which would be virtually impossible even to complete a small portion.  Maybe he would be re-elected but maybe not.  Given that republicans have never been very supported of the wall and democrats would do there best to tear it down as soon as they got control of congress, does this project really make sense? Whenever, the country has gone into a major project with cost in the many billions lasting many years, we have always had strong support from at least one party and at least acceptance from the other and generally good support from the public.  This project has none of the above.
> Why the Wall Won't Work*
Click to expand...


Sounds like a lot of excuse making to me by somebody who is against the wall. 

If the money is appropriated, then plans could be made.  Trump only makes the decision on the plans.  The plans are actually made by our border patrol and all agencies that protect our border.  I'm sure the military would be involved as well.  If you think these people and agencies are so inept they can't figure out ways intruders will try to get around this wall, you are not giving much credit where credit is due.  

This money is a pittance of our budget.  We spend more than three times the cost of the wall just to provide food stamps for one single year.  Plus when you consider how much illegals are costing us every year, the wall will pay for itself in just one year or less.  

Now if the Democrats want to try and remove a 35 billion dollar wall; especially if it shows very positive results, be my guest.  Nothing would be better for the Republican party if and when they decide to do it.  

And if we find a way to cut down on overstays, do you think these people just won't come here?  Of course not.  If we are able to do that, they will be crossing the border next, and then it will be even a bigger problem.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Border Patrol said a big disadvantage to a wall is they can't see through. So people can be on the other side with ladders and ropes waiting till the patrol passes. Currently the officers can see through fences and see people approaching the boarder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if the border patrol can't see people on the Mexican side, how are the people on the Mexican side able to see when the border patrol leaves the area?
> 
> They got this new thing out today.  It's called cameras.
Click to expand...

*They don't have to see, they just wait till they hear the parole passing.  The biggest beneficiaries of the wall will be the coyotes that have trucks, ladders, and equipment that they can adapt to the wall.  The Mexican authorities use to root these people out. Somehow, I think that cooperation is dead and gone.  *


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, but the reason for that is is not because they want to "Wipe out White People", but because after Nixon and the Southern Strategy, the GOP decided that they were going to play on Whit
> e insecurities...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is as obvious as the nose on your face.  Why would the Democrats be so hell bent on stopping the wall they would even shutdown the government for it?  Why did they stop Kate's Law; a law that would have imprisoned foreign felons who returned after deportation?  Why would they be fighting like hell to keep their sanctuary cities?
> 
> There is only one reason for this, because it sure as hell doesn't benefit this country--it benefits the Democrat party.
> 
> They can't tell you their real reasons, but then again, when are they ever honest with their constituents?
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, noes, we might actually be able to get you health insurance, and that would be awful!!! Here's the thing, if Capitalism weren't such a shit sandwich for those of us who do the work, then the GOP wouldn't need racism to sell it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did the Republicans ever use racism to sell capitalism?  Have any examples?  We've been a capitalist society for many years Joe. It's not a new concept.  If you didn't get ahead in the capitalist system, it probably means you never been involved in capitalism.  You get your paycheck, spend it or save some, and never invest a dime of your personal money outside of a savings account.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump said lots of things, most of them contradictory.  The Wall is complete nonsense.  It was when he first proposed and is even more so today.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if the wall is nonsense, let him build it.  Nothing could be better for the Democrat party than to allow Republicans to build this wall and have it be a complete failure.  They would be able to rub our noses in it for decades to come.  They could remind voters ever election on what a waste of money it was.
> 
> But the truth is you and I both know a wall would accomplish what we on the right want, and that is a drastic reduction in illegals and deadly narcotics coming to this country.   That's one of the things the left is afraid of. The other thing is a wall is not something they could remove.  It's there for good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Sorry about the length of the post.
> Democrats as well as a lot of republicans are against building a wall for very sound reasons.
> 
> First, it's not going to solve the illegal immigration problem or ever come close. Approximately half of the people in the country illegally are overstays of visas and the problem is getting worst not better. For every three border crossers in 1992, there was one overstay. But by 2012, visa overstays accounted for 58 percent of all new unauthorized immigrants. A wall not only will do nothing to stop these people from entering, but it may actually incentivize more people to stick around without authorization.
> 
> Illegal entries are going down and there is good reason to believe they will continue to do so as increasing demand for low wage workers in Mexico increases and border security continues to improve.  Demand for workers in the US will eventually persuade congress to increase work permits which will  increase the number of overstays and decrease illegal entries.
> 
> Second, there is no plan for the wall.  Trump has build 8 different protypes but how he plans to spend 25 billion dollars is a mystery to congress and likely his own  administration.  For example where is he going to build the wall.  Trump has said 1500 miles of the border will be wall and he also said 1,000 miles.  He said he would use reinforce fencing and he said he will replace all reinforced.  He said the wall will be 30 feet high and he said the wall will be 50 feet high.  He's not giving congress any real details except he wants 25 billion dollars to build some kind of wall somewhere along the border.  This is nuts.
> 
> Lastly, Trump has committed to building a wall fast, easy, and on schedule.  He has said this over and over.  Is that really possible?
> 
> 70% of the US border is in the hands of private individuals.  Many of the owners of larger parcels have said they will fight any attempt to seize their land.  To get just 1000 miles of right away for the wall could easy take 10 years.  Getting the land to build a freeway that covers 50 miles typical takes 5 to 7 years.  Just a few of the obstacles are a large Indian reservation which is about half in the US and half in Mexico.  The tribe has said they will fight any attempt to run a wall through the reservation.  It would take an act congress to force the tribe to accept the wall thru their land.  Then there's a water reservoir jointly managed by the US and Mexico providing water for irrigation and cattle on both sides of the border. Since this is covered by treaty, again it would take an act of congress to resolve the problem.  Then there are environmental problems which will very likely bring lawsuits from a number of organizations.  And all this is just for starters.
> 
> Then there's the untended consequences.
> Many of our border patrol officers have stated a wall has one big drawback.  You can't see through it.  People can stand behind the wall with ropes and ladders waiting for a patrol to pass and then they're over the wall.  With fences officers can observe the area for miles and spot people approaching the fence.  In cities, ladders ropes and pulleys can be used to sail over a wall.  And of course tunnels and simply flying over the wall are real possibilities.
> 
> Until the first fence was built in 1990, workers could circulate freely across the border, coming to harvest crops during the summer and then returning home in the winter. They crossed with a goal of bettering their lives south of the border, not to live in US. Prior to 1980 we had a relatively small permanent population of illegal immigrants compared to today.  However, as fencing and border patrols increased, crossing became more difficult so once people crossed they stayed longer.  If we actually complete a wall and it is really difficult to cross, it seem likely that those who come into the country will be here to stay.
> 
> Lastly, Trump will have about 2 years left on his term to build his wall which would be virtually impossible even to complete a small portion.  Maybe he would be re-elected but maybe not.  Given that republicans have never been very supported of the wall and democrats would do there best to tear it down as soon as they got control of congress, does this project really make sense? Whenever, the country has gone into a major project with cost in the many billions lasting many years, we have always had strong support from at least one party and at least acceptance from the other and generally good support from the public.  This project has none of the above.
> Why the Wall Won't Work*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like a lot of excuse making to me by somebody who is against the wall.
> 
> If the money is appropriated, then plans could be made.  Trump only makes the decision on the plans.  The plans are actually made by our border patrol and all agencies that protect our border.  I'm sure the military would be involved as well.  If you think these people and agencies are so inept they can't figure out ways intruders will try to get around this wall, you are not giving much credit where credit is due.
> 
> This money is a pittance of our budget.  We spend more than three times the cost of the wall just to provide food stamps for one single year.  Plus when you consider how much illegals are costing us every year, the wall will pay for itself in just one year or less.
> 
> Now if the Democrats want to try and remove a 35 billion dollar wall; especially if it shows very positive results, be my guest.  Nothing would be better for the Republican party if and when they decide to do it.
> 
> And if we find a way to cut down on overstays, do you think these people just won't come here?  Of course not.  If we are able to do that, they will be crossing the border next, and then it will be even a bigger problem.
Click to expand...

*You're making the assumption that the thing will actually be built.  The reality is that only a small part if any will be completed during the Trump administration.*


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *3800 posts later*, all we have is the usual posts from Leftards issuing verbal insults that have nothing to do with the OP and no one has admitted there can be no unacceptable human cost to controlling the borders because as soon as you set a limit beyond which is UNacceptable, you've just thrown away your borders and your nation.  The solution is to ELIMINATE THE PROBLEM. Creating an effective border barrier immediately eliminates the problem of human cost!  Everyone stays on their side and orderly, effective, legal immigration resumes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Building a border wall is expensive and basically useless because border crossings are at such low levels. The government still hasn’t settled all the law suits from the last attempt at building a wall so there are issues with getting the land they would need.
> 
> A wall does NOTHING to stop people from flying in with tourist or student visas and overstaying their visas, which is how most illegal immigrants enter the country. Most of the illegal drugs cross into the US by plane or boat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The Border Patrol said a big disadvantage to a wall is they can't see through.  So people can be on the other side with ladders and ropes waiting till the patrol passes.  Currently the officers can see through fences and see people approaching the boarder.
> 
> The biggest problem as you pointed out is the decreasing number of people attempting to cross the boarder and the increasing number of visa overstays.  The border does nothing to solve the visa overstay problem which accounts for about half of the undocumented immigrants and is growing.  In 25 years when there is no illegal immigrant problem and people need better access to both sides of the border, what do you do with this thing other than tear it down.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The trash cross the border illegally, it's the trash we want to keep out.
> The visa overstay is a different problem to be handled differently and separately from the illegal border crossers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They’re people, human beings, fleeing for their lives.  Dehumanizing people, calling them “trash”, or “vermin” is done to make it seem reasonable to treat them badly.
> 
> It’s not acceptable, it’s not Christian, and it violates the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of the Constitution does it violate?
Click to expand...

10USC246 trumps federal immigration laws, when it is really really serious.


----------



## JoeB131

Slyhunter said:


> Then he gave me two weeks off without pay. I told unemployment he fired me and lived on it for a couple of months. Then I moved to Florida and became a assembly line worker. If I had gone back to him and apologized he would've hired me back. My pride wouldn't let me. If I had been properly diagnosed with bipolar disorder back then and properly medicated maybe things would've been different. I have not written code since then.
> 
> 1992, now its 2018 and I still make $10.00 per hour.



Okay, so what was the point of that story? I mean, I feel bad for your situation, but most of your posts seem to lack compassion for others.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Over 12 million illegals doesn't exist? People trying to sneak into the country doesn't exist? What rock are you living under?
> 
> Yeah, the wall does send a message: STF out of this country. There is nothing ugly about it. And the Democrats are worried about wasting money?  They really got you hook, line and sinker Joe.



Won't keep them out of the country and is probably never, ever going to be built.  And, no 12 million undocumented workers isn't really a problem. Well, they're a problem for the GOP, because their children WILL vote and remember what assholes you were. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Oh, it that it? So instead, let the real criminals roam American streets to sell drugs, rape, rob and murder Americans. Yeah, that's the Democrat way.



Guy, we lock up 2 million people and we have the highest crime rates in the industrialized world.  Locking them up doesn't help, it actually makes it worse.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Bullshit. They are still going after illegals. You are so dense you don't see a common denominator in all this yet? You must be as blind as a bat.





Ray From Cleveland said:


> They take jobs Americans won't and will. That brings down our pay scale for all Americans. The Dummycrats have you believe the only thing these illegals do is pick grapes.



Um, guy, if you are such a loser that an illegal is a serious threat to your job, that's kind of on you.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Name one thing Reagan did to make it easier to beak up unions. Name one thing he did to send jobs overseas.



He fired the PATCO workers.   Sent a clear signal, government no longer had the working man's back.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> And I see you couldn't answer the question. So one more time: when did Republicans ever use racism to promote capitalism?



I just told you..... oh , never mind.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Letting people keep more of THEIR OWN MONEY is not a giveaway to anybody. But even if we did, it's way more beneficial than giving it to people who produce nothing; people who don't create jobs; people who don't donate to charities.



Um, yeah, it kind of is.  It costs money to have civilization.  If the rich don't pay for it, the rest of us end up doing so.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Utter bull. Government jobs doesn't help an economy. Take more money from the rich? The rich already pay most of the income taxes for all of us.



Um, no, they really don't.   Also, Income taxes are only part of the equation.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> So what about the people who paid into the programs that never collected a dime? Yeah, all those white working people who died before 65?



What about them?  They don't exist anymore.  




Ray From Cleveland said:


> If you want to criticize anybody, how about the great society creator instead of all white people? You know, one of the very kind of people you support today. Sit there talking about getting more than you pay in, and in the same breath, talk about government healthcare. Well WTF do you think would happen to that program? And if and when it does, will you then be complaining that socialized healthcare is white welfare too? Probably so.



Here's what you don't get. The reason why we have Medicare is because big insurance won't insure Nana at 65.  The old broad is going to get sick.  The reality is, Medicare has been too successful.  Before 1965, the average lifespan was about 65.  You got old, you got sick, you went broke and you died.  

Now people don't die when big business is done exploiting them... Oh, the horror of it all.


----------



## Flopper

Clementine said:


> The left is suddenly ignoring years of Obama bragging about deporting more people than anyone.   He separated more families than anyone.
> 
> Now, the midterms are coming and the left has manufactured yet another "crisis."    That's all this is.
> 
> Suddenly, those politicians who campaigned by promising to get tough on illegal immigration are now apparently demanding open borders.
> 
> It would seem the left is insisting that all the people pouring through our borders illegally are all innocent parents with their children.    No criminals to be found in the lot of them.
> 
> And we are monsters for even asking them to check in at the border.
> 
> Meanwhile, the serious issue of human trafficking is a real danger.    The MS-24 gangs, whose motto is "Kill, Rape, Control" continue to gain strength in our cities.    Drug smugglers come and go with ease.   Even weapons smugglers are finding it a breeze to do business with the gangs here in the states.    And the left wants us to welcome them all with open arms.
> 
> We need to clamp down fast and get the border under control.    I'm sure there are deserving people we should let in.   People who do work hard and want to become U.S. citizens.    Some do want to take advantage of us.
> 
> There is a huge backlog of people waiting to be processed.    When they sneak across the border and get caught, they should expect some hardships.   Only 1 in 5 bother to come through a legal entry port.   Yes, we should detain anyone coming illegally.   And if they are criminals who have been deported before, they should be arrested and separated from any children that are with them.
> 
> The left didn't care about the atrocities at the border when Obama was president.   Now, Trump is supposed to roll out the red carpet for anyone coming in.     I'm sure we should have fancy housing for them to move into and no process to find out who they are or why they are here.
> 
> The ones who get separated from children are ones who get arrested for committing a crime.   I guess the left is okay with criminals living in the family centers with all the innocent children.    Because they care, you know.
> 
> Trump is willing to give a break to some whose only crime is crossing the border illegally.    First time is considered a misdemeanor.   Second time is a felony.    Many have been deported numerous times after committing other crimes while in the country.    But, the left wants them all treated the same.
> 
> We should be sending as many agents to the border as possible to weed out the scum.    If we weren't spending so much money and effort trying to keep up with the scum and the animals, maybe we could do more for those who are deserving.
> 
> The left loves chaos.    And they love fake news and inciting riots.     Here we go again with another effort from the left wing radicals to encourage violence in our streets.    It seems that this is their favorite tactic for trying to win elections.
> 
> As far as the question in the thread title- how many Americans must be killed by illegal aliens before we secure the borders?    What human cost is acceptable for the left to win?     If the left really gives a shit about children or anyone else, you'd think national security would be a top priority, not pandering to criminals who see America as a rich target.


*Major difference between Obama on deportation and Trump is that for Obama his deportation record became a badge shame and for Trump it was a badge of honor.  Obama was labeled Deporter in Chief in 2014 by the media.  Obama pictured deportees as victims of poverty, abuse, and a failed economic system.  Trump pictures them as rapist, murders, and drug traffickers.   *


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left is suddenly ignoring years of Obama bragging about deporting more people than anyone.   He separated more families than anyone.
> 
> Now, the midterms are coming and the left has manufactured yet another "crisis."    That's all this is.
> 
> Suddenly, those politicians who campaigned by promising to get tough on illegal immigration are now apparently demanding open borders.
> 
> It would seem the left is insisting that all the people pouring through our borders illegally are all innocent parents with their children.    No criminals to be found in the lot of them.
> 
> And we are monsters for even asking them to check in at the border.
> 
> Meanwhile, the serious issue of human trafficking is a real danger.    The MS-24 gangs, whose motto is "Kill, Rape, Control" continue to gain strength in our cities.    Drug smugglers come and go with ease.   Even weapons smugglers are finding it a breeze to do business with the gangs here in the states.    And the left wants us to welcome them all with open arms.
> 
> We need to clamp down fast and get the border under control.    I'm sure there are deserving people we should let in.   People who do work hard and want to become U.S. citizens.    Some do want to take advantage of us.
> 
> There is a huge backlog of people waiting to be processed.    When they sneak across the border and get caught, they should expect some hardships.   Only 1 in 5 bother to come through a legal entry port.   Yes, we should detain anyone coming illegally.   And if they are criminals who have been deported before, they should be arrested and separated from any children that are with them.
> 
> The left didn't care about the atrocities at the border when Obama was president.   Now, Trump is supposed to roll out the red carpet for anyone coming in.     I'm sure we should have fancy housing for them to move into and no process to find out who they are or why they are here.
> 
> The ones who get separated from children are ones who get arrested for committing a crime.   I guess the left is okay with criminals living in the family centers with all the innocent children.    Because they care, you know.
> 
> Trump is willing to give a break to some whose only crime is crossing the border illegally.    First time is considered a misdemeanor.   Second time is a felony.    Many have been deported numerous times after committing other crimes while in the country.    But, the left wants them all treated the same.
> 
> We should be sending as many agents to the border as possible to weed out the scum.    If we weren't spending so much money and effort trying to keep up with the scum and the animals, maybe we could do more for those who are deserving.
> 
> The left loves chaos.    And they love fake news and inciting riots.     Here we go again with another effort from the left wing radicals to encourage violence in our streets.    It seems that this is their favorite tactic for trying to win elections.
> 
> As far as the question in the thread title- how many Americans must be killed by illegal aliens before we secure the borders?    What human cost is acceptable for the left to win?     If the left really gives a shit about children or anyone else, you'd think national security would be a top priority, not pandering to criminals who see America as a rich target.
> 
> 
> 
> *Major difference between Obama on deportation and Trump is that for Obama his deportation record became a badge shame and for Trump it was a badge of honor.  Obama was labeled Deporter in Chief in 2014 by the media.  Obama pictured deportees as victims of poverty, abuse, and a failed economic system.  Trump pictures them as rapist, murders, and drug traffickers.   *
Click to expand...


The question is are either one of them wrong?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Won't keep them out of the country and is probably never, ever going to be built. And, no 12 million undocumented workers isn't really a problem. Well, they're a problem for the GOP, because their children WILL vote and remember what assholes you were.



Which is why my stance is that the Democrat party became the anti-white party.  And who other than a stupid F would support a party that wants to make them a minority?  

The left is scared to death of a wall and with good reason: because it would work.  While it may not keep out everybody, it will keep out a good portion of them, just like our drug laws don't keep everybody off of drugs, or our rape and murder laws don't completely stop the crimes.  However laws and deterrents control those actions and bring them to a minimum.  

I mean, don't be stupid.  If the D's actually thought the wall would be a complete failure, why not let Republicans have their wall?  If it did fail (as the Democrats lie about) they would be able to rub our noses in it for decades to come.  They could remind voters every election like we are doing with Commie Care. 



JoeB131 said:


> Guy, we lock up 2 million people and we have the highest crime rates in the industrialized world. Locking them up doesn't help, it actually makes it worse.



Oh, so telling felon illegals we won't lock them up if they return after deporation would make it worse?  Then you wonder why we call you people the uninformed voters?  



JoeB131 said:


> Um, guy, if you are such a loser that an illegal is a serious threat to your job, that's kind of on you.



No, it's kind of on the anti-American losers who just want to drag people into this country for power, and to hell with the Americans.  Forget about the billions we spend catering to these people.  Forget about the income lost.  Forget about the crime they bring like MS-13.  Forget about the tens of millions of American dollars they send back home.  It's all our problem now.  It's on you (as you said).  

And when they come to C-town and start writing resumes and you have no income because you can't compete against somebody doing your job for twenty bucks, come here and tell us how that's your problem.  



JoeB131 said:


> He fired the PATCO workers. Sent a clear signal, government no longer had the working man's back.



That's exactly all I thought you had.  Nothing.  Reagan didn't do squat to unions or sending jobs overseas.  Politicians don't send jobs overseas, private companies do.  They do so when things here get too expensive to operate their business.  



JoeB131 said:


> I just told you..... oh , never mind.



Not even close. 



JoeB131 said:


> Um, yeah, it kind of is. It costs money to have civilization. If the rich don't pay for it, the rest of us end up doing so.



But the rich do pay for it.  They pay for it almost entirely. 



JoeB131 said:


> Um, no, they really don't. Also, Income taxes are only part of the equation.



Every program outside of SS and Medicare is paid by the rich. Welfare is paid by the rich.  Food Stamps is paid for by the rich.  SCHIP's is paid for by the rich, and now the poor thanks to DumBama's action of taxing cigarettes.  Medicaid is paid for by the rich.  Every federal government program is paid for by federal income taxes.  



JoeB131 said:


> What about them? They don't exist anymore.



They are the ones who pay into the program that others get because they didn't collect.  It's how these Ponzi schemes exist for a period of time.  Those working white people contribute to those programs, and when they die, it supports the part of the unpaid portion that living white people live on.  

Of course it's all stupidity since social programs have absolutely nothing to do with race; everybody who works pays into them and everybody who retires collects from them.  But if I explained that to you without using the race factor, it would't compute in your race baiting head.  



JoeB131 said:


> Here's what you don't get. The reason why we have Medicare is because big insurance won't insure Nana at 65. The old broad is going to get sick. The reality is, Medicare has been too successful. Before 1965, the average lifespan was about 65. You got old, you got sick, you went broke and you died.
> 
> Now people don't die when big business is done exploiting them... Oh, the horror of it all.



The horror if it all?  It's you that called Medicare a white welfare program--not me.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is as obvious as the nose on your face.  Why would the Democrats be so hell bent on stopping the wall they would even shutdown the government for it?  Why did they stop Kate's Law; a law that would have imprisoned foreign felons who returned after deportation?  Why would they be fighting like hell to keep their sanctuary cities?
> 
> There is only one reason for this, because it sure as hell doesn't benefit this country--it benefits the Democrat party.
> 
> They can't tell you their real reasons, but then again, when are they ever honest with their constituents?
> 
> When did the Republicans ever use racism to sell capitalism?  Have any examples?  We've been a capitalist society for many years Joe. It's not a new concept.  If you didn't get ahead in the capitalist system, it probably means you never been involved in capitalism.  You get your paycheck, spend it or save some, and never invest a dime of your personal money outside of a savings account.
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump said lots of things, most of them contradictory.  The Wall is complete nonsense.  It was when he first proposed and is even more so today.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if the wall is nonsense, let him build it.  Nothing could be better for the Democrat party than to allow Republicans to build this wall and have it be a complete failure.  They would be able to rub our noses in it for decades to come.  They could remind voters ever election on what a waste of money it was.
> 
> But the truth is you and I both know a wall would accomplish what we on the right want, and that is a drastic reduction in illegals and deadly narcotics coming to this country.   That's one of the things the left is afraid of. The other thing is a wall is not something they could remove.  It's there for good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Sorry about the length of the post.
> Democrats as well as a lot of republicans are against building a wall for very sound reasons.
> 
> First, it's not going to solve the illegal immigration problem or ever come close. Approximately half of the people in the country illegally are overstays of visas and the problem is getting worst not better. For every three border crossers in 1992, there was one overstay. But by 2012, visa overstays accounted for 58 percent of all new unauthorized immigrants. A wall not only will do nothing to stop these people from entering, but it may actually incentivize more people to stick around without authorization.
> 
> Illegal entries are going down and there is good reason to believe they will continue to do so as increasing demand for low wage workers in Mexico increases and border security continues to improve.  Demand for workers in the US will eventually persuade congress to increase work permits which will  increase the number of overstays and decrease illegal entries.
> 
> Second, there is no plan for the wall.  Trump has build 8 different protypes but how he plans to spend 25 billion dollars is a mystery to congress and likely his own  administration.  For example where is he going to build the wall.  Trump has said 1500 miles of the border will be wall and he also said 1,000 miles.  He said he would use reinforce fencing and he said he will replace all reinforced.  He said the wall will be 30 feet high and he said the wall will be 50 feet high.  He's not giving congress any real details except he wants 25 billion dollars to build some kind of wall somewhere along the border.  This is nuts.
> 
> Lastly, Trump has committed to building a wall fast, easy, and on schedule.  He has said this over and over.  Is that really possible?
> 
> 70% of the US border is in the hands of private individuals.  Many of the owners of larger parcels have said they will fight any attempt to seize their land.  To get just 1000 miles of right away for the wall could easy take 10 years.  Getting the land to build a freeway that covers 50 miles typical takes 5 to 7 years.  Just a few of the obstacles are a large Indian reservation which is about half in the US and half in Mexico.  The tribe has said they will fight any attempt to run a wall through the reservation.  It would take an act congress to force the tribe to accept the wall thru their land.  Then there's a water reservoir jointly managed by the US and Mexico providing water for irrigation and cattle on both sides of the border. Since this is covered by treaty, again it would take an act of congress to resolve the problem.  Then there are environmental problems which will very likely bring lawsuits from a number of organizations.  And all this is just for starters.
> 
> Then there's the untended consequences.
> Many of our border patrol officers have stated a wall has one big drawback.  You can't see through it.  People can stand behind the wall with ropes and ladders waiting for a patrol to pass and then they're over the wall.  With fences officers can observe the area for miles and spot people approaching the fence.  In cities, ladders ropes and pulleys can be used to sail over a wall.  And of course tunnels and simply flying over the wall are real possibilities.
> 
> Until the first fence was built in 1990, workers could circulate freely across the border, coming to harvest crops during the summer and then returning home in the winter. They crossed with a goal of bettering their lives south of the border, not to live in US. Prior to 1980 we had a relatively small permanent population of illegal immigrants compared to today.  However, as fencing and border patrols increased, crossing became more difficult so once people crossed they stayed longer.  If we actually complete a wall and it is really difficult to cross, it seem likely that those who come into the country will be here to stay.
> 
> Lastly, Trump will have about 2 years left on his term to build his wall which would be virtually impossible even to complete a small portion.  Maybe he would be re-elected but maybe not.  Given that republicans have never been very supported of the wall and democrats would do there best to tear it down as soon as they got control of congress, does this project really make sense? Whenever, the country has gone into a major project with cost in the many billions lasting many years, we have always had strong support from at least one party and at least acceptance from the other and generally good support from the public.  This project has none of the above.
> Why the Wall Won't Work*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like a lot of excuse making to me by somebody who is against the wall.
> 
> If the money is appropriated, then plans could be made.  Trump only makes the decision on the plans.  The plans are actually made by our border patrol and all agencies that protect our border.  I'm sure the military would be involved as well.  If you think these people and agencies are so inept they can't figure out ways intruders will try to get around this wall, you are not giving much credit where credit is due.
> 
> This money is a pittance of our budget.  We spend more than three times the cost of the wall just to provide food stamps for one single year.  Plus when you consider how much illegals are costing us every year, the wall will pay for itself in just one year or less.
> 
> Now if the Democrats want to try and remove a 35 billion dollar wall; especially if it shows very positive results, be my guest.  Nothing would be better for the Republican party if and when they decide to do it.
> 
> And if we find a way to cut down on overstays, do you think these people just won't come here?  Of course not.  If we are able to do that, they will be crossing the border next, and then it will be even a bigger problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You're making the assumption that the thing will actually be built.  The reality is that only a small part if any will be completed during the Trump administration.*
Click to expand...


You have to start somewhere.  I don't care who pays for it and I don't care who gets credit, just as long as we move in the right direction.


----------



## Ame®icano

danielpalos said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich earned their wealth?  Are you that stupid?  The Walton’s earned nothing. Sam Walton earned their wealth. The Waltons sit on their asses and collect dividends off the work if others.
> 
> The rich have a tax code that keeps wealth flowing to the top. They have labour laws which allow them to deny health care or benefits to workers, and to pay them so little their workers need welfare to supplement their incomes.
> 
> They appoint a burger flipper as “manager” so they can work him/her 60 hours a week without paying overtime.
> 
> Other countries put their people first. America puts their corporations first, and the wealthy second. Working men and women, who make up the vast majority of your population are denigrated, abused and paid the least amount possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Envy is a bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop whining about a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how lefties always settle for a minimum, even if/when minimum is increased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> even funnier how the right wing even envies a minimum wage enough to whine about the cost.
Click to expand...


The only minimum wage minimum I envy is zero. That's about what your labor real value is.


----------



## Ame®icano

danielpalos said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of crap.
> 
> If that is the "real reason" and if Barry hasn't done anything wrong by doing it (with your silent approval), than Trump is doing nothing wrong neither.
> 
> Kids don't belong to jail. Their parents are lawbreakers, not them.
> 
> 
> 
> *The Obama administration placed nearly 90,000 children with a sponsor, after they were detained at the border without a legal guardian. The only time children split from their family under Obama was if the adult was suspected of not being a guardian, had an outstanding warrant, or federal agents suspected the adult of another serious crime like trafficking or smuggling.
> 
> The Trump administration policy was to separate all children from their parents with no exceptions and if there had not been the outcry from the public and pressure from congress he would still be doing it.  No law compelled him to do it.  He did as deterrent and to speed up deportations.  His actions were so deplorable that even his wife and daughter spoke out against it.
> *
> *Not real news: The truth about volcanic gems, and immigrant kids placed into care under Obama*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're parroting Schumer's talking points that President can solve the problem with his pen. Sure he can, under the Section 212F of INA, President have full authority to shut down all immigration when he deems it of national interest. Just so you know and you don't complain about it later.
> 
> Now, let's talk about what you said: "*No law compelled him to do it."*
> 
> Back in 1997, there was law where they agree that we cannot detain unaccompanied children. Now, have you heard of Barry appointee district judge Dolly Gee? Not so long ago, in June 2016 she applied the 1997 agreement of not detaining unaccompanied children to all children, including when they cross the border illegally with their parents. You lefties are simply ignoring the law and going solely by the interpretation of the law from one leftist district judge.
> 
> The fact is, what president is doing is completely within a law. You lefties and your media are saying there is no such law and having meltdown over it. What you pretty much "forced" Trump to sign is gonna hit you in the ass. Yeah, you may celebrate the "victory", but it's not going to last. What's going to happen is, if Trump can't separate the families while they're being processed, he'll keep them together and deport them together before 20 days of legally being detained expire.
> 
> I know you lefties don't care about sovereignty of this country, but there are plenty of us who does including the president. He can stop all the immigration into the country, family based, employment based etc. He can reject every asylum at the border and redirect all asylum claims to be filed in US Embassies. You lefties surely don't want that, but you just might get it.
> 
> "The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty. The right to do so stems not alone from legislative power, but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation." - Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> should we start with, "misuse of process"?  10USC246 has precedent whenever the "security of our free States", is involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how many joined the armed forces to ensure the security of the free state?
> 
> I got one for you.
> 
> 8 U.S.C. §1182(f) of the U.S. Code confers on the president the power to turn away immigrants at the border. It provides:
> 
> Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do we have alleged Wars on crime, drugs, and terror or not, right wingers.
> 
> 10USC246 takes, State security and Union security, precedence.
Click to expand...


Over the constitution? Nope.


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over 12 million illegals doesn't exist? People trying to sneak into the country doesn't exist? What rock are you living under?
> 
> Yeah, the wall does send a message: STF out of this country. There is nothing ugly about it. And the Democrats are worried about wasting money?  They really got you hook, line and sinker Joe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Won't keep them out of the country and is probably never, ever going to be built.  And, no 12 million undocumented workers isn't really a problem. Well, they're a problem for the GOP, because their children WILL vote and remember what assholes you were.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, it that it? So instead, let the real criminals roam American streets to sell drugs, rape, rob and murder Americans. Yeah, that's the Democrat way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, we lock up 2 million people and we have the highest crime rates in the industrialized world.  Locking them up doesn't help, it actually makes it worse.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. They are still going after illegals. You are so dense you don't see a common denominator in all this yet? You must be as blind as a bat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> They take jobs Americans won't and will. That brings down our pay scale for all Americans. The Dummycrats have you believe the only thing these illegals do is pick grapes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, guy, if you are such a loser that an illegal is a serious threat to your job, that's kind of on you.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one thing Reagan did to make it easier to beak up unions. Name one thing he did to send jobs overseas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He fired the PATCO workers.   Sent a clear signal, government no longer had the working man's back.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I see you couldn't answer the question. So one more time: when did Republicans ever use racism to promote capitalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just told you..... oh , never mind.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Letting people keep more of THEIR OWN MONEY is not a giveaway to anybody. But even if we did, it's way more beneficial than giving it to people who produce nothing; people who don't create jobs; people who don't donate to charities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, it kind of is.  It costs money to have civilization.  If the rich don't pay for it, the rest of us end up doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Utter bull. Government jobs doesn't help an economy. Take more money from the rich? The rich already pay most of the income taxes for all of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no, they really don't.   Also, Income taxes are only part of the equation.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what about the people who paid into the programs that never collected a dime? Yeah, all those white working people who died before 65?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about them?  They don't exist anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to criticize anybody, how about the great society creator instead of all white people? You know, one of the very kind of people you support today. Sit there talking about getting more than you pay in, and in the same breath, talk about government healthcare. Well WTF do you think would happen to that program? And if and when it does, will you then be complaining that socialized healthcare is white welfare too? Probably so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's what you don't get. The reason why we have Medicare is because big insurance won't insure Nana at 65.  The old broad is going to get sick.  The reality is, Medicare has been too successful.  Before 1965, the average lifespan was about 65.  You got old, you got sick, you went broke and you died.
> 
> Now people don't die when big business is done exploiting them... Oh, the horror of it all.
Click to expand...

They don't die because they have Medicare.


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeB131 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then he gave me two weeks off without pay. I told unemployment he fired me and lived on it for a couple of months. Then I moved to Florida and became a assembly line worker. If I had gone back to him and apologized he would've hired me back. My pride wouldn't let me. If I had been properly diagnosed with bipolar disorder back then and properly medicated maybe things would've been different. I have not written code since then.
> 
> 1992, now its 2018 and I still make $10.00 per hour.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so what was the point of that story? I mean, I feel bad for your situation, but most of your posts seem to lack compassion for others.
Click to expand...

I think it had something to do with wages not keeping up with inflation.


----------



## Clementine

Flopper said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left is suddenly ignoring years of Obama bragging about deporting more people than anyone.   He separated more families than anyone.
> 
> Now, the midterms are coming and the left has manufactured yet another "crisis."    That's all this is.
> 
> Suddenly, those politicians who campaigned by promising to get tough on illegal immigration are now apparently demanding open borders.
> 
> It would seem the left is insisting that all the people pouring through our borders illegally are all innocent parents with their children.    No criminals to be found in the lot of them.
> 
> And we are monsters for even asking them to check in at the border.
> 
> Meanwhile, the serious issue of human trafficking is a real danger.    The MS-24 gangs, whose motto is "Kill, Rape, Control" continue to gain strength in our cities.    Drug smugglers come and go with ease.   Even weapons smugglers are finding it a breeze to do business with the gangs here in the states.    And the left wants us to welcome them all with open arms.
> 
> We need to clamp down fast and get the border under control.    I'm sure there are deserving people we should let in.   People who do work hard and want to become U.S. citizens.    Some do want to take advantage of us.
> 
> There is a huge backlog of people waiting to be processed.    When they sneak across the border and get caught, they should expect some hardships.   Only 1 in 5 bother to come through a legal entry port.   Yes, we should detain anyone coming illegally.   And if they are criminals who have been deported before, they should be arrested and separated from any children that are with them.
> 
> The left didn't care about the atrocities at the border when Obama was president.   Now, Trump is supposed to roll out the red carpet for anyone coming in.     I'm sure we should have fancy housing for them to move into and no process to find out who they are or why they are here.
> 
> The ones who get separated from children are ones who get arrested for committing a crime.   I guess the left is okay with criminals living in the family centers with all the innocent children.    Because they care, you know.
> 
> Trump is willing to give a break to some whose only crime is crossing the border illegally.    First time is considered a misdemeanor.   Second time is a felony.    Many have been deported numerous times after committing other crimes while in the country.    But, the left wants them all treated the same.
> 
> We should be sending as many agents to the border as possible to weed out the scum.    If we weren't spending so much money and effort trying to keep up with the scum and the animals, maybe we could do more for those who are deserving.
> 
> The left loves chaos.    And they love fake news and inciting riots.     Here we go again with another effort from the left wing radicals to encourage violence in our streets.    It seems that this is their favorite tactic for trying to win elections.
> 
> As far as the question in the thread title- how many Americans must be killed by illegal aliens before we secure the borders?    What human cost is acceptable for the left to win?     If the left really gives a shit about children or anyone else, you'd think national security would be a top priority, not pandering to criminals who see America as a rich target.
> 
> 
> 
> *Major difference between Obama on deportation and Trump is that for Obama his deportation record became a badge shame and for Trump it was a badge of honor.  Obama was labeled Deporter in Chief in 2014 by the media.  Obama pictured deportees as victims of poverty, abuse, and a failed economic system.  Trump pictures them as rapist, murders, and drug traffickers.   *
Click to expand...




So, Obama beat his chest in victory after deporting victims of poverty, abuse and a failed economic system.    Trump is focused on deporting the violent criminals.    Sounds about right.    There are too many rapists, murderers and gang members who have been deported more than once and they just come back in anytime they please.    Something has to be done.    Anyone coming in illegally needs to understand that there will be consequences and possible separations for those committing crimes.   

Human trafficking is becoming a huge problem.    The instances of people bringing children that they are not related to is up over 300%.    But, hey, we shouldn't question them or worry about the safety of children.    Even when parents have been convicted of violent crimes, we should just lead them to the family detention center and assume all will be fine.   

Trump, unlike Obama, is making an effort to keep families together IF the parents are not criminals, meaning committing crimes other than a misdemeanor border crossing.    Just don't give him any credit because he is a Republican.    

Why didn't the media stir people into a frenzy over Obama's mass deportations of these poor people after separating the children from their parents?     They knew about it, but they weren't going to turn on one of their own.    Trump hasn't done a fraction of what Obama did and yet they are acting like the end of the world is near.    Even the liberal ACLU reported the abuse of minor children in detention centers during Obama's reign.    Can't ignore it.    The radical leftists are accusing Trump of things that Obama did.   

We have laws.   We have borders.    When people bypass the legal entry ports, it should send up red flags.   The illegal aliens know damn well what they are doing.    When they sneak in, it's because they have been deported before or they know they will be rejected at the entry because they are not refugees or haven't taken any steps to start the legal process.

If we weren't wasting so much time and effort on dealing with illegal aliens, maybe we could allow more legal immigrants in.   We need to secure the border and stop letting everyone run roughshod over us.


----------



## toobfreak

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, but the reason for that is is not because they want to "Wipe out White People", but because after Nixon and the Southern Strategy, the GOP decided that they were going to play on Whit
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump even said only in strategic locations.  Now that we have this problem with people using asylum to get in, we need it more than ever now.  As for the older borders, those need to be torn down and rebuilt using the latest technology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> e insecurities...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is as obvious as the nose on your face.  Why would the Democrats be so hell bent on stopping the wall they would even shutdown the government for it?  Why did they stop Kate's Law; a law that would have imprisoned foreign felons who returned after deportation?  Why would they be fighting like hell to keep their sanctuary cities?
> 
> There is only one reason for this, because it sure as hell doesn't benefit this country--it benefits the Democrat party.
> 
> They can't tell you their real reasons, but then again, when are they ever honest with their constituents?
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, noes, we might actually be able to get you health insurance, and that would be awful!!! Here's the thing, if Capitalism weren't such a shit sandwich for those of us who do the work, then the GOP wouldn't need racism to sell it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did the Republicans ever use racism to sell capitalism?  Have any examples?  We've been a capitalist society for many years Joe. It's not a new concept.  If you didn't get ahead in the capitalist system, it probably means you never been involved in capitalism.  You get your paycheck, spend it or save some, and never invest a dime of your personal money outside of a savings account.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump said lots of things, most of them contradictory.  The Wall is complete nonsense.  It was when he first proposed and is even more so today.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if the wall is nonsense, let him build it.  Nothing could be better for the Democrat party than to allow Republicans to build this wall and have it be a complete failure.  They would be able to rub our noses in it for decades to come.  They could remind voters ever election on what a waste of money it was.
> 
> But the truth is you and I both know a wall would accomplish what we on the right want, and that is a drastic reduction in illegals and deadly narcotics coming to this country.   That's one of the things the left is afraid of. The other thing is a wall is not something they could remove.  It's there for good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Sorry about the length of the post.
> Democrats as well as a lot of republicans are against building a wall for very sound reasons.
> 
> First, it's not going to solve the illegal immigration problem or ever come close. Approximately half of the people in the country illegally are overstays of visas and the problem is getting worst not better. For every three border crossers in 1992, there was one overstay. But by 2012, visa overstays accounted for 58 percent of all new unauthorized immigrants. A wall not only will do nothing to stop these people from entering, but it may actually incentivize more people to stick around without authorization.
> 
> Illegal entries are going down and there is good reason to believe they will continue to do so as increasing demand for low wage workers in Mexico increases and border security continues to improve.  Demand for workers in the US will eventually persuade congress to increase work permits which will  increase the number of overstays and decrease illegal entries.
> 
> Second, there is no plan for the wall.  Trump has build 8 different protypes but how he plans to spend 25 billion dollars is a mystery to congress and likely his own  administration.  For example where is he going to build the wall.  Trump has said 1500 miles of the border will be wall and he also said 1,000 miles.  He said he would use reinforce fencing and he said he will replace all reinforced.  He said the wall will be 30 feet high and he said the wall will be 50 feet high.  He's not giving congress any real details except he wants 25 billion dollars to build some kind of wall somewhere along the border.  This is nuts.
> 
> Lastly, Trump has committed to building a wall fast, easy, and on schedule.  He has said this over and over.  Is that really possible?
> 
> 70% of the US border is in the hands of private individuals.  Many of the owners of larger parcels have said they will fight any attempt to seize their land.  To get just 1000 miles of right away for the wall could easy take 10 years.  Getting the land to build a freeway that covers 50 miles typical takes 5 to 7 years.  Just a few of the obstacles are a large Indian reservation which is about half in the US and half in Mexico.  The tribe has said they will fight any attempt to run a wall through the reservation.  It would take an act congress to force the tribe to accept the wall thru their land.  Then there's a water reservoir jointly managed by the US and Mexico providing water for irrigation and cattle on both sides of the border. Since this is covered by treaty, again it would take an act of congress to resolve the problem.  Then there are environmental problems which will very likely bring lawsuits from a number of organizations.  And all this is just for starters.
> 
> Then there's the untended consequences.
> Many of our border patrol officers have stated a wall has one big drawback.  You can't see through it.  People can stand behind the wall with ropes and ladders waiting for a patrol to pass and then they're over the wall.  With fences officers can observe the area for miles and spot people approaching the fence.  In cities, ladders ropes and pulleys can be used to sail over a wall.  And of course tunnels and simply flying over the wall are real possibilities.
> 
> Until the first fence was built in 1990, workers could circulate freely across the border, coming to harvest crops during the summer and then returning home in the winter. They crossed with a goal of bettering their lives south of the border, not to live in US. Prior to 1980 we had a relatively small permanent population of illegal immigrants compared to today.  However, as fencing and border patrols increased, crossing became more difficult so once people crossed they stayed longer.  If we actually complete a wall and it is really difficult to cross, it seem likely that those who come into the country will be here to stay.
> 
> Lastly, Trump will have about 2 years left on his term to build his wall which would be virtually impossible even to complete a small portion.  Maybe he would be re-elected but maybe not.  Given that republicans have never been very supported of the wall and democrats would do there best to tear it down as soon as they got control of congress, does this project really make sense? Whenever, the country has gone into a major project with cost in the many billions lasting many years, we have always had strong support from at least one party and at least acceptance from the other and generally good support from the public.  This project has none of the above.
> Why the Wall Won't Work*
Click to expand...


*Approximately half of the people in the country illegally are overstays of visas:  *Irrelevant.  That is just another issue to be dealt with separately.

*Illegal entries are going down and there is good reason to believe they will continue to do so:  *Irrelevant.  It still will never stop and one must control one's borders.

*Second, there is no plan for the wall:  *Not quite true,  just that there are many options being left open pending getting closer to Congress taking serious action to fund it.

*70% of the US border is in the hands of private individuals:  *Irrelevant.  No one owns parts of the border and it doesn't take that much land to erect a wall.  It must be done.

*A wall has one big drawback.  You can't see through it:  *Irrelevant.  Some wall designs can be seen through and there are electronic cameras.

The rest of your argument hinges on the fact that it has been hard to get started with a lot of resistance and obstacles, so why bother?  Bottom line, the wall must be built and it will be built.  America wants and needs it.  The only thing stopping the wall from being a reality today is the perpetual inertia of Congress to ever commit to doing ANYTHING because half the country wants one thing and the other half wants another, so no matter WHAT YOU DO, you're going to piss off people, and all those jackels ever think about is their own political futures because they want to retire rich senators with massive benefits and don't ever want to return to the real world where people WORK for a living!

In a way, our Congress and especially Senate are WORSE than the f----king illegal aliens themselves.  They never go away, are hugely expensive, and give little in return.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Which is why my stance is that the Democrat party became the anti-white party. And who other than a stupid F would support a party that wants to make them a minority?



Because I don't see myself in terms of race identity. I see myself in terms of class identity.  And the Republicans are not on the side of working people.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> The left is scared to death of a wall and with good reason: because it would work. While it may not keep out everybody, it will keep out a good portion of them, just like our drug laws don't keep everybody off of drugs, or our rape and murder laws don't completely stop the crimes. However laws and deterrents control those actions and bring them to a minimum.



No, the wall is stupid because it won't work.  People will just go over, under or around it like they are doing to fences now.  And when we have bridges and schools falling down all over the country, we shouldn't be wasting money on a monument to remind us what an asshole Trump is. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> I mean, don't be stupid. If the D's actually thought the wall would be a complete failure, why not let Republicans have their wall? If it did fail (as the Democrats lie about) they would be able to rub our noses in it for decades to come. They could remind voters every election like we are doing with Commie Care.



Because it will cost a lot of money we could spend on other things, and again, it shows a bad image.  The Berlin Wall disappeared a long time ago, but everyone remembers what a horrible thing it was. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> No, it's kind of on the anti-American losers who just want to drag people into this country for power, and to hell with the Americans. Forget about the billions we spend catering to these people. Forget about the income lost. Forget about the crime they bring like MS-13. Forget about the tens of millions of American dollars they send back home. It's all our problem now. It's on you (as you said).



Naw, man, it's on you because despite the obscene advantages this society gives you for being a white male, you only managed to gain ONE JOB skill in 50 years.  

The people bringing these folks into the country are the other rich white people who are the ones cheating you out of a fair wage and health insurance. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> That's exactly all I thought you had. Nothing. Reagan didn't do squat to unions or sending jobs overseas. Politicians don't send jobs overseas, private companies do. They do so when things here get too expensive to operate their business.



Again, Keep explaining this to you, and you keep pretending it didn't happen... oh, never mind.  

Keep blaming the darkies for your misery, dude. that's what you do best. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> They are the ones who pay into the program that others get because they didn't collect. It's how these Ponzi schemes exist for a period of time. Those working white people contribute to those programs, and when they die, it supports the part of the unpaid portion that living white people live on.



well, let's look at that. Widows get their payments if they die. Before Ronnie Ray-Gun reformed social security, if you were a college age kid whose parents died (like mine did when I was in college), you got a payment as well.  But got to pay for those tax breaks for rich people. 

Illegals never get deported, abortion never gets banned, gays can get married, but the Rich ALWAYS get their tax breaks.


----------



## JoeB131

Slyhunter said:


> I think it had something to do with wages not keeping up with inflation.



I thought it was because you were a white trash loser who hasn't applied himself in 25 years.


----------



## JoeB131

toobfreak said:


> The rest of your argument hinges on the fact that it has been hard to get started with a lot of resistance and obstacles, so why bother? Bottom line, the wall must be built and it will be built. America wants and needs it.



Um, no, Most Americans are against a wall. Most Americans support DACA. 

Most Americans support DACA, but oppose border wall - CBS News poll


----------



## danielpalos

Ame®icano said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich earned their wealth?  Are you that stupid?  The Walton’s earned nothing. Sam Walton earned their wealth. The Waltons sit on their asses and collect dividends off the work if others.
> 
> The rich have a tax code that keeps wealth flowing to the top. They have labour laws which allow them to deny health care or benefits to workers, and to pay them so little their workers need welfare to supplement their incomes.
> 
> They appoint a burger flipper as “manager” so they can work him/her 60 hours a week without paying overtime.
> 
> Other countries put their people first. America puts their corporations first, and the wealthy second. Working men and women, who make up the vast majority of your population are denigrated, abused and paid the least amount possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Envy is a bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop whining about a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how lefties always settle for a minimum, even if/when minimum is increased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> even funnier how the right wing even envies a minimum wage enough to whine about the cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only minimum wage minimum I envy is zero. That's about what your labor real value is.
Click to expand...

a negative number for those who have, nothing but fallacy?


----------



## danielpalos

Ame®icano said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Obama administration placed nearly 90,000 children with a sponsor, after they were detained at the border without a legal guardian. The only time children split from their family under Obama was if the adult was suspected of not being a guardian, had an outstanding warrant, or federal agents suspected the adult of another serious crime like trafficking or smuggling.
> 
> The Trump administration policy was to separate all children from their parents with no exceptions and if there had not been the outcry from the public and pressure from congress he would still be doing it.  No law compelled him to do it.  He did as deterrent and to speed up deportations.  His actions were so deplorable that even his wife and daughter spoke out against it.
> *
> *Not real news: The truth about volcanic gems, and immigrant kids placed into care under Obama*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're parroting Schumer's talking points that President can solve the problem with his pen. Sure he can, under the Section 212F of INA, President have full authority to shut down all immigration when he deems it of national interest. Just so you know and you don't complain about it later.
> 
> Now, let's talk about what you said: "*No law compelled him to do it."*
> 
> Back in 1997, there was law where they agree that we cannot detain unaccompanied children. Now, have you heard of Barry appointee district judge Dolly Gee? Not so long ago, in June 2016 she applied the 1997 agreement of not detaining unaccompanied children to all children, including when they cross the border illegally with their parents. You lefties are simply ignoring the law and going solely by the interpretation of the law from one leftist district judge.
> 
> The fact is, what president is doing is completely within a law. You lefties and your media are saying there is no such law and having meltdown over it. What you pretty much "forced" Trump to sign is gonna hit you in the ass. Yeah, you may celebrate the "victory", but it's not going to last. What's going to happen is, if Trump can't separate the families while they're being processed, he'll keep them together and deport them together before 20 days of legally being detained expire.
> 
> I know you lefties don't care about sovereignty of this country, but there are plenty of us who does including the president. He can stop all the immigration into the country, family based, employment based etc. He can reject every asylum at the border and redirect all asylum claims to be filed in US Embassies. You lefties surely don't want that, but you just might get it.
> 
> "The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty. The right to do so stems not alone from legislative power, but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation." - Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> should we start with, "misuse of process"?  10USC246 has precedent whenever the "security of our free States", is involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how many joined the armed forces to ensure the security of the free state?
> 
> I got one for you.
> 
> 8 U.S.C. §1182(f) of the U.S. Code confers on the president the power to turn away immigrants at the border. It provides:
> 
> Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do we have alleged Wars on crime, drugs, and terror or not, right wingers.
> 
> 10USC246 takes, State security and Union security, precedence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over the constitution? Nope.
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment is part of our Constitution.


----------



## Pop23

Just a quick observation:

Trump was demonized when he called the countries these illegals are fleeing from "Shitholes"

Now the left are justifying the Invasion from these Countries because they are just wanting to leave these "Shitholes".

You can't make this shit up folks, you really can't!


----------



## danielpalos

Pop23 said:


> Just a quick observation:
> 
> Trump was demonized when he called the countries these illegals are fleeing from "Shitholes"
> 
> Now the left are justifying the Invasion from these Countries because they are just wanting to leave these "Shitholes".
> 
> You can't make this shit up folks, you really can't!


It is our public policies that are helping to create, not solve the problem.


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeB131 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it had something to do with wages not keeping up with inflation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was because you were a white trash loser who hasn't applied himself in 25 years.
Click to expand...


That would hurt if I had emotions like other people. The cure for Bipolar disorder left me apathetic.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ''ghh
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're ultimately not benefiting children through policies which encourage people to put them in risky situations in order to use them as human shields.  When there are no ideal choices, you have to go with the one which is least-bad for everyone involved.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand who it is you are criticizing here.  What _policies_ encourage people to put children in risky situations?  Whose _policies?_ are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> US immigration policies which give adults a pass on incarceration and prosecution when they're caught if they have children with them only encourage more people to drag children along on their border-crossings.  The leftists' short-term, emotion-driven concept of "Awwww, the poor little kiddies" SOUNDS good - to them, anyway - but ultimately encourages people to put more children at risk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if the risk to the child is greater if they are left behind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me an example of the risk to the child being so great that it outweighs being smuggled illegally across the border, AND absolutely requires that the family sneak across the border, rather than asking for asylum through the proper legal methods.
> 
> By all means, share with me your latest hypothetical sob story that bears no relation to reality.  I'm all agog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I show you an example, you will label it a sob story that "bears no relation to reality" - I don't think you are very cognizant of the reality in some of those Central and South American countries.  I have no desire to educate you.
Click to expand...


I'll take that as an "I've got shit, but I'm such a lying sack, I'm going to pretend I just don't want to tell you."

Whenever you strap on a pair, come back for round two.  'Cause you didn't even lose this round; you just forfeited.


----------



## MikeK

basquebromance said:


> Trump manufactured the immigration issue so he can win the midterms. he is using the demise of children for his own political gain, which is sick.
> 
> [...]


The immigration issue existed to a substantial degree _long_ before Donald Trump emerged as a significant political figure.

Please be assured that he isn't without regret about this issue with the migrant children.  But it's something that must be done to finally eliminate a serious problem which has been going on for a long time.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Illegally crossing with a child used to be the golden ticket to being allowed entry and consumption of tax payer services until your "case" was sorted.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Because I don't see myself in terms of race identity. I see myself in terms of class identity. And the Republicans are not on the side of working people.



Let's see, the working people got a tax decrease and are bringing home more money now.  They will get a huge increase in their income tax refund next year.  Working people are no longer plagued with Commie Care fines.  Businesses are doing well now that regulations have been removed and they too got a tax break.  Keeping foreigners out will help increase pay offers when employers can't find the help they need paying next to nothing  

And tell us, what have the Democrats done for working people?  



JoeB131 said:


> No, the wall is stupid because it won't work. People will just go over, under or around it like they are doing to fences now. And when we have bridges and schools falling down all over the country, we shouldn't be wasting money on a monument to remind us what an asshole Trump is.



We shouldn't be funding NPR, PBS, Planned Parenthood just to name a few.  But you're complaining about spending 35 billion which is only about half of what we spend on food stamps in just one year.  



JoeB131 said:


> Because it will cost a lot of money we could spend on other things, and again, it shows a bad image. The Berlin Wall disappeared a long time ago, but everyone remembers what a horrible thing it was.



Comparing the Berlin wall to our southern border?  



JoeB131 said:


> Naw, man, it's on you because despite the obscene advantages this society gives you for being a white male, you only managed to gain ONE JOB skill in 50 years.
> 
> The people bringing these folks into the country are the other rich white people who are the ones cheating you out of a fair wage and health insurance.




And you make resumes for a living.  There are no white advantages.  Every other race of person in this country has the same opportunity as any white, in fact, better opportunities.  



JoeB131 said:


> Again, Keep explaining this to you, and you keep pretending it didn't happen... oh, never mind.



You didn't explain anything, you danced around it with no answer.  



JoeB131 said:


> well, let's look at that. Widows get their payments if they die. Before Ronnie Ray-Gun reformed social security, if you were a college age kid whose parents died (like mine did when I was in college), you got a payment as well. But got to pay for those tax breaks for rich people.
> 
> Illegals never get deported, abortion never gets banned, gays can get married, but the Rich ALWAYS get their tax breaks.



Why shouldn't they?


----------



## JoeB131

Pop23 said:


> Just a quick observation:
> 
> Trump was demonized when he called the countries these illegals are fleeing from "Shitholes"
> 
> Now the left are justifying the Invasion from these Countries because they are just wanting to leave these "Shitholes".
> 
> You can't make this shit up folks, you really can't!



Except we didn't call them shitholes or say anything to DEHUMANIZE the people who live there. 

Pointing out that there is violence, crime and poverty and those are good reasons why people want to get away from them is an honest observation. 

Calling the countries shitholes and the people who live there "animals" and "Rapists" is dehumanizing them.  

Get it?


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> We shouldn't be funding NPR, PBS, Planned Parenthood just to name a few. But you're complaining about spending 35 billion which is only about half of what we spend on food stamps in just one year.



Those things accomplish some good.  A Wall won't work, will never get built, and the minute Democrats are back in power, it will be torn down.  Not to mention it will involve seizing the private property of thousands of Americans.   



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Comparing the Berlin wall to our southern border?



Um, yeah, they were both signs of human ugliness...



Ray From Cleveland said:


> You didn't explain anything, you danced around it with no answer.



Just because you were too stupid to understand the answer after I've explained it to you 20 times, Fifty First Dates... 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Why shouldn't they?



Because civilization costs money.   I like living in a civilized society more than I hate paying taxes.    So should the rich.


----------



## JoeB131

Slyhunter said:


> That would hurt if I had emotions like other people. The cure for Bipolar disorder left me apathetic.



Yes, you guys always have an excuse.  YOu should get with Ray, he can tell you all the reasons why he can't get a job with health insurance.  

So how are you paying for your "Cure" on $10.00 a hour.  Why do I get a feeling that a government program to make sure you get your meds is involved?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Those things accomplish some good. A Wall won't work, will never get built, and the minute Democrats are back in power, it will be torn down. Not to mention it will involve seizing the private property of thousands of Americans.



Food stamps make people lazy and take any incentive away for them to improve their plight.  If not for Republican governors creating requirements to obtain food stamps, we would have just as many recipients today as we did at the heart of the recession.  

You are welcome to your opinion, but so am I.  A wall would do ten times the good food stamps ever could.  We are in charge now and were voted in to have things like a wall, and hopefully it will get built.  And if the Democrats ever want to tear it down, it would be the best issue for us Republicans going down the road to prove these little commies want to be an open border society.  



JoeB131 said:


> Um, yeah, they were both signs of human ugliness...



Only a leftist would think that a country protecting itself is ugliness.  



JoeB131 said:


> Because civilization costs money. I like living in a civilized society more than I hate paying taxes. So should the rich.



They must love it more than you, because they are paying most all of the income taxes in this country.  Sure you like a civilized society, especially when somebody else is paying for it.


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> ''ghh
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're ultimately not benefiting children through policies which encourage people to put them in risky situations in order to use them as human shields.  When there are no ideal choices, you have to go with the one which is least-bad for everyone involved.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand who it is you are criticizing here.  What _policies_ encourage people to put children in risky situations?  Whose _policies?_ are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> US immigration policies which give adults a pass on incarceration and prosecution when they're caught if they have children with them only encourage more people to drag children along on their border-crossings.  The leftists' short-term, emotion-driven concept of "Awwww, the poor little kiddies" SOUNDS good - to them, anyway - but ultimately encourages people to put more children at risk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if the risk to the child is greater if they are left behind?
Click to expand...


The parents are the ones choosing to commit the crime.   That doesn't absolve them


----------



## AZGAL

*Come in Legal:*

*Green Card through Family *

*Green Card through Employment*
*Green Card as a Special Immigrant*
*You may be eligible to apply as a… * * If you…*
Religious worker Are a member of a religious denomination coming to U.S. to work for a nonprofit religious org.
Special Immigrant Juvenile Are a child who has been abused, abandoned, or neglected by your parent and
Served as an Afghan or Iraqi translator for the U.S. government
Were employed by or for the U.S. government in Iraq on or after March 20, 2003, for at least one year
International broadcaster Are coming to work in the U.S. as a member of the media
Employee of an internationalorganization 
member or NATO-6

*Green Card through Refugee or Asylee Status*
*Green Card for Human Trafficking and Crime Victims*
*

*


----------



## AZGAL

The *Central America-4 Border Control Agreement* (*CA-4*; Spanish: _Convenio Centroamericano de libre movilidad_) is a treaty signed in June 2006 between the Central American nations of El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, establishing the free movement across borders between the four signatory states of their citizens without any restrictions or checks. Foreign nationals who enter one of the signatory countries can also travel to other signatory states by land (but not by air) without having to obtain additional permits or to undergo checks at border checkpoints. Similar to the Schengen Agreement in Europe, the CA-4 Agreement establishes a harmonized visa regime for foreign nationals travelling to the area.


----------



## AZGAL

It doesn’t look like all families apprehended by Border Patrol get separated — or even most of them. According to Border Patrol statistics, 9,485 migrants were apprehended in “family units” in May 2018 — 306 a day — while the CBP statistics on family separations suggest that 93 people were separated from their children or parents a day after the zero-tolerance directive went into effect...._Regarding immigration I am mostly conservative, but I agree with the other conservative women who spoke out...DO NOT SEPARATE THE TENDER AGE CHILDREN FROM FAMILY!!! Donate to Doctors Without Borders!!!_


----------



## AZGAL

*View Rule*

*DHS/USCIS* *RIN:* 1615-AA22 *Publication ID:* Fall 2017 
*Title:* Inadmissibility and Deportability on Public Charge Grounds 
*Abstract:*
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will propose regulatory provisions guiding the inadmissibility determination on whether an alien is likely at any time to become a public charge under section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4).  DHS proposes to add a regulatory provision, which would define the term public charge and would outline DHS’s public charge considerations.

*Agency:* Department of Homeland Security(DHS)  *Priority:* Other Significant          
*RIN Status:* Previously published in the Unified Agenda *Agenda Stage of Rulemaking:* Proposed Rule Stage 
*Major:* No  *Unfunded Mandates:* No 
*EO 13771 Designation:* Fully or Partially Exempt 
*CFR Citation:* Code of Federal Regulations.)
*Legal Authority:* 8 U.S.C. 1101 to 1103      8 U.S.C. 1182 and 1183     ...    
*Legal Deadline:*  None
*Statement of Need:*
To ensure that foreign nationals coming to the United States or adjusting status to permanent residence, either temporarily or permanently, have adequate means of support while in the United States, and that foreign nationals do not become dependent on public benefits for support.


----------



## danielpalos

10USC246 has State security precedence, whenever it is really really serious.


----------



## Indeependent

Why aren't Liberals Pussy Hatting the tyrants who made these people leave?


----------



## danielpalos

Indeependent said:


> Why aren't Liberals Pussy Hatting the tyrants who made these people leave?


it is Your right wing policies that are the underlying problem, right wingers.


----------



## Indeependent

danielpalos said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why aren't Liberals Pussy Hatting the tyrants who made these people leave?
> 
> 
> 
> it is Your right wing policies that are the underlying problem, right wingers.
Click to expand...

You mean these people are escaping from Venezuela because of Republicans in America?
Are you that f*ing stupid?


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left is suddenly ignoring years of Obama bragging about deporting more people than anyone.   He separated more families than anyone.
> 
> Now, the midterms are coming and the left has manufactured yet another "crisis."    That's all this is.
> 
> Suddenly, those politicians who campaigned by promising to get tough on illegal immigration are now apparently demanding open borders.
> 
> It would seem the left is insisting that all the people pouring through our borders illegally are all innocent parents with their children.    No criminals to be found in the lot of them.
> 
> And we are monsters for even asking them to check in at the border.
> 
> Meanwhile, the serious issue of human trafficking is a real danger.    The MS-24 gangs, whose motto is "Kill, Rape, Control" continue to gain strength in our cities.    Drug smugglers come and go with ease.   Even weapons smugglers are finding it a breeze to do business with the gangs here in the states.    And the left wants us to welcome them all with open arms.
> 
> We need to clamp down fast and get the border under control.    I'm sure there are deserving people we should let in.   People who do work hard and want to become U.S. citizens.    Some do want to take advantage of us.
> 
> There is a huge backlog of people waiting to be processed.    When they sneak across the border and get caught, they should expect some hardships.   Only 1 in 5 bother to come through a legal entry port.   Yes, we should detain anyone coming illegally.   And if they are criminals who have been deported before, they should be arrested and separated from any children that are with them.
> 
> The left didn't care about the atrocities at the border when Obama was president.   Now, Trump is supposed to roll out the red carpet for anyone coming in.     I'm sure we should have fancy housing for them to move into and no process to find out who they are or why they are here.
> 
> The ones who get separated from children are ones who get arrested for committing a crime.   I guess the left is okay with criminals living in the family centers with all the innocent children.    Because they care, you know.
> 
> Trump is willing to give a break to some whose only crime is crossing the border illegally.    First time is considered a misdemeanor.   Second time is a felony.    Many have been deported numerous times after committing other crimes while in the country.    But, the left wants them all treated the same.
> 
> We should be sending as many agents to the border as possible to weed out the scum.    If we weren't spending so much money and effort trying to keep up with the scum and the animals, maybe we could do more for those who are deserving.
> 
> The left loves chaos.    And they love fake news and inciting riots.     Here we go again with another effort from the left wing radicals to encourage violence in our streets.    It seems that this is their favorite tactic for trying to win elections.
> 
> As far as the question in the thread title- how many Americans must be killed by illegal aliens before we secure the borders?    What human cost is acceptable for the left to win?     If the left really gives a shit about children or anyone else, you'd think national security would be a top priority, not pandering to criminals who see America as a rich target.
> 
> 
> 
> *Major difference between Obama on deportation and Trump is that for Obama his deportation record became a badge shame and for Trump it was a badge of honor.  Obama was labeled Deporter in Chief in 2014 by the media.  Obama pictured deportees as victims of poverty, abuse, and a failed economic system.  Trump pictures them as rapist, murders, and drug traffickers.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question is are either one of them wrong?
Click to expand...

*Both are of course.  Illegal immigrants just like Americans are all individuals.  They are all different.*


----------



## danielpalos

Indeependent said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why aren't Liberals Pussy Hatting the tyrants who made these people leave?
> 
> 
> 
> it is Your right wing policies that are the underlying problem, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean these people are escaping from Venezuela because of Republicans in America?
> Are you that f*ing stupid?
Click to expand...

our drug war and terror war.


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeB131 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a quick observation:
> 
> Trump was demonized when he called the countries these illegals are fleeing from "Shitholes"
> 
> Now the left are justifying the Invasion from these Countries because they are just wanting to leave these "Shitholes".
> 
> You can't make this shit up folks, you really can't!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except we didn't call them shitholes or say anything to DEHUMANIZE the people who live there.
> 
> Pointing out that there is violence, crime and poverty and those are good reasons why people want to get away from them is an honest observation.
> 
> Calling the countries shitholes and the people who live there "animals" and "Rapists" is dehumanizing them.
> 
> Get it?
Click to expand...

They are shitholes. We throw money at them and instead of spreading it around and driving agriculture the few grab it and rape the sheep. Their number one problem is they are bearing children when they can't afford to feed themselves. And yes, they live like animals.


----------



## Flopper

MikeK said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump manufactured the immigration issue so he can win the midterms. he is using the demise of children for his own political gain, which is sick.
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> 
> The immigration issue existed to a substantial degree _long_ before Donald Trump emerged as a significant political figure.
> 
> Please be assured that he isn't without regret about this issue with the migrant children.  But it's something that must be done to finally eliminate a serious problem which has been going on for a long time.
Click to expand...

*Oh, nonsense,  he can detain them and deport them with their kids.  He just needs a place to put them.  The military said they can house 20,000.  

What Trump doesn't need is fuck ups coming from poor planning and management such as deporting mothers without their kids, separating kids without putting wrist bands on them, and telling parents and kids who have never used a computer, that they can communicate over the Internet.

This is the reason Trump will never be successfully.  He gives orders that are often in conflict with existing procedures or laws and then he steps out the picture and leaves it to subordinates to follow his instructions and make it work which of course they can't.        *


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> We shouldn't be funding NPR, PBS, Planned Parenthood just to name a few. But you're complaining about spending 35 billion which is only about half of what we spend on food stamps in just one year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those things accomplish some good.  A Wall won't work, will never get built, and the minute Democrats are back in power, it will be torn down.  Not to mention it will involve seizing the private property of thousands of Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing the Berlin wall to our southern border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, they were both signs of human ugliness...
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't explain anything, you danced around it with no answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you were too stupid to understand the answer after I've explained it to you 20 times, Fifty First Dates...
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because civilization costs money.   I like living in a civilized society more than I hate paying taxes.    So should the rich.
Click to expand...

What are the Democrats going to run on.
Flooding the US with people from other countries driving our wages down and sucking our government subsidies dry?
Creating insurance that nobody can afford to have?
Raise taxes?
Tax Americans and give the money to other countries to blow on their people to have more kids that require aid?
Impeach Trump?
What platforms will your folks stand on?


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeB131 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would hurt if I had emotions like other people. The cure for Bipolar disorder left me apathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you guys always have an excuse.  YOu should get with Ray, he can tell you all the reasons why he can't get a job with health insurance.
> 
> So how are you paying for your "Cure" on $10.00 a hour.  Why do I get a feeling that a government program to make sure you get your meds is involved?
Click to expand...

I'm a Vet.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Food stamps make people lazy and take any incentive away for them to improve their plight. If not for Republican governors creating requirements to obtain food stamps, we would have just as many recipients today as we did at the heart of the recession.



Bullshit.  Decline in SNAP usage has been the same in states without requirements as states with them. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> You are welcome to your opinion, but so am I. A wall would do ten times the good food stamps ever could. We are in charge now and were voted in to have things like a wall, and hopefully it will get built.



You're too dumb to realize you're being scammed. Wall's never getting built.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> And if the Democrats ever want to tear it down, it would be the best issue for us Republicans going down the road to prove these little commies want to be an open border society.



Guy, you fools are done the minute the economy sinks back into recession on Trump's watch.  People hate him with a good economy, what do you think is going to happen WHEN it sucks? 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> They must love it more than you, because they are paying most all of the income taxes in this country. Sure you like a civilized society, especially when somebody else is paying for it.



Um, no, they aren't paying anywhere near their fair share, and unlike me, most of them avoided military service.


----------



## JoeB131

Indeependent said:


> Why aren't Liberals Pussy Hatting the tyrants who made these people leave?



Because then we'd have to have a discussion about how we create these tyrannts and the demand for drugs that is causing the violence. 

But never mind, the important thing is to hate on people of color. 



Slyhunter said:


> They are shitholes. We throw money at them and instead of spreading it around and driving agriculture the few grab it and rape the sheep. Their number one problem is they are bearing children when they can't afford to feed themselves. And yes, they live like animals.



So essentially, you admit that the dehumanization is happening, and now you are trying to rationalize it.  Your concession is duly noted 



Indeependent said:


> You mean these people are escaping from Venezuela because of Republicans in America?
> Are you that f*ing stupid?



The economic sanctions we are putting on that country is contributing to the misery...


----------



## JoeB131

Slyhunter said:


> What are the Democrats going to run on.
> Flooding the US with people from other countries driving our wages down and sucking our government subsidies dry?
> Creating insurance that nobody can afford to have?
> Raise taxes?
> Tax Americans and give the money to other countries to blow on their people to have more kids that require aid?
> Impeach Trump?
> What platforms will your folks stand on?



Impeach Trump
Universal Health Care
Immigration Reform
Balancing the Budget

But you keep taking your government subsidized anti-crazy pills, you'll be fine.


----------



## JoeB131

Slyhunter said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [.
> 
> So how are you paying for your "Cure" on $10.00 a hour.  Why do I get a feeling that a government program to make sure you get your meds is involved?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a Vet.
Click to expand...


So am I. And I don't take a dime from the VA.  

So you are okay with welfare as long as it's welfare that benefits you, eh?


----------



## Indeependent

JoeB131 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why aren't Liberals Pussy Hatting the tyrants who made these people leave?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because then we'd have to have a discussion about how we create these tyrannts and the demand for drugs that is causing the violence.
> 
> But never mind, the important thing is to hate on people of color.
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are shitholes. We throw money at them and instead of spreading it around and driving agriculture the few grab it and rape the sheep. Their number one problem is they are bearing children when they can't afford to feed themselves. And yes, they live like animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So essentially, you admit that the dehumanization is happening, and now you are trying to rationalize it.  Your concession is duly noted
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean these people are escaping from Venezuela because of Republicans in America?
> Are you that f*ing stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The economic sanctions we are putting on that country is contributing to the misery...
Click to expand...

I can’t take a White Self-Guilty guy seriously.
The fact is that when bad people have weapons they behave badly.
Give me an arsenal and I won’t start a slave trade or drug cartel.
You always blame the White man which makes you dismissable.


----------



## danielpalos

Indeependent said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why aren't Liberals Pussy Hatting the tyrants who made these people leave?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because then we'd have to have a discussion about how we create these tyrannts and the demand for drugs that is causing the violence.
> 
> But never mind, the important thing is to hate on people of color.
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are shitholes. We throw money at them and instead of spreading it around and driving agriculture the few grab it and rape the sheep. Their number one problem is they are bearing children when they can't afford to feed themselves. And yes, they live like animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So essentially, you admit that the dehumanization is happening, and now you are trying to rationalize it.  Your concession is duly noted
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean these people are escaping from Venezuela because of Republicans in America?
> Are you that f*ing stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The economic sanctions we are putting on that country is contributing to the misery...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can’t take a White Self-Guilty guy seriously.
> The fact is that when bad people have weapons they behave badly.
> Give me an arsenal and I won’t start a slave trade or drug cartel.
Click to expand...

We only need Ten simple Commandment from any God; not over two thousand years and the Expense of Government, right wingers Love to complain about.


----------



## Indeependent

danielpalos said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why aren't Liberals Pussy Hatting the tyrants who made these people leave?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because then we'd have to have a discussion about how we create these tyrannts and the demand for drugs that is causing the violence.
> 
> But never mind, the important thing is to hate on people of color.
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are shitholes. We throw money at them and instead of spreading it around and driving agriculture the few grab it and rape the sheep. Their number one problem is they are bearing children when they can't afford to feed themselves. And yes, they live like animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So essentially, you admit that the dehumanization is happening, and now you are trying to rationalize it.  Your concession is duly noted
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean these people are escaping from Venezuela because of Republicans in America?
> Are you that f*ing stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The economic sanctions we are putting on that country is contributing to the misery...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can’t take a White Self-Guilty guy seriously.
> The fact is that when bad people have weapons they behave badly.
> Give me an arsenal and I won’t start a slave trade or drug cartel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We only need Ten simple Commandment from any God; not over two thousand years and the Expense of Government, right wingers Love to complain about.
Click to expand...

Can you make your post relevant?


----------



## danielpalos

Indeependent said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why aren't Liberals Pussy Hatting the tyrants who made these people leave?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because then we'd have to have a discussion about how we create these tyrannts and the demand for drugs that is causing the violence.
> 
> But never mind, the important thing is to hate on people of color.
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are shitholes. We throw money at them and instead of spreading it around and driving agriculture the few grab it and rape the sheep. Their number one problem is they are bearing children when they can't afford to feed themselves. And yes, they live like animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So essentially, you admit that the dehumanization is happening, and now you are trying to rationalize it.  Your concession is duly noted
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean these people are escaping from Venezuela because of Republicans in America?
> Are you that f*ing stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The economic sanctions we are putting on that country is contributing to the misery...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can’t take a White Self-Guilty guy seriously.
> The fact is that when bad people have weapons they behave badly.
> Give me an arsenal and I won’t start a slave trade or drug cartel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We only need Ten simple Commandment from any God; not over two thousand years and the Expense of Government, right wingers Love to complain about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you make your post relevant?
Click to expand...

it is about Morals; only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## Indeependent

danielpalos said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why aren't Liberals Pussy Hatting the tyrants who made these people leave?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because then we'd have to have a discussion about how we create these tyrannts and the demand for drugs that is causing the violence.
> 
> But never mind, the important thing is to hate on people of color.
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are shitholes. We throw money at them and instead of spreading it around and driving agriculture the few grab it and rape the sheep. Their number one problem is they are bearing children when they can't afford to feed themselves. And yes, they live like animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So essentially, you admit that the dehumanization is happening, and now you are trying to rationalize it.  Your concession is duly noted
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean these people are escaping from Venezuela because of Republicans in America?
> Are you that f*ing stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The economic sanctions we are putting on that country is contributing to the misery...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can’t take a White Self-Guilty guy seriously.
> The fact is that when bad people have weapons they behave badly.
> Give me an arsenal and I won’t start a slave trade or drug cartel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We only need Ten simple Commandment from any God; not over two thousand years and the Expense of Government, right wingers Love to complain about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you make your post relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about Morals; only the right wing, never gets it.
Click to expand...

What morals does the Left have when literally any behavior is acceptable?


----------



## danielpalos

Indeependent said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because then we'd have to have a discussion about how we create these tyrannts and the demand for drugs that is causing the violence.
> 
> But never mind, the important thing is to hate on people of color.
> 
> So essentially, you admit that the dehumanization is happening, and now you are trying to rationalize it.  Your concession is duly noted
> 
> The economic sanctions we are putting on that country is contributing to the misery...
> 
> 
> 
> I can’t take a White Self-Guilty guy seriously.
> The fact is that when bad people have weapons they behave badly.
> Give me an arsenal and I won’t start a slave trade or drug cartel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We only need Ten simple Commandment from any God; not over two thousand years and the Expense of Government, right wingers Love to complain about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you make your post relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about Morals; only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What morals does the Left have when literally any behavior is acceptable?
Click to expand...

resort to the fewest secular and temporal fallacies?  it is the Ethical way.


----------



## Indeependent

danielpalos said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can’t take a White Self-Guilty guy seriously.
> The fact is that when bad people have weapons they behave badly.
> Give me an arsenal and I won’t start a slave trade or drug cartel.
> 
> 
> 
> We only need Ten simple Commandment from any God; not over two thousand years and the Expense of Government, right wingers Love to complain about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you make your post relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about Morals; only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What morals does the Left have when literally any behavior is acceptable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> resort to the fewest secular and temporal fallacies?  it is the Ethical way.
Click to expand...

What restrictions on behavior do Liberals demand?


----------



## Muhammed

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​



Ideally, the human cost would be commensurate with the number of people who cross the border illegally. 1 million deaths for every 1 million invaders.


----------



## danielpalos

Indeependent said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We only need Ten simple Commandment from any God; not over two thousand years and the Expense of Government, right wingers Love to complain about.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you make your post relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about Morals; only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What morals does the Left have when literally any behavior is acceptable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> resort to the fewest secular and temporal fallacies?  it is the Ethical way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What restrictions on behavior do Liberals demand?
Click to expand...

Only enough to ensure Order over Chaos.


----------



## danielpalos

Muhammed said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ideally, the human cost would be commensurate with the number of people who cross the border illegally. 1 million deaths for every 1 million invaders.
Click to expand...

How is that working in the Middle East?


----------



## Indeependent

danielpalos said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you make your post relevant?
> 
> 
> 
> it is about Morals; only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What morals does the Left have when literally any behavior is acceptable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> resort to the fewest secular and temporal fallacies?  it is the Ethical way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What restrictions on behavior do Liberals demand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only enough to ensure Order over Chaos.
Click to expand...

Sure...
Pre-teen sex
Marching in public naked
Aborting babies to keep your figure
Yelling at people who disagree with you
Begging for others to pay taxes to support those who decided to party rather than study when they were in school.
The US should send billions to nations who haven’t developed in over 60 years
And more perversion to come as the months go by.
What a load of crap.


----------



## danielpalos

Indeependent said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about Morals; only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> What morals does the Left have when literally any behavior is acceptable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> resort to the fewest secular and temporal fallacies?  it is the Ethical way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What restrictions on behavior do Liberals demand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only enough to ensure Order over Chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure...
> Pre-teen sex
> Marching in public naked
> Aborting babies to keep your figure
> Yelling at people who disagree with you
> Begging for others to pay taxes to support those who decided to party rather than study when they were in school.
> The US should send billions to nations who haven’t developed in over 60 years
> And more perversion to come as the months go by.
> What a load of crap.
Click to expand...

the right wing alleges to have Faith in God, but can't obey Ten simple Commandments to avoid the Expense of Government.   And complain about taxes.  What, infidels.


----------



## Indeependent

danielpalos said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> What morals does the Left have when literally any behavior is acceptable?
> 
> 
> 
> resort to the fewest secular and temporal fallacies?  it is the Ethical way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What restrictions on behavior do Liberals demand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only enough to ensure Order over Chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure...
> Pre-teen sex
> Marching in public naked
> Aborting babies to keep your figure
> Yelling at people who disagree with you
> Begging for others to pay taxes to support those who decided to party rather than study when they were in school.
> The US should send billions to nations who haven’t developed in over 60 years
> And more perversion to come as the months go by.
> What a load of crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing alleges to have Faith in God, but can't obey Ten simple Commandments to avoid the Expense of Government.   And complain about taxes.  What, infidels.
Click to expand...

My opinion of the Far Left does not mean I have no criticism for the Far Right.
But no one the Far Right is bragging in *public* about their foibles.


----------



## danielpalos

Indeependent said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> resort to the fewest secular and temporal fallacies?  it is the Ethical way.
> 
> 
> 
> What restrictions on behavior do Liberals demand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only enough to ensure Order over Chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure...
> Pre-teen sex
> Marching in public naked
> Aborting babies to keep your figure
> Yelling at people who disagree with you
> Begging for others to pay taxes to support those who decided to party rather than study when they were in school.
> The US should send billions to nations who haven’t developed in over 60 years
> And more perversion to come as the months go by.
> What a load of crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing alleges to have Faith in God, but can't obey Ten simple Commandments to avoid the Expense of Government.   And complain about taxes.  What, infidels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My opinion of the Far Left does not mean I have no criticism for the Far Right.
> But no one the Far Right is bragging in *public* about their foibles.
Click to expand...

practicing the abomination of hypocrisy in public venues, usually means, one moral Thing.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Coyote said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unnecessary? Really?
> “Parents” get caught robbing a bank...they’re prosecuted and sentenced to years of incarceration...do they forfeit their children to “the system” due to their own actions....or do we send the children to live in their prison cell with them?
> Come on people....THINK. This is such simple shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the way the immigration system as worked before.  The children and parents are housed together until they get their hearing.  It isn't a criminal court system.
Click to expand...

That worked until we found out that many of these children were not with parents but with human traffickers.


----------



## Indeependent

danielpalos said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> What restrictions on behavior do Liberals demand?
> 
> 
> 
> Only enough to ensure Order over Chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure...
> Pre-teen sex
> Marching in public naked
> Aborting babies to keep your figure
> Yelling at people who disagree with you
> Begging for others to pay taxes to support those who decided to party rather than study when they were in school.
> The US should send billions to nations who haven’t developed in over 60 years
> And more perversion to come as the months go by.
> What a load of crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing alleges to have Faith in God, but can't obey Ten simple Commandments to avoid the Expense of Government.   And complain about taxes.  What, infidels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My opinion of the Far Left does not mean I have no criticism for the Far Right.
> But no one the Far Right is bragging in *public* about their foibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> practicing the abomination of hypocrisy in public venues, usually means, one moral Thing.
Click to expand...

Perversion is now impressed upon us.
Even expressing an opinion against perversion causes angst amongst the mentally disturbed Liberal.


----------



## danielpalos

Indeependent said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only enough to ensure Order over Chaos.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure...
> Pre-teen sex
> Marching in public naked
> Aborting babies to keep your figure
> Yelling at people who disagree with you
> Begging for others to pay taxes to support those who decided to party rather than study when they were in school.
> The US should send billions to nations who haven’t developed in over 60 years
> And more perversion to come as the months go by.
> What a load of crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing alleges to have Faith in God, but can't obey Ten simple Commandments to avoid the Expense of Government.   And complain about taxes.  What, infidels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My opinion of the Far Left does not mean I have no criticism for the Far Right.
> But no one the Far Right is bragging in *public* about their foibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> practicing the abomination of hypocrisy in public venues, usually means, one moral Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perversion is now impressed upon us.
> Even expressing an opinion against perversion causes angst amongst the mentally disturbed Liberal.
Click to expand...

that is what happens when you are not moral enough to, "take the moral high ground by resorting to the fewest fallacies."


----------



## Indeependent

danielpalos said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure...
> Pre-teen sex
> Marching in public naked
> Aborting babies to keep your figure
> Yelling at people who disagree with you
> Begging for others to pay taxes to support those who decided to party rather than study when they were in school.
> The US should send billions to nations who haven’t developed in over 60 years
> And more perversion to come as the months go by.
> What a load of crap.
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing alleges to have Faith in God, but can't obey Ten simple Commandments to avoid the Expense of Government.   And complain about taxes.  What, infidels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My opinion of the Far Left does not mean I have no criticism for the Far Right.
> But no one the Far Right is bragging in *public* about their foibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> practicing the abomination of hypocrisy in public venues, usually means, one moral Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perversion is now impressed upon us.
> Even expressing an opinion against perversion causes angst amongst the mentally disturbed Liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is what happens when you are not moral enough to, "take the moral high ground by resorting to the fewest fallacies."
Click to expand...

I guess you don’t watch TV anymore.
Anyway, I at least appreciate the fact that you admitted in the past that a member of your family is an illegal, so anything Trump does will disgust you regardless.


----------



## MikeK

JoeB131 said:


> [...]
> 
> Calling the countries shitholes and the people who live there "animals" and "Rapists" is dehumanizing them.
> 
> Get it?


People, places, and things are often referred to by the offhand use of terms which reflect their immediate and conspicuous reality.  If the condition and active nature of a place calls to mind the word, _"shit-hole,"_ there always is a reason for that.

Don't blame the messenger.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Bullshit. Decline in SNAP usage has been the same in states without requirements as states with them.



Bull.  Some have declined only because the Republican Congress reduced funding to the program. 



JoeB131 said:


> Guy, you fools are done the minute the economy sinks back into recession on Trump's watch. People hate him with a good economy, what do you think is going to happen WHEN it sucks?



Yes, people do hate him in a good economy.  In fact their hatred bleeds into the voting booth.  But that's the problem with voters today.  They vote on their representatives the same way they used to vote for their favorite American Idol contestant: how do they dress, how well do they speak, how nice looking is their family.......

Thankfully this time, people voted for real change in this country, and so far, it's working out fantastically.  



JoeB131 said:


> Um, no, they aren't paying anywhere near their fair share, and unlike me, most of them avoided military service.



The top 20% of our wage earners pay 85% of all collected income tax.  How is that not their fair share?  You people on the left are so selfish.  They never asked for acknowledgement, they never asked for a thank you, and in spite of what they pay, all you greedy liberals can do is demand more.  Embarrassing already.


----------



## JoeB131

Indeependent said:


> I can’t take a White Self-Guilty guy seriously.
> The fact is that when bad people have weapons they behave badly.
> Give me an arsenal and I won’t start a slave trade or drug cartel.
> You always blame the White man which makes you dismissable.



I agree.. we shouldn't let bad people have guns... but most mass shooters are white guys.


----------



## Indeependent

JoeB131 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can’t take a White Self-Guilty guy seriously.
> The fact is that when bad people have weapons they behave badly.
> Give me an arsenal and I won’t start a slave trade or drug cartel.
> You always blame the White man which makes you dismissable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.. we shouldn't let bad people have guns... but most mass shooters are white guys.
Click to expand...

And the hundreds of individual murders that take place every year in Nassau County are done by Black guys in Black neighborhoods where cops won't go until they're call to collect the next body.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The top 20% of our wage earners pay 85% of all collected income tax. How is that not their fair share? You people on the left are so selfish. They never asked for acknowledgement, they never asked for a thank you, and in spite of what they pay, all you greedy liberals can do is demand more. Embarrassing already.



They also have 87% of the wealth... and Income Tax isn't the only tax paid.  So they are paying less than their share and other taxes like Social Security don't really apply because they are capped.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes, people do hate him in a good economy. In fact their hatred bleeds into the voting booth. But that's the problem with voters today. They vote on their representatives the same way they used to vote for their favorite American Idol contestant: how do they dress, how well do they speak, how nice looking is their family.......
> 
> Thankfully this time, people voted for real change in this country, and so far, it's working out fantastically.



Guy, you can't whine about American Idol when you "elect" (Not Really) A Reality TV Game Show Host with no other qualifications. 

People hate Trump because he's a misogynistic, racist, Nazi cocksucker. 

That's why people hate him.


----------



## danielpalos

Indeependent said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing alleges to have Faith in God, but can't obey Ten simple Commandments to avoid the Expense of Government.   And complain about taxes.  What, infidels.
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion of the Far Left does not mean I have no criticism for the Far Right.
> But no one the Far Right is bragging in *public* about their foibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> practicing the abomination of hypocrisy in public venues, usually means, one moral Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perversion is now impressed upon us.
> Even expressing an opinion against perversion causes angst amongst the mentally disturbed Liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is what happens when you are not moral enough to, "take the moral high ground by resorting to the fewest fallacies."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you don’t watch TV anymore.
> Anyway, I at least appreciate the fact that you admitted in the past that a member of your family is an illegal, so anything Trump does will disgust you regardless.
Click to expand...

The right wing admitted in the past that they recognize the concept of natural rights and that they are unalienable.


----------



## WaitingFor2020

This is funny as shit.
Shows the Trumpanzee Kool Aid Machine in full.





 .


----------



## Indeependent

danielpalos said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion of the Far Left does not mean I have no criticism for the Far Right.
> But no one the Far Right is bragging in *public* about their foibles.
> 
> 
> 
> practicing the abomination of hypocrisy in public venues, usually means, one moral Thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perversion is now impressed upon us.
> Even expressing an opinion against perversion causes angst amongst the mentally disturbed Liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is what happens when you are not moral enough to, "take the moral high ground by resorting to the fewest fallacies."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you don’t watch TV anymore.
> Anyway, I at least appreciate the fact that you admitted in the past that a member of your family is an illegal, so anything Trump does will disgust you regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing admitted in the past that they recognize the concept of natural rights and that they are unalienable.
Click to expand...

Define "Natural Rights".


----------



## danielpalos

Indeependent said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> practicing the abomination of hypocrisy in public venues, usually means, one moral Thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Perversion is now impressed upon us.
> Even expressing an opinion against perversion causes angst amongst the mentally disturbed Liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is what happens when you are not moral enough to, "take the moral high ground by resorting to the fewest fallacies."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you don’t watch TV anymore.
> Anyway, I at least appreciate the fact that you admitted in the past that a member of your family is an illegal, so anything Trump does will disgust you regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing admitted in the past that they recognize the concept of natural rights and that they are unalienable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define "Natural Rights".
Click to expand...

The Declaration of Independence: Full text


----------



## kaz

WaitingFor2020 said:


> This is funny as shit.
> Shows the Trumpanzee Kool Aid Machine in full.
> 
> 
> View attachment 201696 .



Actually, Mexico sending drug dealers, murderers and rapists is enough  We can say stop right there ...


----------



## froggy

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


If I broke the law and robbed you and someone said I shouldn't be punished for it would you agree with him


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is funny as shit.
> Shows the Trumpanzee Kool Aid Machine in full.
> 
> 
> View attachment 201696 .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Mexico sending drug dealers, murderers and rapists is enough  We can say stop right there ...
Click to expand...

muster the militia if it is really really serious, right wingers. i dare you.  10USC246  
Frivolicity, is all the right wing knows.


----------



## Flopper

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Food stamps make people lazy and take any incentive away for them to improve their plight. If not for Republican governors creating requirements to obtain food stamps, we would have just as many recipients today as we did at the heart of the recession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  Decline in SNAP usage has been the same in states without requirements as states with them.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome to your opinion, but so am I. A wall would do ten times the good food stamps ever could. We are in charge now and were voted in to have things like a wall, and hopefully it will get built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're too dumb to realize you're being scammed. Wall's never getting built.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if the Democrats ever want to tear it down, it would be the best issue for us Republicans going down the road to prove these little commies want to be an open border society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, you fools are done the minute the economy sinks back into recession on Trump's watch.  People hate him with a good economy, what do you think is going to happen WHEN it sucks?
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> They must love it more than you, because they are paying most all of the income taxes in this country. Sure you like a civilized society, especially when somebody else is paying for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no, they aren't paying anywhere near their fair share, and unlike me, most of them avoided military service.
Click to expand...

*The major difference between a fence and a wall is that you can almost always see through a fence, at least to some degree, while a wall is solid.   Whether a wall, a fence, electronic surveillance, or a natural barrier provides the best protection depends on the situation. The real protection comes from people that guard the border because barriers only slow down intruders.  It is virtually impossible to stop people with the right equipment from crossing a barrier.  *


----------



## Indeependent

danielpalos said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perversion is now impressed upon us.
> Even expressing an opinion against perversion causes angst amongst the mentally disturbed Liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> that is what happens when you are not moral enough to, "take the moral high ground by resorting to the fewest fallacies."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you don’t watch TV anymore.
> Anyway, I at least appreciate the fact that you admitted in the past that a member of your family is an illegal, so anything Trump does will disgust you regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing admitted in the past that they recognize the concept of natural rights and that they are unalienable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define "Natural Rights".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Declaration of Independence: Full text
Click to expand...

So I get to watch 11 year old girls 90% naked walking in the mall.
How fucking sick of the Liberal, let it all hang out, mind.
And yes, I was at a mall today and I wanted to vomit.
The Liberals have succeeded in destroying whatever moral values we had.

I hate to tell you this, but State, County and Municipal Law "Trumps" Federal Law unless the Federal Law was legislated first.
It's amazing what one can learn when one reads more than just a web site.


----------



## Flopper

Tipsycatlover said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unnecessary? Really?
> “Parents” get caught robbing a bank...they’re prosecuted and sentenced to years of incarceration...do they forfeit their children to “the system” due to their own actions....or do we send the children to live in their prison cell with them?
> Come on people....THINK. This is such simple shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the way the immigration system as worked before.  The children and parents are housed together until they get their hearing.  It isn't a criminal court system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That worked until we found out that many of these children were not with parents but with human traffickers.
Click to expand...

*The term is smuggling not human trafficking. Human trafficking is the trade of humans for the purpose of forced labor, sexual slavery, or commercial sexual exploitation.  Most human trafficking is via cargo vessels and cargo vans often going through ports of entry.
Smugglers, coyotes are hired to transport people across the boarder which is very common.   In most years we have between 200,000 and 300,000 people crossing our southern boarder illegally. 

From 2008 to 2010, Federal anti-trafficking task forces opened 2,515 suspected cases of human trafficking. During those years, it's estimated that more than 1.6 million illegal immigrants entered the US.*


----------



## Coyote

In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents

WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
“Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”


----------



## BrokeLoser

Flopper said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No illegal aliens-children or otherwise-should be allowed to stay. Zero tolerance. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unnecessary? Really?
> “Parents” get caught robbing a bank...they’re prosecuted and sentenced to years of incarceration...do they forfeit their children to “the system” due to their own actions....or do we send the children to live in their prison cell with them?
> Come on people....THINK. This is such simple shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the way the immigration system as worked before.  The children and parents are housed together until they get their hearing.  It isn't a criminal court system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That worked until we found out that many of these children were not with parents but with human traffickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The term is smuggling not human trafficking. Human trafficking is the trade of humans for the purpose of forced labor, sexual slavery, or commercial sexual exploitation.  Most human trafficking is via cargo vessels and cargo vans often going through ports of entry.
> Smugglers, coyotes are hired to transport people across the boarder which is very common.   In most years we have between 200,000 and 300,000 people crossing our southern boarder illegally.
> 
> From 2008 to 2010, Federal anti-trafficking task forces opened 2,515 suspected cases of human trafficking. During those years, it's estimated that more than 1.6 million illegal immigrants entered the US.*
Click to expand...


The semantics you people love to play is flat-out facinating. You will bust your asses trying to spin, repackage and dress shit up.
Wetbacks/illegal aliens do not = Dreamers
Sorry, nobody sane buys your filthy bullshit.


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeB131 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can’t take a White Self-Guilty guy seriously.
> The fact is that when bad people have weapons they behave badly.
> Give me an arsenal and I won’t start a slave trade or drug cartel.
> You always blame the White man which makes you dismissable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.. we shouldn't let bad people have guns... but most mass shooters are white guys.
Click to expand...

Most mass shooters are white Democrats.


----------



## Coyote

Slyhunter said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can’t take a White Self-Guilty guy seriously.
> The fact is that when bad people have weapons they behave badly.
> Give me an arsenal and I won’t start a slave trade or drug cartel.
> You always blame the White man which makes you dismissable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.. we shouldn't let bad people have guns... but most mass shooters are white guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most mass shooters are white Democrats.
Click to expand...

In your dreams.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Food stamps make people lazy and take any incentive away for them to improve their plight. If not for Republican governors creating requirements to obtain food stamps, we would have just as many recipients today as we did at the heart of the recession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  Decline in SNAP usage has been the same in states without requirements as states with them.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome to your opinion, but so am I. A wall would do ten times the good food stamps ever could. We are in charge now and were voted in to have things like a wall, and hopefully it will get built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're too dumb to realize you're being scammed. Wall's never getting built.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if the Democrats ever want to tear it down, it would be the best issue for us Republicans going down the road to prove these little commies want to be an open border society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, you fools are done the minute the economy sinks back into recession on Trump's watch.  People hate him with a good economy, what do you think is going to happen WHEN it sucks?
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> They must love it more than you, because they are paying most all of the income taxes in this country. Sure you like a civilized society, especially when somebody else is paying for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no, they aren't paying anywhere near their fair share, and unlike me, most of them avoided military service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The major difference between a fence and a wall is that you can almost always see through a fence, at least to some degree, while a wall is solid.   Whether a wall, a fence, electronic surveillance, or a natural barrier provides the best protection depends on the situation. The real protection comes from people that guard the border because barriers only slow down intruders.  It is virtually impossible to stop people with the right equipment from crossing a barrier.  *
Click to expand...


Hungary would strongly disagree with you.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

WaitingFor2020 said:


> This is funny as shit.
> Shows the Trumpanzee Kool Aid Machine in full.
> 
> 
> View attachment 201696 .



Nobody ever said Mexico is ONLY sending drug dealers and rapists.  It's a lie created by the Democrat party.  It doesn't matter what you do for a living.  Illegals are in nearly every branch of blue collar work in the US.


----------



## danielpalos

Indeependent said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is what happens when you are not moral enough to, "take the moral high ground by resorting to the fewest fallacies."
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you don’t watch TV anymore.
> Anyway, I at least appreciate the fact that you admitted in the past that a member of your family is an illegal, so anything Trump does will disgust you regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing admitted in the past that they recognize the concept of natural rights and that they are unalienable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define "Natural Rights".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Declaration of Independence: Full text
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I get to watch 11 year old girls 90% naked walking in the mall.
> How fucking sick of the Liberal, let it all hang out, mind.
> And yes, I was at a mall today and I wanted to vomit.
> The Liberals have succeeded in destroying whatever moral values we had.
> 
> I hate to tell you this, but State, County and Municipal Law "Trumps" Federal Law unless the Federal Law was legislated first.
> It's amazing what one can learn when one reads more than just a web site.
Click to expand...

dude; if sex is the Problem, the problem is You.  Sex is Natural not Religious.

Doing what comes naturally, is all the right wing seems to know.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> They also have 87% of the wealth... and Income Tax isn't the only tax paid. So they are paying less than their share and other taxes like Social Security don't really apply because they are capped.



And they are getting less from such taxes as well.  Do you really think that somebody that maxes out on SS contributions every year collects SS when they retire?  It's a pittance to them and not worth their time.  It's money that goes to people that depend on the program for survival. 

Most all of your payroll taxes you get back (and even more) if you live the average lifespan in the US.  You get all your SS back, you get all your Medicare contributions back, you get your FISA all back since FISA is nothing more than a cute acronym for SS, you get services from your state and local taxes paid.  

However income taxes are what funds most everything else for society.  It funds our military, it funds all our other social programs, it funds our roads, bridges and airports, it funds our post office, it funds Washington, the politicians, the worthless bureaucracies, income taxes fund everything else, and the wealthy pay almost all of those taxes.  





JoeB131 said:


> Guy, you can't whine about American Idol when you "elect" (Not Really) A Reality TV Game Show Host with no other qualifications.
> 
> People hate Trump because he's a misogynistic, racist, Nazi cocksucker.
> 
> That's why people hate him.



And thank you for supporting my point.  People don't vote on politicians based on their abilities, they vote on them based on how much they like them or not.  Imagine what a failure our businesses would be if they hired and fired people based on that alone.  They have great workers producing satisfactory profit for the company, but they are not personable, so the company fires them and gets workers who are poor performers but well liked.  

That's why I think we need to limit voting in this country.  Only people who could pass a simple test of political and policy knowledge be allowed to vote.  Of course the Republicans would love that.  The Democrats would be rioting in the streets.


----------



## Indeependent

danielpalos said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you don’t watch TV anymore.
> Anyway, I at least appreciate the fact that you admitted in the past that a member of your family is an illegal, so anything Trump does will disgust you regardless.
> 
> 
> 
> The right wing admitted in the past that they recognize the concept of natural rights and that they are unalienable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define "Natural Rights".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Declaration of Independence: Full text
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I get to watch 11 year old girls 90% naked walking in the mall.
> How fucking sick of the Liberal, let it all hang out, mind.
> And yes, I was at a mall today and I wanted to vomit.
> The Liberals have succeeded in destroying whatever moral values we had.
> 
> I hate to tell you this, but State, County and Municipal Law "Trumps" Federal Law unless the Federal Law was legislated first.
> It's amazing what one can learn when one reads more than just a web site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; if sex is the Problem, the problem is You.  Sex is Natural not Religious.
> 
> Doing what comes naturally, is all the right wing seems to know.
Click to expand...

I presume you have no problem with public nudity.


----------



## danielpalos

Indeependent said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right wing admitted in the past that they recognize the concept of natural rights and that they are unalienable.
> 
> 
> 
> Define "Natural Rights".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Declaration of Independence: Full text
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I get to watch 11 year old girls 90% naked walking in the mall.
> How fucking sick of the Liberal, let it all hang out, mind.
> And yes, I was at a mall today and I wanted to vomit.
> The Liberals have succeeded in destroying whatever moral values we had.
> 
> I hate to tell you this, but State, County and Municipal Law "Trumps" Federal Law unless the Federal Law was legislated first.
> It's amazing what one can learn when one reads more than just a web site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; if sex is the Problem, the problem is You.  Sex is Natural not Religious.
> 
> Doing what comes naturally, is all the right wing seems to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I presume you have no problem with public nudity.
Click to expand...

You know what they say, when God is not around, the People will play.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> And they are getting less from such taxes as well. Do you really think that somebody that maxes out on SS contributions every year collects SS when they retire? It's a pittance to them and not worth their time. It's money that goes to people that depend on the program for survival.



Actually, they do collect this money... so there's that, because we don't means test SS. If we did, it would be solvent. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> However income taxes are what funds most everything else for society. It funds our military, it funds all our other social programs, it funds our roads, bridges and airports, it funds our post office, it funds Washington, the politicians, the worthless bureaucracies, income taxes fund everything else, and the wealthy pay almost all of those taxes.



And they get most of the benefits.  Who do you think benefits the most from our bloated military budget?  The Oil Companies, mostly. The defense contracts who sell expensive planes that can't fly in the rain.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> And thank you for supporting my point. People don't vote on politicians based on their abilities, they vote on them based on how much they like them or not. Imagine what a failure our businesses would be if they hired and fired people based on that alone.



Guy, I hate to break this to you, but pretty much that is how hiring is done.  Even though this is how I make my living, most people are hired on the basis of a resume someone else wrote, and two interviews were both sides are lying their asses off.  

Frankly, to be fair, we spend a lot more time selecting our politicians. We spend months interviewing them through debates and campaign appearences.  And mostly, we get it right. Except in 2016, where the people got it right and the system got it wrong. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> That's why I think we need to limit voting in this country. Only people who could pass a simple test of political and policy knowledge be allowed to vote. Of course the Republicans would love that. The Democrats would be rioting in the streets.



Um, yeah, guy, maybe you should look up "Literacy Tests" in the Old South and see why those happened.  Oh, wait, they told you at your Klan meeting that those were the "Good Old Days".


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, they do collect this money... so there's that, because we don't means test SS. If we did, it would be solvent.



No, the problem with SS is the same as all other programs.  We don't fund it.  If people want to keep these programs, we need to pay for them, and no, I don't mean have other people pay for them for us. 

I haven't seen a Medicare contribution increase in I don't know how long.  Yet care gets more expensive every year, and most of the care is given to senior citizens.  Of course these programs can't survive in the long run.  



JoeB131 said:


> And they get most of the benefits. Who do you think benefits the most from our bloated military budget? The Oil Companies, mostly. The defense contracts who sell expensive planes that can't fly in the rain.



So you don't use any oil products?  

How many manufacturers make military aircraft?  



JoeB131 said:


> Guy, I hate to break this to you, but pretty much that is how hiring is done. Even though this is how I make my living, most people are hired on the basis of a resume someone else wrote, and two interviews were both sides are lying their asses off.
> 
> Frankly, to be fair, we spend a lot more time selecting our politicians. We spend months interviewing them through debates and campaign appearences. And mostly, we get it right. Except in 2016, where the people got it right and the system got it wrong.



All those interviews and reporting doesn't do any good if most don't read or listen to them.  And half of what the MSM reports is crap anyhow.  So dopes go to the polls and vote on people for a number of other reasons.  And any company that hires people not on their past performance but on personality won't be in business very long.  It would be a failed model.  Any real interviewer can see right through a resume made by somebody else. 



JoeB131 said:


> Um, yeah, guy, maybe you should look up "Literacy Tests" in the Old South and see why those happened. Oh, wait, they told you at your Klan meeting that those were the "Good Old Days".



The good old days didn't have access to free public education.  People quit school like my father did in 8th grade to help support the family.  They didn't have advanced communication like smart phones, cable television and the internet.  

There is no reason today for an ignorant voter except laziness or lack of interest, and the Democrat party relies on both of those groups of people to win elections.  That's why they would never allow it.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> No, the problem with SS is the same as all other programs. We don't fund it. If people want to keep these programs, we need to pay for them, and no, I don't mean have other people pay for them for us.
> 
> I haven't seen a Medicare contribution increase in I don't know how long. Yet care gets more expensive every year, and most of the care is given to senior citizens. Of course these programs can't survive in the long run.



sure they can... we just make the rich pay their fair share and stop using these funds to pay for tax cuts for rich people, which is what your boy Dubya did. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> So you don't use any oil products?
> 
> How many manufacturers make military aircraft?



It's how much we spend on them, that's the problem. Hint, it's more than we spend on Food Stamps. 

And I am stuck using petroleum products because the Oil Companies keep us from alternative energy.  If we took the billions we spend playing Hall Monitor in the Middle East, and spent it on that instead, we wouldn't need as much oil. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> All those interviews and reporting doesn't do any good if most don't read or listen to them. And half of what the MSM reports is crap anyhow. So dopes go to the polls and vote on people for a number of other reasons. .



The only reason why you think the MSM is crap is that it doesn't validate your racism...  

The only "Dopes" at the polls were the ones who said, "Let's vote for Trump because I liked his TV show."  Those people were the dopes. Most of the voters got it right, though. 




Ray From Cleveland said:


> And any company that hires people not on their past performance but on personality won't be in business very long. It would be a failed model. Any real interviewer can see right through a resume made by somebody else.




Guy, again, you don't really know how any of this works, do you. 

Here's the first thing.  Most resumes are NOT READ BY PEOPLE INITIALLY.  Most resumes are sorted by something called ATS (Applicant Tracking Software), which looks for keywords. Then a human being reads them, and they only look at them for about 30 seconds... 

The interview process is equally flawed, because first, most companies hire by committee, they don't have one person doing the interview.  They ask standardized questions, and look for stock responses.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> The good old days didn't have access to free public education. People quit school like my father did in 8th grade to help support the family. They didn't have advanced communication like smart phones, cable television and the internet.



Okay, so the point went right over your head, didn't it. The purpose of literacy tests was to keep blacks from voting, not to make sure you were really informed.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> There is no reason today for an ignorant voter except laziness or lack of interest, and the Democrat party relies on both of those groups of people to win elections. That's why they would never allow it.



The reason it shouldn't be allowed is that "knowledge" is usually subjective.  Frankly, I see a lot more ignorance on the right than I do on the left.  Trump lies to you, and you swallow it whole because it feeds into your ignorance.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they do collect this money... so there's that, because we don't means test SS. If we did, it would be solvent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the problem with SS is the same as all other programs.  We don't fund it.  If people want to keep these programs, we need to pay for them, and no, I don't mean have other people pay for them for us.
> 
> I haven't seen a Medicare contribution increase in I don't know how long.  Yet care gets more expensive every year, and most of the care is given to senior citizens.  Of course these programs can't survive in the long run.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they get most of the benefits. Who do you think benefits the most from our bloated military budget? The Oil Companies, mostly. The defense contracts who sell expensive planes that can't fly in the rain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't use any oil products?
> 
> How many manufacturers make military aircraft?
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I hate to break this to you, but pretty much that is how hiring is done. Even though this is how I make my living, most people are hired on the basis of a resume someone else wrote, and two interviews were both sides are lying their asses off.
> 
> Frankly, to be fair, we spend a lot more time selecting our politicians. We spend months interviewing them through debates and campaign appearences. And mostly, we get it right. Except in 2016, where the people got it right and the system got it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those interviews and reporting doesn't do any good if most don't read or listen to them.  And half of what the MSM reports is crap anyhow.  So dopes go to the polls and vote on people for a number of other reasons.  And any company that hires people not on their past performance but on personality won't be in business very long.  It would be a failed model.  Any real interviewer can see right through a resume made by somebody else.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, guy, maybe you should look up "Literacy Tests" in the Old South and see why those happened. Oh, wait, they told you at your Klan meeting that those were the "Good Old Days".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The good old days didn't have access to free public education.  People quit school like my father did in 8th grade to help support the family.  They didn't have advanced communication like smart phones, cable television and the internet.
> 
> There is no reason today for an ignorant voter except laziness or lack of interest, and the Democrat party relies on both of those groups of people to win elections.  That's why they would never allow it.
Click to expand...

*I agree SS contributions should increase.  If we don't, the choice is SS either goes the Medicare Route with government funding the difference between contributions and benefits paid or benefits are cut 25% to equal contributions.  This will occur in the 2040's if nothing changes.

The government already funds Medicare, to the tune of 275 billion in 2015 and it increase every year. 

There're two Medicare trust funds, the Hospital Insurance Fund which pays hospital bills (Part A) and the Supplemental Fund (Part B and Part D).

The Hospital Insurance Fund is funded by payroll contributions.  The last increase in contributions  was in 1985. It has balance of 205 billion.  It's expenditures exceed income by about 3 to 5 billion, so it will probably not need an increase in payroll contributions for some years.  BTW this was Medicare until the 1960's when congress expanded Medicare to include Part B which includes medical expenses other than hospital costs.

The Supplemental Insurance Fund is the problem. It pays for doctor visits, drugs, and all other medical expenses other than hospital costs.  It is a voluntary option, called Part B of Medicare.  Part D covering drugs was added in 2005.  It is funded by contributions from beneficiaries who choose this coverage.  It pays roughly 80% of covered expenses and beneficiary pays 20%.   It's funded by monthly payments by beneficiaries and transfers from the general fund.

In 2015, the general fund transfers were 272 billion and payments by beneficiaries were 82 billion to the Supplemental Fund.  

The concept of the Hospital Insurance Fund is similar to Social Security, the workers pay into the fund to defray cost when they retire.  The Supplemental Fund is totally different.  It's a system of sharing medical costs of the retired and disabled between beneficiaries and goverment.  Expenses of the Supplemental Fund are more than twice that of the Hospital Fund and growing rapidly.  

I believe we need to gradually raise retirement age  and Medicare eligibility age to 70 over the new 20 years.  This will not totally solve the funding problem with either S.S. or Medicare but it will certain help.  It will also help  relieve a growing shortage in the labor force.  Right now we have 3 million jobs openings and we are adding hundreds of thousands of new jobs a year.  Also, our birthrate is almost equal to our death rate and is falling.  We are retiring 10,000 people a day and will for many years.  If the nation is to continue to grow we have to have more workers.  That can come from much higher immigration rates, which doesn't seem likely or we spend more of our life working and less in retirement.*


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”


Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
Click to expand...


So if you got a speeding ticket while your kids were in the car, they should be taken from you and locked in a cage without you knowing where they are?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you got a speeding ticket while your kids were in the car, they should be taken from you and locked in a cage without you knowing where they are?
Click to expand...


How fucking fast were you going when you got pulled over, Seabiscuit, that you got arrested for it?


----------



## Flopper

kaz said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
Click to expand...

*If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.*


----------



## Seawytch

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you got a speeding ticket while your kids were in the car, they should be taken from you and locked in a cage without you knowing where they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How fucking fast were you going when you got pulled over, Seabiscuit, that you got arrested for it?
Click to expand...


A misdemeanor is a misdemeanor. I’ve only gotten one speeding ticket in my life...55 in a 40. How many people get hauled off to jail, their children stripped from their feeding breast, for a misdemeanor?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you got a speeding ticket while your kids were in the car, they should be taken from you and locked in a cage without you knowing where they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How fucking fast were you going when you got pulled over, Seabiscuit, that you got arrested for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A misdemeanor is a misdemeanor. I’ve only gotten one speeding ticket in my life...55 in a 40. How many people get hauled off to jail, their children stripped from their feeding breast, for a misdemeanor?
Click to expand...


No, you blockheaded twat, as I've said so many times I'm sick of it, all misdemeanors are NOT the same.  You can keep ignoring it and coming back every couple of days to restate your imbecilic take on the world as though it's fresh and new, but it's not gonna help.

Speeding tickets and jaywalking and littering and whatever other godforsaken thing you leftist mouthbreathers dredge up are NOT the sum total of what constitutes a misdemeanor.  Just as was the case the LAST six times I said this, misdemeanors come in several different classes, depending on the jurisdiction.  And the most serious class of misdemeanors includes things like DUI, assault, hit-and-run, burglary . . . all things for which many people can and do "get hauled off to jail" and have "their children stripped from their feeding breast"  (seriously, you have GOT to tone down the melodrama).


----------



## Seawytch

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you got a speeding ticket while your kids were in the car, they should be taken from you and locked in a cage without you knowing where they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How fucking fast were you going when you got pulled over, Seabiscuit, that you got arrested for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A misdemeanor is a misdemeanor. I’ve only gotten one speeding ticket in my life...55 in a 40. How many people get hauled off to jail, their children stripped from their feeding breast, for a misdemeanor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you blockheaded twat, as I've said so many times I'm sick of it, all misdemeanors are NOT the same.  You can keep ignoring it and coming back every couple of days to restate your imbecilic take on the world as though it's fresh and new, but it's not gonna help.
> 
> Speeding tickets and jaywalking and littering and whatever other godforsaken thing you leftist mouthbreathers dredge up are NOT the sum total of what constitutes a misdemeanor.  Just as was the case the LAST six times I said this, misdemeanors come in several different classes, depending on the jurisdiction.  And the most serious class of misdemeanors includes things like DUI, assault, hit-and-run, burglary . . . all things for which many people can and do "get hauled off to jail" and have "their children stripped from their feeding breast"  (seriously, you have GOT to tone down the melodrama).
Click to expand...


You’re right...they aren’t treated the same. A misdemeanor if you’re brown means your children get taken and locked in concentration-like camps and you don’t know where they are.

Tone down the truth so you don’t have to be so uncomfortable? Nah.


----------



## Flopper

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you got a speeding ticket while your kids were in the car, they should be taken from you and locked in a cage without you knowing where they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How fucking fast were you going when you got pulled over, Seabiscuit, that you got arrested for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A misdemeanor is a misdemeanor. I’ve only gotten one speeding ticket in my life...55 in a 40. How many people get hauled off to jail, their children stripped from their feeding breast, for a misdemeanor?
Click to expand...

*In most cases trespassing carries a more serve punishment than unlawful enter into the US.  This typifies the problem in our immigration laws.  Most immigration offenses are civil offenses, many of which carry no fines or jail time.  Offenders have hearing in immigration court, not criminal trials.  There is no guilty or innocent verdict.  Deportation is not punishment but a correction of immigration status.  Immigration court is a cross between family court and a civil court.  When a large segment of the population considers breaking of our immigration laws deserving of a punishment somewhere between burning at the stake and granting citizenship, we need to seriously rethink immigration.    

When you leave the country, there is no customs or immigration. So ICE does not have any record of who leaves the country.  Only if you leave the country by commercial airline or cruise ship  is there any record at all and that record is not maintained by ICE.  For those that travel by car, walk across the border or use private planes, ICE doesn't know you left.  For people with visas but no work permit, ICE has no record of where you are.  If you have a work permit, you are requested to keep ICE informed of where you live, but there is no penalty for not doing so.   The bottom line is about all ICE knows about a person that enters the US on a Visa is when and where they arrived and when the Visa expires.  So when we talk about removing people in the country illegally, the first thing ICE needs to know is who is in the country illegally and where they are.   Until we solve that problem, we will always have millions of undocumented immigrants in the US.    *


----------



## hazlnut

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​




AMERICA ... #1 IN HYPOCRISY.

WE HAVE A MORAL BLIND SPOT THE SIZE OF THE GREAT LAKES.

WE CERTAINLY ARE EXCEPTIONAL AT NEVER LEARNING FROM OUR OWN MISTAKES.

Make America Guilty Again.

Trump really has lowered us in so many ways, we're now no longer better than all those counties with despicable leaders and backward inhuman policies that we used to hold in contempt.

We've become what we despise.


----------



## Slyhunter

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you got a speeding ticket while your kids were in the car, they should be taken from you and locked in a cage without you knowing where they are?
Click to expand...

Depends on how fast they were going. News report about a guy going 110 over the speed limit. He didn't get a ticket he got arrested.


----------



## Slyhunter

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.*
Click to expand...

I understand why they want to come here.
I also understand why we can't let them.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if you got a speeding ticket while your kids were in the car, they should be taken from you and locked in a cage without you knowing where they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How fucking fast were you going when you got pulled over, Seabiscuit, that you got arrested for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A misdemeanor is a misdemeanor. I’ve only gotten one speeding ticket in my life...55 in a 40. How many people get hauled off to jail, their children stripped from their feeding breast, for a misdemeanor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you blockheaded twat, as I've said so many times I'm sick of it, all misdemeanors are NOT the same.  You can keep ignoring it and coming back every couple of days to restate your imbecilic take on the world as though it's fresh and new, but it's not gonna help.
> 
> Speeding tickets and jaywalking and littering and whatever other godforsaken thing you leftist mouthbreathers dredge up are NOT the sum total of what constitutes a misdemeanor.  Just as was the case the LAST six times I said this, misdemeanors come in several different classes, depending on the jurisdiction.  And the most serious class of misdemeanors includes things like DUI, assault, hit-and-run, burglary . . . all things for which many people can and do "get hauled off to jail" and have "their children stripped from their feeding breast"  (seriously, you have GOT to tone down the melodrama).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re right...they aren’t treated the same. A misdemeanor if you’re brown means your children get taken and locked in concentration-like camps and you don’t know where they are.
> 
> Tone down the truth so you don’t have to be so uncomfortable? Nah.
Click to expand...


Fine.  You want to be the worst possible stereotype of an emptyheaded ambulatory vagina, then feel free to embrace it.  God knows, it's doubtful that you could be anything more.

Meanwhile, if anything you said was "truth", other than overblown hyperbole a Harlequin paperback would reject as too cheesy, you wouldn't be moving the goalposts around like they were motorized.

"All misdemeanors are the same, uh . . . I mean, it's about race, I mean . . . never mind that, NAZIS!!!!"


----------



## Slyhunter

Flopper said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you got a speeding ticket while your kids were in the car, they should be taken from you and locked in a cage without you knowing where they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How fucking fast were you going when you got pulled over, Seabiscuit, that you got arrested for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A misdemeanor is a misdemeanor. I’ve only gotten one speeding ticket in my life...55 in a 40. How many people get hauled off to jail, their children stripped from their feeding breast, for a misdemeanor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In most cases trespassing carries a more serve punishment than unlawful enter into the US.  This typifies the problem in our immigration laws.  Most immigration offenses are civil offenses, many of which carry no fines or jail time.  Offenders have hearing in immigration court, not criminal trials.  There is no guilty or innocent verdict.  Deportation is not punishment but a correction of immigration status.  Immigration court is a cross between family court and a civil court.  When a large segment of the population considers breaking of our immigration laws deserving of a punishment somewhere between burning at the stake and granting citizenship, we need to seriously rethink immigration.    *
Click to expand...

We should put the NG on the border with shoot on sight order orders. Then they'll stop coming.


----------



## Cecilie1200

hazlnut said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMERICA ... #1 IN HYPOCRISY.
> 
> WE HAVE A MORAL BLIND SPOT THE SIZE OF THE GREAT LAKES.
> 
> WE CERTAINLY ARE EXCEPTIONAL AT NEVER LEARNING FROM OUR OWN MISTAKES.
> 
> Make America Guilty Again.
> 
> Trump really has lowered us in so many ways, we're now no longer better than all those counties with despicable leaders and backward inhuman policies that we used to hold in contempt.
> 
> We've become what we despise.
Click to expand...


You're right.  We DO have a moral blind spot.  It calls itself the Democrat Party.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Slyhunter said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you got a speeding ticket while your kids were in the car, they should be taken from you and locked in a cage without you knowing where they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Depends on how fast they were going. News report about a guy going 110 over the speed limit. He didn't get a ticket he got arrested.
Click to expand...


That's because there's such a thing as "felony speeding" in some states.

For the thinking-impaired (I'm looking at you, Coyote), anything that gets you taken into law enforcement custody while your children are with you WILL result in you being separated from your children at that time.  There is no amount of bullshit you can throw up about "speeding" and "jaywalking" and whatever else you dream up that doesn't involve being arrested that is going to change the fact that crossing the border illegally IS an offense that results in being arrested, and being arrested IS a circumstance that involves being separated from any children you have in tow.


----------



## Seawytch

Cecilie1200 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you got a speeding ticket while your kids were in the car, they should be taken from you and locked in a cage without you knowing where they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Depends on how fast they were going. News report about a guy going 110 over the speed limit. He didn't get a ticket he got arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because there's such a thing as "felony speeding" in some states.
> 
> For the thinking-impaired (I'm looking at you, Coyote), anything that gets you taken into law enforcement custody while your children are with you WILL result in you being separated from your children at that time.  There is no amount of bullshit you can throw up about "speeding" and "jaywalking" and whatever else you dream up that doesn't involve being arrested that is going to change the fact that crossing the border illegally IS an offense that results in being arrested, and being arrested IS a circumstance that involves being separated from any children you have in tow.
Click to expand...


You can pretend this policy of Trump's is business as usual. It isn't and humans that haven't abandoned their compassion know it.


----------



## Slyhunter

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you got a speeding ticket while your kids were in the car, they should be taken from you and locked in a cage without you knowing where they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Depends on how fast they were going. News report about a guy going 110 over the speed limit. He didn't get a ticket he got arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because there's such a thing as "felony speeding" in some states.
> 
> For the thinking-impaired (I'm looking at you, Coyote), anything that gets you taken into law enforcement custody while your children are with you WILL result in you being separated from your children at that time.  There is no amount of bullshit you can throw up about "speeding" and "jaywalking" and whatever else you dream up that doesn't involve being arrested that is going to change the fact that crossing the border illegally IS an offense that results in being arrested, and being arrested IS a circumstance that involves being separated from any children you have in tow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can pretend this policy of Trump's is business as usual. It isn't and humans that haven't abandoned their compassion know it.
Click to expand...

Compassion can end you up in the poor house and make everyone in America Poverty stricken.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you got a speeding ticket while your kids were in the car, they should be taken from you and locked in a cage without you knowing where they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Depends on how fast they were going. News report about a guy going 110 over the speed limit. He didn't get a ticket he got arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because there's such a thing as "felony speeding" in some states.
> 
> For the thinking-impaired (I'm looking at you, Coyote), anything that gets you taken into law enforcement custody while your children are with you WILL result in you being separated from your children at that time.  There is no amount of bullshit you can throw up about "speeding" and "jaywalking" and whatever else you dream up that doesn't involve being arrested that is going to change the fact that crossing the border illegally IS an offense that results in being arrested, and being arrested IS a circumstance that involves being separated from any children you have in tow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can pretend this policy of Trump's is business as usual. It isn't and humans that haven't abandoned their compassion know it.
Click to expand...


You can pretend that reality and history change according to whatever your glands are overwrought about today, but it doesn't, and humans who haven't abandoned using their brains are not going to be shamed into anything by the likes of you.

It amuses me when you try to throw around moral condemnation as though you think anyone respects you, Seabiscuit.


----------



## Seawytch

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if you got a speeding ticket while your kids were in the car, they should be taken from you and locked in a cage without you knowing where they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Depends on how fast they were going. News report about a guy going 110 over the speed limit. He didn't get a ticket he got arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because there's such a thing as "felony speeding" in some states.
> 
> For the thinking-impaired (I'm looking at you, Coyote), anything that gets you taken into law enforcement custody while your children are with you WILL result in you being separated from your children at that time.  There is no amount of bullshit you can throw up about "speeding" and "jaywalking" and whatever else you dream up that doesn't involve being arrested that is going to change the fact that crossing the border illegally IS an offense that results in being arrested, and being arrested IS a circumstance that involves being separated from any children you have in tow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can pretend this policy of Trump's is business as usual. It isn't and humans that haven't abandoned their compassion know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can pretend that reality and history change according to whatever your glands are overwrought about today, but it doesn't, and humans who haven't abandoned using their brains are not going to be shamed into anything by the likes of you.
> 
> It amuses me when you try to throw around moral condemnation as though you think anyone respects you, Seabiscuit.
Click to expand...


The times in history that actions like Trump’s have been taken, history soundly condemns.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you got a speeding ticket while your kids were in the car, they should be taken from you and locked in a cage without you knowing where they are?
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on how fast they were going. News report about a guy going 110 over the speed limit. He didn't get a ticket he got arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because there's such a thing as "felony speeding" in some states.
> 
> For the thinking-impaired (I'm looking at you, Coyote), anything that gets you taken into law enforcement custody while your children are with you WILL result in you being separated from your children at that time.  There is no amount of bullshit you can throw up about "speeding" and "jaywalking" and whatever else you dream up that doesn't involve being arrested that is going to change the fact that crossing the border illegally IS an offense that results in being arrested, and being arrested IS a circumstance that involves being separated from any children you have in tow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can pretend this policy of Trump's is business as usual. It isn't and humans that haven't abandoned their compassion know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can pretend that reality and history change according to whatever your glands are overwrought about today, but it doesn't, and humans who haven't abandoned using their brains are not going to be shamed into anything by the likes of you.
> 
> It amuses me when you try to throw around moral condemnation as though you think anyone respects you, Seabiscuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The times in history that actions like Trump’s have been taken, history soundly condemns.
Click to expand...


And I'm trusting the judgement of something like you about what constitutes "actions like Trump's" because why?


----------



## Seawytch

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on how fast they were going. News report about a guy going 110 over the speed limit. He didn't get a ticket he got arrested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because there's such a thing as "felony speeding" in some states.
> 
> For the thinking-impaired (I'm looking at you, Coyote), anything that gets you taken into law enforcement custody while your children are with you WILL result in you being separated from your children at that time.  There is no amount of bullshit you can throw up about "speeding" and "jaywalking" and whatever else you dream up that doesn't involve being arrested that is going to change the fact that crossing the border illegally IS an offense that results in being arrested, and being arrested IS a circumstance that involves being separated from any children you have in tow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can pretend this policy of Trump's is business as usual. It isn't and humans that haven't abandoned their compassion know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can pretend that reality and history change according to whatever your glands are overwrought about today, but it doesn't, and humans who haven't abandoned using their brains are not going to be shamed into anything by the likes of you.
> 
> It amuses me when you try to throw around moral condemnation as though you think anyone respects you, Seabiscuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The times in history that actions like Trump’s have been taken, history soundly condemns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I'm trusting the judgement of something like you about what constitutes "actions like Trump's" because why?
Click to expand...


You don’t have to “trust” anything. You can see it with your own eyes. We, as a country, have never torn children away from their parents by the hundreds and locked them in cages. Any country that did would be roundly criticized. 

 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/world/americas/us-un-migrant-children-families.html


----------



## MaryL

What is the human cost of Mexicans with kids staying in Mexico and applying legally for visas? Because, all they had to do was, immigrate legally. Then we would all be playing nicy nicy. But instead, Mexicans play games and drag their kids into this mess. That is evidence of child abuse.
In America, we have agencies that take child abuse   quite seriously and  take children away from parents all the time. Local city or states take abused or neglected children  into their care, put them into foster care. It happens all the time. But Mexican illegals  that willingly violated laws that apply to all immigrants and dragged their kids into this,  get a free pass on all  that...How does that work?


----------



## danielpalos

MaryL said:


> What is the human cost of Mexicans with kids staying in Mexico and applying legally for visas? Because, all they had to do was, immigrate legally. Then we would all be playing nicy nicy. But instead, Mexicans play games and drag their kids into this mess. That is evidence of child abuse.
> In America, we have agencies that take child abuse   quite seriously and  take children away from parents all the time. Local city or states take abused or neglected children  into their care, put them into foster care. It happens all the time. But Mexican illegals  that willingly violated laws that apply to all immigrants and dragged their kids into this,  get a free pass on all  that...How does that work?


Easy to Say, dear. 

More than 100 politicians have been murdered in Mexico ahead of Sunday’s election


----------



## MaryL

danielpalos said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the human cost of Mexicans with kids staying in Mexico and applying legally for visas? Because, all they had to do was, immigrate legally. Then we would all be playing nicy nicy. But instead, Mexicans play games and drag their kids into this mess. That is evidence of child abuse.
> In America, we have agencies that take child abuse   quite seriously and  take children away from parents all the time. Local city or states take abused or neglected children  into their care, put them into foster care. It happens all the time. But Mexican illegals  that willingly violated laws that apply to all immigrants and dragged their kids into this,  get a free pass on all  that...How does that work?
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to Say, dear.
> 
> More than 100 politicians have been murdered in Mexico ahead of Sunday’s election
Click to expand...

Well, I live with Mexicanos of  questionable immigration status. They don't make the communities they end up squatting in a better place. And all this propaganda about how  great diversity is?  People that refuse to accept the culture they live in, and are abusive, misogynistic and despise the predominant  preexisting culture and wish to live like they are still in their homeland, that corrupts the meaning of diversity.


----------



## danielpalos

MaryL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the human cost of Mexicans with kids staying in Mexico and applying legally for visas? Because, all they had to do was, immigrate legally. Then we would all be playing nicy nicy. But instead, Mexicans play games and drag their kids into this mess. That is evidence of child abuse.
> In America, we have agencies that take child abuse   quite seriously and  take children away from parents all the time. Local city or states take abused or neglected children  into their care, put them into foster care. It happens all the time. But Mexican illegals  that willingly violated laws that apply to all immigrants and dragged their kids into this,  get a free pass on all  that...How does that work?
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to Say, dear.
> 
> More than 100 politicians have been murdered in Mexico ahead of Sunday’s election
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I live with Mexicanos of  questionable immigration status. They don't make the communities they end up squatting in a better place. And all this propaganda about how  great diversity is?  People that refuse to accept the culture they live in, and are abusive, misogynistic and despise the predominant  preexisting culture and wish to live like they are still in their homeland, that corrupts the meaning of diversity.
Click to expand...

The Romans didn't seem to have a problem with it.


----------



## Slyhunter

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because there's such a thing as "felony speeding" in some states.
> 
> For the thinking-impaired (I'm looking at you, Coyote), anything that gets you taken into law enforcement custody while your children are with you WILL result in you being separated from your children at that time.  There is no amount of bullshit you can throw up about "speeding" and "jaywalking" and whatever else you dream up that doesn't involve being arrested that is going to change the fact that crossing the border illegally IS an offense that results in being arrested, and being arrested IS a circumstance that involves being separated from any children you have in tow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can pretend this policy of Trump's is business as usual. It isn't and humans that haven't abandoned their compassion know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can pretend that reality and history change according to whatever your glands are overwrought about today, but it doesn't, and humans who haven't abandoned using their brains are not going to be shamed into anything by the likes of you.
> 
> It amuses me when you try to throw around moral condemnation as though you think anyone respects you, Seabiscuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The times in history that actions like Trump’s have been taken, history soundly condemns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I'm trusting the judgement of something like you about what constitutes "actions like Trump's" because why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don’t have to “trust” anything. You can see it with your own eyes. We, as a country, have never torn children away from their parents by the hundreds and locked them in cages. Any country that did would be roundly criticized.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/world/americas/us-un-migrant-children-families.html
Click to expand...

Actually Obama did it 76,000 times.


----------



## JoeB131

Flopper said:


> [QUOTE="Ray
> *I agree SS contributions should increase.  If we don't, the choice is SS either goes the Medicare Route with government funding the difference between contributions and benefits paid or benefits are cut 25% to equal contributions.  This will occur in the 2040's if nothing changes.
> 
> The government already funds Medicare, to the tune of 275 billion in 2015 and it increase every year.
> 
> There're two Medicare trust funds, the Hospital Insurance Fund which pays hospital bills (Part A) and the Supplemental Fund (Part B and Part D).
> 
> The Hospital Insurance Fund is funded by payroll contributions.  The last increase in contributions  was in 1985. It has balance of 205 billion.  It's expenditures exceed income by about 3 to 5 billion, so it will probably not need an increase in payroll contributions for some years.  BTW this was Medicare until the 1960's when congress expanded Medicare to include Part B which includes medical expenses other than hospital costs.
> 
> The Supplemental Insurance Fund is the problem. It pays for doctor visits, drugs, and all other medical expenses other than hospital costs.  It is a voluntary option, called Part B of Medicare.  Part D covering drugs was added in 2005.  It is funded by contributions from beneficiaries who choose this coverage.  It pays roughly 80% of covered expenses and beneficiary pays 20%.   It's funded by monthly payments by beneficiaries and transfers from the general fund.
> 
> In 2015, the general fund transfers were 272 billion and payments by beneficiaries were 82 billion to the Supplemental Fund.
> 
> The concept of the Hospital Insurance Fund is similar to Social Security, the workers pay into the fund to defray cost when they retire.  The Supplemental Fund is totally different.  It's a system of sharing medical costs of the retired and disabled between beneficiaries and goverment.  Expenses of the Supplemental Fund are more than twice that of the Hospital Fund and growing rapidly.
> 
> I believe we need to gradually raise retirement age  and Medicare eligibility age to 70 over the new 20 years.  This will not totally solve the funding problem with either S.S. or Medicare but it will certain help.  It will also help  relieve a growing shortage in the labor force.  Right now we have 3 million jobs openings and we are adding hundreds of thousands of new jobs a year.  Also, our birthrate is almost equal to our death rate and is falling.  We are retiring 10,000 people a day and will for many years.  If the nation is to continue to grow we have to have more workers.  That can come from much higher immigration rates, which doesn't seem likely or we spend more of our life working and less in retirement.*



All very well said, Flopper.  

The problem is, you have a better grasp on the dynamics of the issue then the people making the policy.  

I think the answer to medicare is Medicare Part E... Single payer like every other country has.  

For Social Security, you are right, we probably need to raise the age to 70.  When it was first enacted, m ost people didn't live to be 65.  Today the average lifespan is 78.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.*
Click to expand...


Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here.  It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy


----------



## Coyote

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.*
Click to expand...


You know...I've asked that many times.  They never answer.  The thing is - many of those illegally immigrating are fleeing horrific situations, they aren't economic migrants.  Many are trying to claim asylum - a perfectly LEGAL thing to do even if they cross illegally - it's the federal law, it's international law, it's their right.  They may not get it, often don't - but it's legal.

I was just listening to a piece on this...and one woman from El Salvador, who fled with her 5 yr old son.  She tried 6 times to claim asylum at a legal point of entry only to be turned away each time because they "didn't have enough facilities or resources to take more people" (illegal to turn away asylum seekers).  So she finally entered illegally and turned herself in.  She was promptly arrested, charged with a crime and her son was taken away from her.  For two months she had no idea where he was.  Finally he was located in a foster home in NY.  So now he is in the foster care system which is ANOTHER nightmare to get a kid out of.

It's absolutely sickening.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you got a speeding ticket while your kids were in the car, they should be taken from you and locked in a cage without you knowing where they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How fucking fast were you going when you got pulled over, Seabiscuit, that you got arrested for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A misdemeanor is a misdemeanor. I’ve only gotten one speeding ticket in my life...55 in a 40. How many people get hauled off to jail, their children stripped from their feeding breast, for a misdemeanor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you blockheaded twat, as I've said so many times I'm sick of it, all misdemeanors are NOT the same.  You can keep ignoring it and coming back every couple of days to restate your imbecilic take on the world as though it's fresh and new, but it's not gonna help.
> 
> Speeding tickets and jaywalking and littering and whatever other godforsaken thing you leftist mouthbreathers dredge up are NOT the sum total of what constitutes a misdemeanor.  Just as was the case the LAST six times I said this, misdemeanors come in several different classes, depending on the jurisdiction.  And the most serious class of misdemeanors includes things like DUI, assault, hit-and-run, burglary . . . all things for which many people can and do "get hauled off to jail" and have "their children stripped from their feeding breast"  (seriously, you have GOT to tone down the melodrama).
Click to expand...


Seriously.  I hope YOU have your children or grandchildren taken from you.  I hope you have no idea where they are or how to get them back.  Then maybe you would have an iota of compassion for what these mothers go through.  Oh.  And while you are at it why don't you move your fat comfortable ass to El Salvador and see what it's like there?

Never mind.  You are far too entitled.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they do collect this money... so there's that, because we don't means test SS. If we did, it would be solvent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the problem with SS is the same as all other programs.  We don't fund it.  If people want to keep these programs, we need to pay for them, and no, I don't mean have other people pay for them for us.
> 
> I haven't seen a Medicare contribution increase in I don't know how long.  Yet care gets more expensive every year, and most of the care is given to senior citizens.  Of course these programs can't survive in the long run.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they get most of the benefits. Who do you think benefits the most from our bloated military budget? The Oil Companies, mostly. The defense contracts who sell expensive planes that can't fly in the rain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't use any oil products?
> 
> How many manufacturers make military aircraft?
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I hate to break this to you, but pretty much that is how hiring is done. Even though this is how I make my living, most people are hired on the basis of a resume someone else wrote, and two interviews were both sides are lying their asses off.
> 
> Frankly, to be fair, we spend a lot more time selecting our politicians. We spend months interviewing them through debates and campaign appearences. And mostly, we get it right. Except in 2016, where the people got it right and the system got it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those interviews and reporting doesn't do any good if most don't read or listen to them.  And half of what the MSM reports is crap anyhow.  So dopes go to the polls and vote on people for a number of other reasons.  And any company that hires people not on their past performance but on personality won't be in business very long.  It would be a failed model.  Any real interviewer can see right through a resume made by somebody else.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, guy, maybe you should look up "Literacy Tests" in the Old South and see why those happened. Oh, wait, they told you at your Klan meeting that those were the "Good Old Days".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The good old days didn't have access to free public education.  People quit school like my father did in 8th grade to help support the family.  They didn't have advanced communication like smart phones, cable television and the internet.
> 
> There is no reason today for an ignorant voter except laziness or lack of interest, and the Democrat party relies on both of those groups of people to win elections.  That's why they would never allow it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I agree SS contributions should increase.  If we don't, the choice is SS either goes the Medicare Route with government funding the difference between contributions and benefits paid or benefits are cut 25% to equal contributions.  This will occur in the 2040's if nothing changes.
> 
> The government already funds Medicare, to the tune of 275 billion in 2015 and it increase every year.
> 
> There're two Medicare trust funds, the Hospital Insurance Fund which pays hospital bills (Part A) and the Supplemental Fund (Part B and Part D).
> 
> The Hospital Insurance Fund is funded by payroll contributions.  The last increase in contributions  was in 1985. It has balance of 205 billion.  It's expenditures exceed income by about 3 to 5 billion, so it will probably not need an increase in payroll contributions for some years.  BTW this was Medicare until the 1960's when congress expanded Medicare to include Part B which includes medical expenses other than hospital costs.
> 
> The Supplemental Insurance Fund is the problem. It pays for doctor visits, drugs, and all other medical expenses other than hospital costs.  It is a voluntary option, called Part B of Medicare.  Part D covering drugs was added in 2005.  It is funded by contributions from beneficiaries who choose this coverage.  It pays roughly 80% of covered expenses and beneficiary pays 20%.   It's funded by monthly payments by beneficiaries and transfers from the general fund.
> 
> In 2015, the general fund transfers were 272 billion and payments by beneficiaries were 82 billion to the Supplemental Fund.
> 
> The concept of the Hospital Insurance Fund is similar to Social Security, the workers pay into the fund to defray cost when they retire.  The Supplemental Fund is totally different.  It's a system of sharing medical costs of the retired and disabled between beneficiaries and goverment.  Expenses of the Supplemental Fund are more than twice that of the Hospital Fund and growing rapidly.
> 
> I believe we need to gradually raise retirement age  and Medicare eligibility age to 70 over the new 20 years.  This will not totally solve the funding problem with either S.S. or Medicare but it will certain help.  It will also help  relieve a growing shortage in the labor force.  Right now we have 3 million jobs openings and we are adding hundreds of thousands of new jobs a year.  Also, our birthrate is almost equal to our death rate and is falling.  We are retiring 10,000 people a day and will for many years.  If the nation is to continue to grow we have to have more workers.  That can come from much higher immigration rates, which doesn't seem likely or we spend more of our life working and less in retirement.*
Click to expand...


That's all fine and dandy and has been suggested before.  The problem is that many can't make it to 65 now.  

Do you want to see the guy bussing tables carrying heavy trays of dishes and glasses doing that job at 68?  What about a roofer?  Want to see an old man climb a ladder two stories high with bundles of shingles on his shoulders?  How about a bricklayer or laborer?  Can you see a 68 year old guy carrying clamps of bricks to the job site or mixing cement?  What about a garbage man?  The list goes on and on. 

I have two cousins, each run their own remodeling business.  They are in their early 60's now and tell me how every day is pain and suffering because they have to work.  All that hammering, sawing, dragging heavy equipment in and out of houses takes a real toll on the body.  It was great in their 20's. 30's and 40's, but not now.  Hell, I'll even take my own career as an example.  In a heavy snow shower, do you want to be the guy in front of me when I'm piloting a 75,000 lbs vehicle and we suddenly have to hit the breaks to stop on the highway?   

So we make this new requirement, and all these people end up on disability if they are even accepted.  If not, go homeless and find a way to eat. I'm sorry, but it's not the answer.  

So why don't we just increase employee contributions to support these wonderful programs?  Because if people knew what they actually cost, there would be a movement to get rid of them and depend on private insurance in the future.  The Democrats want nothing to do with that because you can't buy votes that way.  They wouldn't be able to tell people all the things Republicans want to take away from them if voted into power.


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here.  It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
Click to expand...


And I'm sure everyone of them are using their kids to draw sympathy - hell why else would they be leaving some of the most violent gang ridden regions of the America's.


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they do collect this money... so there's that, because we don't means test SS. If we did, it would be solvent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the problem with SS is the same as all other programs.  We don't fund it.  If people want to keep these programs, we need to pay for them, and no, I don't mean have other people pay for them for us.
> 
> I haven't seen a Medicare contribution increase in I don't know how long.  Yet care gets more expensive every year, and most of the care is given to senior citizens.  Of course these programs can't survive in the long run.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they get most of the benefits. Who do you think benefits the most from our bloated military budget? The Oil Companies, mostly. The defense contracts who sell expensive planes that can't fly in the rain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't use any oil products?
> 
> How many manufacturers make military aircraft?
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I hate to break this to you, but pretty much that is how hiring is done. Even though this is how I make my living, most people are hired on the basis of a resume someone else wrote, and two interviews were both sides are lying their asses off.
> 
> Frankly, to be fair, we spend a lot more time selecting our politicians. We spend months interviewing them through debates and campaign appearences. And mostly, we get it right. Except in 2016, where the people got it right and the system got it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those interviews and reporting doesn't do any good if most don't read or listen to them.  And half of what the MSM reports is crap anyhow.  So dopes go to the polls and vote on people for a number of other reasons.  And any company that hires people not on their past performance but on personality won't be in business very long.  It would be a failed model.  Any real interviewer can see right through a resume made by somebody else.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, guy, maybe you should look up "Literacy Tests" in the Old South and see why those happened. Oh, wait, they told you at your Klan meeting that those were the "Good Old Days".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The good old days didn't have access to free public education.  People quit school like my father did in 8th grade to help support the family.  They didn't have advanced communication like smart phones, cable television and the internet.
> 
> There is no reason today for an ignorant voter except laziness or lack of interest, and the Democrat party relies on both of those groups of people to win elections.  That's why they would never allow it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I agree SS contributions should increase.  If we don't, the choice is SS either goes the Medicare Route with government funding the difference between contributions and benefits paid or benefits are cut 25% to equal contributions.  This will occur in the 2040's if nothing changes.
> 
> The government already funds Medicare, to the tune of 275 billion in 2015 and it increase every year.
> 
> There're two Medicare trust funds, the Hospital Insurance Fund which pays hospital bills (Part A) and the Supplemental Fund (Part B and Part D).
> 
> The Hospital Insurance Fund is funded by payroll contributions.  The last increase in contributions  was in 1985. It has balance of 205 billion.  It's expenditures exceed income by about 3 to 5 billion, so it will probably not need an increase in payroll contributions for some years.  BTW this was Medicare until the 1960's when congress expanded Medicare to include Part B which includes medical expenses other than hospital costs.
> 
> The Supplemental Insurance Fund is the problem. It pays for doctor visits, drugs, and all other medical expenses other than hospital costs.  It is a voluntary option, called Part B of Medicare.  Part D covering drugs was added in 2005.  It is funded by contributions from beneficiaries who choose this coverage.  It pays roughly 80% of covered expenses and beneficiary pays 20%.   It's funded by monthly payments by beneficiaries and transfers from the general fund.
> 
> In 2015, the general fund transfers were 272 billion and payments by beneficiaries were 82 billion to the Supplemental Fund.
> 
> The concept of the Hospital Insurance Fund is similar to Social Security, the workers pay into the fund to defray cost when they retire.  The Supplemental Fund is totally different.  It's a system of sharing medical costs of the retired and disabled between beneficiaries and goverment.  Expenses of the Supplemental Fund are more than twice that of the Hospital Fund and growing rapidly.
> 
> I believe we need to gradually raise retirement age  and Medicare eligibility age to 70 over the new 20 years.  This will not totally solve the funding problem with either S.S. or Medicare but it will certain help.  It will also help  relieve a growing shortage in the labor force.  Right now we have 3 million jobs openings and we are adding hundreds of thousands of new jobs a year.  Also, our birthrate is almost equal to our death rate and is falling.  We are retiring 10,000 people a day and will for many years.  If the nation is to continue to grow we have to have more workers.  That can come from much higher immigration rates, which doesn't seem likely or we spend more of our life working and less in retirement.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all fine and dandy and has been suggested before.  The problem is that many can't make it to 65 now.
> 
> Do you want to see the guy bussing tables carrying heavy trays of dishes and glasses doing that job at 68?  What about a roofer?  Want to see an old man climb a ladder two stories high with bundles of shingles on his shoulders?  How about a bricklayer or laborer?  Can you see a 68 year old guy carrying clamps of bricks to the job site or mixing cement?  What about a garbage man?  The list goes on and on.
> 
> I have two cousins, each run their own remodeling business.  They are in their early 60's now and tell me how every day is pain and suffering because they have to work.  All that hammering, sawing, dragging heavy equipment in and out of houses takes a real toll on the body.  It was great in their 20's. 30's and 40's, but not now.  Hell, I'll even take my own career as an example.  In a heavy snow shower, do you want to be the guy in front of me when I'm piloting a 75,000 lbs vehicle and we suddenly have to hit the breaks to stop on the highway?
> 
> So we make this new requirement, and all these people end up on disability if they are even accepted.  If not, go homeless and find a way to eat. I'm sorry, but it's not the answer.
> 
> So why don't we just increase employee contributions to support these wonderful programs?  Because if people knew what they actually cost, there would be a movement to get rid of them and depend on private insurance in the future.  The Democrats want nothing to do with that because you can't buy votes that way.  They wouldn't be able to tell people all the things Republicans want to take away from them if voted into power.
Click to expand...


Why not adjust the retirement age to the occupation?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here.  It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I'm sure everyone of them are using their kids to draw sympathy - hell why else would they be leaving some of the most violent gang ridden regions of the America's.
Click to expand...


It's been that way for many years over there.  Nothing has changed.  They had violent gangs and drug lords 20 years ago, today, and will have them 20 years from today.  If things are so bad there, WTF did these people have kids in the first place?  And how did they become OUR problem, simply because they ended up on our doorstep?


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here.  It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I'm sure everyone of them are using their kids to draw sympathy - hell why else would they be leaving some of the most violent gang ridden regions of the America's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been that way for many years over there.  Nothing has changed.  They had violent gangs and drug lords 20 years ago, today, and will have them 20 years from today.  If things are so bad there, WTF did these people have kids in the first place?  And how did they become OUR problem, simply because they ended up on our doorstep?
Click to expand...


Because people have kids.  We are biological creatures.  Kids represent our hopes for the future.  I chose not to but I don't blame those who chose to and who try to do right by them. Is that so hard to understand?

As to why it's our problem...well that's nothing new is it?  It's been our problem for several centuries.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they do collect this money... so there's that, because we don't means test SS. If we did, it would be solvent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the problem with SS is the same as all other programs.  We don't fund it.  If people want to keep these programs, we need to pay for them, and no, I don't mean have other people pay for them for us.
> 
> I haven't seen a Medicare contribution increase in I don't know how long.  Yet care gets more expensive every year, and most of the care is given to senior citizens.  Of course these programs can't survive in the long run.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they get most of the benefits. Who do you think benefits the most from our bloated military budget? The Oil Companies, mostly. The defense contracts who sell expensive planes that can't fly in the rain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't use any oil products?
> 
> How many manufacturers make military aircraft?
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I hate to break this to you, but pretty much that is how hiring is done. Even though this is how I make my living, most people are hired on the basis of a resume someone else wrote, and two interviews were both sides are lying their asses off.
> 
> Frankly, to be fair, we spend a lot more time selecting our politicians. We spend months interviewing them through debates and campaign appearences. And mostly, we get it right. Except in 2016, where the people got it right and the system got it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those interviews and reporting doesn't do any good if most don't read or listen to them.  And half of what the MSM reports is crap anyhow.  So dopes go to the polls and vote on people for a number of other reasons.  And any company that hires people not on their past performance but on personality won't be in business very long.  It would be a failed model.  Any real interviewer can see right through a resume made by somebody else.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, guy, maybe you should look up "Literacy Tests" in the Old South and see why those happened. Oh, wait, they told you at your Klan meeting that those were the "Good Old Days".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The good old days didn't have access to free public education.  People quit school like my father did in 8th grade to help support the family.  They didn't have advanced communication like smart phones, cable television and the internet.
> 
> There is no reason today for an ignorant voter except laziness or lack of interest, and the Democrat party relies on both of those groups of people to win elections.  That's why they would never allow it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I agree SS contributions should increase.  If we don't, the choice is SS either goes the Medicare Route with government funding the difference between contributions and benefits paid or benefits are cut 25% to equal contributions.  This will occur in the 2040's if nothing changes.
> 
> The government already funds Medicare, to the tune of 275 billion in 2015 and it increase every year.
> 
> There're two Medicare trust funds, the Hospital Insurance Fund which pays hospital bills (Part A) and the Supplemental Fund (Part B and Part D).
> 
> The Hospital Insurance Fund is funded by payroll contributions.  The last increase in contributions  was in 1985. It has balance of 205 billion.  It's expenditures exceed income by about 3 to 5 billion, so it will probably not need an increase in payroll contributions for some years.  BTW this was Medicare until the 1960's when congress expanded Medicare to include Part B which includes medical expenses other than hospital costs.
> 
> The Supplemental Insurance Fund is the problem. It pays for doctor visits, drugs, and all other medical expenses other than hospital costs.  It is a voluntary option, called Part B of Medicare.  Part D covering drugs was added in 2005.  It is funded by contributions from beneficiaries who choose this coverage.  It pays roughly 80% of covered expenses and beneficiary pays 20%.   It's funded by monthly payments by beneficiaries and transfers from the general fund.
> 
> In 2015, the general fund transfers were 272 billion and payments by beneficiaries were 82 billion to the Supplemental Fund.
> 
> The concept of the Hospital Insurance Fund is similar to Social Security, the workers pay into the fund to defray cost when they retire.  The Supplemental Fund is totally different.  It's a system of sharing medical costs of the retired and disabled between beneficiaries and goverment.  Expenses of the Supplemental Fund are more than twice that of the Hospital Fund and growing rapidly.
> 
> I believe we need to gradually raise retirement age  and Medicare eligibility age to 70 over the new 20 years.  This will not totally solve the funding problem with either S.S. or Medicare but it will certain help.  It will also help  relieve a growing shortage in the labor force.  Right now we have 3 million jobs openings and we are adding hundreds of thousands of new jobs a year.  Also, our birthrate is almost equal to our death rate and is falling.  We are retiring 10,000 people a day and will for many years.  If the nation is to continue to grow we have to have more workers.  That can come from much higher immigration rates, which doesn't seem likely or we spend more of our life working and less in retirement.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all fine and dandy and has been suggested before.  The problem is that many can't make it to 65 now.
> 
> Do you want to see the guy bussing tables carrying heavy trays of dishes and glasses doing that job at 68?  What about a roofer?  Want to see an old man climb a ladder two stories high with bundles of shingles on his shoulders?  How about a bricklayer or laborer?  Can you see a 68 year old guy carrying clamps of bricks to the job site or mixing cement?  What about a garbage man?  The list goes on and on.
> 
> I have two cousins, each run their own remodeling business.  They are in their early 60's now and tell me how every day is pain and suffering because they have to work.  All that hammering, sawing, dragging heavy equipment in and out of houses takes a real toll on the body.  It was great in their 20's. 30's and 40's, but not now.  Hell, I'll even take my own career as an example.  In a heavy snow shower, do you want to be the guy in front of me when I'm piloting a 75,000 lbs vehicle and we suddenly have to hit the breaks to stop on the highway?
> 
> So we make this new requirement, and all these people end up on disability if they are even accepted.  If not, go homeless and find a way to eat. I'm sorry, but it's not the answer.
> 
> So why don't we just increase employee contributions to support these wonderful programs?  Because if people knew what they actually cost, there would be a movement to get rid of them and depend on private insurance in the future.  The Democrats want nothing to do with that because you can't buy votes that way.  They wouldn't be able to tell people all the things Republicans want to take away from them if voted into power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not adjust the retirement age to the occupation?
Click to expand...


Because that's not fair to the people that don't qualify for early retirement by the government.  Plus it's subjective.  Some people will be able to work at that age but most won't.  There are occupations like mine that would be questioned.  After all, as long as I can climb in my tractor, I should be able to work until 70, right?  

A HVAC should be able to work until 70, but what happens when he needs to install a new AC or heating unit that weighs hundreds of pounds?  A plumber can do his job too, that's until he has to squeeze under a bathroom cabinet to fix a leak and he can't get in there with his back.  

It's just a huge problem.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> 
> 
> *If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here.  It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I'm sure everyone of them are using their kids to draw sympathy - hell why else would they be leaving some of the most violent gang ridden regions of the America's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been that way for many years over there.  Nothing has changed.  They had violent gangs and drug lords 20 years ago, today, and will have them 20 years from today.  If things are so bad there, WTF did these people have kids in the first place?  And how did they become OUR problem, simply because they ended up on our doorstep?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because people have kids.  We are biological creatures.  Kids represent our hopes for the future.  I chose not to but I don't blame those who chose to and who try to do right by them. Is that so hard to understand?
> 
> As to why it's our problem...well that's nothing new is it?  It's been our problem for several centuries.
Click to expand...


And that's why it has to stop now; because it has been our problem, a problem we don't need any longer.  Let people solve their own problems.  I too never had kids.  The wonderful thing about having kids is that it's a choice--not an infliction.  I chose not to have children because of the expense and my health problems I didn't want to pass along.  But now my taxes have to support kids other people had in countries where they should have known better?  It's bad enough I have to support American kids lowlifes have.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know...I've asked that many times.  They never answer.  The thing is - many of those illegally immigrating are fleeing horrific situations, they aren't economic migrants.  Many are trying to claim asylum - a perfectly LEGAL thing to do even if they cross illegally - it's the federal law, it's international law, it's their right.  They may not get it, often don't - but it's legal.
> 
> I was just listening to a piece on this...and one woman from El Salvador, who fled with her 5 yr old son.  She tried 6 times to claim asylum at a legal point of entry only to be turned away each time because they "didn't have enough facilities or resources to take more people" (illegal to turn away asylum seekers).  So she finally entered illegally and turned herself in.  She was promptly arrested, charged with a crime and her son was taken away from her.  For two months she had no idea where he was.  Finally he was located in a foster home in NY.  So now he is in the foster care system which is ANOTHER nightmare to get a kid out of.
> 
> It's absolutely sickening.
Click to expand...


So every time she was refused, where did she go?  She couldn't' have gone back home.  According to you, her home was unlivable and too dangerous.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here.  It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I'm sure everyone of them are using their kids to draw sympathy - hell why else would they be leaving some of the most violent gang ridden regions of the America's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been that way for many years over there.  Nothing has changed.  They had violent gangs and drug lords 20 years ago, today, and will have them 20 years from today.  If things are so bad there, WTF did these people have kids in the first place?  And how did they become OUR problem, simply because they ended up on our doorstep?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because people have kids.  We are biological creatures.  Kids represent our hopes for the future.  I chose not to but I don't blame those who chose to and who try to do right by them. Is that so hard to understand?
> 
> As to why it's our problem...well that's nothing new is it?  It's been our problem for several centuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's why it has to stop now; because it has been our problem, a problem we don't need any longer.  Let people solve their own problems.  I too never had kids.  The wonderful thing about having kids is that it's a choice--not an infliction.  I chose not to have children because of the expense and my health problems I didn't want to pass along.  But now my taxes have to support kids other people had in countries where they should have known better?  It's bad enough I have to support American kids lowlifes have.
Click to expand...

More than 100 politicians have been murdered in Mexico ahead of Sunday’s election


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> And that's why it has to stop now; because it has been our problem, a problem we don't need any longer. Let people solve their own problems. I too never had kids. The wonderful thing about having kids is that it's a choice--not an infliction. I chose not to have children because of the expense and my health problems I didn't want to pass along. But now my taxes have to support kids other people had in countries where they should have known better? It's bad enough I have to support American kids lowlifes have.



So your argument is that we are trying to make sure these kids are productive citizens, and you want to complain about that?  

We need the replacement workers, that's the thing...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's why it has to stop now; because it has been our problem, a problem we don't need any longer. Let people solve their own problems. I too never had kids. The wonderful thing about having kids is that it's a choice--not an infliction. I chose not to have children because of the expense and my health problems I didn't want to pass along. But now my taxes have to support kids other people had in countries where they should have known better? It's bad enough I have to support American kids lowlifes have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your argument is that we are trying to make sure these kids are productive citizens, and you want to complain about that?
> 
> We need the replacement workers, that's the thing...
Click to expand...


I'm complaining because other people create problems that we have to solve, and we can't even solve our own yet. 

STF out of this country.  If your country is so bad, fight to change it as we have ours in history.  We can't babysit the world.  We have 7.6 billion people on this planet, some of which have children living in worse environments than south America.  How many of these 7.6 billion are we to take in?


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's why it has to stop now; because it has been our problem, a problem we don't need any longer. Let people solve their own problems. I too never had kids. The wonderful thing about having kids is that it's a choice--not an infliction. I chose not to have children because of the expense and my health problems I didn't want to pass along. But now my taxes have to support kids other people had in countries where they should have known better? It's bad enough I have to support American kids lowlifes have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your argument is that we are trying to make sure these kids are productive citizens, and you want to complain about that?
> 
> We need the replacement workers, that's the thing...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm complaining because other people create problems that we have to solve, and we can't even solve our own yet.
> 
> STF out of this country.  If your country is so bad, fight to change it as we have ours in history.  We can't babysit the world.  We have 7.6 billion people on this planet, some of which have children living in worse environments than south America.  How many of these 7.6 billion are we to take in?
Click to expand...


Look Ray - OUR ancestors didn't stay to fight to change their country - the FLED.  HERE.  That's a weak argument Ray.


----------



## danielpalos

The United States is Losing the War on Drugs in the Americas


----------



## pismoe

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> 
> 
> *If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here.  It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I'm sure everyone of them are using their kids to draw sympathy - hell why else would they be leaving some of the most violent gang ridden regions of the America's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been that way for many years over there.  Nothing has changed.  They had violent gangs and drug lords 20 years ago, today, and will have them 20 years from today.  If things are so bad there, WTF did these people have kids in the first place?  And how did they become OUR problem, simply because they ended up on our doorstep?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because people have kids.  We are biological creatures.  Kids represent our hopes for the future.  I chose not to but I don't blame those who chose to and who try to do right by them. Is that so hard to understand?
> 
> As to why it's our problem...well that's nothing new is it?  It's been our problem for several centuries.
Click to expand...

-------------------------------------------------------------   no kids eh , another poster in a different thread made the comment that those without their OWN Flesh and blood kids don't really care about what the USA is like tomorrow [in 20 years] because childless people don't really have a stake in TOMORROW .   I agree with that thinking .   The other poster was talking about some 'europeOn' leaders that are willing to feck up 'europe' with muslim immigrants because the leaders will be dead and gone when the muslim immigrants take over  Coyote .


----------



## Coyote

pismoe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here.  It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I'm sure everyone of them are using their kids to draw sympathy - hell why else would they be leaving some of the most violent gang ridden regions of the America's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been that way for many years over there.  Nothing has changed.  They had violent gangs and drug lords 20 years ago, today, and will have them 20 years from today.  If things are so bad there, WTF did these people have kids in the first place?  And how did they become OUR problem, simply because they ended up on our doorstep?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because people have kids.  We are biological creatures.  Kids represent our hopes for the future.  I chose not to but I don't blame those who chose to and who try to do right by them. Is that so hard to understand?
> 
> As to why it's our problem...well that's nothing new is it?  It's been our problem for several centuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------   no kids eh* , another poster in a different thread made the comment that those without their OWN Flesh and blood kids don't really care about what the USA *is like tomorrow [in 20 years] because childless people don't really have a stake in TOMORROW .   I agree with that thinking .   The other poster was talking about some 'europeOn' leaders that are willing to feck up 'europe' with muslim immigrants because the leaders will be dead and gone when the muslim immigrants take over  Coyote .
Click to expand...


I don't think so Pis.  You don't have to have kids of your own to care about kids.  And you certainly don't have to have kids to care about your country.  But I suppose for some - having kids makes it easier to buy into hate mongering and scape goating eh Pis?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's why it has to stop now; because it has been our problem, a problem we don't need any longer. Let people solve their own problems. I too never had kids. The wonderful thing about having kids is that it's a choice--not an infliction. I chose not to have children because of the expense and my health problems I didn't want to pass along. But now my taxes have to support kids other people had in countries where they should have known better? It's bad enough I have to support American kids lowlifes have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your argument is that we are trying to make sure these kids are productive citizens, and you want to complain about that?
> 
> We need the replacement workers, that's the thing...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm complaining because other people create problems that we have to solve, and we can't even solve our own yet.
> 
> STF out of this country.  If your country is so bad, fight to change it as we have ours in history.  We can't babysit the world.  We have 7.6 billion people on this planet, some of which have children living in worse environments than south America.  How many of these 7.6 billion are we to take in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look Ray - OUR ancestors didn't stay to fight to change their country - the FLED.  HERE.  That's a weak argument Ray.
Click to expand...


They fled here legally, and in most cases not because their country was in turmoil.  And even then, did the rest who stayed back change their country or not?  

Yes, there was a time when immigrants were needed in the US.  But today we are a population of 320 million people plus the illegal who are here.  I think we are quite full if we want to live in the peace we live in now.


----------



## pismoe

human history is full of men who fought for their kids .  WW2 was fought by men so that their wives and kids wouldn't have to live under the 'nazis' .   Life was / is good in the USA .  Why feck it up by bringing in boatloads of the third worlders into the USA that have to be given everything at taxpayer and American expense Coyote ??


----------



## Flopper

Slyhunter said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if you got a speeding ticket while your kids were in the car, they should be taken from you and locked in a cage without you knowing where they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Depends on how fast they were going. News report about a guy going 110 over the speed limit. He didn't get a ticket he got arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because there's such a thing as "felony speeding" in some states.
> 
> For the thinking-impaired (I'm looking at you, Coyote), anything that gets you taken into law enforcement custody while your children are with you WILL result in you being separated from your children at that time.  There is no amount of bullshit you can throw up about "speeding" and "jaywalking" and whatever else you dream up that doesn't involve being arrested that is going to change the fact that crossing the border illegally IS an offense that results in being arrested, and being arrested IS a circumstance that involves being separated from any children you have in tow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can pretend this policy of Trump's is business as usual. It isn't and humans that haven't abandoned their compassion know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compassion can end you up in the poor house and make everyone in America Poverty stricken.
Click to expand...

*I watched your video and the speaker makes some good points but totally misses the reason we need immigrants.  We need immigration to fill the jobs of the future.  We can not fill the jobs we're creating with native born Americans because our birthrate is too low and our retirement rate is too high.  We don't need the poorest of the poor but the best of the poor.  We need people that can be an asset to the nation.  Our immigration laws concentrate on bringing in close family member but we need to keep in mind that we need good people, not just family members.*


----------



## dudmuck




----------



## Flopper

JoeB131 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="Ray
> *I agree SS contributions should increase.  If we don't, the choice is SS either goes the Medicare Route with government funding the difference between contributions and benefits paid or benefits are cut 25% to equal contributions.  This will occur in the 2040's if nothing changes.
> 
> The government already funds Medicare, to the tune of 275 billion in 2015 and it increase every year.
> 
> There're two Medicare trust funds, the Hospital Insurance Fund which pays hospital bills (Part A) and the Supplemental Fund (Part B and Part D).
> 
> The Hospital Insurance Fund is funded by payroll contributions.  The last increase in contributions  was in 1985. It has balance of 205 billion.  It's expenditures exceed income by about 3 to 5 billion, so it will probably not need an increase in payroll contributions for some years.  BTW this was Medicare until the 1960's when congress expanded Medicare to include Part B which includes medical expenses other than hospital costs.
> 
> The Supplemental Insurance Fund is the problem. It pays for doctor visits, drugs, and all other medical expenses other than hospital costs.  It is a voluntary option, called Part B of Medicare.  Part D covering drugs was added in 2005.  It is funded by contributions from beneficiaries who choose this coverage.  It pays roughly 80% of covered expenses and beneficiary pays 20%.   It's funded by monthly payments by beneficiaries and transfers from the general fund.
> 
> In 2015, the general fund transfers were 272 billion and payments by beneficiaries were 82 billion to the Supplemental Fund.
> 
> The concept of the Hospital Insurance Fund is similar to Social Security, the workers pay into the fund to defray cost when they retire.  The Supplemental Fund is totally different.  It's a system of sharing medical costs of the retired and disabled between beneficiaries and goverment.  Expenses of the Supplemental Fund are more than twice that of the Hospital Fund and growing rapidly.
> 
> I believe we need to gradually raise retirement age  and Medicare eligibility age to 70 over the new 20 years.  This will not totally solve the funding problem with either S.S. or Medicare but it will certain help.  It will also help  relieve a growing shortage in the labor force.  Right now we have 3 million jobs openings and we are adding hundreds of thousands of new jobs a year.  Also, our birthrate is almost equal to our death rate and is falling.  We are retiring 10,000 people a day and will for many years.  If the nation is to continue to grow we have to have more workers.  That can come from much higher immigration rates, which doesn't seem likely or we spend more of our life working and less in retirement.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All very well said, Flopper.
> 
> The problem is, you have a better grasp on the dynamics of the issue then the people making the policy.
> 
> I think the answer to medicare is Medicare Part E... Single payer like every other country has.
> 
> For Social Security, you are right, we probably need to raise the age to 70.  When it was first enacted, m ost people didn't live to be 65.  Today the average lifespan is 78.
Click to expand...

*People are quick to come up with the horrors that await the nation with single payer, shortages of medical care, rationing, skyrocketing prices, etc.  However, what people don't consider is government is paying for 64% of our healthcare now.  Will pushing that percentage up 36% really create a disaster in healthcare.  I think not.  What it will do is eliminate a lot of waste, duplication, and cost in the payment system. We have over a dozen federal agencies, 50 states, and about 100 major insurance companies, regulating and paying for healthcare.   

Our current system provides us with all disadvantages of a highly diversified healthcare payment system and none of the advantages.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you got a speeding ticket while your kids were in the car, they should be taken from you and locked in a cage without you knowing where they are?
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on how fast they were going. News report about a guy going 110 over the speed limit. He didn't get a ticket he got arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because there's such a thing as "felony speeding" in some states.
> 
> For the thinking-impaired (I'm looking at you, Coyote), anything that gets you taken into law enforcement custody while your children are with you WILL result in you being separated from your children at that time.  There is no amount of bullshit you can throw up about "speeding" and "jaywalking" and whatever else you dream up that doesn't involve being arrested that is going to change the fact that crossing the border illegally IS an offense that results in being arrested, and being arrested IS a circumstance that involves being separated from any children you have in tow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can pretend this policy of Trump's is business as usual. It isn't and humans that haven't abandoned their compassion know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compassion can end you up in the poor house and make everyone in America Poverty stricken.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I watched your video and the speaker makes some good points but totally misses the reason we need immigrants.  We need immigration to fill the jobs of the future.  We can not fill the jobs we're creating with native born Americans because our birthrate is too low and our retirement rate is too high.  We don't need the poorest of the poor but the best of the poor.  We need people that can be an asset to the nation.  Our immigration laws concentrate on bringing in close family member but we need to keep in mind that we need good people, not just family members.*
Click to expand...


We have 6.5 million unemployed Americans today.  Why do we need more people to do jobs?  Why do we need to expand simply because we have a lot of jobs? 

So the jobs go unfulfilled, then what happens?  Employers have to increase offers.  They need to increase pay rates, benefits, anything to get people to work in their industry.  

But this is a bad thing?  We need more people in this country to keep wages and benefits lower?


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on how fast they were going. News report about a guy going 110 over the speed limit. He didn't get a ticket he got arrested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because there's such a thing as "felony speeding" in some states.
> 
> For the thinking-impaired (I'm looking at you, Coyote), anything that gets you taken into law enforcement custody while your children are with you WILL result in you being separated from your children at that time.  There is no amount of bullshit you can throw up about "speeding" and "jaywalking" and whatever else you dream up that doesn't involve being arrested that is going to change the fact that crossing the border illegally IS an offense that results in being arrested, and being arrested IS a circumstance that involves being separated from any children you have in tow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can pretend this policy of Trump's is business as usual. It isn't and humans that haven't abandoned their compassion know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compassion can end you up in the poor house and make everyone in America Poverty stricken.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I watched your video and the speaker makes some good points but totally misses the reason we need immigrants.  We need immigration to fill the jobs of the future.  We can not fill the jobs we're creating with native born Americans because our birthrate is too low and our retirement rate is too high.  We don't need the poorest of the poor but the best of the poor.  We need people that can be an asset to the nation.  Our immigration laws concentrate on bringing in close family member but we need to keep in mind that we need good people, not just family members.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have 6.5 million unemployed Americans today.  Why do we need more people to do jobs?  Why do we need to expand simply because we have a lot of jobs?
> 
> So the jobs go unfulfilled, then what happens?  Employers have to increase offers.  They need to increase pay rates, benefits, anything to get people to work in their industry.
> 
> But this is a bad thing?  We need more people in this country to keep wages and benefits lower?
Click to expand...

*Do you know what structural employment is?  There is link below that explains it.  Most of the people that are unemployed today are either part of our structural employment, chose not to work, or are simply in between jobs. Economist say we are now at full employment which means that all eligible people who want to work can find employment.  As employment pushes lower than full employment, wages and inflation rise rapidly. Is that a bad thing? yes. 

As long as wages rise along with higher productivity that is good for the nation but wage increases due to shortages of workers is not.  Wage increases due labor shortages mean the nation is hiring marginally productive workers at higher rates.  That leads to inflation not higher productivity.

We are creating jobs at a monthly rate as high as 250,000/mo and we have 3 million unfilled jobs.  We simply will not have the people we need to fill the jobs that will be created because of a very low birthrate and high retirement rate.  As I explained above worker shortages are not good for the economy or the country.

Structural Unemployment*


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I'm complaining because other people create problems that we have to solve, and we can't even solve our own yet.
> 
> STF out of this country. If your country is so bad, fight to change it as we have ours in history. We can't babysit the world. We have 7.6 billion people on this planet, some of which have children living in worse environments than south America. How many of these 7.6 billion are we to take in?



again, illegal immigration is at a 30 year low and we don't have that many people trying to get in. That you think the small amount of people we are taking in is a problem is really more about you than them. 

We can solve our problems just fine... we just refuse to.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes, there was a time when immigrants were needed in the US. But today we are a population of 320 million people plus the illegal who are here. I think we are quite full if we want to live in the peace we live in now.



Actually, the undocumented are part of that 320 million, and we kind of need immigrants because White People aren't even reproducing at replacement rates.  More of us are dying than being born.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> We desperately need more legal immigrants...
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. We are a nation of 330,000,000 - one third of a billion - we already have the intellect and the warm bodies to produce whatever we need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Our birth rate is much too low.  It just reached a 30 year low and if the trend continues as is likely, our birth rate will be less than the death rate within 10 to 15 years.  We also have 10,000 people a day going into retirement and we are generating 150,000 to 250,000 jobs a month. Immigration is limited to about 680,000 a year.  Do the math.  If we're going to continue to grow, we are going to need a lot more people in the 21 century.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is this obsession with having to grow?  Do you realize we had over a 100 million less people here in 1970 than we do today and we did just fine?  And that was back in the day where automation wasn't even a concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A republican trumpster is asking about the need for growth?  That's usually something we hear from liberal environmentalists.
> 
> Our economy is based on consumption and increased production of goods and services which is closely linked to growth in population.  You need more people to consume and you need more people to produce otherwise you have no economic growth.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, so we have 320 million now.  What about 400 million?  And if 400 million is good, then 700 million is better, right?  And if 700 million is good, then 1.3 billion is the best, right?
Click to expand...

/----/ Here's a great idea in the works.
*Trump Orders Catapults Be Placed Along Border To Expedite Deportations*


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> We have 6.5 million unemployed Americans today. Why do we need more people to do jobs? Why do we need to expand simply because we have a lot of jobs?



We have 6.5 million unemployed people who don't want to pick lettuce and clean toilets...  They want skilled jobs that pay living wages.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> So the jobs go unfulfilled, then what happens? Employers have to increase offers. They need to increase pay rates, benefits, anything to get people to work in their industry.



Um, problem with that, and you would say it if we were talking about a $15.00 minimum wage for burger flippers, is that it will cause the costs of everything else to go up, triggering inflation.


----------



## Kondor3

JoeB131 said:


> ...again, illegal immigration is at a 30 year low...


That may be true, but (a) the damage is done, (b) we have 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens here now, to deal with and (c) we must prevent that from happening again.



> ...and we don't have that many people trying to get in...


That may be true, but (a) the damage is done, (b) we have 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens here now, to deal with and (c) we must prevent that from happening again.



> ...That you think the small amount of people we are taking in is a problem is really more about you than them....


That may be true, but (a) the damage is done, (b) we have 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens here now, to deal with and (c) we must prevent that from happening again.



> ...We can solve our problems just fine... we just refuse to...


True. What is happening now, however, makes for an amusing and effective down-payment on the entire course of "treatment" for this particular infestation.



> ...Actually, the undocumented are part of that 320 million...


320,000,000 - 12,000,000 = 308,000,000 = more (of everything) for us



> ...and we kind of need immigrants because White People aren't even reproducing at replacement rates.  More of us are dying than being born.


Nonsense. Time to thin-out the herd a bit anyway. Wake us up if-and-when we slide below the 250,000,000 mark. Barring that... let the population decline begin.


----------



## Kondor3

Cellblock2429 said:


> /----/ Here's a great idea in the works.
> Trump Orders Catapults Be Placed Along Border To Expedite Deportations


Typical Gubmint Screw-Up... they order catapults, and they get trebuchets...


----------



## pismoe

you last paragraph says it all .   I have to wonder why more people are needed in the USA .   Who wants to live in a crowded USA of different and divided cultures that need to be catered to and appeased   Kondor .


----------



## pismoe

and who trusts or believes that made up number of 11 million illegals in the USA .  That ' B.S.' number has got to be at least 20 years old .


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here.  It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
Click to expand...


Trying to hide behind the skirts of a small minority of extreme "hard cases" is standard leftism.  They try to excuse millions of abortions of convenience by screaming about "rape, incest, life of the mother!" and they try to excuse millions of illegals motivated by economics by screaming about "fear for their lives!"

And then they wonder how we ended up with President Trump.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if you got a speeding ticket while your kids were in the car, they should be taken from you and locked in a cage without you knowing where they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How fucking fast were you going when you got pulled over, Seabiscuit, that you got arrested for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A misdemeanor is a misdemeanor. I’ve only gotten one speeding ticket in my life...55 in a 40. How many people get hauled off to jail, their children stripped from their feeding breast, for a misdemeanor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you blockheaded twat, as I've said so many times I'm sick of it, all misdemeanors are NOT the same.  You can keep ignoring it and coming back every couple of days to restate your imbecilic take on the world as though it's fresh and new, but it's not gonna help.
> 
> Speeding tickets and jaywalking and littering and whatever other godforsaken thing you leftist mouthbreathers dredge up are NOT the sum total of what constitutes a misdemeanor.  Just as was the case the LAST six times I said this, misdemeanors come in several different classes, depending on the jurisdiction.  And the most serious class of misdemeanors includes things like DUI, assault, hit-and-run, burglary . . . all things for which many people can and do "get hauled off to jail" and have "their children stripped from their feeding breast"  (seriously, you have GOT to tone down the melodrama).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously.  I hope YOU have your children or grandchildren taken from you.  I hope you have no idea where they are or how to get them back.  Then maybe you would have an iota of compassion for what these mothers go through.  Oh.  And while you are at it why don't you move your fat comfortable ass to El Salvador and see what it's like there?
> 
> Never mind.  You are far too entitled.
Click to expand...


Seriously, I hope you grow enough brain cells to see yourself as you really are and have to live with the shame of being yourself for the rest of your natural life.


----------



## JoeB131

Kondor3 said:


> That may be true, but (a) the damage is done, (b) we have 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens here now, to deal with and (c) we must prevent that from happening again.



Again, it's only bad in your mind because you are a bigot.  This country has been absorbing immigrants for centuries...  

Here's what we do to "Fix" it. 

12 million who are already here should be granted an amnesty, if they self-identify, with a case-by-case review.  This worked just fine when Reagan did it 30 years ago.  

The way to prevent future problems is to have a guest worker program that will allow cheap seasonal labor.  Actually, when we had an open border, these folks came up for the harvest season, and went home when it was over.  

What caused the "Crisis" is that 1) NAFTA devastated Mexican Agriculture by forcing Mexican farmers out of their own market and 2) Increased border security on our side meant that instead of going home at the end of harvest season, you might as well stay instead of keep having to navigate your way past.  

But the only "Crisis" we have is white bigots living in mortal fear their daughters might date a Mexican.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here.  It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to hide behind the skirts of a small minority of extreme "hard cases" is standard leftism.  They try to excuse millions of abortions of convenience by screaming about "rape, incest, life of the mother!" and they try to excuse millions of illegals motivated by economics by screaming about "fear for their lives!"
> 
> And then they wonder how we ended up with President Trump.
Click to expand...


If there was some sort of war or government takeover in these counties, I could better understand.  But these countries haven't changed in some time.  There is no sudden need to escape an environment they've lived in most of their lives.   Sure, they want a better place to live, and that's understandable.  But I'm certain you will find many children and parents in Asia and Africa that feel the same way.    I'm sure there are billions of people that would love to invade the US.


----------



## pismoe

JoeB131 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That may be true, but (a) the damage is done, (b) we have 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens here now, to deal with and (c) we must prevent that from happening again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it's only bad in your mind because you are a bigot.  This country has been absorbing immigrants for centuries...
> 
> Here's what we do to "Fix" it.
> 
> 12 million who are already here should be granted an amnesty, if they self-identify, with a case-by-case review.  This worked just fine when Reagan did it 30 years ago.
> 
> The way to prevent future problems is to have a guest worker program that will allow cheap seasonal labor.  Actually, when we had an open border, these folks came up for the harvest season, and went home when it was over.
> 
> What caused the "Crisis" is that 1) NAFTA devastated Mexican Agriculture by forcing Mexican farmers out of their own market and 2) Increased border security on our side meant that instead of going home at the end of harvest season, you might as well stay instead of keep having to navigate your way past.
> 
> But the only "Crisis" we have is white bigots living in mortal fear their daughters might date a Mexican.
Click to expand...

------------------------------------  my only concern is the NUMBERS plus the fact that third world mexicans and others will make the USA a third world zhithole .   See downtown 'los angeles' and most of the surrounding southern kalifornia cities   JoeB .


----------



## pismoe

pismoe said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That may be true, but (a) the damage is done, (b) we have 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens here now, to deal with and (c) we must prevent that from happening again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it's only bad in your mind because you are a bigot.  This country has been absorbing immigrants for centuries...
> 
> Here's what we do to "Fix" it.
> 
> 12 million who are already here should be granted an amnesty, if they self-identify, with a case-by-case review.  This worked just fine when Reagan did it 30 years ago.
> 
> The way to prevent future problems is to have a guest worker program that will allow cheap seasonal labor.  Actually, when we had an open border, these folks came up for the harvest season, and went home when it was over.
> 
> What caused the "Crisis" is that 1) NAFTA devastated Mexican Agriculture by forcing Mexican farmers out of their own market and 2) Increased border security on our side meant that instead of going home at the end of harvest season, you might as well stay instead of keep having to navigate your way past.
> 
> But the only "Crisis" we have is white bigots living in mortal fear their daughters might date a Mexican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ------------------------------------  my only concern is the NUMBERS plus the fact that third world mexicans and others will make the USA a third world zhithole .   See downtown 'los angeles' and most of the surrounding southern kalifornia cities   JoeB .
Click to expand...

---------------------------------   and probably applies to many big gateway cities in the USA   JoeB .


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> We have 6.5 million unemployed people who don't want to pick lettuce and clean toilets... They want skilled jobs that pay living wages.



And you know this how?  People with skills are usually aggressive people who will change trades or careers just to work.  When I drive in the cities, I don't see a lot of educated tradesmen walking around.  I see younger people--some drinking out of a bottle in a  brown paper bag.  I see my HUD neighbors who's cars don't move all day long.  I don't think they are skilled workers waiting for a technical job.  



JoeB131 said:


> Um, problem with that, and you would say it if we were talking about a $15.00 minimum wage for burger flippers, is that it will cause the costs of everything else to go up, triggering inflation.



That's forced wages.  I don't believe in forced wages.  However I do believe that left on it's own, everything will balance out if it happens naturally.  Yes, it would cause a little inflation, but everybody would be making more money as well--not just a select group of people such as the minimum wage workers that represent 4% of our workforce.


----------



## pismoe

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here.  It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to hide behind the skirts of a small minority of extreme "hard cases" is standard leftism.  They try to excuse millions of abortions of convenience by screaming about "rape, incest, life of the mother!" and they try to excuse millions of illegals motivated by economics by screaming about "fear for their lives!"
> 
> And then they wonder how we ended up with President Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was some sort of war or government takeover in these counties, I could better understand.  But these countries haven't changed in some time.  There is no sudden need to escape an environment they've lived in most of their lives.   Sure, they want a better place to live, and that's understandable.  But I'm certain you will find many children and parents in Asia and Africa that feel the same way.    I'm sure there are billions of people that would love to invade the US.
Click to expand...

------------------------------   much of the problem is close USA Proximity to lots of third world zhithole countries .   Plus the 'reagan , the bush'es , clinton and mrobama .   They all want the USA dissolved with a diverse population replacing Real Americans and that is always fighting amongst themselves .


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

pismoe said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That may be true, but (a) the damage is done, (b) we have 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens here now, to deal with and (c) we must prevent that from happening again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it's only bad in your mind because you are a bigot.  This country has been absorbing immigrants for centuries...
> 
> Here's what we do to "Fix" it.
> 
> 12 million who are already here should be granted an amnesty, if they self-identify, with a case-by-case review.  This worked just fine when Reagan did it 30 years ago.
> 
> The way to prevent future problems is to have a guest worker program that will allow cheap seasonal labor.  Actually, when we had an open border, these folks came up for the harvest season, and went home when it was over.
> 
> What caused the "Crisis" is that 1) NAFTA devastated Mexican Agriculture by forcing Mexican farmers out of their own market and 2) Increased border security on our side meant that instead of going home at the end of harvest season, you might as well stay instead of keep having to navigate your way past.
> 
> But the only "Crisis" we have is white bigots living in mortal fear their daughters might date a Mexican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ------------------------------------  my only concern is the NUMBERS plus the fact that third world mexicans and others will make the USA a third world zhithole .   See downtown 'los angeles' and most of the surrounding southern kalifornia cities   JoeB .
Click to expand...


Of course.  When you look at these shit hole countries as Trump was "accused" of saying, is it the land or the people that made them shit holes?  It's the people.  So now the leftist idea is to bring those people here. 

The left has moved lowlifes in our country to better areas, and all that does is ruin better areas.  If you take 3/4 cup of fresh wholesome milk, and mix that with 1/4 cup of stale curdled milk, you only have one thing, and that's a cup of bad milk. 

The left has never learned that lesson and probably never will.  They won't be happy until the entire country is ruined.  Then they will somehow blame it on Republicans.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> again, illegal immigration is at a 30 year low and we don't have that many people trying to get in. That you think the small amount of people we are taking in is a problem is really more about you than them.
> 
> We can solve our problems just fine... we just refuse to.



You are correct, but the Democrats stopped us from building that wall. 



JoeB131 said:


> Actually, the undocumented are part of that 320 million, and we kind of need immigrants because White People aren't even reproducing at replacement rates. More of us are dying than being born.



So we become a less populated country.  Why is that such a bad thing to the left?  Oh, that's right, you were told by your puppet masters it was a bad thing, but have no explanation as to why. 

The US population in 1970 was 205 million people.  That's more than a third less of what we have today.  What was so devastating when we only had that size of population?


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm complaining because other people create problems that we have to solve, and we can't even solve our own yet.
> 
> STF out of this country. If your country is so bad, fight to change it as we have ours in history. We can't babysit the world. We have 7.6 billion people on this planet, some of which have children living in worse environments than south America. How many of these 7.6 billion are we to take in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, illegal immigration is at a 30 year low and we don't have that many people trying to get in. That you think the small amount of people we are taking in is a problem is really more about you than them.
> 
> We can solve our problems just fine... we just refuse to.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there was a time when immigrants were needed in the US. But today we are a population of 320 million people plus the illegal who are here. I think we are quite full if we want to live in the peace we live in now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the undocumented are part of that 320 million, and we kind of need immigrants because White People aren't even reproducing at replacement rates.  More of us are dying than being born.
Click to expand...

/——/ Then it’s time to shut the abortion mills and rebuild the population


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because there's such a thing as "felony speeding" in some states.
> 
> For the thinking-impaired (I'm looking at you, Coyote), anything that gets you taken into law enforcement custody while your children are with you WILL result in you being separated from your children at that time.  There is no amount of bullshit you can throw up about "speeding" and "jaywalking" and whatever else you dream up that doesn't involve being arrested that is going to change the fact that crossing the border illegally IS an offense that results in being arrested, and being arrested IS a circumstance that involves being separated from any children you have in tow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can pretend this policy of Trump's is business as usual. It isn't and humans that haven't abandoned their compassion know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compassion can end you up in the poor house and make everyone in America Poverty stricken.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I watched your video and the speaker makes some good points but totally misses the reason we need immigrants.  We need immigration to fill the jobs of the future.  We can not fill the jobs we're creating with native born Americans because our birthrate is too low and our retirement rate is too high.  We don't need the poorest of the poor but the best of the poor.  We need people that can be an asset to the nation.  Our immigration laws concentrate on bringing in close family member but we need to keep in mind that we need good people, not just family members.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have 6.5 million unemployed Americans today.  Why do we need more people to do jobs?  Why do we need to expand simply because we have a lot of jobs?
> 
> So the jobs go unfulfilled, then what happens?  Employers have to increase offers.  They need to increase pay rates, benefits, anything to get people to work in their industry.
> 
> But this is a bad thing?  We need more people in this country to keep wages and benefits lower?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Do you know what structural employment is?  There is link below that explains it.  Most of the people that are unemployed today are either part of our structural employment, chose not to work, or are simply in between jobs. Economist say we are now at full employment which means that all eligible people who want to work can find employment.  As employment pushes lower than full employment, wages and inflation rise rapidly. Is that a bad thing? yes.
> 
> As long as wages rise along with higher productivity that is good for the nation but wage increases due to shortages of workers is not.  Wage increases due labor shortages mean the nation is hiring marginally productive workers at higher rates.  That leads to inflation not higher productivity.
> 
> We are creating jobs at a monthly rate as high as 250,000/mo and we have 3 million unfilled jobs.  We simply will not have the people we need to fill the jobs that will be created because of a very low birthrate and high retirement rate.  As I explained above worker shortages are not good for the economy or the country.
> 
> Structural Unemployment*
Click to expand...



This economy is not going to last forever, in fact it will probably slow down sometime soon.  Then what are we going to do with all these people that won't have a job? 

Well.......it would create more government dependents--one of the keys to the success of the Democrat party.

Picture a movable ceiling and a floor.  They are both moving towards each other.  The ceiling represents blue collar jobs that are quickly being replaced by automation.  The floor moving upwards represents our unskilled labor population.  Do you see the problem now? 

The last thing we need is to make that floor move even faster.


----------



## Slyhunter

Coyote said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know...I've asked that many times.  They never answer.  The thing is - many of those illegally immigrating are fleeing horrific situations, they aren't economic migrants.  Many are trying to claim asylum - a perfectly LEGAL thing to do even if they cross illegally - it's the federal law, it's international law, it's their right.  They may not get it, often don't - but it's legal.
> 
> I was just listening to a piece on this...and one woman from El Salvador, who fled with her 5 yr old son.  She tried 6 times to claim asylum at a legal point of entry only to be turned away each time because they "didn't have enough facilities or resources to take more people" (illegal to turn away asylum seekers).  So she finally entered illegally and turned herself in.  She was promptly arrested, charged with a crime and her son was taken away from her.  For two months she had no idea where he was.  Finally he was located in a foster home in NY.  So now he is in the foster care system which is ANOTHER nightmare to get a kid out of.
> 
> It's absolutely sickening.
Click to expand...

Did I forget to post this in this thread? We can't take them all without ruining the livelihoods of Americans.


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeB131 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That may be true, but (a) the damage is done, (b) we have 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens here now, to deal with and (c) we must prevent that from happening again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it's only bad in your mind because you are a bigot.  This country has been absorbing immigrants for centuries...
> 
> Here's what we do to "Fix" it.
> 
> 12 million who are already here should be granted an amnesty, if they self-identify, with a case-by-case review.  This worked just fine when Reagan did it 30 years ago.
> 
> The way to prevent future problems is to have a guest worker program that will allow cheap seasonal labor.  Actually, when we had an open border, these folks came up for the harvest season, and went home when it was over.
> 
> What caused the "Crisis" is that 1) NAFTA devastated Mexican Agriculture by forcing Mexican farmers out of their own market and 2) Increased border security on our side meant that instead of going home at the end of harvest season, you might as well stay instead of keep having to navigate your way past.
> 
> But the only "Crisis" we have is white bigots living in mortal fear their daughters might date a Mexican.
Click to expand...

It did not work just fine when Reagan did it 30 years ago. If it worked fine we wouldn't have another 30+ million illegals in our country.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here.  It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I'm sure everyone of them are using their kids to draw sympathy - hell why else would they be leaving some of the most violent gang ridden regions of the America's.
Click to expand...




Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here.  It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I'm sure everyone of them are using their kids to draw sympathy - hell why else would they be leaving some of the most violent gang ridden regions of the America's.
Click to expand...


"Protecting children at the border is complicated because *there have, indeed, been instances of fraud*. Tens of thousands of migrants arrive there every year, and *those with children in tow are often released into the United States more quickly than adults who come alone, because of restrictions on the amount of time that minors can be held in custody.* Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but *because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.*

*Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own*, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing."
Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents at U.S. Border

"The *sharp decline in the U.S. population of unauthorized immigrants that accompanied the 2007-2009 recession* has bottomed out, and the number may be rising again."

So they're all "fleeing in fear of their lives", but mysteriously stopped fearing for their lives while the US was in a recession?  Uh huh.

"Most of the U.S. unauthorized population comes from Mexico—52% in 2012"

Mexico sucks, no question about it, but it's not exactly the war-torn horror leftists keep trying to tell us all these illegals are fleeing.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2013/09/Unauthorized-Sept-2013-FINAL.pdf

"A 2009 Pew Global survey found that 57% of Mexicans believed they would have a better life if they came to the United States."

"Why do so many people come daily to United States illegally? What are the various reasons for illegal immigration? What can be done to stop illegal immigration in the United States? Let's find out.

* I think everyone in the world knows, that most immigrants coming to the US come from Mexico. Mexico has low economy and a high population. The country is still engaged in a war with various Mexican drug cartels which kills more than 80,000 people every year. The US on the other hand has a powerful economy with more number of jobs and a safe environment which attracts Mexican residents to come here.
* Most people in Mexico live under the extreme poverty line. Mexico is not a third world country but it's also not a developed economy. United States offers more benefits for the unemployed and for people living on the streets. This is a major bait for many Mexican illegal immigrants.
* There's a high percentage of people coming into the US not for employment or food, but they come here to meet their long lost brothers or family members. It's a common practice for immigrants to cross the border to meet their loved ones."
Reasons for Illegal Immigration


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's why it has to stop now; because it has been our problem, a problem we don't need any longer. Let people solve their own problems. I too never had kids. The wonderful thing about having kids is that it's a choice--not an infliction. I chose not to have children because of the expense and my health problems I didn't want to pass along. But now my taxes have to support kids other people had in countries where they should have known better? It's bad enough I have to support American kids lowlifes have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your argument is that we are trying to make sure these kids are productive citizens, and you want to complain about that?
> 
> We need the replacement workers, that's the thing...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm complaining because other people create problems that we have to solve, and we can't even solve our own yet.
> 
> STF out of this country.  If your country is so bad, fight to change it as we have ours in history.  We can't babysit the world.  We have 7.6 billion people on this planet, some of which have children living in worse environments than south America.  How many of these 7.6 billion are we to take in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look Ray - OUR ancestors didn't stay to fight to change their country - the FLED.  HERE.  That's a weak argument Ray.
Click to expand...


Who is "our"?  MY ancestors didn't "flee" anything.  They were colonists.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here.  It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to hide behind the skirts of a small minority of extreme "hard cases" is standard leftism.  They try to excuse millions of abortions of convenience by screaming about "rape, incest, life of the mother!" and they try to excuse millions of illegals motivated by economics by screaming about "fear for their lives!"
> 
> And then they wonder how we ended up with President Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was some sort of war or government takeover in these counties, I could better understand.  But these countries haven't changed in some time.  There is no sudden need to escape an environment they've lived in most of their lives.   Sure, they want a better place to live, and that's understandable.  But I'm certain you will find many children and parents in Asia and Africa that feel the same way.    I'm sure there are billions of people that would love to invade the US.
Click to expand...


Let's face it, the United States is preferable to 90% of the countries on Earth, including a lot of the ones in Europe.  Personally, I think it's better than any other country on Earth.

Doesn't mean we're obligated to let everyone else on Earth live here.


----------



## pismoe

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again, illegal immigration is at a 30 year low and we don't have that many people trying to get in. That you think the small amount of people we are taking in is a problem is really more about you than them.
> 
> We can solve our problems just fine... we just refuse to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct, but the Democrats stopped us from building that wall.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the undocumented are part of that 320 million, and we kind of need immigrants because White People aren't even reproducing at replacement rates. More of us are dying than being born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we become a less populated country.  Why is that such a bad thing to the left?  Oh, that's right, you were told by your puppet masters it was a bad thing, but have no explanation as to why.
> 
> The US population in 1970 was 205 million people.  That's more than a third less of what we have today.  What was so devastating when we only had that size of population?
Click to expand...

-----------------------------------------  it was fine , 205 million and i was a 20 year old young adult working on the Railroad . i got hired in 68 or 69 by filling out a paper application that asked  , WHO do you know and are you related to them ??   All the guys i worked with were local boys from the area .  A 'union' Railroad with maybe a hundred miles of Rail not including the Yards .   We were hauling iron ore from the Masabe Range to our ore dock on Lake Superior .    It was fine and not a third worlder to be seen anywhere and everyone made good union money and benefits .


----------



## Cecilie1200

Cellblock2429 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm complaining because other people create problems that we have to solve, and we can't even solve our own yet.
> 
> STF out of this country. If your country is so bad, fight to change it as we have ours in history. We can't babysit the world. We have 7.6 billion people on this planet, some of which have children living in worse environments than south America. How many of these 7.6 billion are we to take in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, illegal immigration is at a 30 year low and we don't have that many people trying to get in. That you think the small amount of people we are taking in is a problem is really more about you than them.
> 
> We can solve our problems just fine... we just refuse to.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there was a time when immigrants were needed in the US. But today we are a population of 320 million people plus the illegal who are here. I think we are quite full if we want to live in the peace we live in now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the undocumented are part of that 320 million, and we kind of need immigrants because White People aren't even reproducing at replacement rates.  More of us are dying than being born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Then it’s time to shut the abortion mills and rebuild the population
Click to expand...


Keeping in mind that I am 100% against killing babies under any circumstances, I have to say that the people having abortions are not really the people I would want to look to for rebuilding the population.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Cecilie1200 said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm complaining because other people create problems that we have to solve, and we can't even solve our own yet.
> 
> STF out of this country. If your country is so bad, fight to change it as we have ours in history. We can't babysit the world. We have 7.6 billion people on this planet, some of which have children living in worse environments than south America. How many of these 7.6 billion are we to take in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, illegal immigration is at a 30 year low and we don't have that many people trying to get in. That you think the small amount of people we are taking in is a problem is really more about you than them.
> 
> We can solve our problems just fine... we just refuse to.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there was a time when immigrants were needed in the US. But today we are a population of 320 million people plus the illegal who are here. I think we are quite full if we want to live in the peace we live in now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the undocumented are part of that 320 million, and we kind of need immigrants because White People aren't even reproducing at replacement rates.  More of us are dying than being born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Then it’s time to shut the abortion mills and rebuild the population
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keeping in mind that I am 100% against killing babies under any circumstances, I have to say that the people having abortions are not really the people I would want to look to for rebuilding the population.
Click to expand...

/----/ So babies have to die because of their parents?


----------



## Nova78

Not our problem ,we cannot even take care of our self, kick there ass back across the border, no one ever said life is easy, quit thinking you can solve the worlds problems, If you are so concern, put some tents in your backyard and feed and support them, other  wise shut your pie hole. You bleeding hearts are all for spending others money as long as it is not yours .


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

pismoe said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again, illegal immigration is at a 30 year low and we don't have that many people trying to get in. That you think the small amount of people we are taking in is a problem is really more about you than them.
> 
> We can solve our problems just fine... we just refuse to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct, but the Democrats stopped us from building that wall.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the undocumented are part of that 320 million, and we kind of need immigrants because White People aren't even reproducing at replacement rates. More of us are dying than being born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we become a less populated country.  Why is that such a bad thing to the left?  Oh, that's right, you were told by your puppet masters it was a bad thing, but have no explanation as to why.
> 
> The US population in 1970 was 205 million people.  That's more than a third less of what we have today.  What was so devastating when we only had that size of population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------------------  it was fine , 205 million and i was a 20 year old young adult working on the Railroad . i got hired in 68 or 69 by filling out a paper application that asked  , WHO do you know and are you related to them ??   All the guys i worked with were local boys from the area .  A 'union' Railroad with maybe a hundred miles of Rail not including the Yards .   We were hauling iron ore from the Masabe Range to our ore dock on Lake Superior .    It was fine and not a third worlder to be seen anywhere and everyone made good union money and benefits .
Click to expand...


Absolutely.  Until this immigration thing came along, the previous leftist cry was about overpopulation here and across the world.  Now they are okay with it.

Now they are saying we have to keep growing.  Why?  What would be wrong with only having 150 million people in the US?

As Flopper claims, we need more people to do the work.  Okay, but wouldn't we be in the same position if we had 500, 700, or 900 million people in the US?  After all, what creates work is consumption.  The more people buy, the more work needed to supply the buyers.

So all their reasons for immigration are a smoke screen.  If we have to pay more for lettuce or grapes to keep them out, then so be it.


----------



## Nova78

Ray From Cleveland said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again, illegal immigration is at a 30 year low and we don't have that many people trying to get in. That you think the small amount of people we are taking in is a problem is really more about you than them.
> 
> We can solve our problems just fine... we just refuse to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct, but the Democrats stopped us from building that wall.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the undocumented are part of that 320 million, and we kind of need immigrants because White People aren't even reproducing at replacement rates. More of us are dying than being born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we become a less populated country.  Why is that such a bad thing to the left?  Oh, that's right, you were told by your puppet masters it was a bad thing, but have no explanation as to why.
> 
> The US population in 1970 was 205 million people.  That's more than a third less of what we have today.  What was so devastating when we only had that size of population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------------------  it was fine , 205 million and i was a 20 year old young adult working on the Railroad . i got hired in 68 or 69 by filling out a paper application that asked  , WHO do you know and are you related to them ??   All the guys i worked with were local boys from the area .  A 'union' Railroad with maybe a hundred miles of Rail not including the Yards .   We were hauling iron ore from the Masabe Range to our ore dock on Lake Superior .    It was fine and not a third worlder to be seen anywhere and everyone made good union money and benefits .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  Until this immigration thing came along, the previous leftist cry was about overpopulation here and across the world.  Now they are okay with it.
> 
> Now they are saying we have to keep growing.  Why?  What would be wrong with only having 150 million people in the US?
> 
> As Flopper claims, we need more people to do the work.  Okay, but would't we be in the same position if we had 500, 700, or 900 million people in the US?  After all, what creates work is consumption.  The more people buy, the more work needed to supply the buyers.
> 
> So all their reasons for immigration are a smoke screen.  If we have to pay more for lettuce or grapes to keep them out, then so be it.
Click to expand...


*We do not need anymore taco stands ,used tire shops,scrapers or Mexican restaurants in United states *


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> 
> 
> *If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here.  It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to hide behind the skirts of a small minority of extreme "hard cases" is standard leftism.  They try to excuse millions of abortions of convenience by screaming about "rape, incest, life of the mother!" and they try to excuse millions of illegals motivated by economics by screaming about "fear for their lives!"
> 
> And then they wonder how we ended up with President Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was some sort of war or government takeover in these counties, I could better understand.  But these countries haven't changed in some time.  There is no sudden need to escape an environment they've lived in most of their lives.   Sure, they want a better place to live, and that's understandable.  But I'm certain you will find many children and parents in Asia and Africa that feel the same way.    I'm sure there are billions of people that would love to invade the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's face it, the United States is preferable to 90% of the countries on Earth, including a lot of the ones in Europe.  Personally, I think it's better than any other country on Earth.
> 
> Doesn't mean we're obligated to let everyone else on Earth live here.
Click to expand...


I'm with you on that one, we are the greatest country on earth in spite of what the liberals claim.  Notice they never leave for any of these other socialist utopias they constantly praise.  

And as I asked Coyote, how many countries would she like to move into the USA?  She never provided an answer.  

If word ever got out that we are a virtual open border country, South America will be the least of our problems.  They will be coming by the hundreds of millions in boats and planes from all over the world.  It's simply not feasible.


----------



## pismoe

i think that the reason for wanting a growing population is simply Redistribution of MONEY .   Take that town in Vermont [whats the name] .   Anyway , the town was going to heck because of small declining population and no money being spent in the town to support the businesses and tax base .  ---  SO , what did they do , they imported 'somali bantus'  .   And then they gave these 'somalis' taxpayer money [welfare] that was then spent in the towns businesses , housing and everything else .    But , if the town is recovering its recovering due to giving taxpayer money or welfare to imported 'somali' third worlders and then the 'somalis' can take over the town with their votes and organizations .     Just a comment that might be responded to by any resident of this Vermont town if they are on the board .   And i think that there are a couple of those type residents on this board .


----------



## Cellblock2429

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here.  It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to hide behind the skirts of a small minority of extreme "hard cases" is standard leftism.  They try to excuse millions of abortions of convenience by screaming about "rape, incest, life of the mother!" and they try to excuse millions of illegals motivated by economics by screaming about "fear for their lives!"
> 
> And then they wonder how we ended up with President Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was some sort of war or government takeover in these counties, I could better understand.  But these countries haven't changed in some time.  There is no sudden need to escape an environment they've lived in most of their lives.   Sure, they want a better place to live, and that's understandable.  But I'm certain you will find many children and parents in Asia and Africa that feel the same way.    I'm sure there are billions of people that would love to invade the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's face it, the United States is preferable to 90% of the countries on Earth, including a lot of the ones in Europe.  Personally, I think it's better than any other country on Earth.
> 
> Doesn't mean we're obligated to let everyone else on Earth live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm with you on that one, we are the greatest country on earth in spite of what the liberals claim.  Notice they never leave for any of these other socialist utopias they constantly praise.
> 
> And as I asked Coyote, how many countries would she like to move into the USA?  She never provided an answer.
> 
> If word ever got out that we are a virtual open border country, South America will be the least of our problems.  They will be coming by the hundreds of millions in boats and planes from all over the world.  It's simply not feasible.
Click to expand...

/----/ Don't the democRATs think they will be voted out of office and replaced with the immigrants?  Look what happened in NY with the career democRAT who got primaried out?  I wonder what he's thinking now. 





"But, but, but....."            "Go home Gringo."


----------



## pismoe

Cellblock2429 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here.  It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to hide behind the skirts of a small minority of extreme "hard cases" is standard leftism.  They try to excuse millions of abortions of convenience by screaming about "rape, incest, life of the mother!" and they try to excuse millions of illegals motivated by economics by screaming about "fear for their lives!"
> 
> And then they wonder how we ended up with President Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was some sort of war or government takeover in these counties, I could better understand.  But these countries haven't changed in some time.  There is no sudden need to escape an environment they've lived in most of their lives.   Sure, they want a better place to live, and that's understandable.  But I'm certain you will find many children and parents in Asia and Africa that feel the same way.    I'm sure there are billions of people that would love to invade the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's face it, the United States is preferable to 90% of the countries on Earth, including a lot of the ones in Europe.  Personally, I think it's better than any other country on Earth.
> 
> Doesn't mean we're obligated to let everyone else on Earth live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm with you on that one, we are the greatest country on earth in spite of what the liberals claim.  Notice they never leave for any of these other socialist utopias they constantly praise.
> 
> And as I asked Coyote, how many countries would she like to move into the USA?  She never provided an answer.
> 
> If word ever got out that we are a virtual open border country, South America will be the least of our problems.  They will be coming by the hundreds of millions in boats and planes from all over the world.  It's simply not feasible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Don't the democRATs think they will be voted out of office and replaced with the immigrants?  Look what happened in NY with the career democRAT who got primaried out?  I wonder what he's thinking now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "But, but, but....."            "Go home Gringo."
Click to expand...

---------------------------------    EXCELLENT Example  Cellblock [chuckle] !!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Cellblock2429 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here.  It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to hide behind the skirts of a small minority of extreme "hard cases" is standard leftism.  They try to excuse millions of abortions of convenience by screaming about "rape, incest, life of the mother!" and they try to excuse millions of illegals motivated by economics by screaming about "fear for their lives!"
> 
> And then they wonder how we ended up with President Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was some sort of war or government takeover in these counties, I could better understand.  But these countries haven't changed in some time.  There is no sudden need to escape an environment they've lived in most of their lives.   Sure, they want a better place to live, and that's understandable.  But I'm certain you will find many children and parents in Asia and Africa that feel the same way.    I'm sure there are billions of people that would love to invade the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's face it, the United States is preferable to 90% of the countries on Earth, including a lot of the ones in Europe.  Personally, I think it's better than any other country on Earth.
> 
> Doesn't mean we're obligated to let everyone else on Earth live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm with you on that one, we are the greatest country on earth in spite of what the liberals claim.  Notice they never leave for any of these other socialist utopias they constantly praise.
> 
> And as I asked Coyote, how many countries would she like to move into the USA?  She never provided an answer.
> 
> If word ever got out that we are a virtual open border country, South America will be the least of our problems.  They will be coming by the hundreds of millions in boats and planes from all over the world.  It's simply not feasible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Don't the democRATs think they will be voted out of office and replaced with the immigrants?  Look what happened in NY with the career democRAT who got primaried out?  I wonder what he's thinking now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "But, but, but....."            "Go home Gringo."
Click to expand...


And got voted out by an open borders admitted Socialist to boot.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

pismoe said:


> i think that the reason for wanting a growing population is simply Redistribution of MONEY .   Take that town in Vermont [whats the name] .   Anyway , the town was going to heck because of small declining population and no money being spent in the town to support the businesses and tax base .  ---  SO , what did they do , they imported 'somali bantus'  .   And then they gave these 'somalis' taxpayer money [welfare] that was then spent in the towns businesses , housing and everything else .    But , if the town is recovering its recovering due to giving taxpayer money or welfare to imported 'somali' third worlders and then the 'somalis' can take over the town with their votes and organizations .     Just a comment that might be responded to by any resident of this Vermont town if they are on the board .   And i think that there are a couple of those type residents on this board .



Not familiar with the situation, but just from what you told me, that money will have to be paid or repaid by somebody else.  You can get things going for a while, but it's not sustainable that way.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's why it has to stop now; because it has been our problem, a problem we don't need any longer. Let people solve their own problems. I too never had kids. The wonderful thing about having kids is that it's a choice--not an infliction. I chose not to have children because of the expense and my health problems I didn't want to pass along. But now my taxes have to support kids other people had in countries where they should have known better? It's bad enough I have to support American kids lowlifes have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your argument is that we are trying to make sure these kids are productive citizens, and you want to complain about that?
> 
> We need the replacement workers, that's the thing...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm complaining because other people create problems that we have to solve, and we can't even solve our own yet.
> 
> STF out of this country.  If your country is so bad, fight to change it as we have ours in history.  We can't babysit the world.  We have 7.6 billion people on this planet, some of which have children living in worse environments than south America.  How many of these 7.6 billion are we to take in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look Ray - OUR ancestors didn't stay to fight to change their country - the FLED.  HERE.  That's a weak argument Ray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is "our"?  MY ancestors didn't "flee" anything.  They were colonists.
Click to expand...

Many of whom were fleeing persecution and poverty to strike out in a new land.  Why didn’t they stay and fight?


----------



## pismoe

just check out 'somali bantu muslims' in Vermont , they even have a 'bantu elders' group that takes care of their 'somali youts' when the 'youts' break the law rather than American cops handling the law breaking 'youts' .   Check it out , its happening all over the USA   Ray .


----------



## pismoe

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to hide behind the skirts of a small minority of extreme "hard cases" is standard leftism.  They try to excuse millions of abortions of convenience by screaming about "rape, incest, life of the mother!" and they try to excuse millions of illegals motivated by economics by screaming about "fear for their lives!"
> 
> And then they wonder how we ended up with President Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was some sort of war or government takeover in these counties, I could better understand.  But these countries haven't changed in some time.  There is no sudden need to escape an environment they've lived in most of their lives.   Sure, they want a better place to live, and that's understandable.  But I'm certain you will find many children and parents in Asia and Africa that feel the same way.    I'm sure there are billions of people that would love to invade the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's face it, the United States is preferable to 90% of the countries on Earth, including a lot of the ones in Europe.  Personally, I think it's better than any other country on Earth.
> 
> Doesn't mean we're obligated to let everyone else on Earth live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm with you on that one, we are the greatest country on earth in spite of what the liberals claim.  Notice they never leave for any of these other socialist utopias they constantly praise.
> 
> And as I asked Coyote, how many countries would she like to move into the USA?  She never provided an answer.
> 
> If word ever got out that we are a virtual open border country, South America will be the least of our problems.  They will be coming by the hundreds of millions in boats and planes from all over the world.  It's simply not feasible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Don't the democRATs think they will be voted out of office and replaced with the immigrants?  Look what happened in NY with the career democRAT who got primaried out?  I wonder what he's thinking now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "But, but, but....."            "Go home Gringo."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And got voted out by an open borders admitted Socialist to boot.
Click to expand...

-----------------------------   And thats funny , import the third worlders that will vote you outa office or take your job and Freedoms , Guns and way of life .     Its all so amusing .  [chuckle] .


----------



## Coyote

pismoe said:


> just check out 'somali bantu muslims' in Vermont , they even have a 'bantu elders' group that takes care of their 'somali youts' when the 'youts' break the law rather than American cops handling the law breaking 'youts' .   Check it out , its happening all over the USA   Ray .


Link?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

pismoe said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was some sort of war or government takeover in these counties, I could better understand.  But these countries haven't changed in some time.  There is no sudden need to escape an environment they've lived in most of their lives.   Sure, they want a better place to live, and that's understandable.  But I'm certain you will find many children and parents in Asia and Africa that feel the same way.    I'm sure there are billions of people that would love to invade the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's face it, the United States is preferable to 90% of the countries on Earth, including a lot of the ones in Europe.  Personally, I think it's better than any other country on Earth.
> 
> Doesn't mean we're obligated to let everyone else on Earth live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm with you on that one, we are the greatest country on earth in spite of what the liberals claim.  Notice they never leave for any of these other socialist utopias they constantly praise.
> 
> And as I asked Coyote, how many countries would she like to move into the USA?  She never provided an answer.
> 
> If word ever got out that we are a virtual open border country, South America will be the least of our problems.  They will be coming by the hundreds of millions in boats and planes from all over the world.  It's simply not feasible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Don't the democRATs think they will be voted out of office and replaced with the immigrants?  Look what happened in NY with the career democRAT who got primaried out?  I wonder what he's thinking now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "But, but, but....."            "Go home Gringo."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And got voted out by an open borders admitted Socialist to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------   And thats funny , import the third worlders that will vote you outa office or take your job and Freedoms , Guns and way of life .     Its all so amusing .  [chuckle] .
Click to expand...


Not really, because the reason Democrats want more minorities in the US is to wipe out the white race; not in a genocidal way, but in a political way.  Then they can reach their goal of us becoming a one-party country forever.


----------



## pismoe

GENOCIDAL , who knows , import a fifth column , GENOCIDAL , who knows what the future holds  Ray .


----------



## pismoe

but funnier than heck that that long time 'dem' got voted out by the open borders advocate . i like it .


----------



## Kondor3

JoeB131 said:


> ...Again, it's only bad in your mind because you are a bigot...


Doesn't matter whether I'm a bigot or not; what signifies is whether US borders are being infiltrated and whether US law is being violated and adding to taxpayer burden.



> ...This country has been absorbing immigrants for centuries...


Yep. And now we've reached a Saturation Point. We're all Full-Up. No more room at the inn. All good things must come to an end. Fun time's over, kiddies.



> ...Here's what we do to "Fix" it...


LibTard ideas on "how to fix it" are about as reliable as the opinion of a condemned man on the subject of capital punishment.



> ...12 million who are already here should be granted an *amnesty*...


*No*.



> ...if they self-identify, with a case-by-case review.  This worked just fine when Reagan did it 30 years ago. ..


Thirty years ago, the Gubmint promised that Shamnesty was a One-Time Shot. They lied. "_Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice_..." ... Nope... *No Sale*.



> ...The way to prevent future problems is to have a guest worker program that will allow cheap seasonal labor...


No problem. Individual workers. No families. No more Anchor Brats out of that bunch, either.



> ...Actually, when we had an open border, these folks came up for the harvest season, and went home when it was over...


Times have changed.



> ...What caused the "Crisis" is that 1) NAFTA devastated Mexican Agriculture by forcing Mexican farmers out of their own market...


Their problem, not ours. Maybe they can get their new buddies, the Chinese, to invest, and to become their new masters; given that they can't make it on their own.



> ... and 2) Increased border security on our side meant that instead of going home at the end of harvest season, you might as well stay instead of keep having to navigate your way past...


An acceptable Guest Worker program will take care of that.



> ...But the only "Crisis" we have is white bigots living in mortal fear their daughters might date a Mexican.


My, my, my... look, Mumsie... it's a Wigger... standing with the Other Side, against his own... the Losing Mindset on November 8, 2016.

You Ideologue-LibTards are simply incapable of learning from past mistakes; damned shame, we need an effective Opposition Party, but, sadly, you ain't it; not anymore.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Of course. When you look at these shit hole countries as Trump was "accused" of saying, is it the land or the people that made them shit holes? It's the people. So now the leftist idea is to bring those people here.



You mean like Ireland, Italy and Poland, all of which were "shitholes" when people were trying to get away from them?  Oh, but it's okay, these people were white and it happened a long time ago. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> The left has moved lowlifes in our country to better areas, and all that does is ruin better areas. If you take 3/4 cup of fresh wholesome milk, and mix that with 1/4 cup of stale curdled milk, you only have one thing, and that's a cup of bad milk.



Again, guy, maybe you're the curdled milk.  I mean, you are kind of a loser, I bet most people wouldn't want to live next store to you with your gun fetish and bigotry...  

But funny thing, I kind of like living in a free country.  The thing is, you've enjoyed white privilage your entire life, and you are STILL a loser who won't even try to get a better job or improve himself.  So let's talk about what really scares you, people of color getting the same opportunities that you've had, and doing better than you.


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. When you look at these shit hole countries as Trump was "accused" of saying, is it the land or the people that made them shit holes? It's the people. So now the leftist idea is to bring those people here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like Ireland, Italy and Poland, all of which were "shitholes" when people were trying to get away from them?  Oh, but it's okay, these people were white and it happened a long time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left has moved lowlifes in our country to better areas, and all that does is ruin better areas. If you take 3/4 cup of fresh wholesome milk, and mix that with 1/4 cup of stale curdled milk, you only have one thing, and that's a cup of bad milk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, guy, maybe you're the curdled milk.  I mean, you are kind of a loser, I bet most people wouldn't want to live next store to you with your gun fetish and bigotry...
> 
> But funny thing, I kind of like living in a free country.  The thing is, you've enjoyed white privilage your entire life, and you are STILL a loser who won't even try to get a better job or improve himself.  So let's talk about what really scares you, people of color getting the same opportunities that you've had, and doing better than you.
Click to expand...

We can't allow in everyone from shithole countries that want a better life. It would turn America into a shit hole country.
How many more times do I have to post this before you finally watch it and get a clue?


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Absolutely. Until this immigration thing came along, the previous leftist cry was about overpopulation here and across the world. Now they are okay with it.
> 
> Now they are saying we have to keep growing. Why? What would be wrong with only having 150 million people in the US?
> 
> As Flopper claims, we need more people to do the work. Okay, but wouldn't we be in the same position if we had 500, 700, or 900 million people in the US? After all, what creates work is consumption. The more people buy, the more work needed to supply the buyers.
> 
> So all their reasons for immigration are a smoke screen. If we have to pay more for lettuce or grapes to keep them out, then so be it.



I like cheap lettuce and grapes... but the point you miss about the population isn't the number.  

It's the proportion...   If you have 150 million people but because of age groupings, 50 million of them are too old to work, and require the other 100 million to support them. 

(Ray screams at his screen "LET THE STARVE! LET THEM STARVE!"  

That's where we are at with our demographics now.   Too many old people, not enough young workers to replace them and support them.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Not really, because the reason Democrats want more minorities in the US is to wipe out the white race; not in a genocidal way, but in a political way. Then they can reach their goal of us becoming a one-party country forever.



If minorities don't vote for Republicans, it's because of 50 years of Republican racism, not because the Democrats have a "plan".  

The problem with you is that you think in terms of your race and not your economic class...


----------



## JoeB131

Slyhunter said:


> We can't allow in everyone from shithole countries that want a better life. It would turn America into a shit hole country.
> How many more times do I have to post this before you finally watch it and get a clue?



You can post that shit all day, I still won't watch it.  

Nobody is saying take them all in.  

And frankly, Immigrants make the country stronger.. they bring in ambition that fat lazy Americans just don't have.


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, because the reason Democrats want more minorities in the US is to wipe out the white race; not in a genocidal way, but in a political way. Then they can reach their goal of us becoming a one-party country forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If minorities don't vote for Republicans, it's because of 50 years of Republican racism, not because the Democrats have a "plan".
> 
> The problem with you is that you think in terms of your race and not your economic class...
Click to expand...

50 years of Republican Racism?
Who voted for civil rights? Who tried to filibuster it?


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeB131 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can't allow in everyone from shithole countries that want a better life. It would turn America into a shit hole country.
> How many more times do I have to post this before you finally watch it and get a clue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can post that shit all day, I still won't watch it.
> 
> Nobody is saying take them all in.
> 
> And frankly, Immigrants make the country stronger.. they bring in ambition that fat lazy Americans just don't have.
Click to expand...

Some immigration does that. Those that come in the border illegally don't. They get on welfare, sell drugs, join gangs, etc.
We can't shut immigration down to 0 and we shouldn't. But we should seal the border so only the ones we want get in.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, because the reason Democrats want more minorities in the US is to wipe out the white race; not in a genocidal way, but in a political way. Then they can reach their goal of us becoming a one-party country forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If minorities don't vote for Republicans, it's because of 50 years of Republican racism, not because the Democrats have a "plan".
> 
> The problem with you is that you think in terms of your race and not your economic class...
Click to expand...


Of course I do when every other race votes the opposite of me.  Yes, Democrats have a plan using the statistics on how people vote.  Trust me, if minorities were renown to vote Republican, that wall would have been up over 30 years ago and every illegal caught in prison.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. Until this immigration thing came along, the previous leftist cry was about overpopulation here and across the world. Now they are okay with it.
> 
> Now they are saying we have to keep growing. Why? What would be wrong with only having 150 million people in the US?
> 
> As Flopper claims, we need more people to do the work. Okay, but wouldn't we be in the same position if we had 500, 700, or 900 million people in the US? After all, what creates work is consumption. The more people buy, the more work needed to supply the buyers.
> 
> So all their reasons for immigration are a smoke screen. If we have to pay more for lettuce or grapes to keep them out, then so be it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like cheap lettuce and grapes... but the point you miss about the population isn't the number.
> 
> It's the proportion...   If you have 150 million people but because of age groupings, 50 million of them are too old to work, and require the other 100 million to support them.
> 
> (Ray screams at his screen "LET THE STARVE! LET THEM STARVE!"
> 
> That's where we are at with our demographics now.   Too many old people, not enough young workers to replace them and support them.
Click to expand...


Then you're in luck, because we have only a little over 40 million retired now out of a 320 million population.  

There will always be old people, middle aged people,  and young people regardless of the size of country.  Baby boomers will die off and the proportion will go back to normal.  

And if we need more workers, kick more people off of welfare.  They're not doing anything anyhow except sitting home making babies.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> You mean like Ireland, Italy and Poland, all of which were "shitholes" when people were trying to get away from them? Oh, but it's okay, these people were white and it happened a long time ago.



That's exactly it, it happened a long time ago when immigrants were needed to build this country.  That time is long past and it's time to stop people from coming here.  

The funny thing is only some left Europe and most stayed and fought to make their lands a better place too.  And now minorities are trying to sneak into many parts of Europe.  So what does that tell you? 




JoeB131 said:


> Again, guy, maybe you're the curdled milk. I mean, you are kind of a loser, I bet most people wouldn't want to live next store to you with your gun fetish and bigotry...
> 
> But funny thing, I kind of like living in a free country. The thing is, you've enjoyed white privilage your entire life, and you are STILL a loser who won't even try to get a better job or improve himself. So let's talk about what really scares you, people of color getting the same opportunities that you've had, and doing better than you.



The only person that thinks I'm a loser is you, and you don't even really know me.  When Democrats get in power and destroy things for good people, you don't blame the Democrats, you blame the people they attacked.  Well guess what Joe, my property value didn't decrease by half because of people like me.  If people like me were still around, my property value would be 50% higher than when I bought it 25 years ago.  

If it's one thing about you people, it's that you never learn anything.  Make the same mistakes over and over expecting different results each time because doing the same stupid things makes you feel tingly all over.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

pismoe said:


> GENOCIDAL , who knows , import a fifth column , GENOCIDAL , who knows what the future holds  Ray .



I think I know and it's obvious when people vote.  DumBama and gang was a shot in the arm of what Socialism/ Communism is all about, and it left a bad taste in our mouths.  Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of problems with the Republicans as well, but at least we're doing something to fix our party and send a message at the same time.  

I also believe that leftist brainwashing is finally starting to fade away; not totally rejected just yet, but in the right direction.  More and more people are starting to scratch their heads at Democrat policy and coming to the realization they are all phonies.  They always have an ulterior motive when they make policies and laws.  

For instance most people understand that it's un-American for leftist entities to force people to give them money.  The SC ruled that is not acceptable, and Piglosi ran out there saying how it was an attack on the working people.  The right thing (in the mind of a leftist) is force people to pay unions money even though they are not part of the union.  Democrats are upset because much of that money comes back to them in campaign contributions.  It was a money laundering scheme all along.


----------



## pismoe

THANKYOU ,   ----------------   as regards Unions i have no problem with Union in private industry but i want to see 'public employee Unions'  gone .   -----------------   just a comment Ray .


----------



## Flopper

Kondor3 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...again, illegal immigration is at a 30 year low...
> 
> 
> 
> That may be true, but (a) the damage is done, (b) we have 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens here now, to deal with and (c) we must prevent that from happening again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and we don't have that many people trying to get in...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That may be true, but (a) the damage is done, (b) we have 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens here now, to deal with and (c) we must prevent that from happening again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...That you think the small amount of people we are taking in is a problem is really more about you than them....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That may be true, but (a) the damage is done, (b) we have 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens here now, to deal with and (c) we must prevent that from happening again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...We can solve our problems just fine... we just refuse to...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True. What is happening now, however, makes for an amusing and effective down-payment on the entire course of "treatment" for this particular infestation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Actually, the undocumented are part of that 320 million...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 320,000,000 - 12,000,000 = 308,000,000 = more (of everything) for us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and we kind of need immigrants because White People aren't even reproducing at replacement rates.  More of us are dying than being born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Time to thin-out the herd a bit anyway. Wake us up if-and-when we slide below the 250,000,000 mark. Barring that... let the population decline begin.
Click to expand...

*The effects of a declining population can be devastating for a country such as the US which has borrowed extensively counting on repayment by younger generations.*


----------



## JoeB131

Slyhunter said:


> 50 years of Republican Racism?
> Who voted for civil rights? Who tried to filibuster it?



Um, actually, it was a coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats... but Barry Goldwater opposed it, and he's the guy you nominated.  

and  you've been nominating racists ever since. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> That's exactly it, it happened a long time ago when immigrants were needed to build this country. That time is long past and it's time to stop people from coming here.



That happens to be your opinion... I'm totally good with immigrants coming here. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> The funny thing is only some left Europe and most stayed and fought to make their lands a better place too. And now minorities are trying to sneak into many parts of Europe. So what does that tell you?



That 100 years of the west fucking with the Middle East has blown back on the west.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> The only person that thinks I'm a loser is you, and you don't even really know me. When Democrats get in power and destroy things for good people, you don't blame the Democrats, you blame the people they attacked.



Um, buddy, you are a loser.  and frankly, the last five recessions have been on Republican watches, not Democrats. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Well guess what Joe, my property value didn't decrease by half because of people like me. If people like me were still around, my property value would be 50% higher than when I bought it 25 years ago.



Well, no, it decreased by half because the property rates were overvalued and the bubble popped.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> If it's one thing about you people, it's that you never learn anything. Make the same mistakes over and over expecting different results each time because doing the same stupid things makes you feel tingly all over.



Okay, let's look at that.  

Bush 41 caused a recession. - Clinton got elected and fixed it. 

Then you guys stole the election for Bush-43.  He caused two more recessions and crashed the economy.  

Obama fixed it... 

You guys stole an election for Trump.  He's starting a trade war, running up the debt...  

So why do you keep doing the same stupid things?


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Then you're in luck, because we have only a little over 40 million retired now out of a 320 million population.
> 
> There will always be old people, middle aged people, and young people regardless of the size of country. Baby boomers will die off and the proportion will go back to normal.



Um, no, we won't.  People are living longer and having less babies.  

White people aren't even reproducing at replacement rates.


----------



## JoeB131

Slyhunter said:


> Some immigration does that. Those that come in the border illegally don't. They get on welfare, sell drugs, join gangs, etc.
> We can't shut immigration down to 0 and we shouldn't. But we should seal the border so only the ones we want get in.



Since most of them find jobs, somebody wanted them in.


----------



## OODA_Loop

I don't want outside competition for the resources available for me in my environment.

It is programmed into every organism.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. When you look at these shit hole countries as Trump was "accused" of saying, is it the land or the people that made them shit holes? It's the people. So now the leftist idea is to bring those people here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like Ireland, Italy and Poland, all of which were "shitholes" when people were trying to get away from them?  Oh, but it's okay, these people were white and it happened a long time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left has moved lowlifes in our country to better areas, and all that does is ruin better areas. If you take 3/4 cup of fresh wholesome milk, and mix that with 1/4 cup of stale curdled milk, you only have one thing, and that's a cup of bad milk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, guy, maybe you're the curdled milk.  I mean, you are kind of a loser, I bet most people wouldn't want to live next store to you with your gun fetish and bigotry...
> 
> But funny thing, I kind of like living in a free country.  The thing is, you've enjoyed white privilage your entire life, and you are STILL a loser who won't even try to get a better job or improve himself.  So let's talk about what really scares you, people of color getting the same opportunities that you've had, and doing better than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can't allow in everyone from shithole countries that want a better life. It would turn America into a shit hole country.
> How many more times do I have to post this before you finally watch it and get a clue?
Click to expand...

Let's end our alleged wars on drugs and terror; they Only create refugees for the Right Wing, to complain about.


----------



## danielpalos

OODA_Loop said:


> I don't want outside competition for the resources available for me in my environment.
> 
> It is programmed into every organism.


Do you subscribe to Capitalism?  If you do, then we should be Making money off of foreign labor not Losing money on foreign labor.


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeB131 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 years of Republican Racism?
> Who voted for civil rights? Who tried to filibuster it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, actually, it was a coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats... but Barry Goldwater opposed it, and he's the guy you nominated.
> 
> and  you've been nominating racists ever since.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly it, it happened a long time ago when immigrants were needed to build this country. That time is long past and it's time to stop people from coming here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That happens to be your opinion... I'm totally good with immigrants coming here.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing is only some left Europe and most stayed and fought to make their lands a better place too. And now minorities are trying to sneak into many parts of Europe. So what does that tell you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That 100 years of the west fucking with the Middle East has blown back on the west.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only person that thinks I'm a loser is you, and you don't even really know me. When Democrats get in power and destroy things for good people, you don't blame the Democrats, you blame the people they attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, buddy, you are a loser.  and frankly, the last five recessions have been on Republican watches, not Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well guess what Joe, my property value didn't decrease by half because of people like me. If people like me were still around, my property value would be 50% higher than when I bought it 25 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no, it decreased by half because the property rates were overvalued and the bubble popped.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it's one thing about you people, it's that you never learn anything. Make the same mistakes over and over expecting different results each time because doing the same stupid things makes you feel tingly all over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, let's look at that.
> 
> Bush 41 caused a recession. - Clinton got elected and fixed it.
> 
> Then you guys stole the election for Bush-43.  He caused two more recessions and crashed the economy.
> 
> Obama fixed it...
> 
> You guys stole an election for Trump.  He's starting a trade war, running up the debt...
> 
> So why do you keep doing the same stupid things?
Click to expand...

uh, no.
You should learn how to use search engines.
The filibuster that almost killed the Civil Rights Act - National Constitution Center
=





> On this day in 1964, the Senate was involved in an epic fight over the Civil Right Act, after a group of Southern senators started a record-setting filibuster in March.
> 
> The Act was signed by President Lyndon Baines Johnson on July 2, 1964, but not before a lengthy, protracted fight in Washington. In fact, no full-featured Civil Rights Act proposal had ever survived a filibuster attempt on the Senate floor. Under the old Senate rules, two-thirds of the Senate would need to vote for cloture, or limiting debate time on the floor. (Today, the cloture barrier stands at 60 votes.)
> 
> The Act had been approved by the House of Representatives in February 1964, and Senate majority leader Mike Mansfield made the unusual move of bypassing the Judiciary Committee (which was chaired by an anti-bill Senator) and placing the Act directly on the Senate’s main calendar_._
> 
> But when Mansfield made the first motion about the bill in the Senate, the well-organized filibuster attempt started. And had it been successful, the Civil Rights Act would have been finished for that Senate session.
> 
> Committed to the filibuster effort were the powerful Senators Richard Russell, Thurmond, Robert Byrd, William Fulbright and Sam Ervin. Russell started the filibuster in late March 1964, and it would last for 60 working days in the Senate.
> 
> During the vote, the terminally ill Senator from California, Clair Engle,  was brought to the floor in a wheelchair. Unable to speak because of a brain tumor, Engle pointed to his eye to signify his Yes vote.
> 
> President Johnson signed the bill on July 2 in a nationally televised ceremony.
> 
> The new law prohibited discrimination in public places. It also provided for the integration of schools and other public facilities, and it made employment discrimination illegal.


Al Gore's father was one of the ones filibustering the bill.


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're in luck, because we have only a little over 40 million retired now out of a 320 million population.
> 
> There will always be old people, middle aged people, and young people regardless of the size of country. Baby boomers will die off and the proportion will go back to normal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, we won't.  People are living longer and having less babies.
> 
> White people aren't even reproducing at replacement rates.
Click to expand...

Rich people are living longer and having less babies. Poor people keep begetting like there's no tomorrow. It's ass fucking backwards to what it should be.


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeB131 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some immigration does that. Those that come in the border illegally don't. They get on welfare, sell drugs, join gangs, etc.
> We can't shut immigration down to 0 and we shouldn't. But we should seal the border so only the ones we want get in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since most of them find jobs, somebody wanted them in.
Click to expand...




> An estimated 49 percent of households headed by legal immigrants used one or more welfare programs in 2012, compared to 30 percent of households headed by natives.
> 
> Households headed by legal immigrants have higher use rates than native households overall and for cash programs (14 percent vs. 10 percent), food programs (36 percent vs. 22 percent), and Medicaid (39 percent vs. 23 percent). Use of housing programs is similar.
> Legal immigrant households account for three-quarters of all immigrant households accessing one or more welfare programs.
> Less-educated legal immigrants make extensive use of every type of welfare program, including cash, food, Medicaid, and housing.
> The overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants have modest levels of education; therefore, the high use of welfare associated with less-educated legal immigrants indicates that legalization would likely increase welfare costs, particularly for cash and housing programs.
> Restrictions on new legal immigrants’ access to welfare have not prevented them from accessing programs at high rates because restrictions often apply to only a modest share of immigrants at any one time, some programs are not restricted, there are numerous exceptions and exemptions, and some provisions are entirely unenforced. Equally important, immigrants, including those illegally in the country, can receive welfare on behalf of their U.S.-born children.




Welfare Use by Legal and Illegal Immigrant Households


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. When you look at these shit hole countries as Trump was "accused" of saying, is it the land or the people that made them shit holes? It's the people. So now the leftist idea is to bring those people here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like Ireland, Italy and Poland, all of which were "shitholes" when people were trying to get away from them?  Oh, but it's okay, these people were white and it happened a long time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left has moved lowlifes in our country to better areas, and all that does is ruin better areas. If you take 3/4 cup of fresh wholesome milk, and mix that with 1/4 cup of stale curdled milk, you only have one thing, and that's a cup of bad milk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, guy, maybe you're the curdled milk.  I mean, you are kind of a loser, I bet most people wouldn't want to live next store to you with your gun fetish and bigotry...
> 
> But funny thing, I kind of like living in a free country.  The thing is, you've enjoyed white privilage your entire life, and you are STILL a loser who won't even try to get a better job or improve himself.  So let's talk about what really scares you, people of color getting the same opportunities that you've had, and doing better than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can't allow in everyone from shithole countries that want a better life. It would turn America into a shit hole country.
> How many more times do I have to post this before you finally watch it and get a clue?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's end our alleged wars on drugs and terror; they Only create refugees for the Right Wing, to complain about.
Click to expand...

I was for legalizing drugs. Then my 20 year old nephew ended up in the emergency room after taking a single toke of legal synthesized marijuana. Someone found him on the side of the road having an epileptic seizure and throwing up. He's lucky to be alive. A week later the idiot went and got drunk. Something else that maybe need to be outlawed.

Don't get me wrong I am a Libertarian. When it happens to someone else's family member I don't give a fuck.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again, illegal immigration is at a 30 year low and we don't have that many people trying to get in. That you think the small amount of people we are taking in is a problem is really more about you than them.
> 
> We can solve our problems just fine... we just refuse to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct, but the Democrats stopped us from building that wall.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the undocumented are part of that 320 million, and we kind of need immigrants because White People aren't even reproducing at replacement rates. More of us are dying than being born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we become a less populated country.  Why is that such a bad thing to the left?  Oh, that's right, you were told by your puppet masters it was a bad thing, but have no explanation as to why.
> 
> The US population in 1970 was 205 million people.  That's more than a third less of what we have today.  What was so devastating when we only had that size of population?
Click to expand...

*6.1% unemployment
5.6% inflation
Country was in recession
Thousands of Americans dying in Vietnam
Not that any of that has anything to do with the size of the population.

The problem with reducing the population by 1/3 today is that taxes would not go down by a 1/3 but more important, consumption would go down by a third, retail sales, home buying, etc. We would have 1/3 the tax payers to pay the interest on the debt and other expenses such as defense spending which would not decline with population.  This would translate into a shrinking economy and lenders demanding high interest rates on goverment debt. 

Some nations could handle a shrinking population fairly well but not the US because our economy is based growing consumption and an every increasing capacity to carry the national debt. *


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to hide behind the skirts of a small minority of extreme "hard cases" is standard leftism.  They try to excuse millions of abortions of convenience by screaming about "rape, incest, life of the mother!" and they try to excuse millions of illegals motivated by economics by screaming about "fear for their lives!"
> 
> And then they wonder how we ended up with President Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was some sort of war or government takeover in these counties, I could better understand.  But these countries haven't changed in some time.  There is no sudden need to escape an environment they've lived in most of their lives.   Sure, they want a better place to live, and that's understandable.  But I'm certain you will find many children and parents in Asia and Africa that feel the same way.    I'm sure there are billions of people that would love to invade the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's face it, the United States is preferable to 90% of the countries on Earth, including a lot of the ones in Europe.  Personally, I think it's better than any other country on Earth.
> 
> Doesn't mean we're obligated to let everyone else on Earth live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm with you on that one, we are the greatest country on earth in spite of what the liberals claim.  Notice they never leave for any of these other socialist utopias they constantly praise.
> 
> And as I asked Coyote, how many countries would she like to move into the USA?  She never provided an answer.
> 
> If word ever got out that we are a virtual open border country, South America will be the least of our problems.  They will be coming by the hundreds of millions in boats and planes from all over the world.  It's simply not feasible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Don't the democRATs think they will be voted out of office and replaced with the immigrants?  Look what happened in NY with the career democRAT who got primaried out?  I wonder what he's thinking now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "But, but, but....."            "Go home Gringo."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And got voted out by an open borders admitted Socialist to boot.
Click to expand...


*Very few if any real democrats want open boarders.  I have never spoken to a Democrat that advocated open boarders.  The facts are:*

*Not one Democratic President ever proposed open borders.*
*Not one Democratic Presidential Candidate ever proposed open borders.*
*Not one Democratic Senator advocates open borders.*
*Not one Democratic Congressman advocates open borders.*
*Not one Democratic Governor advocates open borders.*
*And you will not find any Democratic Platform advocating open borders.*
*Declaring that Democrats will open our boarders is nothing but a scare tactic which draws an equal and opposite claim from the Left that Republicans seek to seal our borders and isolation the US from the rest of the world.*


----------



## Cellblock2429

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was some sort of war or government takeover in these counties, I could better understand.  But these countries haven't changed in some time.  There is no sudden need to escape an environment they've lived in most of their lives.   Sure, they want a better place to live, and that's understandable.  But I'm certain you will find many children and parents in Asia and Africa that feel the same way.    I'm sure there are billions of people that would love to invade the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's face it, the United States is preferable to 90% of the countries on Earth, including a lot of the ones in Europe.  Personally, I think it's better than any other country on Earth.
> 
> Doesn't mean we're obligated to let everyone else on Earth live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm with you on that one, we are the greatest country on earth in spite of what the liberals claim.  Notice they never leave for any of these other socialist utopias they constantly praise.
> 
> And as I asked Coyote, how many countries would she like to move into the USA?  She never provided an answer.
> 
> If word ever got out that we are a virtual open border country, South America will be the least of our problems.  They will be coming by the hundreds of millions in boats and planes from all over the world.  It's simply not feasible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Don't the democRATs think they will be voted out of office and replaced with the immigrants?  Look what happened in NY with the career democRAT who got primaried out?  I wonder what he's thinking now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "But, but, but....."            "Go home Gringo."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And got voted out by an open borders admitted Socialist to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Very few if any real democrats want open boarders.  I have never spoken to a Democrat that advocated open boarders.  The facts are:*
> 
> *Not one Democratic President ever proposed open borders.*
> *Not one Democratic Presidential Candidate ever proposed open borders.*
> *Not one Democratic Senator advocates open borders.*
> *Not one Democratic Congressman advocates open borders.*
> *Not one Democratic Governor advocates open borders.*
> *And you will not find any Democratic Platform advocating open borders.*
> *Declaring that Democrats will open our boarders is nothing but a scare tactic which draws an equal and opposite claim from the Left that Republicans seek to seal our borders and isolation the US from the rest of the world.*
Click to expand...

/——/ Nice spin. 100% bullshyt but nice spin.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was some sort of war or government takeover in these counties, I could better understand.  But these countries haven't changed in some time.  There is no sudden need to escape an environment they've lived in most of their lives.   Sure, they want a better place to live, and that's understandable.  But I'm certain you will find many children and parents in Asia and Africa that feel the same way.    I'm sure there are billions of people that would love to invade the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's face it, the United States is preferable to 90% of the countries on Earth, including a lot of the ones in Europe.  Personally, I think it's better than any other country on Earth.
> 
> Doesn't mean we're obligated to let everyone else on Earth live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm with you on that one, we are the greatest country on earth in spite of what the liberals claim.  Notice they never leave for any of these other socialist utopias they constantly praise.
> 
> And as I asked Coyote, how many countries would she like to move into the USA?  She never provided an answer.
> 
> If word ever got out that we are a virtual open border country, South America will be the least of our problems.  They will be coming by the hundreds of millions in boats and planes from all over the world.  It's simply not feasible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Don't the democRATs think they will be voted out of office and replaced with the immigrants?  Look what happened in NY with the career democRAT who got primaried out?  I wonder what he's thinking now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "But, but, but....."            "Go home Gringo."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And got voted out by an open borders admitted Socialist to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Very few if any real democrats want open boarders.  I have never spoken to a Democrat that advocated open boarders.  The facts are:*
> 
> *Not one Democratic President ever proposed open borders.*
> *Not one Democratic Presidential Candidate ever proposed open borders.*
> *Not one Democratic Senator advocates open borders.*
> *Not one Democratic Congressman advocates open borders.*
> *Not one Democratic Governor advocates open borders.*
> *And you will not find any Democratic Platform advocating open borders.*
> *Declaring that Democrats will open our boarders is nothing but a scare tactic which draws an equal and opposite claim from the Left that Republicans seek to seal our borders and isolation the US from the rest of the world.*
Click to expand...


Oh come on with the semantics already.  They don't use the term Open Borders like they don't use the term socialists or liberals, but we know what they mean.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again, illegal immigration is at a 30 year low and we don't have that many people trying to get in. That you think the small amount of people we are taking in is a problem is really more about you than them.
> 
> We can solve our problems just fine... we just refuse to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct, but the Democrats stopped us from building that wall.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the undocumented are part of that 320 million, and we kind of need immigrants because White People aren't even reproducing at replacement rates. More of us are dying than being born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we become a less populated country.  Why is that such a bad thing to the left?  Oh, that's right, you were told by your puppet masters it was a bad thing, but have no explanation as to why.
> 
> The US population in 1970 was 205 million people.  That's more than a third less of what we have today.  What was so devastating when we only had that size of population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *6.1% unemployment
> 5.6% inflation
> Country was in recession
> Thousands of Americans dying in Vietnam
> Not that any of that has anything to do with the size of the population.
> 
> The problem with reducing the population by 1/3 today is that taxes would not go down by a 1/3 but more important, consumption would go down by a third, retail sales, home buying, etc. We would have 1/3 the tax payers to pay the interest on the debt and other expenses such as defense spending which would not decline with population.  This would translate into a shrinking economy and lenders demanding high interest rates on goverment debt.
> 
> Some nations could handle a shrinking population fairly well but not the US because our economy is based growing consumption and an every increasing capacity to carry the national debt. *
Click to expand...


Well with a third less consumption, we would have a third less jobs needed to be filled.  These immigrants cost us taxpayers billions of dollars every year, so much for your concern about our debt.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some immigration does that. Those that come in the border illegally don't. They get on welfare, sell drugs, join gangs, etc.
> We can't shut immigration down to 0 and we shouldn't. But we should seal the border so only the ones we want get in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since most of them find jobs, somebody wanted them in.
Click to expand...


Yeah, the Democrats.


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> GENOCIDAL , who knows , import a fifth column , GENOCIDAL , who knows what the future holds  Ray .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I know and it's obvious when people vote.  DumBama and gang was a shot in the arm of what Socialism/ Communism is all about, and it left a bad taste in our mouths.  Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of problems with the Republicans as well, but at least we're doing something to fix our party and send a message at the same time.
> 
> I also believe that leftist brainwashing is finally starting to fade away; not totally rejected just yet, but in the right direction.  More and more people are starting to scratch their heads at Democrat policy and coming to the realization they are all phonies.  They always have an ulterior motive when they make policies and laws.
> 
> For instance most people understand that it's un-American for leftist entities to force people to give them money.  The SC ruled that is not acceptable, and Piglosi ran out there saying how it was an attack on the working people.  The right thing (in the mind of a leftist) is force people to pay unions money even though they are not part of the union.  Democrats are upset because much of that money comes back to them in campaign contributions.  It was a money laundering scheme all along.
Click to expand...


So you think it is ok then to force the unions to represent those who don’t pay?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> That 100 years of the west fucking with the Middle East has blown back on the west.



Right, it couldn't have had anything to do with the people occupying these countries, could it?  Of course not.  A self-hating white would never admit to such a thing.  



JoeB131 said:


> Well, no, it decreased by half because the property rates were overvalued and the bubble popped.



There was no bubble to pop 25 years ago.  The tech bubble and housing bubble are two different things.  

I hate to keep educating you, so I'll give you a hint why it went down:  look at the common reason why property values go down in all the other places across the US.  I'm sure that will keep you up all night. 



JoeB131 said:


> Okay, let's look at that.
> 
> Bush 41 caused a recession. - Clinton got elected and fixed it.
> 
> Then you guys stole the election for Bush-43. He caused two more recessions and crashed the economy.
> 
> Obama fixed it...
> 
> You guys stole an election for Trump. He's starting a trade war, running up the debt...
> 
> So why do you keep doing the same stupid things?



Who ran up the debt more than Hussein?  Trump has only been in office for less than two years.  And who led Congress during the Clinton years?  Who brought us a balanced budget and a reduction of debt?  

Nobody stole anything from you.  We won elections fair and square, the same way every other election was won before in history.  Quit listening to your puppet masters.  They are only telling you what you want to hear instead of the truth.  If you want the truth, by all means, just ask.


----------



## MaryL

dudmuck said:


>


I am agnostic, so?   That is a beautiful sentiment. Too bad these illegal aliens don't mirror that sentiment. Instead they remind me Mexican version of  "Anschluss".  Look it up. And you are sounding like a gullible child wearing your heart on your sleeve. We REALLY need more folks like YOU, that would make the world a better place. For Mexicans.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

pismoe said:


> THANKYOU ,   ----------------   as regards Unions i have no problem with Union in private industry but i want to see 'public employee Unions'  gone .   -----------------   just a comment Ray .



The reason they didn't work in the private sector is because they broke the bank and companies couldn't afford them anymore.  Public workers get their pay from taxpayers.  The politicians don't care about the money like private industry does.  In the private sector, unions used to go on strike all the time because the owner(s) wanted to keep profit high and the unions wanted to take that profit.  Why don't any public sector unions go on strike?  Because politicians give them everything they want.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> GENOCIDAL , who knows , import a fifth column , GENOCIDAL , who knows what the future holds  Ray .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I know and it's obvious when people vote.  DumBama and gang was a shot in the arm of what Socialism/ Communism is all about, and it left a bad taste in our mouths.  Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of problems with the Republicans as well, but at least we're doing something to fix our party and send a message at the same time.
> 
> I also believe that leftist brainwashing is finally starting to fade away; not totally rejected just yet, but in the right direction.  More and more people are starting to scratch their heads at Democrat policy and coming to the realization they are all phonies.  They always have an ulterior motive when they make policies and laws.
> 
> For instance most people understand that it's un-American for leftist entities to force people to give them money.  The SC ruled that is not acceptable, and Piglosi ran out there saying how it was an attack on the working people.  The right thing (in the mind of a leftist) is force people to pay unions money even though they are not part of the union.  Democrats are upset because much of that money comes back to them in campaign contributions.  It was a money laundering scheme all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think it is ok then to force the unions to represent those who don’t pay?
Click to expand...


Who's forcing them?


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> GENOCIDAL , who knows , import a fifth column , GENOCIDAL , who knows what the future holds  Ray .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I know and it's obvious when people vote.  DumBama and gang was a shot in the arm of what Socialism/ Communism is all about, and it left a bad taste in our mouths.  Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of problems with the Republicans as well, but at least we're doing something to fix our party and send a message at the same time.
> 
> I also believe that leftist brainwashing is finally starting to fade away; not totally rejected just yet, but in the right direction.  More and more people are starting to scratch their heads at Democrat policy and coming to the realization they are all phonies.  They always have an ulterior motive when they make policies and laws.
> 
> For instance most people understand that it's un-American for leftist entities to force people to give them money.  The SC ruled that is not acceptable, and Piglosi ran out there saying how it was an attack on the working people.  The right thing (in the mind of a leftist) is force people to pay unions money even though they are not part of the union.  Democrats are upset because much of that money comes back to them in campaign contributions.  It was a money laundering scheme all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think it is ok then to force the unions to represent those who don’t pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's forcing them?
Click to expand...

The law.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> GENOCIDAL , who knows , import a fifth column , GENOCIDAL , who knows what the future holds  Ray .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I know and it's obvious when people vote.  DumBama and gang was a shot in the arm of what Socialism/ Communism is all about, and it left a bad taste in our mouths.  Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of problems with the Republicans as well, but at least we're doing something to fix our party and send a message at the same time.
> 
> I also believe that leftist brainwashing is finally starting to fade away; not totally rejected just yet, but in the right direction.  More and more people are starting to scratch their heads at Democrat policy and coming to the realization they are all phonies.  They always have an ulterior motive when they make policies and laws.
> 
> For instance most people understand that it's un-American for leftist entities to force people to give them money.  The SC ruled that is not acceptable, and Piglosi ran out there saying how it was an attack on the working people.  The right thing (in the mind of a leftist) is force people to pay unions money even though they are not part of the union.  Democrats are upset because much of that money comes back to them in campaign contributions.  It was a money laundering scheme all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think it is ok then to force the unions to represent those who don’t pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's forcing them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law.
Click to expand...


What law is that?  I never heard of such a law that a union MUST (under law) represent non-union employees.  If that's the case, I'll call a union to get me a raise and they will (by law) have to get me one.


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> GENOCIDAL , who knows , import a fifth column , GENOCIDAL , who knows what the future holds  Ray .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I know and it's obvious when people vote.  DumBama and gang was a shot in the arm of what Socialism/ Communism is all about, and it left a bad taste in our mouths.  Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of problems with the Republicans as well, but at least we're doing something to fix our party and send a message at the same time.
> 
> I also believe that leftist brainwashing is finally starting to fade away; not totally rejected just yet, but in the right direction.  More and more people are starting to scratch their heads at Democrat policy and coming to the realization they are all phonies.  They always have an ulterior motive when they make policies and laws.
> 
> For instance most people understand that it's un-American for leftist entities to force people to give them money.  The SC ruled that is not acceptable, and Piglosi ran out there saying how it was an attack on the working people.  The right thing (in the mind of a leftist) is force people to pay unions money even though they are not part of the union.  Democrats are upset because much of that money comes back to them in campaign contributions.  It was a money laundering scheme all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think it is ok then to force the unions to represent those who don’t pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's forcing them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What law is that?  I never heard of such a law that a union MUST (under law) represent non-union employees.  If that's the case, I'll call a union to get me a raise and they will (by law) have to get me one.
Click to expand...


This article describes it pretty well...Why should unions negotiate for workers who don't pay their fair share?


----------



## pismoe

in answer to your question , Probably NO .  --------------------   But my problem is only when  so called 'public servants' or 'gov' employees have Unions Coyote .


----------



## MaryL

Why this sudden focus on immigration all of a sudden? The big three NBC, CBS and ABC. Their focus is on illegal aliens not so much as a valid news item, but as  subtle political agenda. Separating illegals families is a trivial issue. Why this exaggerated focus on this? Could it be Illegal aliens are the goose that  lays the golden egg for wealthy and they use the media to manipulate popular sentiment?  Perhaps the media should limit coverage to just  immediate late breaking facts, not spin things in a side ways winky wink way. I see   camps full of poor homeless Americans  with kids that the media and liberals totally slough off. And these people should be our first concern, not the well being of foreign nationals that ignore immigration law. Why isn't the local news putting that up front and center every day?


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. When you look at these shit hole countries as Trump was "accused" of saying, is it the land or the people that made them shit holes? It's the people. So now the leftist idea is to bring those people here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like Ireland, Italy and Poland, all of which were "shitholes" when people were trying to get away from them?  Oh, but it's okay, these people were white and it happened a long time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left has moved lowlifes in our country to better areas, and all that does is ruin better areas. If you take 3/4 cup of fresh wholesome milk, and mix that with 1/4 cup of stale curdled milk, you only have one thing, and that's a cup of bad milk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, guy, maybe you're the curdled milk.  I mean, you are kind of a loser, I bet most people wouldn't want to live next store to you with your gun fetish and bigotry...
> 
> But funny thing, I kind of like living in a free country.  The thing is, you've enjoyed white privilage your entire life, and you are STILL a loser who won't even try to get a better job or improve himself.  So let's talk about what really scares you, people of color getting the same opportunities that you've had, and doing better than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can't allow in everyone from shithole countries that want a better life. It would turn America into a shit hole country.
> How many more times do I have to post this before you finally watch it and get a clue?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's end our alleged wars on drugs and terror; they Only create refugees for the Right Wing, to complain about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was for legalizing drugs. Then my 20 year old nephew ended up in the emergency room after taking a single toke of legal synthesized marijuana. Someone found him on the side of the road having an epileptic seizure and throwing up. He's lucky to be alive. A week later the idiot went and got drunk. Something else that maybe need to be outlawed.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I am a Libertarian. When it happens to someone else's family member I don't give a fuck.
Click to expand...

how about the abomination of hypocrisy, for the sake of morals and the Greater Glory of our Immortal Souls?


----------



## danielpalos

MaryL said:


> Why this sudden focus on immigration all of a sudden? The big three NBC, CBS and ABC. Their focus is on illegal aliens not so much as a valid news item, but as  subtle political agenda. Separating illegals families is a trivial issue. Why this exaggerated focus on this? Could it be Illegal aliens are the goose that  lays the golden egg for wealthy and they use the media to manipulate popular sentiment?  Perhaps the media should limit coverage to just  immediate late breaking facts, not spin things in a side ways winky wink way. I see   camps full of poor homeless Americans  with kids that the media and liberals totally slough off. And these people should be our first concern, not the well being of foreign nationals that ignore immigration law. Why isn't the local news putting that up front and center every day?


Because the rich already got their tax break?


----------



## MaryL

danielpalos said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why this sudden focus on immigration all of a sudden? The big three NBC, CBS and ABC. Their focus is on illegal aliens not so much as a valid news item, but as  subtle political agenda. Separating illegals families is a trivial issue. Why this exaggerated focus on this? Could it be Illegal aliens are the goose that  lays the golden egg for wealthy and they use the media to manipulate popular sentiment?  Perhaps the media should limit coverage to just  immediate late breaking facts, not spin things in a side ways winky wink way. I see   camps full of poor homeless Americans  with kids that the media and liberals totally slough off. And these people should be our first concern, not the well being of foreign nationals that ignore immigration law. Why isn't the local news putting that up front and center every day?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the rich already got their tax break?
Click to expand...

I used to be naïve enough to believe that the average voter was like me. And the city, state and federal representatives represented  folks like me. Silly me, this was always about the rich, they have a hand in everything, they remind me of the Mafia. A dirty little underworld of politicians.  This is all a big racket to them now. And yet sometimes a shining beam of sunlight shows through,  sometimes the common person triumphs over the pull of wealthy  elitists, but not as often as it should, given our ideals.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

MaryL said:


> Why this sudden focus on immigration all of a sudden? The big three NBC, CBS and ABC. Their focus is on illegal aliens not so much as a valid news item, but as  subtle political agenda. Separating illegals families is a trivial issue. Why this exaggerated focus on this? Could it be Illegal aliens are the goose that  lays the golden egg for wealthy and they use the media to manipulate popular sentiment?  Perhaps the media should limit coverage to just  immediate late breaking facts, not spin things in a side ways winky wink way. I see   camps full of poor homeless Americans  with kids that the media and liberals totally slough off. And these people should be our first concern, not the well being of foreign nationals that ignore immigration law. Why isn't the local news putting that up front and center every day?



Trump's success. 
Midterm elections.


----------



## danielpalos

MaryL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why this sudden focus on immigration all of a sudden? The big three NBC, CBS and ABC. Their focus is on illegal aliens not so much as a valid news item, but as  subtle political agenda. Separating illegals families is a trivial issue. Why this exaggerated focus on this? Could it be Illegal aliens are the goose that  lays the golden egg for wealthy and they use the media to manipulate popular sentiment?  Perhaps the media should limit coverage to just  immediate late breaking facts, not spin things in a side ways winky wink way. I see   camps full of poor homeless Americans  with kids that the media and liberals totally slough off. And these people should be our first concern, not the well being of foreign nationals that ignore immigration law. Why isn't the local news putting that up front and center every day?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the rich already got their tax break?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used to be naïve enough to believe that the average voter was like me. And the city, state and federal representatives represented  folks like me. Silly me, this was always about the rich, they have a hand in everything, they remind me of the Mafia. A dirty little underworld of politicians.  This is all a big racket to them now. And yet sometimes a shining beam of sunlight shows through,  sometimes the common person triumphs over the pull of wealthy  elitists, but not as often as it should, given our ideals.
Click to expand...

the Right Wing simply being Cronies, doesn't help.


----------



## MaryL

Ray From Cleveland said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why this sudden focus on immigration all of a sudden? The big three NBC, CBS and ABC. Their focus is on illegal aliens not so much as a valid news item, but as  subtle political agenda. Separating illegals families is a trivial issue. Why this exaggerated focus on this? Could it be Illegal aliens are the goose that  lays the golden egg for wealthy and they use the media to manipulate popular sentiment?  Perhaps the media should limit coverage to just  immediate late breaking facts, not spin things in a side ways winky wink way. I see   camps full of poor homeless Americans  with kids that the media and liberals totally slough off. And these people should be our first concern, not the well being of foreign nationals that ignore immigration law. Why isn't the local news putting that up front and center every day?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's success.
> Midterm elections.
Click to expand...

I voted for the man.  Because a Mexican pissed me off the day before, in a fit of pique. Little did I know... A rich white  guy, member of the  elitist Mafia establishment that profits from wetter's that also cynically likes to play both ends against the middle. Not one of my prouder moments.  But yet a again I am thinking Ted Cruz...Would it have mattered?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I know and it's obvious when people vote.  DumBama and gang was a shot in the arm of what Socialism/ Communism is all about, and it left a bad taste in our mouths.  Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of problems with the Republicans as well, but at least we're doing something to fix our party and send a message at the same time.
> 
> I also believe that leftist brainwashing is finally starting to fade away; not totally rejected just yet, but in the right direction.  More and more people are starting to scratch their heads at Democrat policy and coming to the realization they are all phonies.  They always have an ulterior motive when they make policies and laws.
> 
> For instance most people understand that it's un-American for leftist entities to force people to give them money.  The SC ruled that is not acceptable, and Piglosi ran out there saying how it was an attack on the working people.  The right thing (in the mind of a leftist) is force people to pay unions money even though they are not part of the union.  Democrats are upset because much of that money comes back to them in campaign contributions.  It was a money laundering scheme all along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think it is ok then to force the unions to represent those who don’t pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's forcing them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What law is that?  I never heard of such a law that a union MUST (under law) represent non-union employees.  If that's the case, I'll call a union to get me a raise and they will (by law) have to get me one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This article describes it pretty well...Why should unions negotiate for workers who don't pay their fair share?
Click to expand...


No, I don't think it does.  I looked up what Exclusive Representation was and I read your article twice.  As far as I can gather, what it says is that unions are forced to represent all members in their union.  Understandable.  However I did not read where it was forced by law to represent any non-union member.  In fact, what they said they wanted to do is make those who do not pay dues non-union.  

So I still don't understand why unions don't simply kick out non-paying members.  What law is there that says if a union is present, all workers have to be represented by that union?  From past experiences, I really thought that requirement was a union requirement and not a government one.  

So I'm still confused.  Now if there is some sort of government law that says all employees must be represented by a union if present in the company, then they have a legitimate complaint.  The union should not have members that don't want to be members.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's face it, the United States is preferable to 90% of the countries on Earth, including a lot of the ones in Europe.  Personally, I think it's better than any other country on Earth.
> 
> Doesn't mean we're obligated to let everyone else on Earth live here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with you on that one, we are the greatest country on earth in spite of what the liberals claim.  Notice they never leave for any of these other socialist utopias they constantly praise.
> 
> And as I asked Coyote, how many countries would she like to move into the USA?  She never provided an answer.
> 
> If word ever got out that we are a virtual open border country, South America will be the least of our problems.  They will be coming by the hundreds of millions in boats and planes from all over the world.  It's simply not feasible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Don't the democRATs think they will be voted out of office and replaced with the immigrants?  Look what happened in NY with the career democRAT who got primaried out?  I wonder what he's thinking now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "But, but, but....."            "Go home Gringo."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And got voted out by an open borders admitted Socialist to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Very few if any real democrats want open boarders.  I have never spoken to a Democrat that advocated open boarders.  The facts are:*
> 
> *Not one Democratic President ever proposed open borders.*
> *Not one Democratic Presidential Candidate ever proposed open borders.*
> *Not one Democratic Senator advocates open borders.*
> *Not one Democratic Congressman advocates open borders.*
> *Not one Democratic Governor advocates open borders.*
> *And you will not find any Democratic Platform advocating open borders.*
> *Declaring that Democrats will open our boarders is nothing but a scare tactic which draws an equal and opposite claim from the Left that Republicans seek to seal our borders and isolation the US from the rest of the world.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh come on with the semantics already.  They don't use the term Open Borders like they don't use the term socialists or liberals, but we know what they mean.
Click to expand...

*Open border is a border that enables free movement of people between different nations with few or no restrictions on movement. Most open boarders are found within the EU that require no immigration documents to cross between EU countries.  Democrats are not even suggesting this.  I don't know of any Democrat who advocates that. 

Suggesting that we need more immigrants in the US or that undocumented immigrants should be treated fairly and humanely, that young children should not be taken from their mothers, or that a paths to citizenship should be created is still nothing even close to open borders.  And that is not semantics.  Saying democrats want our boarders open is an out right lie.

Let me remind you that more border security was added under Obama than any other president. He also holds the record for deportation.
Furthermore the only president to have carried out amenity for undocumented immigrants was Reagan.*


----------



## Slyhunter

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was some sort of war or government takeover in these counties, I could better understand.  But these countries haven't changed in some time.  There is no sudden need to escape an environment they've lived in most of their lives.   Sure, they want a better place to live, and that's understandable.  But I'm certain you will find many children and parents in Asia and Africa that feel the same way.    I'm sure there are billions of people that would love to invade the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's face it, the United States is preferable to 90% of the countries on Earth, including a lot of the ones in Europe.  Personally, I think it's better than any other country on Earth.
> 
> Doesn't mean we're obligated to let everyone else on Earth live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm with you on that one, we are the greatest country on earth in spite of what the liberals claim.  Notice they never leave for any of these other socialist utopias they constantly praise.
> 
> And as I asked Coyote, how many countries would she like to move into the USA?  She never provided an answer.
> 
> If word ever got out that we are a virtual open border country, South America will be the least of our problems.  They will be coming by the hundreds of millions in boats and planes from all over the world.  It's simply not feasible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Don't the democRATs think they will be voted out of office and replaced with the immigrants?  Look what happened in NY with the career democRAT who got primaried out?  I wonder what he's thinking now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "But, but, but....."            "Go home Gringo."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And got voted out by an open borders admitted Socialist to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Very few if any real democrats want open boarders.  I have never spoken to a Democrat that advocated open boarders.  The facts are:*
> 
> *Not one Democratic President ever proposed open borders.*
> *Not one Democratic Presidential Candidate ever proposed open borders.*
> *Not one Democratic Senator advocates open borders.*
> *Not one Democratic Congressman advocates open borders.*
> *Not one Democratic Governor advocates open borders.*
> *And you will not find any Democratic Platform advocating open borders.*
> *Declaring that Democrats will open our boarders is nothing but a scare tactic which draws an equal and opposite claim from the Left that Republicans seek to seal our borders and isolation the US from the rest of the world.*
Click to expand...

Being against the wall is their declaration for open borders.
Amnesty is their declaration for open borders.
What the fuck do you think borders are for?


----------



## Slyhunter

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> GENOCIDAL , who knows , import a fifth column , GENOCIDAL , who knows what the future holds  Ray .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I know and it's obvious when people vote.  DumBama and gang was a shot in the arm of what Socialism/ Communism is all about, and it left a bad taste in our mouths.  Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of problems with the Republicans as well, but at least we're doing something to fix our party and send a message at the same time.
> 
> I also believe that leftist brainwashing is finally starting to fade away; not totally rejected just yet, but in the right direction.  More and more people are starting to scratch their heads at Democrat policy and coming to the realization they are all phonies.  They always have an ulterior motive when they make policies and laws.
> 
> For instance most people understand that it's un-American for leftist entities to force people to give them money.  The SC ruled that is not acceptable, and Piglosi ran out there saying how it was an attack on the working people.  The right thing (in the mind of a leftist) is force people to pay unions money even though they are not part of the union.  Democrats are upset because much of that money comes back to them in campaign contributions.  It was a money laundering scheme all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think it is ok then to force the unions to represent those who don’t pay?
Click to expand...

You think it is ok to force those who don't want to join to join.
Don't represent them if you don't want to.


----------



## Slyhunter

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I know and it's obvious when people vote.  DumBama and gang was a shot in the arm of what Socialism/ Communism is all about, and it left a bad taste in our mouths.  Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of problems with the Republicans as well, but at least we're doing something to fix our party and send a message at the same time.
> 
> I also believe that leftist brainwashing is finally starting to fade away; not totally rejected just yet, but in the right direction.  More and more people are starting to scratch their heads at Democrat policy and coming to the realization they are all phonies.  They always have an ulterior motive when they make policies and laws.
> 
> For instance most people understand that it's un-American for leftist entities to force people to give them money.  The SC ruled that is not acceptable, and Piglosi ran out there saying how it was an attack on the working people.  The right thing (in the mind of a leftist) is force people to pay unions money even though they are not part of the union.  Democrats are upset because much of that money comes back to them in campaign contributions.  It was a money laundering scheme all along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think it is ok then to force the unions to represent those who don’t pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's forcing them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What law is that?  I never heard of such a law that a union MUST (under law) represent non-union employees.  If that's the case, I'll call a union to get me a raise and they will (by law) have to get me one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This article describes it pretty well...Why should unions negotiate for workers who don't pay their fair share?
Click to expand...

Don't negotiate for them.
See how that works.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's face it, the United States is preferable to 90% of the countries on Earth, including a lot of the ones in Europe.  Personally, I think it's better than any other country on Earth.
> 
> Doesn't mean we're obligated to let everyone else on Earth live here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with you on that one, we are the greatest country on earth in spite of what the liberals claim.  Notice they never leave for any of these other socialist utopias they constantly praise.
> 
> And as I asked Coyote, how many countries would she like to move into the USA?  She never provided an answer.
> 
> If word ever got out that we are a virtual open border country, South America will be the least of our problems.  They will be coming by the hundreds of millions in boats and planes from all over the world.  It's simply not feasible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Don't the democRATs think they will be voted out of office and replaced with the immigrants?  Look what happened in NY with the career democRAT who got primaried out?  I wonder what he's thinking now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "But, but, but....."            "Go home Gringo."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And got voted out by an open borders admitted Socialist to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Very few if any real democrats want open boarders.  I have never spoken to a Democrat that advocated open boarders.  The facts are:*
> 
> *Not one Democratic President ever proposed open borders.*
> *Not one Democratic Presidential Candidate ever proposed open borders.*
> *Not one Democratic Senator advocates open borders.*
> *Not one Democratic Congressman advocates open borders.*
> *Not one Democratic Governor advocates open borders.*
> *And you will not find any Democratic Platform advocating open borders.*
> *Declaring that Democrats will open our boarders is nothing but a scare tactic which draws an equal and opposite claim from the Left that Republicans seek to seal our borders and isolation the US from the rest of the world.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being against the wall is their declaration for open borders.
> Amnesty is their declaration for open borders.
> What the fuck do you think borders are for?
Click to expand...

Jurisdiction for Commerce purposes.


----------



## Slyhunter

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with you on that one, we are the greatest country on earth in spite of what the liberals claim.  Notice they never leave for any of these other socialist utopias they constantly praise.
> 
> And as I asked Coyote, how many countries would she like to move into the USA?  She never provided an answer.
> 
> If word ever got out that we are a virtual open border country, South America will be the least of our problems.  They will be coming by the hundreds of millions in boats and planes from all over the world.  It's simply not feasible.
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Don't the democRATs think they will be voted out of office and replaced with the immigrants?  Look what happened in NY with the career democRAT who got primaried out?  I wonder what he's thinking now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "But, but, but....."            "Go home Gringo."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And got voted out by an open borders admitted Socialist to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Very few if any real democrats want open boarders.  I have never spoken to a Democrat that advocated open boarders.  The facts are:*
> 
> *Not one Democratic President ever proposed open borders.*
> *Not one Democratic Presidential Candidate ever proposed open borders.*
> *Not one Democratic Senator advocates open borders.*
> *Not one Democratic Congressman advocates open borders.*
> *Not one Democratic Governor advocates open borders.*
> *And you will not find any Democratic Platform advocating open borders.*
> *Declaring that Democrats will open our boarders is nothing but a scare tactic which draws an equal and opposite claim from the Left that Republicans seek to seal our borders and isolation the US from the rest of the world.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh come on with the semantics already.  They don't use the term Open Borders like they don't use the term socialists or liberals, but we know what they mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Open border is a border that enables free movement of people between different nations with few or no restrictions on movement. Most open boarders are found within the EU that require no immigration documents to cross between EU countries.  Democrats are not even suggesting this.  I don't know of any Democrat who advocates that.
> 
> Suggesting that we need more immigrants in the US or that undocumented immigrants should be treated fairly and humanely, that young children should not be taken from their mothers, or that a paths to citizenship should be created is still nothing even close to open borders.  And that is not semantics.  Saying democrats want our boarders open is an out right lie.
> 
> Let me remind you that more border security was added under Obama than any other president. He also holds the record for deportation.
> Furthermore the only president to have carried out amenity for undocumented immigrants was Reagan.*
Click to expand...

Saying that we can't keep out the riffraff is for open borders.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with you on that one, we are the greatest country on earth in spite of what the liberals claim.  Notice they never leave for any of these other socialist utopias they constantly praise.
> 
> And as I asked Coyote, how many countries would she like to move into the USA?  She never provided an answer.
> 
> If word ever got out that we are a virtual open border country, South America will be the least of our problems.  They will be coming by the hundreds of millions in boats and planes from all over the world.  It's simply not feasible.
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Don't the democRATs think they will be voted out of office and replaced with the immigrants?  Look what happened in NY with the career democRAT who got primaried out?  I wonder what he's thinking now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "But, but, but....."            "Go home Gringo."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And got voted out by an open borders admitted Socialist to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Very few if any real democrats want open boarders.  I have never spoken to a Democrat that advocated open boarders.  The facts are:*
> 
> *Not one Democratic President ever proposed open borders.*
> *Not one Democratic Presidential Candidate ever proposed open borders.*
> *Not one Democratic Senator advocates open borders.*
> *Not one Democratic Congressman advocates open borders.*
> *Not one Democratic Governor advocates open borders.*
> *And you will not find any Democratic Platform advocating open borders.*
> *Declaring that Democrats will open our boarders is nothing but a scare tactic which draws an equal and opposite claim from the Left that Republicans seek to seal our borders and isolation the US from the rest of the world.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh come on with the semantics already.  They don't use the term Open Borders like they don't use the term socialists or liberals, but we know what they mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Open border is a border that enables free movement of people between different nations with few or no restrictions on movement. Most open boarders are found within the EU that require no immigration documents to cross between EU countries.  Democrats are not even suggesting this.  I don't know of any Democrat who advocates that.
> 
> Suggesting that we need more immigrants in the US or that undocumented immigrants should be treated fairly and humanely, that young children should not be taken from their mothers, or that a paths to citizenship should be created is still nothing even close to open borders.  And that is not semantics.  Saying democrats want our boarders open is an out right lie.
> 
> Let me remind you that more border security was added under Obama than any other president. He also holds the record for deportation.
> Furthermore the only president to have carried out amenity for undocumented immigrants was Reagan.*
Click to expand...


This is true, and later Reagan admitted it was a grave mistake on his part.  

The Democrats are fighting hard against a border wall, why? 

The Democrats stopped Kate's Law, why? 

The Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to keep their sanctuary cities, and now states, why?

If that's not open borders, it's the next best thing.    

The only reason DumBama had record deportations is because the definition of deportation changed under Bush.  There is a path to citizenship already in this country.  In fact, we naturalized over 750,000 in 2016, and prior years were very similar.  The problem is that there are so many people that want to get into the US that it's a long wait, and we can't let more people in because as it is, they are not assimilating.  That's why we are becoming a bilingual country.


----------



## MaryL

All criminals should be treated humanely.  I concur totally. We have children taken into custody of child protective services every freeking day, and nobody bats a freekin eyebrow. That is the very definition of "Humane".  Abusive or neglectful  parents should have their offspring  taken away and put into better hands. Same with illegal aliens that sneak in here, wow. They knew the risks of getting caught.  Seeing how abusive Mexicans can be, I am just not seeing this as a bad thing.  I am bemused at this topic. It's like a big fat nothing. Just like chicken little  saying the sky is falling. Accept it isn't.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again, illegal immigration is at a 30 year low and we don't have that many people trying to get in. That you think the small amount of people we are taking in is a problem is really more about you than them.
> 
> We can solve our problems just fine... we just refuse to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct, but the Democrats stopped us from building that wall.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the undocumented are part of that 320 million, and we kind of need immigrants because White People aren't even reproducing at replacement rates. More of us are dying than being born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we become a less populated country.  Why is that such a bad thing to the left?  Oh, that's right, you were told by your puppet masters it was a bad thing, but have no explanation as to why.
> 
> The US population in 1970 was 205 million people.  That's more than a third less of what we have today.  What was so devastating when we only had that size of population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *6.1% unemployment
> 5.6% inflation
> Country was in recession
> Thousands of Americans dying in Vietnam
> Not that any of that has anything to do with the size of the population.
> 
> The problem with reducing the population by 1/3 today is that taxes would not go down by a 1/3 but more important, consumption would go down by a third, retail sales, home buying, etc. We would have 1/3 the tax payers to pay the interest on the debt and other expenses such as defense spending which would not decline with population.  This would translate into a shrinking economy and lenders demanding high interest rates on goverment debt.
> 
> Some nations could handle a shrinking population fairly well but not the US because our economy is based growing consumption and an every increasing capacity to carry the national debt. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well with a third less consumption, we would have a third less jobs needed to be filled.  These immigrants cost us taxpayers billions of dollars every year, so much for your concern about our debt.
Click to expand...

*And the size our economy would drop by over 4 trillion dollars, worst yet our prospects for future growth would also drop leading to higher interest on the national debt and 1/3 less people to pay it.  In short America would become a third rate economic power behind both China and the EU.*


----------



## MaryL

I am so angry about this...I feel like taking up the cause, and going to local homeless camps  interviewing and documenting their stories, because the so called "media" ignores them like minutiae and flotsam and trash. But instead, focuses on illegal aliens and all their sob stories. Somebody has to step up for the America's wretched poor yearning to breathe free...


----------



## OODA_Loop

MaryL said:


> I am so angry about this...I feel like taking up the cause, and going to local homeless camps  interviewing and documented their stories, because the so called "media" ignores them like minutiae and flotsam and trash. But instead, focuses on illegal aliens and all their sob stories. Somebody has to step up for the America's wretched poor yearning to breathe free...




Let them take the jobs illegal immigrants are taking.


----------



## Flopper

MaryL said:


> All criminals should be treated humanely.  I concur totally. We have children taken into custody of child protective services every freeking day, and nobody bats a freekin eyebrow. That is the very definition of "Humane".  Abusive or neglectful  parents should have their offspring  taken away and put into better hands. Same with illegal aliens that sneak in here, wow. They knew the risks of getting caught.  Seeing how abusive Mexicans can be, I am just not seeing this as a bad thing.  I am bemused at this topic. It's like a big fat nothing.


*Most children are taken from their parents because the parent is abusive or fails to protect the child.  It is pretty hard to argue that a parent that takes their children away from a dangerous environment and travels over a thousand miles to seek safety is either abusive or non-protective.  Yet that is exactly how these parents are being treated by the US government.

“Give me your tired, your poor, 
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, 
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. 
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, 
I lift my lamp beside the golden door, except if you're from a shithole country.*


----------



## MaryL

OODA_Loop said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am so angry about this...I feel like taking up the cause, and going to local homeless camps  interviewing and documented their stories, because the so called "media" ignores them like minutiae and flotsam and trash. But instead, focuses on illegal aliens and all their sob stories. Somebody has to step up for the America's wretched poor yearning to breathe free...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let them take the jobs illegal immigrants are taking.
Click to expand...

I  doubt that too many of the truly  dispossessed Americans by illegals  want to  parade that around on the internet . MMM, no probably not.  They can't afford luxuries like the internet, anyway. And they are the ones that  specifically need an ombudsman, a voice.   Illegal aliens have the popular Mafia, er media, my bad. I don't know what else to add to that. We need to speak up here.


----------



## Flopper

OODA_Loop said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am so angry about this...I feel like taking up the cause, and going to local homeless camps  interviewing and documented their stories, because the so called "media" ignores them like minutiae and flotsam and trash. But instead, focuses on illegal aliens and all their sob stories. Somebody has to step up for the America's wretched poor yearning to breathe free...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let them take the jobs illegal immigrants are taking.
Click to expand...

*Because you're homeless does not mean you don't work, another big myth.*


----------



## dudmuck

MaryL said:


> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am agnostic, so?   That is a beautiful sentiment. Too bad these illegal aliens don't mirror that sentiment. Instead they remind me Mexican version of  "Anschluss".  Look it up. And you are sounding like a gullible child wearing your heart on your sleeve. We REALLY need more folks like YOU, that would make the world a better place. For Mexicans.
Click to expand...

It would be Anschluss if Enrique Nieto rode into the US in his military convoy.  But Germany and Austria are ethnically identical. 
But i get your thinking.  Its similar to the way Germans of the 1930's though of the jews at the time.


----------



## MaryL

Flopper said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am so angry about this...I feel like taking up the cause, and going to local homeless camps  interviewing and documented their stories, because the so called "media" ignores them like minutiae and flotsam and trash. But instead, focuses on illegal aliens and all their sob stories. Somebody has to step up for the America's wretched poor yearning to breathe free...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let them take the jobs illegal immigrants are taking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Because you're homeless does not mean you don't work, another big myth.*
Click to expand...

Well, and here we go...Um this skews to the  exploitive side  of the debate. House said "people lie", boy howdy do they ever.  But that doesn't make huge growing camps of American poor  living in tents go away. And their poor kids, makes me weepy and all. Mexicans lie about their status, and even use their offspring as hedges. Wow, that takes being cynical up a notch or two.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again, illegal immigration is at a 30 year low and we don't have that many people trying to get in. That you think the small amount of people we are taking in is a problem is really more about you than them.
> 
> We can solve our problems just fine... we just refuse to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct, but the Democrats stopped us from building that wall.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the undocumented are part of that 320 million, and we kind of need immigrants because White People aren't even reproducing at replacement rates. More of us are dying than being born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we become a less populated country.  Why is that such a bad thing to the left?  Oh, that's right, you were told by your puppet masters it was a bad thing, but have no explanation as to why.
> 
> The US population in 1970 was 205 million people.  That's more than a third less of what we have today.  What was so devastating when we only had that size of population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *6.1% unemployment
> 5.6% inflation
> Country was in recession
> Thousands of Americans dying in Vietnam
> Not that any of that has anything to do with the size of the population.
> 
> The problem with reducing the population by 1/3 today is that taxes would not go down by a 1/3 but more important, consumption would go down by a third, retail sales, home buying, etc. We would have 1/3 the tax payers to pay the interest on the debt and other expenses such as defense spending which would not decline with population.  This would translate into a shrinking economy and lenders demanding high interest rates on goverment debt.
> 
> Some nations could handle a shrinking population fairly well but not the US because our economy is based growing consumption and an every increasing capacity to carry the national debt. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well with a third less consumption, we would have a third less jobs needed to be filled.  These immigrants cost us taxpayers billions of dollars every year, so much for your concern about our debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And the size our economy would drop by over 4 trillion dollars, worst yet our prospects for future growth would also drop leading to higher interest on the national debt and 1/3 less people to pay it.  In short America would become a third rate economic power behind both China and the EU.*
Click to expand...


Keep taking these illegals in, and we will get there faster than you think. 

Perhaps if we ever faced the situation you imagine, we would actually do something about it.  Stop funding Planned Parenthood, stop funding NPR, PBS.  Open Secrets has a litany of wasteful spending that goes on every year. 

Then we have the welfare people; those who don't want to work or work part-time.  We need much more oversight on those people.  Last year, over 42 million people were on food stamps.  Now for the longest time, you on the left told us it was because of their inability to find full-time work.  Or you said, they were working lower wage jobs.  But a lot of these people only work part-time to stay on the program.  

I have these HUD people living next door to me in the suburbs.  OUR TAX DOLLARS pay for them to live here instead of lower priced housing in the inner-city.  The only question I have is......why?  

When I get up for work in the morning, their four cars are sitting there.  If I pass by my house during work, the cars are sitting there.  When I get home from work, the cars are sitting there.  The only time those cars move is after 5:00 pm.  And then they are coming home at 11:00, 12:00 or 1:00 in the morning drunk as a skunk setting off their car alarms waking up us working people.  

Two of the adults in the home are so fat they waddle when they walk.  They throw parties here and invite all their lowlife friends for a BBQ; probably food bought with our tax dollars.  

There are many things we can do to avoid bringing in third world people that will turn us into a third world country given enough time.


----------



## MaryL

dudmuck said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am agnostic, so?   That is a beautiful sentiment. Too bad these illegal aliens don't mirror that sentiment. Instead they remind me Mexican version of  "Anschluss".  Look it up. And you are sounding like a gullible child wearing your heart on your sleeve. We REALLY need more folks like YOU, that would make the world a better place. For Mexicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would be Anschluss if Enrique Nieto rode into the US in his military convoy.  But Germany and Austria are ethnically identical.
> But i get your thinking.  Its similar to the way Germans of the 1930's though of the jews at the time.
Click to expand...

From my petit perspective Mexicans think they can invade America, because well, so on and so forth. Being diplomatic and all I stop there. Now , given modern perspective, and various sanctuary cities, where might have they got that assumption from? Winky wink? I  ask myself, what procedures, what amendments , How did any city anywhere  become a sanctuary for illegal aliens above and beyond the collective voting process? Anyone get to actually VOTE if you wanted your city/state to ignore immigration law? What subtle thing did I miss? Even if you are liberal all day long, that has to puzzle even you...S'plain dat to me. I am a dumb plebe, excuse me.


----------



## MaryL

Well, Trump is a great whipping boy, take that, WHAPP. Whapp!  Thing about that, he's the  skeleton in the  political closet: People used the election process fair and square. So...speaking of the political process. and not to mention the 800 pound gorilla  in the room: NOBODY but NOBODY ever got to vote on sanctuary cities. It just totally taken out of our hands. Such a huge issue totally taken out of the voters hands. Why aren't liberals showing their outage at that?


----------



## Kondor3

Flopper said:


> ...The effects of a declining population can be devastating for a country such as the US which has borrowed extensively counting on repayment by younger generations.


Not to worry. If we get in over our heads, financially, we simply default on what we owe the Chinese. Let the population decline begin.


----------



## JoeB131

Slyhunter said:


> uh, no.
> You should learn how to use search engines



Your own source said it was signed by LBJ. 

News flash... LBJ was a Democrat. 



Slyhunter said:


> Al Gore's father was one of the ones filibustering the bill.



Um, so what?  So did Barry Goldwater.  Guess which one of those guys was the candidate for President. 

More Democrats signed on to it than Republicans.  

The reality- Democrats made a decision to end segregation once and for all.  The Southern Segregationists walked off and joined the GOP.


----------



## JoeB131

Slyhunter said:


> Rich people are living longer and having less babies. Poor people keep begetting like there's no tomorrow. It's ass fucking backwards to what it should be.



Again, you are confusing "rich" with "White" and "Poor" with "minority".


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> uh, no.
> You should learn how to use search engines
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your own source said it was signed by LBJ.
> 
> News flash... LBJ was a Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Al Gore's father was one of the ones filibustering the bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, so what?  So did Barry Goldwater.  Guess which one of those guys was the candidate for President.
> 
> More Democrats signed on to it than Republicans.
> 
> The reality- Democrats made a decision to end segregation once and for all.  The Southern Segregationists walked off and joined the GOP.
Click to expand...

/----/ Gpldwater never filibustered the CRA or VRA. That was a democRAT deed.  And provide the names of democRATs who switched to the GOP.   
*Civil Rights Filibuster Ended*
​
At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, *DEMOCRAT Senator Robert KKK Byrd* completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for 60 working days, including seven Saturdays. A day earlier, Senate whips Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) and Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), the bill's floor managers, concluded they had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate.

The Civil Rights Act provided protection of voting rights; banned discrimination in public facilities (including private businesses offering public services—such as lunch counters, hotels, and theaters); and established equal employment opportunity as the law of the land.

As *DEMOCRAT Senator Robert KKK Byrd* took his seat, House members, former senators, and others—150 of them—vied for limited standing space at the back of the chamber. With all gallery seats taken, hundreds waited outside in hopelessly extended lines.

*Georgia Democrat Richard Russell offered the final arguments in opposition.* Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, who had enlisted the Republican votes that made cloture a realistic option, spoke for the proponents with his customary eloquence. Noting that the day marked the 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's nomination to a second term, the Illinois Republican proclaimed, in the words of Victor Hugo, "Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come." He continued, "The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!"

Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only five times in the 47 years since the cloture rule was established had the Senate agreed to cloture for any measure.

The clerk proceeded to call the roll. When he reached "Mr. Engle," there was no response. A brain tumor had robbed California's mortally ill Clair Engle of his ability to speak. Slowly lifting a crippled arm, he pointed to his eye, thereby signaling his affirmative vote. Few of those who witnessed this heroic gesture ever forgot it. When Delaware's John Williams provided the decisive 67th vote, Majority Leader Mike Mansfield exclaimed, "That's it!"; Richard Russell slumped; and Hubert Humphrey beamed. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Nine days later the Senate approved the act itself—producing one of the 20th century's towering legislative achievements.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Right, it couldn't have had anything to do with the people occupying these countries, could it? Of course not. A self-hating white would never admit to such a thing.



Well, before the Europeans went over there trying to steal the Oil... er, taking on the White Man's Burden, they pretty much minded their own business, didn't they?  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> I hate to keep educating you, so I'll give you a hint why it went down: look at the common reason why property values go down in all the other places across the US. I'm sure that will keep you up all nigh



Because they are shitholes?  Hey, guy, I've been to Cleveland, it's a shithole.  That's why your property values went down.  25 years ago, I lived in a place called Cicero, IL.  This town went from majority white to majority Hispanic while I lived there, but before i sold my property to a Hispanic family, it's value doubled.  Then your boy Bush crashed the economy, and the property was worth 25% less than what I sold it for in 2000.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Who ran up the debt more than Hussein? Trump has only been in office for less than two years. And who led Congress during the Clinton years? Who brought us a balanced budget and a reduction of debt?



Guy, you can come up with all sorts of excuses, but the fact is, the deficit always goes down when Democrats are in charge, and it always goes up when Republicans are in charge. Democrats make sure the rich pay their fair share, Republicans can't wait to give away the store to their donors. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Nobody stole anything from you. We won elections fair and square, the same way every other election was won before in history.



Um, no, every other election involved 'the guy who got the most votes wins".  IN two of those three states, there was active suppression of minority voters.  You stole the election, deal with it.  And you totally did it for the wrong guy, he's going to destroy your party in the end.


----------



## JoeB131

MaryL said:


> Why this sudden focus on immigration all of a sudden? The big three NBC, CBS and ABC. Their focus is on illegal aliens not so much as a valid news item, but as subtle political agenda. Separating illegals families is a trivial issue. Why this exaggerated focus on this?



Um... because Kiddie Concentration Camps. That's why there's all the focus on this now. We didn't have those before Trump. 



Cellblock2429 said:


> Gpldwater never filibustered the CRA or VRA. That was a democRAT deed. And provide the names of democRATs who switched to the GOP.



Strom Thurmond. Jesse Helms.


----------



## JoeB131

Slyhunter said:


> Being against the wall is their declaration for open borders.
> Amnesty is their declaration for open borders.
> What the fuck do you think borders are for?



again, there are better ways to control our border than an ugly wall that expresses ugly sentiments, and won't work anyway.


----------



## JoeB131

Slyhunter said:


> Saying that we can't keep out the riffraff is for open borders.



I'm all for keeping out the Riff Raff 






It's when you start throwing kids into concentration camps I have a problem.  



OODA_Loop said:


> Let them take the jobs illegal immigrants are taking.



Most of them can't hold down jobs because of their mental health and substance abuse issues, that's the thing.  

Now, a company I worked for used to employ undocumented immigrants to do the grunt work of packing out kits.  Then they were bought out by a bigger company, that insisted all these "subcontractors" had to be citizens.  What they got were a bunch of Meth heads who scared the hell out of the office staff. Most of them lasted about a week, and it was a scramble to get more of them every Monday.


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why this sudden focus on immigration all of a sudden? The big three NBC, CBS and ABC. Their focus is on illegal aliens not so much as a valid news item, but as subtle political agenda. Separating illegals families is a trivial issue. Why this exaggerated focus on this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um... because Kiddie Concentration Camps. That's why there's all the focus on this now. We didn't have those before Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gpldwater never filibustered the CRA or VRA. That was a democRAT deed. And provide the names of democRATs who switched to the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strom Thurmond. Jesse Helms.
Click to expand...

/-----/   Oboz kept them in cages.





That's two.  Now when did the other 89 democRATs who voted NO  switch to the Republican Party?


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saying that we can't keep out the riffraff is for open borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for keeping out the Riff Raff
> 
> View attachment 202136
> 
> It's when you start throwing kids into concentration camps I have a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let them take the jobs illegal immigrants are taking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of them can't hold down jobs because of their mental health and substance abuse issues, that's the thing.
> 
> Now, a company I worked for used to employ undocumented immigrants to do the grunt work of packing out kits.  Then they were bought out by a bigger company, that insisted all these "subcontractors" had to be citizens.  What they got were a bunch of Meth heads who scared the hell out of the office staff. Most of them lasted about a week, and it was a scramble to get more of them every Monday.
Click to expand...

/----/ Why did Obozo throw those kids into Concentration camps?


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Perhaps if we ever faced the situation you imagine, we would actually do something about it. Stop funding Planned Parenthood, stop funding NPR, PBS. Open Secrets has a litany of wasteful spending that goes on every year.



NPR serves a good purpose. So does planned parenthood.. 

Now, if we wanted to end corporate welfare, that would put a real dent in the budget.  

Still, the biggest expense we have is old white people retiring and needed medical care, and if we don't get new workers to fill those jobs, the jobs will just go to them an Mexico will benefit.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if we ever faced the situation you imagine, we would actually do something about it. Stop funding Planned Parenthood, stop funding NPR, PBS. Open Secrets has a litany of wasteful spending that goes on every year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NPR serves a good purpose. So does planned parenthood..
> 
> Now, if we wanted to end corporate welfare, that would put a real dent in the budget.
> 
> Still, the biggest expense we have is old white people retiring and needed medical care, and if we don't get new workers to fill those jobs, the jobs will just go to them an Mexico will benefit.
Click to expand...


I doubt it, but even if they did, so what?  If we don't have enough workers, then they go to Mexico and they have jobs which will help keep them there.  

Corporate Welfare is a leftist term meaning tax breaks.  It's not like welfare your people get.  Tax breaks don't cost anything, the government simply takes less in.  If it's okay for the feds to fund NPR and PBS, why not Salem Communications as well?  I bet your ilk would be in a hissy fit over that one.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Because they are shitholes? Hey, guy, I've been to Cleveland, it's a shithole. That's why your property values went down. 25 years ago, I lived in a place called Cicero, IL. This town went from majority white to majority Hispanic while I lived there, but before i sold my property to a Hispanic family, it's value doubled. Then your boy Bush crashed the economy, and the property was worth 25% less than what I sold it for in 2000.



I knew that mental block was going to kick in.  I asked simply for my entertainment.  



JoeB131 said:


> Guy, you can come up with all sorts of excuses, but the fact is, the deficit always goes down when Democrats are in charge, and it always goes up when Republicans are in charge. Democrats make sure the rich pay their fair share, Republicans can't wait to give away the store to their donors.



A President is not in charge of the entire government.  In fact a President can only make very limited decisions by himself.  Read your Constitution.  It tells you who is in charge of creating laws, taxation and spending.  



JoeB131 said:


> Um, no, every other election involved 'the guy who got the most votes wins". IN two of those three states, there was active suppression of minority voters. You stole the election, deal with it. And you totally did it for the wrong guy, he's going to destroy your party in the end.



I don't know if you're talking about one election or two.  Who supressed minorities and how did they do it?  Have any links?  We've been using the EC since we started voting in this country.  What do you mean in the past we always used popular vote?  

Now are you talking about Bush, because if you are, I'll post the Wiki link for you to read and finally understand what happened.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Um, so what? So did Barry Goldwater. Guess which one of those guys was the candidate for President.
> 
> More Democrats signed on to it than Republicans.



That's because they were in leadership.  Percentage wise, more Republicans signed it.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I doubt it, but even if they did, so what? If we don't have enough workers, then they go to Mexico and they have jobs which will help keep them there.



Yes, I know you are terrified of Mexicans moving in next door. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> I knew that mental block was going to kick in. I asked simply for my entertainment.



No mental block at all, buddy... your property went down because you live in a shithole, and if you maintained it like you maintain your career, it probably looked like this. 







Ray From Cleveland said:


> A President is not in charge of the entire government. In fact a President can only make very limited decisions by himself. Read your Constitution. It tells you who is in charge of creating laws, taxation and spending.



Guy, you can pretend all day, but Republican Presidents brought us 9 of the last 10 recessions.. It's not a bug, it's a design feature.  

The one thing that scares Republicans more than recessions is having to share the money with the people doing the actual work. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> I don't know if you're talking about one election or two. Who supressed minorities and how did they do it? Have any links? We've been using the EC since we started voting in this country. What do you mean in the past we always used popular vote?



Uh, guy, other than Bush or Trump, every guy who won in the last century won the popular vote.  That's how it SHOULD work. 

The EC was considered a formality...  

Heck, when Nixon was told that he could challenge electoral counts in IL and TX, Nixon even conceded that the people had spoken.  

Kind of sad when you have to cite Tricky Dick as a good example.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, I know you are terrified of Mexicans moving in next door.



Shouldn't I be? 



JoeB131 said:


> No mental block at all, buddy... your property went down because you live in a shithole, and if you maintained it like you maintain your career, it probably looked like this.



Right, a shithole that was one of the best places to live just two decades ago.  The houses didn't change, the streets didn't change, the city didn't change.  Now ask yourself (expecting another mental block) what did change?  



JoeB131 said:


> Guy, you can pretend all day, but Republican Presidents brought us 9 of the last 10 recessions.. It's not a bug, it's a design feature.
> 
> The one thing that scares Republicans more than recessions is having to share the money with the people doing the actual work.



If the President was responsible for recessions, you would be correct.  But the one thing you can't understand is a President has little power unless his party is in leadership of the houses, just like a Democrat President has little power unless he has his people in the houses. 





JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, other than Bush or Trump, every guy who won in the last century won the popular vote. That's how it SHOULD work.
> 
> The EC was considered a formality...
> 
> Heck, when Nixon was told that he could challenge electoral counts in IL and TX, Nixon even conceded that the people had spoken.
> 
> Kind of sad when you have to cite Tricky Dick as a good example.



Kind of sad when you have to compare a neck and neck election to one that wasn't even close. 

The Electoral College is considered a formality?  By who?  Then you wonder why we call your kind the uninformed voter.  

We never used the popular vote and probably never will, so I suggest you get used to it.  The only reason you leftists hate it now is because it doesn't work for you anymore.  I suggest you go way back before the election to find posts where your leftist friends here were bragging how Hil-Liar was going to take the EC vote and win no matter what Trump did.  It was expected that Trump was going to win the popular.  Not one of them had a problem with it either.  

But that's the difference between the left and the right.  When the right loses, they try to play a better game.  When the left loses, they want to change the rules of the game so they can no longer lose.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know you are terrified of Mexicans moving in next door.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't I be?
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No mental block at all, buddy... your property went down because you live in a shithole, and if you maintained it like you maintain your career, it probably looked like this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, a shithole that was one of the best places to live just two decades ago.  The houses didn't change, the streets didn't change, the city didn't change.  Now ask yourself (expecting another mental block) what did change?
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you can pretend all day, but Republican Presidents brought us 9 of the last 10 recessions.. It's not a bug, it's a design feature.
> 
> The one thing that scares Republicans more than recessions is having to share the money with the people doing the actual work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the President was responsible for recessions, you would be correct.  But the one thing you can't understand is a President has little power unless his party is in leadership of the houses, just like a Democrat President has little power unless he has his people in the houses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, guy, other than Bush or Trump, every guy who won in the last century won the popular vote. That's how it SHOULD work.
> 
> The EC was considered a formality...
> 
> Heck, when Nixon was told that he could challenge electoral counts in IL and TX, Nixon even conceded that the people had spoken.
> 
> Kind of sad when you have to cite Tricky Dick as a good example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kind of sad when you have to compare a neck and neck election to one that wasn't even close.
> 
> The Electoral College is considered a formality?  By who?  Then you wonder why we call your kind the uninformed voter.
> 
> We never used the popular vote and probably never will, so I suggest you get used to it.  The only reason you leftists hate it now is because it doesn't work for you anymore.  I suggest you go way back before the election to find posts where your leftist friends here were bragging how Hil-Liar was going to take the EC vote and win no matter what Trump did.  It was expected that Trump was going to win the popular.  Not one of them had a problem with it either.
> 
> But that's the difference between the left and the right.  When the right loses, they try to play a better game.  When the left loses, they want to change the rules of the game so they can no longer lose.
Click to expand...


Brilliant post...too bad you wasted it on a nitwit


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Right, a shithole that was one of the best places to live just two decades ago. The houses didn't change, the streets didn't change, the city didn't change. Now ask yourself (expecting another mental block) what did change?



Um, all the good jobs went away when they moved jobs to right to work states and third world countries... 

BUT KEEP BLAMING THE DARKIES FOR YOU BEING A WHITE TRASH LOSER, RAY!!!!!  

Because, honestly, the One Percenters have been programming you to do that... and then fly off to Italy while you can't get health insurance. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> If the President was responsible for recessions, you would be correct. But the one thing you can't understand is a President has little power unless his party is in leadership of the houses, just like a Democrat President has little power unless he has his people in the houses.



Um, no, guy, Presidents appoint the people who run Commerce, Treasury, the regulatory agencies... and when you get an "anything goes" mentality of no billionaire left behind, you get EXACTLY THE RESULTS WE GET WHEN THE GOP GETS INTO THE WHITE HOUSE.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Kind of sad when you have to compare a neck and neck election to one that wasn't even close.



JFK beat Nixon by a mere 112K votes... and there were irregularities in IL and TX.  Nixon still acknowledged the people had spoken.  

Trump lost to Hillary by THREE MILLION VOTES.  There were tons of irreglarities in PA, MI and WI, not to mention voter suppression and Russian meddlings... and you fucking morons claim that you have some kind of mandate.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> We never used the popular vote and probably never will, so I suggest you get used to it. The only reason you leftists hate it now is because it doesn't work for you anymore.



Actually, the EC has always been a horrible idea... but since it was never really an issue until 2000, no one cared.  Not to worry, right after trump is run out on a rail, they'll fix the constitution as well.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It was expected that Trump was going to win the popular. Not one of them had a problem with it either.



Um, no, nobody expected Trump to win the Popular Vote.  EVERY LAST FUCKING POLL had him losing the popular vote.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was expected that Trump was going to win the popular. Not one of them had a problem with it either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, nobody expected Trump to win the Popular Vote.  EVERY LAST FUCKING POLL had him losing the popular vote.
> 
> View attachment 202170
Click to expand...


I'm talking about what people on this blog were discussing.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Um, all the good jobs went away when they moved jobs to right to work states and third world countries...
> 
> BUT KEEP BLAMING THE DARKIES FOR YOU BEING A WHITE TRASH LOSER, RAY!!!!!
> 
> Because, honestly, the One Percenters have been programming you to do that... and then fly off to Italy while you can't get health insurance.



Yeah, my boss who comes to work everyday and works 9 hours is a 1 percenter.  Well if he is, he's the only 1 percenter that I know who jumps in a van to make deliveries to the other side of the state. 

Since all the jobs moved to a right to work state,  maybe you can explain how all those other white areas around here are doing so great.  Why are their stores open and ours closed down?  Why did their properties rise in value and ours decreased?  Why do they have zero shootings in their suburb and we have three or four a year?  Why are their streets nice and clean and ours is littered with garbage thrown from cars?  Why are their motorists considerate enough to keep their music loud enough so only they can hear it, and our motorists have it so loud it shakes the windows in your house.  Why is it they can have 4th of July fireworks without riots or gang fights and we had to stop our years ago for that reason.  

Oh, that's right, it's because all the jobs moved to right to work states.  It can't be anything else in the mind of Joe.  



JoeB131 said:


> Um, no, guy, Presidents appoint the people who run Commerce, Treasury, the regulatory agencies... and when you get an "anything goes" mentality of no billionaire left behind, you get EXACTLY THE RESULTS WE GET WHEN THE GOP GETS INTO THE WHITE HOUSE.



Congress creates the budget.  The budget is what we are going to spend money on.  Congress creates taxation, the President doesn't.  Congress writes laws--the President doesn't.  



JoeB131 said:


> JFK beat Nixon by a mere 112K votes... and there were irregularities in IL and TX. Nixon still acknowledged the people had spoken.
> 
> Trump lost to Hillary by THREE MILLION VOTES. There were tons of irreglarities in PA, MI and WI, not to mention voter suppression and Russian meddlings... and you fucking morons claim that you have some kind of mandate.



There was no Russian meddling that changed the election. DumBama meddled in elections all the time particularly Israel's.  Nobody votes based on what's posted on FaceBook.  

As for irregularities, that happens every single national election.  It happened during Trump, it happened during DumBama, it happened during Bush and it happened during Clinton.  And there was no voter suppression anywhere.  

You need to start looking at the man behind the curtain.  The Democrats can't tell you the truth.  If they told their people the truth, many of them would just stay home and not vote.  So they need to lie to you every time you lose an election.  



JoeB131 said:


> Actually, the EC has always been a horrible idea... but since it was never really an issue until 2000, no one cared. Not to worry, right after trump is run out on a rail, they'll fix the constitution as well.



Sure they will.  They will get 2/3 of the Senate and 2/3 of the governors to change the Constitution.  

You are correct, nobody cared and most don't care today.  Democrats are like whiny little kids when their mother doesn't buy them the toy they want in the store.  We have elections, we all play by the same rules, but if Democrats don't win by those rules, they stomp their feet and cry like babies.  They never ask what they did wrong, they only come up with excuses instead.  

When Trump wins reelection, we will be treated to another host of excuses by the Democrat party.


----------



## AZGAL

Ahhh Joe Blow... you are are repeatedly spitting out the same proven to be LIES as talking points ad naseum... repeat after me:  THERE ARE NO CHILDREN IN CAGES. THERE ARE NO KIDDIE CONCENTRATION CAMPS...This as a mantra repeated a few times over daily will help clear your head and bring you closer to the TRUTH and possible enlightenment! -from Swami Yesilivebytheborderandknowonandonda


----------



## AZGAL

and.. WHY the protests now? Didn't the President already SIGN an Executive action to stop the family separation? The only FRUCK UP Trumpy is doing is yelling about no due process for the immigrants. Even I DO AGREE they DESERVE DUE PROCESS and then when denied they have to pack up and leave. Anyone who pleads Asylum deserves a day in court.


----------



## Cellblock2429

AZGAL said:


> and.. WHY the protests now? Didn't the President already SIGN an Executive action to stop the family separation? The only FRUCK UP Trumpy is doing is yelling about no due process for the immigrants. Even I DO AGREE they DESERVE DUE PROCESS and then when denied they have to pack up and leave. Anyone who pleads Asylum deserves a day in court.


/——/ Apparently there is nothing else to complain about so they’re just trying stay in the news cycle. Tomorrow they may protest that by not smoking or drinking alcohol Trump doesn’t support tobacco farmers or distillers.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

AZGAL said:


> and.. WHY the protests now? Didn't the President already SIGN an Executive action to stop the family separation? The only FRUCK UP Trumpy is doing is yelling about no due process for the immigrants. Even I DO AGREE they DESERVE DUE PROCESS and then when denied they have to pack up and leave. Anyone who pleads Asylum deserves a day in court.



The problem with that is a court appearance takes up to three years, so in the meantime, they are let loose in society and never show up for court; at least 80% of them don't.  They select their favorite sanctuary city to hide in.

The left believes they have an issue there that will turn people against Trump; especially women, so they're not letting it go for anything.  These protests were arranged and paid for by your usual leftist entities. 

The left lies to get votes.  It's like when they were talking about equal pay for equal work during DumBama's second term.  They wanted to get more women voters.  The problem was we already have an equal pay for equal work law.  It was signed in the early 60's.  But they didn't tell the folks that.  We on the right had to point it out.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Ray From Cleveland said:


> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> and.. WHY the protests now? Didn't the President already SIGN an Executive action to stop the family separation? The only FRUCK UP Trumpy is doing is yelling about no due process for the immigrants. Even I DO AGREE they DESERVE DUE PROCESS and then when denied they have to pack up and leave. Anyone who pleads Asylum deserves a day in court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with that is a court appearance takes up to three years, so in the meantime, they are let loose in society and never show up for court; at least 80% of them don't.  They select their favorite sanctuary city to hide in.
> 
> The left believes they have an issue there that will turn people against Trump; especially women, so they're not letting it go for anything.  These protests were arranged and paid for by your usual leftist entities.
> 
> The left lies to get votes.  It's like when they were talking about equal pay for equal work during DumBama's second term.  They wanted to get more women voters.  The problem was we already have an equal pay for equal work law.  It was signed in the early 60's.  But they didn't tell the folks that.  We on the right had to point it out.
Click to expand...

/----/ The way LIbtards claim women are paid less than men is by averaging out the pay scales going back 100 years. Currently women are often paid more than men but the statistics won't reflect that if you factor in the pay scales starting in 1915.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again, illegal immigration is at a 30 year low and we don't have that many people trying to get in. That you think the small amount of people we are taking in is a problem is really more about you than them.
> 
> We can solve our problems just fine... we just refuse to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct, but the Democrats stopped us from building that wall.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the undocumented are part of that 320 million, and we kind of need immigrants because White People aren't even reproducing at replacement rates. More of us are dying than being born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we become a less populated country.  Why is that such a bad thing to the left?  Oh, that's right, you were told by your puppet masters it was a bad thing, but have no explanation as to why.
> 
> The US population in 1970 was 205 million people.  That's more than a third less of what we have today.  What was so devastating when we only had that size of population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *6.1% unemployment
> 5.6% inflation
> Country was in recession
> Thousands of Americans dying in Vietnam
> Not that any of that has anything to do with the size of the population.
> 
> The problem with reducing the population by 1/3 today is that taxes would not go down by a 1/3 but more important, consumption would go down by a third, retail sales, home buying, etc. We would have 1/3 the tax payers to pay the interest on the debt and other expenses such as defense spending which would not decline with population.  This would translate into a shrinking economy and lenders demanding high interest rates on goverment debt.
> 
> Some nations could handle a shrinking population fairly well but not the US because our economy is based growing consumption and an every increasing capacity to carry the national debt. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well with a third less consumption, we would have a third less jobs needed to be filled.  These immigrants cost us taxpayers billions of dollars every year, so much for your concern about our debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And the size our economy would drop by over 4 trillion dollars, worst yet our prospects for future growth would also drop leading to higher interest on the national debt and 1/3 less people to pay it.  In short America would become a third rate economic power behind both China and the EU.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep taking these illegals in, and we will get there faster than you think.
> 
> Perhaps if we ever faced the situation you imagine, we would actually do something about it.  Stop funding Planned Parenthood, stop funding NPR, PBS.  Open Secrets has a litany of wasteful spending that goes on every year.
> 
> Then we have the welfare people; those who don't want to work or work part-time.  We need much more oversight on those people.  Last year, over 42 million people were on food stamps.  Now for the longest time, you on the left told us it was because of their inability to find full-time work.  Or you said, they were working lower wage jobs.  But a lot of these people only work part-time to stay on the program.
> 
> I have these HUD people living next door to me in the suburbs.  OUR TAX DOLLARS pay for them to live here instead of lower priced housing in the inner-city.  The only question I have is......why?
> 
> When I get up for work in the morning, their four cars are sitting there.  If I pass by my house during work, the cars are sitting there.  When I get home from work, the cars are sitting there.  The only time those cars move is after 5:00 pm.  And then they are coming home at 11:00, 12:00 or 1:00 in the morning drunk as a skunk setting off their car alarms waking up us working people.
> 
> Two of the adults in the home are so fat they waddle when they walk.  They throw parties here and invite all their lowlife friends for a BBQ; probably food bought with our tax dollars.
> 
> *There are many things we can do to avoid bringing in third world people that will turn us into a third world country given enough time.*
Click to expand...

*
The number on food stamps in 2017 dropped to 40.3 million, the lowest since 2010 and projected to drop to 38.8 in 2018. Over 60 percent of SNAP participants were children, elderly, or had disabilities. 

SNAP is probably one of the best welfare programs.  It is the least likely to discourage employment.  Unlike Medicaid where if you go a dollar over the limit, you lose all benefits, SNAP benefits decrease gradually as income increases.  Unlike many welfare programs it considers both current income and assets for eligibility, so you're very unlike to find a wealthy person on SNAP.  Currently the net asset limits are $2250 and $3500 for the elderly or disabled. Lastly it is designed to serve poor families, the disabled, and the elderly.   Individuals who are over age 18 and under 50 are limited to three months of SNAP benefits out of every three years.  Like all federal programs, undocumented immigrants are not eligible.

In regard to Planned Parenthood, 95% of federal funds that go to Planned Parenthood are distributed by state Medicaid.  Of those funds, only 3% go to abortion services but not specifically abortion. 75% go to diagnosis and treatment of STD/STIs and Contraception.   If the federal government cut funding, those funds would be reduced in state Medicaid funding.  Over 90% of those funds would have to be made up by the state because Obamacare requires all those services funded by Planned Parenthood be covered except the 3% that goes to abortion services.  The bottom line is cutting funds would have little impact on Planned Parenthood.  This topic is just a political football the two sides kick around to appeal to voters. 

NPR does not receive any direct federal funding.  PBS is member station supported.  The only federal funding that either receives are from small competitive grants.*


----------



## Flopper

AZGAL said:


> and.. WHY the protests now? Didn't the President already SIGN an Executive action to stop the family separation? The only FRUCK UP Trumpy is doing is yelling about no due process for the immigrants. Even I DO AGREE they DESERVE DUE PROCESS and then when denied they have to pack up and leave. Anyone who pleads Asylum deserves a day in court.


*Even after Trump's executive order and a federal judge ordering the separation to end, the government can't seem to locate all the kids.  Could that be because ICE didn't bother to put id brackets on the kids?  When the foster care people ask a five year old their mother's name, he says, "Mama". 

The government had no real plan to handle the separation and even less to unite them.  This whole thing smacks of another ill planned action from the Orange Clown.*


----------



## AZGAL

YES the separating the very small tender age children was a bad idea. That mistake was due to a gap between two laws. It has been corrected. There were id bracelets and humane treatment of the children. The media is so lying and crazy so why should anyone believe that children were lost. Not likely.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was expected that Trump was going to win the popular. Not one of them had a problem with it either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, nobody expected Trump to win the Popular Vote.  EVERY LAST FUCKING POLL had him losing the popular vote.
> 
> View attachment 202170
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm talking about what people on this blog were discussing.
Click to expand...

*You think people on the blogs are representative of the American voter?*


----------



## Flopper

AZGAL said:


> YES the separating the very small tender age children was a bad idea. That mistake was due to a gap between two laws. It has been corrected. There were id bracelets and humane treatment of the children. The media is so lying and crazy so why should anyone believe that children were lost. Not likely.


*Well, if they know where the kids are and where the parents are, surely the Trump administration can figure out how to bring the two together. *


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was expected that Trump was going to win the popular. Not one of them had a problem with it either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, nobody expected Trump to win the Popular Vote.  EVERY LAST FUCKING POLL had him losing the popular vote.
> 
> View attachment 202170
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm talking about what people on this blog were discussing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You think people on the blogs are representative of the American voter?*
Click to expand...


Never said that.  What I said is that when it was thought (by some here) that Trump might get the popular vote and Hillary the EC, they were just fine with it. 

Now that the Democrats are losing a few elections, they want to change the rules so that they can win.  Trust me, if Trump got the popular vote and Hillary won, you wouldn't hear a peep out of them.


----------



## Flopper

AZGAL said:


> YES the separating the very small tender age children was a bad idea. That mistake was due to a gap between two laws. It has been corrected. There were id bracelets and humane treatment of the children. The media is so lying and crazy so why should anyone believe that children were lost. Not likely.


*If that's the case, then why is  Lidia Karine Souza, a Brazilian applying for asylum now going thru hell trying find her son.  She's completed a 40 page questionnaire, fingerprinting of her relatives in the US and still more documents and after two weeks her 9 year old son was still missing. 

After getting a lawyer she learned her son was being held in a government contracted facility in Chicago, sick with Chickenpox.  She has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration to demand her son be immediately released.

This smacks of a Trump plan to show asylum seekers what it's in store for them if they seek asylum in the US.*
*Brazilian immigrant mom heads to court to get her son back*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct, but the Democrats stopped us from building that wall.
> 
> So we become a less populated country.  Why is that such a bad thing to the left?  Oh, that's right, you were told by your puppet masters it was a bad thing, but have no explanation as to why.
> 
> The US population in 1970 was 205 million people.  That's more than a third less of what we have today.  What was so devastating when we only had that size of population?
> 
> 
> 
> *6.1% unemployment
> 5.6% inflation
> Country was in recession
> Thousands of Americans dying in Vietnam
> Not that any of that has anything to do with the size of the population.
> 
> The problem with reducing the population by 1/3 today is that taxes would not go down by a 1/3 but more important, consumption would go down by a third, retail sales, home buying, etc. We would have 1/3 the tax payers to pay the interest on the debt and other expenses such as defense spending which would not decline with population.  This would translate into a shrinking economy and lenders demanding high interest rates on goverment debt.
> 
> Some nations could handle a shrinking population fairly well but not the US because our economy is based growing consumption and an every increasing capacity to carry the national debt. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well with a third less consumption, we would have a third less jobs needed to be filled.  These immigrants cost us taxpayers billions of dollars every year, so much for your concern about our debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And the size our economy would drop by over 4 trillion dollars, worst yet our prospects for future growth would also drop leading to higher interest on the national debt and 1/3 less people to pay it.  In short America would become a third rate economic power behind both China and the EU.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep taking these illegals in, and we will get there faster than you think.
> 
> Perhaps if we ever faced the situation you imagine, we would actually do something about it.  Stop funding Planned Parenthood, stop funding NPR, PBS.  Open Secrets has a litany of wasteful spending that goes on every year.
> 
> Then we have the welfare people; those who don't want to work or work part-time.  We need much more oversight on those people.  Last year, over 42 million people were on food stamps.  Now for the longest time, you on the left told us it was because of their inability to find full-time work.  Or you said, they were working lower wage jobs.  But a lot of these people only work part-time to stay on the program.
> 
> I have these HUD people living next door to me in the suburbs.  OUR TAX DOLLARS pay for them to live here instead of lower priced housing in the inner-city.  The only question I have is......why?
> 
> When I get up for work in the morning, their four cars are sitting there.  If I pass by my house during work, the cars are sitting there.  When I get home from work, the cars are sitting there.  The only time those cars move is after 5:00 pm.  And then they are coming home at 11:00, 12:00 or 1:00 in the morning drunk as a skunk setting off their car alarms waking up us working people.
> 
> Two of the adults in the home are so fat they waddle when they walk.  They throw parties here and invite all their lowlife friends for a BBQ; probably food bought with our tax dollars.
> 
> *There are many things we can do to avoid bringing in third world people that will turn us into a third world country given enough time.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The number on food stamps in 2017 dropped to 40.3 million, the lowest since 2010 and projected to drop to 38.8 in 2018. Over 60 percent of SNAP participants were children, elderly, or had disabilities.
> 
> SNAP is probably one of the best welfare programs.  It is the least likely to discourage employment.  Unlike Medicaid where if you go a dollar over the limit, you lose all benefits, SNAP benefits decrease gradually as income increases.  Unlike many welfare programs it considers both current income and assets for eligibility, so you're very unlike to find a wealthy person on SNAP.  Currently the net asset limits are $2250 and $3500 for the elderly or disabled. Lastly it is designed to serve poor families, the disabled, and the elderly.   Individuals who are over age 18 and under 50 are limited to three months of SNAP benefits out of every three years.  Like all federal programs, undocumented immigrants are not eligible.
> 
> In regard to Planned Parenthood, 95% of federal funds that go to Planned Parenthood are distributed by state Medicaid.  Of those funds, only 3% go to abortion services but not specifically abortion. 75% go to diagnosis and treatment of STD/STIs and Contraception.   If the federal government cut funding, those funds would be reduced in state Medicaid funding.  Over 90% of those funds would have to be made up by the state because Obamacare requires all those services funded by Planned Parenthood be covered except the 3% that goes to abortion services.  The bottom line is cutting funds would have little impact on Planned Parenthood.  This topic is just a political football the two sides kick around to appeal to voters.
> 
> NPR does not receive any direct federal funding.  PBS is member station supported.  The only federal funding that either receives are from small competitive grants.*
Click to expand...


That's ridiculous.  HTF does one separate money going to an entity?  Nobody can prove our money didn't go to abortions. 

It's kind of like when they were trying to pass the lottery here many years ago.  It was written that proceeds for the lottery will go to fund Ohio schools.  Well.........after it passed, the proceeds did go to the school, but they never benefited because they cut state funds so the schools really didn't see one dime.

When you collect a slew of money from various places, it literally goes into one pile, and then you sort out where the money goes.  Yes, you can do some paperwork shuffling to make the claim tax dollars are not going to abortions, but they actually are. 

And yes, food stamps does discourage work.  I make deliveries and pickups to our customers, some of whom use temporary services.  When they ask the temps if they can work overtime, most of them refuse.  Why?  Because after making X amount of dollars, it comes out out of their food stamp stipend, so it's like working for free. 

A few years ago I was renting to an unmarried couple with two children.  The guy had a full time job but refused to work one hour past 40.  His girlfriend didn't work at all.  When problems developed with rent, I asked them to discuss the situation at my apartment.

I knew their circumstance and came up with a perfect solution to their money problem.  I suggested that since he doesn't work weekends, he can watch the kids and she can get a part-time job somewhere.  It would not only help them with rent, but other money problems they were experiencing. 

That didn't go over very well, and I had to evict them.  A good rent is hard to come by these days over here and across the country, and now he has this eviction on his record that any potential landlord can look up.  They lost their apartment, and I had his wages garnished for a year.   Why didn't they consider my solution?  She was getting $280.00 a month in food stamps.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Cellblock2429 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> and.. WHY the protests now? Didn't the President already SIGN an Executive action to stop the family separation? The only FRUCK UP Trumpy is doing is yelling about no due process for the immigrants. Even I DO AGREE they DESERVE DUE PROCESS and then when denied they have to pack up and leave. Anyone who pleads Asylum deserves a day in court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with that is a court appearance takes up to three years, so in the meantime, they are let loose in society and never show up for court; at least 80% of them don't.  They select their favorite sanctuary city to hide in.
> 
> The left believes they have an issue there that will turn people against Trump; especially women, so they're not letting it go for anything.  These protests were arranged and paid for by your usual leftist entities.
> 
> The left lies to get votes.  It's like when they were talking about equal pay for equal work during DumBama's second term.  They wanted to get more women voters.  The problem was we already have an equal pay for equal work law.  It was signed in the early 60's.  But they didn't tell the folks that.  We on the right had to point it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ The way LIbtards claim women are paid less than men is by averaging out the pay scales going back 100 years. Currently women are often paid more than men but the statistics won't reflect that if you factor in the pay scales starting in 1915.
Click to expand...


I did some research and found that yes, sometimes women get paid less than men for the same job  But there are circumstances to that. 

For one, women produce less.  They go a little slower than men especially when it comes to packaging or lifting heavy material.  Women take maternity leave, sometimes for a year or more.  It's unfair to their coworkers that they come back making the same wage as them with perfect attendance records.  Women are still the caretakers of the children, so when a kid gets the flu or something, the women is the one who takes off of work to nurse the child back to health.  Same thing if one has a kid that gets in trouble all the time.  The mother frequently has to leave work to pickup their child from school or the police station. 

Employers only care about one thing, and that is profit.  The worker that creates the most profit for the company is the employers favorite employee.  It doesn't matter what gender, race or religion you are.


----------



## AZGAL

I do not agree with some of your post Sorry Dude... I often agree with you but parting is such sweet sorrow! This thread is about immigration.


----------



## AZGAL

SORRY Far LIBERAL DUDE- I do not agree with you either. The Brazilian, Ms. Souza is a scam artist and needs to be sent home packing. There are many places she and her son could go in mostly peaceful and prosperous Brazil!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

AZGAL said:


> I do not agree with some of your post Sorry Dude... I often agree with you but parting is such sweet sorrow! This thread is about immigration.



I didn't create this option, only saying what I found on the internet about it.


----------



## Ame®icano

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> GENOCIDAL , who knows , import a fifth column , GENOCIDAL , who knows what the future holds  Ray .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I know and it's obvious when people vote.  DumBama and gang was a shot in the arm of what Socialism/ Communism is all about, and it left a bad taste in our mouths.  Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of problems with the Republicans as well, but at least we're doing something to fix our party and send a message at the same time.
> 
> I also believe that leftist brainwashing is finally starting to fade away; not totally rejected just yet, but in the right direction.  More and more people are starting to scratch their heads at Democrat policy and coming to the realization they are all phonies.  They always have an ulterior motive when they make policies and laws.
> 
> For instance most people understand that it's un-American for leftist entities to force people to give them money.  The SC ruled that is not acceptable, and Piglosi ran out there saying how it was an attack on the working people.  The right thing (in the mind of a leftist) is force people to pay unions money even though they are not part of the union.  Democrats are upset because much of that money comes back to them in campaign contributions.  It was a money laundering scheme all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think it is ok then to force the unions to represent those who don’t pay?
Click to expand...


You're bit confused here.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *6.1% unemployment
> 5.6% inflation
> Country was in recession
> Thousands of Americans dying in Vietnam
> Not that any of that has anything to do with the size of the population.
> 
> The problem with reducing the population by 1/3 today is that taxes would not go down by a 1/3 but more important, consumption would go down by a third, retail sales, home buying, etc. We would have 1/3 the tax payers to pay the interest on the debt and other expenses such as defense spending which would not decline with population.  This would translate into a shrinking economy and lenders demanding high interest rates on goverment debt.
> 
> Some nations could handle a shrinking population fairly well but not the US because our economy is based growing consumption and an every increasing capacity to carry the national debt. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well with a third less consumption, we would have a third less jobs needed to be filled.  These immigrants cost us taxpayers billions of dollars every year, so much for your concern about our debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And the size our economy would drop by over 4 trillion dollars, worst yet our prospects for future growth would also drop leading to higher interest on the national debt and 1/3 less people to pay it.  In short America would become a third rate economic power behind both China and the EU.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep taking these illegals in, and we will get there faster than you think.
> 
> Perhaps if we ever faced the situation you imagine, we would actually do something about it.  Stop funding Planned Parenthood, stop funding NPR, PBS.  Open Secrets has a litany of wasteful spending that goes on every year.
> 
> Then we have the welfare people; those who don't want to work or work part-time.  We need much more oversight on those people.  Last year, over 42 million people were on food stamps.  Now for the longest time, you on the left told us it was because of their inability to find full-time work.  Or you said, they were working lower wage jobs.  But a lot of these people only work part-time to stay on the program.
> 
> I have these HUD people living next door to me in the suburbs.  OUR TAX DOLLARS pay for them to live here instead of lower priced housing in the inner-city.  The only question I have is......why?
> 
> When I get up for work in the morning, their four cars are sitting there.  If I pass by my house during work, the cars are sitting there.  When I get home from work, the cars are sitting there.  The only time those cars move is after 5:00 pm.  And then they are coming home at 11:00, 12:00 or 1:00 in the morning drunk as a skunk setting off their car alarms waking up us working people.
> 
> Two of the adults in the home are so fat they waddle when they walk.  They throw parties here and invite all their lowlife friends for a BBQ; probably food bought with our tax dollars.
> 
> *There are many things we can do to avoid bringing in third world people that will turn us into a third world country given enough time.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The number on food stamps in 2017 dropped to 40.3 million, the lowest since 2010 and projected to drop to 38.8 in 2018. Over 60 percent of SNAP participants were children, elderly, or had disabilities.
> 
> SNAP is probably one of the best welfare programs.  It is the least likely to discourage employment.  Unlike Medicaid where if you go a dollar over the limit, you lose all benefits, SNAP benefits decrease gradually as income increases.  Unlike many welfare programs it considers both current income and assets for eligibility, so you're very unlike to find a wealthy person on SNAP.  Currently the net asset limits are $2250 and $3500 for the elderly or disabled. Lastly it is designed to serve poor families, the disabled, and the elderly.   Individuals who are over age 18 and under 50 are limited to three months of SNAP benefits out of every three years.  Like all federal programs, undocumented immigrants are not eligible.
> 
> In regard to Planned Parenthood, 95% of federal funds that go to Planned Parenthood are distributed by state Medicaid.  Of those funds, only 3% go to abortion services but not specifically abortion. 75% go to diagnosis and treatment of STD/STIs and Contraception.   If the federal government cut funding, those funds would be reduced in state Medicaid funding.  Over 90% of those funds would have to be made up by the state because Obamacare requires all those services funded by Planned Parenthood be covered except the 3% that goes to abortion services.  The bottom line is cutting funds would have little impact on Planned Parenthood.  This topic is just a political football the two sides kick around to appeal to voters.
> 
> NPR does not receive any direct federal funding.  PBS is member station supported.  The only federal funding that either receives are from small competitive grants.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous.  HTF does one separate money going to an entity?  Nobody can prove our money didn't go to abortions.
> 
> It's kind of like when they were trying to pass the lottery here many years ago.  It was written that proceeds for the lottery will go to fund Ohio schools.  Well.........after it passed, the proceeds did go to the school, but they never benefited because they cut state funds so the schools really didn't see one dime.
> 
> When you collect a slew of money from various places, it literally goes into one pile, and then you sort out where the money goes.  Yes, you can do some paperwork shuffling to make the claim tax dollars are not going to abortions, but they actually are.
> 
> And yes, food stamps does discourage work.  I make deliveries and pickups to our customers, some of whom use temporary services.  When they ask the temps if they can work overtime, most of them refuse.  Why?  Because after making X amount of dollars, it comes out out of their food stamp stipend, so it's like working for free.
> 
> A few years ago I was renting to an unmarried couple with two children.  The guy had a full time job but refused to work one hour past 40.  His girlfriend didn't work at all.  When problems developed with rent, I asked them to discuss the situation at my apartment.
> 
> I knew their circumstance and came up with a perfect solution to their money problem.  I suggested that since he doesn't work weekends, he can watch the kids and she can get a part-time job somewhere.  It would not only help them with rent, but other money problems they were experiencing.
> 
> That didn't go over very well, and I had to evict them.  A good rent is hard to come by these days over here and across the country, and now he has this eviction on his record that any potential landlord can look up.  They lost their apartment, and I had his wages garnished for a year.   Why didn't they consider my solution?  She was getting $280.00 a month in food stamps.
Click to expand...

*The Planned Parenthood numbers come from their annual report.  Almost all the money that planned parenthood get's from the federal government goes thru medicaid.  This means the service provider must submit a claim to Medicaid listing the procedure codes.  Medicaid can not expend federal funds on abortion.  In 15 states Medicaid will cover abortions but it has to cover it with either state funds.  If state Medicaid were using federal funds for abortion it would certainly show in state audits and provider audits.

Your suggestion that Planned Parenthood swaps funds so federal funds pay for services other than abortion thus freeing up money for abortions make no sense at all.  Why would they want to do that?  There non-government funding (60% of revenue) can be spent on abortion or other services so there is no swap any funds.

Planned Parenthood 2014 Stats:
Patents seen 5,000,000

Abortion*

*Planned Parenthood says 3% of the services it provides are abortions.*
*323,999 abortions were performed in 2014, according to the organization.*
*Sexual education*

*Planned Parenthood says it provides sex education to 1.5 million young people and adults each year.*
*Pregnancy prevention and birth control*

*Planned Parenthood says it prevents an estimated 579,000 unintended pregnancies per year.*
*Contraception accounted for 34% of the services it provided, according to the 2015 GAO report.*
*In 2014, Planned Parenthood saw:*

*2 milion reversible contraception patients*
*941,589 emergency contraception kits*
*3,445 vasectomies*
*718 female sterilization procedures*
*Pregnancy tests: 1.1 million tests done in 2014
Prenatal care: provided to 17,419 people in 2014
Sexually transmitted disease screening and treatment*

*Planned Parenthood says this accounts for 42% of the services provided. (The GAO calculates 41% in 2012 by affiliates.)*
*4.2 million tests and treatments provided in 2014*
*This represents the largest proportion of medical services provided.*
*Pap smears (cervical cancer screening): 270,000 per year
Breast exams: 360,000 per year
Research: Planned Parenthood said in its 2013-14 annual report that it 


Planned Parenthood: Fast facts and revealing numbers - CNN
Fact Check: How Does Planned Parenthood Spend That Government Money?*


----------



## depotoo

You tell me-

80% Of Central American Women, Girls Are Raped Crossing Into The U.S. | HuffPost



Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *6.1% unemployment
> 5.6% inflation
> Country was in recession
> Thousands of Americans dying in Vietnam
> Not that any of that has anything to do with the size of the population.
> 
> The problem with reducing the population by 1/3 today is that taxes would not go down by a 1/3 but more important, consumption would go down by a third, retail sales, home buying, etc. We would have 1/3 the tax payers to pay the interest on the debt and other expenses such as defense spending which would not decline with population.  This would translate into a shrinking economy and lenders demanding high interest rates on goverment debt.
> 
> Some nations could handle a shrinking population fairly well but not the US because our economy is based growing consumption and an every increasing capacity to carry the national debt. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well with a third less consumption, we would have a third less jobs needed to be filled.  These immigrants cost us taxpayers billions of dollars every year, so much for your concern about our debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And the size our economy would drop by over 4 trillion dollars, worst yet our prospects for future growth would also drop leading to higher interest on the national debt and 1/3 less people to pay it.  In short America would become a third rate economic power behind both China and the EU.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep taking these illegals in, and we will get there faster than you think.
> 
> Perhaps if we ever faced the situation you imagine, we would actually do something about it.  Stop funding Planned Parenthood, stop funding NPR, PBS.  Open Secrets has a litany of wasteful spending that goes on every year.
> 
> Then we have the welfare people; those who don't want to work or work part-time.  We need much more oversight on those people.  Last year, over 42 million people were on food stamps.  Now for the longest time, you on the left told us it was because of their inability to find full-time work.  Or you said, they were working lower wage jobs.  But a lot of these people only work part-time to stay on the program.
> 
> I have these HUD people living next door to me in the suburbs.  OUR TAX DOLLARS pay for them to live here instead of lower priced housing in the inner-city.  The only question I have is......why?
> 
> When I get up for work in the morning, their four cars are sitting there.  If I pass by my house during work, the cars are sitting there.  When I get home from work, the cars are sitting there.  The only time those cars move is after 5:00 pm.  And then they are coming home at 11:00, 12:00 or 1:00 in the morning drunk as a skunk setting off their car alarms waking up us working people.
> 
> Two of the adults in the home are so fat they waddle when they walk.  They throw parties here and invite all their lowlife friends for a BBQ; probably food bought with our tax dollars.
> 
> *There are many things we can do to avoid bringing in third world people that will turn us into a third world country given enough time.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The number on food stamps in 2017 dropped to 40.3 million, the lowest since 2010 and projected to drop to 38.8 in 2018. Over 60 percent of SNAP participants were children, elderly, or had disabilities.
> 
> SNAP is probably one of the best welfare programs.  It is the least likely to discourage employment.  Unlike Medicaid where if you go a dollar over the limit, you lose all benefits, SNAP benefits decrease gradually as income increases.  Unlike many welfare programs it considers both current income and assets for eligibility, so you're very unlike to find a wealthy person on SNAP.  Currently the net asset limits are $2250 and $3500 for the elderly or disabled. Lastly it is designed to serve poor families, the disabled, and the elderly.   Individuals who are over age 18 and under 50 are limited to three months of SNAP benefits out of every three years.  Like all federal programs, undocumented immigrants are not eligible.
> 
> In regard to Planned Parenthood, 95% of federal funds that go to Planned Parenthood are distributed by state Medicaid.  Of those funds, only 3% go to abortion services but not specifically abortion. 75% go to diagnosis and treatment of STD/STIs and Contraception.   If the federal government cut funding, those funds would be reduced in state Medicaid funding.  Over 90% of those funds would have to be made up by the state because Obamacare requires all those services funded by Planned Parenthood be covered except the 3% that goes to abortion services.  The bottom line is cutting funds would have little impact on Planned Parenthood.  This topic is just a political football the two sides kick around to appeal to voters.
> 
> NPR does not receive any direct federal funding.  PBS is member station supported.  The only federal funding that either receives are from small competitive grants.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous.  HTF does one separate money going to an entity?  Nobody can prove our money didn't go to abortions.
> 
> It's kind of like when they were trying to pass the lottery here many years ago.  It was written that proceeds for the lottery will go to fund Ohio schools.  Well.........after it passed, the proceeds did go to the school, but they never benefited because they cut state funds so the schools really didn't see one dime.
> 
> When you collect a slew of money from various places, it literally goes into one pile, and then you sort out where the money goes.  Yes, you can do some paperwork shuffling to make the claim tax dollars are not going to abortions, but they actually are.
> 
> And yes, food stamps does discourage work.  I make deliveries and pickups to our customers, some of whom use temporary services.  When they ask the temps if they can work overtime, most of them refuse.  Why?  Because after making X amount of dollars, it comes out out of their food stamp stipend, so it's like working for free.
> 
> A few years ago I was renting to an unmarried couple with two children.  The guy had a full time job but refused to work one hour past 40.  His girlfriend didn't work at all.  When problems developed with rent, I asked them to discuss the situation at my apartment.
> 
> I knew their circumstance and came up with a perfect solution to their money problem.  I suggested that since he doesn't work weekends, he can watch the kids and she can get a part-time job somewhere.  It would not only help them with rent, but other money problems they were experiencing.
> 
> That didn't go over very well, and I had to evict them.  A good rent is hard to come by these days over here and across the country, and now he has this eviction on his record that any potential landlord can look up.  They lost their apartment, and I had his wages garnished for a year.   Why didn't they consider my solution?  She was getting $280.00 a month in food stamps.
Click to expand...

*I didn't say food stamps did not discourage employment. I said, "It is the least likely to discourage employment."  Any funds a person receives that makes it possible not to work, discourages employment which include unemployment insurance, disability insurance, Social Security, Private
Retirement, and even private savings, and of course social welfare programs.

Of course the only one of concern for most people is social welfare programs because it's tax payer funded.  However, any program that encourages productive workers to leave the workforce is not necessary good and in many cases bad.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Your suggestion that Planned Parenthood swaps funds so federal funds pay for services other than abortion thus freeing up money for abortions make no sense at all. Why would they want to do that? There non-government funding (60% of revenue) can be spent on abortion or other services so there is no swap any funds.



It works like this:  Let's say PP allocates five million dollars for breast exams, prenatal care, and birth control, much of it federal money.  Then they allocate two million for abortions; money that comes from places outside of government. 

Now Republicans decide to quit funding PP.  So what they do now is allocate three million dollars for the services they used to provide with federal money, and use the extra two million to continue abortions. 

It's simply a bait and switch game.  You can't separate these funds realistically.  Sure, you can do it on paper, but there is no possible way to say that taxpayer money didn't indirectly go for abortions.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well with a third less consumption, we would have a third less jobs needed to be filled.  These immigrants cost us taxpayers billions of dollars every year, so much for your concern about our debt.
> 
> 
> 
> *And the size our economy would drop by over 4 trillion dollars, worst yet our prospects for future growth would also drop leading to higher interest on the national debt and 1/3 less people to pay it.  In short America would become a third rate economic power behind both China and the EU.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep taking these illegals in, and we will get there faster than you think.
> 
> Perhaps if we ever faced the situation you imagine, we would actually do something about it.  Stop funding Planned Parenthood, stop funding NPR, PBS.  Open Secrets has a litany of wasteful spending that goes on every year.
> 
> Then we have the welfare people; those who don't want to work or work part-time.  We need much more oversight on those people.  Last year, over 42 million people were on food stamps.  Now for the longest time, you on the left told us it was because of their inability to find full-time work.  Or you said, they were working lower wage jobs.  But a lot of these people only work part-time to stay on the program.
> 
> I have these HUD people living next door to me in the suburbs.  OUR TAX DOLLARS pay for them to live here instead of lower priced housing in the inner-city.  The only question I have is......why?
> 
> When I get up for work in the morning, their four cars are sitting there.  If I pass by my house during work, the cars are sitting there.  When I get home from work, the cars are sitting there.  The only time those cars move is after 5:00 pm.  And then they are coming home at 11:00, 12:00 or 1:00 in the morning drunk as a skunk setting off their car alarms waking up us working people.
> 
> Two of the adults in the home are so fat they waddle when they walk.  They throw parties here and invite all their lowlife friends for a BBQ; probably food bought with our tax dollars.
> 
> *There are many things we can do to avoid bringing in third world people that will turn us into a third world country given enough time.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The number on food stamps in 2017 dropped to 40.3 million, the lowest since 2010 and projected to drop to 38.8 in 2018. Over 60 percent of SNAP participants were children, elderly, or had disabilities.
> 
> SNAP is probably one of the best welfare programs.  It is the least likely to discourage employment.  Unlike Medicaid where if you go a dollar over the limit, you lose all benefits, SNAP benefits decrease gradually as income increases.  Unlike many welfare programs it considers both current income and assets for eligibility, so you're very unlike to find a wealthy person on SNAP.  Currently the net asset limits are $2250 and $3500 for the elderly or disabled. Lastly it is designed to serve poor families, the disabled, and the elderly.   Individuals who are over age 18 and under 50 are limited to three months of SNAP benefits out of every three years.  Like all federal programs, undocumented immigrants are not eligible.
> 
> In regard to Planned Parenthood, 95% of federal funds that go to Planned Parenthood are distributed by state Medicaid.  Of those funds, only 3% go to abortion services but not specifically abortion. 75% go to diagnosis and treatment of STD/STIs and Contraception.   If the federal government cut funding, those funds would be reduced in state Medicaid funding.  Over 90% of those funds would have to be made up by the state because Obamacare requires all those services funded by Planned Parenthood be covered except the 3% that goes to abortion services.  The bottom line is cutting funds would have little impact on Planned Parenthood.  This topic is just a political football the two sides kick around to appeal to voters.
> 
> NPR does not receive any direct federal funding.  PBS is member station supported.  The only federal funding that either receives are from small competitive grants.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous.  HTF does one separate money going to an entity?  Nobody can prove our money didn't go to abortions.
> 
> It's kind of like when they were trying to pass the lottery here many years ago.  It was written that proceeds for the lottery will go to fund Ohio schools.  Well.........after it passed, the proceeds did go to the school, but they never benefited because they cut state funds so the schools really didn't see one dime.
> 
> When you collect a slew of money from various places, it literally goes into one pile, and then you sort out where the money goes.  Yes, you can do some paperwork shuffling to make the claim tax dollars are not going to abortions, but they actually are.
> 
> And yes, food stamps does discourage work.  I make deliveries and pickups to our customers, some of whom use temporary services.  When they ask the temps if they can work overtime, most of them refuse.  Why?  Because after making X amount of dollars, it comes out out of their food stamp stipend, so it's like working for free.
> 
> A few years ago I was renting to an unmarried couple with two children.  The guy had a full time job but refused to work one hour past 40.  His girlfriend didn't work at all.  When problems developed with rent, I asked them to discuss the situation at my apartment.
> 
> I knew their circumstance and came up with a perfect solution to their money problem.  I suggested that since he doesn't work weekends, he can watch the kids and she can get a part-time job somewhere.  It would not only help them with rent, but other money problems they were experiencing.
> 
> That didn't go over very well, and I had to evict them.  A good rent is hard to come by these days over here and across the country, and now he has this eviction on his record that any potential landlord can look up.  They lost their apartment, and I had his wages garnished for a year.   Why didn't they consider my solution?  She was getting $280.00 a month in food stamps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I didn't say food stamps did not discourage employment. I said, "It is the least likely to discourage employment."  Any funds a person receives that makes it possible not to work, discourages employment which include unemployment insurance, disability insurance, Social Security, Private
> Retirement, and even private savings, and of course social welfare programs.
> 
> Of course the only one of concern for most people is social welfare programs because it's tax payer funded.  However, any program that encourages productive workers to leave the workforce is not necessary good and in many cases bad. *
Click to expand...


Well that's what it does. 

Republicans cut funding for FS.  Nobody starved to death.  Republican run states made requirements to receive food stamps if you didn't have dependents.  In Maine for instance, most of those people dropped out of the program.  

Productive people have no use for programs like food stamps.  If their income is inadequate for their lifestyle, they get higher paying jobs, work more hours, or even take on two jobs.  It's the people with no inclination to work that's the problem.  As long as they have just enough to get by, that's what they do using any means.  

A friend of mine works at a place that has many temp workers.  He said that most of them live with others of like kind.  They all combine their cards, get what they need to eat, and sell the rest of the cards for cash.  They have no need to work more hours or strive to make more money.  If they are working let's say 20 hours a week bringing in X amount of money, it sure beats working 40 hours a week for just a little bit more money.


----------



## AZGAL

As stated above in different words- There is no asylum for people from Brazil. Ms. Lidia Souza was just doing what many other Brazilians from her territory do- make up a fantasy about going to the United States illegally rather than relocate elsewhere to a part of Brazil that suits her life better. According to an old article, this habit of people from Valadares, Brazil has included an industry of making fake passports for some to leave and join their relatives already in the USA. No surprise that she had relatives here. She seems to be an able bodied, young, attractive woman who probably has a cell phone and she could have relocated elsewhere in Brazil:

Leaving ValadaresA Dangerous Journey for Brazil's Illegal Migrants

*In spite of the upswing in their country's fortunes under President Lula da Silva, many Brazilians continue to leave their home in search of a better life in the United States. Yet Mexico's drug war represents a dangerous hurdle in the path of many illegal migrants.    *
By Jens Glüsing *© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2010
October 01, 2010*  04:55 PM

*The Land of Opportunity*

The Brazilian dream of making a better life in the colder north arose in the 1940s when the mining company Vale do Rio Doce built a railway line to the coast with US assistance. The American engineers working on the project furnished their houses in the style they knew from home. They imported fridges and stereos, and paid their maids, gardeners and cleaners in dollars.

The sons of the farmers and shopkeepers of Valadares marveled at the American Way of Life. When the Americans left, many Brazilians followed them to the US, bringing their families over a few years later. All those who returned enthused about the Land of Opportunity, in which you could earn in a single year what it would take a decade to make in Brazil.In the 1980s

 hyperinflation and economic crisis persuaded hundreds of thousands of Brazilians to flee to the US. Governador Valadares became the capital of the nouveau-riche and the document forgers. In the back rooms of the city's travel agencies, counterfeiters copied passports, visas and birth certificates.-------------------------- Eventually US consulates were automatically suspicious of anyone who came from Valadares.


----------



## AZGAL

*New migration woe: Now HUNDREDS of Brazilians 'fraudulently obtaining EU passports'*
*CRIMINALS are selling fraudulent documents which allow Brazilians to apply for EU passports, according to shocking new reports.*
By Patrick Maguire
PUBLISHED: 04:23, Wed, Jun 22, 2016 | UPDATED: 04:42, Wed, Jun 22, 2016


EU passports could be in reach of enterprising Brazilians employing the services of criminals


----------



## Flopper

depotoo said:


> You tell me-
> 
> 80% Of Central American Women, Girls Are Raped Crossing Into The U.S. | HuffPost
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
Click to expand...

*The origin of our Asylum and Refugee legislation goes back to WWII when millions of people sought refuge during and after the war. Some people were in fear of their lives if they returned home.  The UN created the model for the refugee and asylum legislation after the war.  Years later the US adopted the principals in US legislation.  

The intent of the asylum part of the legislation is far different than how it is being used today. The intent of the legislation was to provide a safe refuge for those afraid of going home for people residing in the US or seeking entry.  It certainly was not drafted to encourage people to sneak into the country to apply.  At a minimum, the law should be changed so people can apply at a port of entry for asylum without actually violating our boarders.  Better yet, allow them to submit the 12 page petition from their home country and schedule the initial fear test interview at a US Consultant. Having these people travel thousand of miles to our border and being put in detention is nuts. 60% of them are going to be turned away.*


----------



## AZGAL

The parents used to send the children in a separated manner on a long dangerous  trip to the USA... On La Bestia train through Mexico...


----------



## AZGAL

* YES  At a minimum, the law should be changed so people can apply at a port of entry for asylum *


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And the size our economy would drop by over 4 trillion dollars, worst yet our prospects for future growth would also drop leading to higher interest on the national debt and 1/3 less people to pay it.  In short America would become a third rate economic power behind both China and the EU.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep taking these illegals in, and we will get there faster than you think.
> 
> Perhaps if we ever faced the situation you imagine, we would actually do something about it.  Stop funding Planned Parenthood, stop funding NPR, PBS.  Open Secrets has a litany of wasteful spending that goes on every year.
> 
> Then we have the welfare people; those who don't want to work or work part-time.  We need much more oversight on those people.  Last year, over 42 million people were on food stamps.  Now for the longest time, you on the left told us it was because of their inability to find full-time work.  Or you said, they were working lower wage jobs.  But a lot of these people only work part-time to stay on the program.
> 
> I have these HUD people living next door to me in the suburbs.  OUR TAX DOLLARS pay for them to live here instead of lower priced housing in the inner-city.  The only question I have is......why?
> 
> When I get up for work in the morning, their four cars are sitting there.  If I pass by my house during work, the cars are sitting there.  When I get home from work, the cars are sitting there.  The only time those cars move is after 5:00 pm.  And then they are coming home at 11:00, 12:00 or 1:00 in the morning drunk as a skunk setting off their car alarms waking up us working people.
> 
> Two of the adults in the home are so fat they waddle when they walk.  They throw parties here and invite all their lowlife friends for a BBQ; probably food bought with our tax dollars.
> 
> *There are many things we can do to avoid bringing in third world people that will turn us into a third world country given enough time.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The number on food stamps in 2017 dropped to 40.3 million, the lowest since 2010 and projected to drop to 38.8 in 2018. Over 60 percent of SNAP participants were children, elderly, or had disabilities.
> 
> SNAP is probably one of the best welfare programs.  It is the least likely to discourage employment.  Unlike Medicaid where if you go a dollar over the limit, you lose all benefits, SNAP benefits decrease gradually as income increases.  Unlike many welfare programs it considers both current income and assets for eligibility, so you're very unlike to find a wealthy person on SNAP.  Currently the net asset limits are $2250 and $3500 for the elderly or disabled. Lastly it is designed to serve poor families, the disabled, and the elderly.   Individuals who are over age 18 and under 50 are limited to three months of SNAP benefits out of every three years.  Like all federal programs, undocumented immigrants are not eligible.
> 
> In regard to Planned Parenthood, 95% of federal funds that go to Planned Parenthood are distributed by state Medicaid.  Of those funds, only 3% go to abortion services but not specifically abortion. 75% go to diagnosis and treatment of STD/STIs and Contraception.   If the federal government cut funding, those funds would be reduced in state Medicaid funding.  Over 90% of those funds would have to be made up by the state because Obamacare requires all those services funded by Planned Parenthood be covered except the 3% that goes to abortion services.  The bottom line is cutting funds would have little impact on Planned Parenthood.  This topic is just a political football the two sides kick around to appeal to voters.
> 
> NPR does not receive any direct federal funding.  PBS is member station supported.  The only federal funding that either receives are from small competitive grants.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous.  HTF does one separate money going to an entity?  Nobody can prove our money didn't go to abortions.
> 
> It's kind of like when they were trying to pass the lottery here many years ago.  It was written that proceeds for the lottery will go to fund Ohio schools.  Well.........after it passed, the proceeds did go to the school, but they never benefited because they cut state funds so the schools really didn't see one dime.
> 
> When you collect a slew of money from various places, it literally goes into one pile, and then you sort out where the money goes.  Yes, you can do some paperwork shuffling to make the claim tax dollars are not going to abortions, but they actually are.
> 
> And yes, food stamps does discourage work.  I make deliveries and pickups to our customers, some of whom use temporary services.  When they ask the temps if they can work overtime, most of them refuse.  Why?  Because after making X amount of dollars, it comes out out of their food stamp stipend, so it's like working for free.
> 
> A few years ago I was renting to an unmarried couple with two children.  The guy had a full time job but refused to work one hour past 40.  His girlfriend didn't work at all.  When problems developed with rent, I asked them to discuss the situation at my apartment.
> 
> I knew their circumstance and came up with a perfect solution to their money problem.  I suggested that since he doesn't work weekends, he can watch the kids and she can get a part-time job somewhere.  It would not only help them with rent, but other money problems they were experiencing.
> 
> That didn't go over very well, and I had to evict them.  A good rent is hard to come by these days over here and across the country, and now he has this eviction on his record that any potential landlord can look up.  They lost their apartment, and I had his wages garnished for a year.   Why didn't they consider my solution?  She was getting $280.00 a month in food stamps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I didn't say food stamps did not discourage employment. I said, "It is the least likely to discourage employment."  Any funds a person receives that makes it possible not to work, discourages employment which include unemployment insurance, disability insurance, Social Security, Private
> Retirement, and even private savings, and of course social welfare programs.
> 
> Of course the only one of concern for most people is social welfare programs because it's tax payer funded.  However, any program that encourages productive workers to leave the workforce is not necessary good and in many cases bad. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's what it does.
> 
> Republicans cut funding for FS.  Nobody starved to death.  Republican run states made requirements to receive food stamps if you didn't have dependents.  In Maine for instance, most of those people dropped out of the program.
> 
> Productive people have no use for programs like food stamps.  If their income is inadequate for their lifestyle, they get higher paying jobs, work more hours, or even take on two jobs.  It's the people with no inclination to work that's the problem.  As long as they have just enough to get by, that's what they do using any means.
> 
> A friend of mine works at a place that has many temp workers.  He said that most of them live with others of like kind.  They all combine their cards, get what they need to eat, and sell the rest of the cards for cash.  They have no need to work more hours or strive to make more money.  If they are working let's say 20 hours a week bringing in X amount of money, it sure beats working 40 hours a week for just a little bit more money.
Click to expand...

*Keep mind that 60% of those that receive food stamps are elderly, disabled or children.  In general, they are the least productive people in society.  And they are certainly not lightly to take a 2nd job or work an extra 20 hours a week. *


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep taking these illegals in, and we will get there faster than you think.
> 
> Perhaps if we ever faced the situation you imagine, we would actually do something about it.  Stop funding Planned Parenthood, stop funding NPR, PBS.  Open Secrets has a litany of wasteful spending that goes on every year.
> 
> Then we have the welfare people; those who don't want to work or work part-time.  We need much more oversight on those people.  Last year, over 42 million people were on food stamps.  Now for the longest time, you on the left told us it was because of their inability to find full-time work.  Or you said, they were working lower wage jobs.  But a lot of these people only work part-time to stay on the program.
> 
> I have these HUD people living next door to me in the suburbs.  OUR TAX DOLLARS pay for them to live here instead of lower priced housing in the inner-city.  The only question I have is......why?
> 
> When I get up for work in the morning, their four cars are sitting there.  If I pass by my house during work, the cars are sitting there.  When I get home from work, the cars are sitting there.  The only time those cars move is after 5:00 pm.  And then they are coming home at 11:00, 12:00 or 1:00 in the morning drunk as a skunk setting off their car alarms waking up us working people.
> 
> Two of the adults in the home are so fat they waddle when they walk.  They throw parties here and invite all their lowlife friends for a BBQ; probably food bought with our tax dollars.
> 
> *There are many things we can do to avoid bringing in third world people that will turn us into a third world country given enough time.*
> 
> 
> 
> *The number on food stamps in 2017 dropped to 40.3 million, the lowest since 2010 and projected to drop to 38.8 in 2018. Over 60 percent of SNAP participants were children, elderly, or had disabilities.
> 
> SNAP is probably one of the best welfare programs.  It is the least likely to discourage employment.  Unlike Medicaid where if you go a dollar over the limit, you lose all benefits, SNAP benefits decrease gradually as income increases.  Unlike many welfare programs it considers both current income and assets for eligibility, so you're very unlike to find a wealthy person on SNAP.  Currently the net asset limits are $2250 and $3500 for the elderly or disabled. Lastly it is designed to serve poor families, the disabled, and the elderly.   Individuals who are over age 18 and under 50 are limited to three months of SNAP benefits out of every three years.  Like all federal programs, undocumented immigrants are not eligible.
> 
> In regard to Planned Parenthood, 95% of federal funds that go to Planned Parenthood are distributed by state Medicaid.  Of those funds, only 3% go to abortion services but not specifically abortion. 75% go to diagnosis and treatment of STD/STIs and Contraception.   If the federal government cut funding, those funds would be reduced in state Medicaid funding.  Over 90% of those funds would have to be made up by the state because Obamacare requires all those services funded by Planned Parenthood be covered except the 3% that goes to abortion services.  The bottom line is cutting funds would have little impact on Planned Parenthood.  This topic is just a political football the two sides kick around to appeal to voters.
> 
> NPR does not receive any direct federal funding.  PBS is member station supported.  The only federal funding that either receives are from small competitive grants.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous.  HTF does one separate money going to an entity?  Nobody can prove our money didn't go to abortions.
> 
> It's kind of like when they were trying to pass the lottery here many years ago.  It was written that proceeds for the lottery will go to fund Ohio schools.  Well.........after it passed, the proceeds did go to the school, but they never benefited because they cut state funds so the schools really didn't see one dime.
> 
> When you collect a slew of money from various places, it literally goes into one pile, and then you sort out where the money goes.  Yes, you can do some paperwork shuffling to make the claim tax dollars are not going to abortions, but they actually are.
> 
> And yes, food stamps does discourage work.  I make deliveries and pickups to our customers, some of whom use temporary services.  When they ask the temps if they can work overtime, most of them refuse.  Why?  Because after making X amount of dollars, it comes out out of their food stamp stipend, so it's like working for free.
> 
> A few years ago I was renting to an unmarried couple with two children.  The guy had a full time job but refused to work one hour past 40.  His girlfriend didn't work at all.  When problems developed with rent, I asked them to discuss the situation at my apartment.
> 
> I knew their circumstance and came up with a perfect solution to their money problem.  I suggested that since he doesn't work weekends, he can watch the kids and she can get a part-time job somewhere.  It would not only help them with rent, but other money problems they were experiencing.
> 
> That didn't go over very well, and I had to evict them.  A good rent is hard to come by these days over here and across the country, and now he has this eviction on his record that any potential landlord can look up.  They lost their apartment, and I had his wages garnished for a year.   Why didn't they consider my solution?  She was getting $280.00 a month in food stamps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I didn't say food stamps did not discourage employment. I said, "It is the least likely to discourage employment."  Any funds a person receives that makes it possible not to work, discourages employment which include unemployment insurance, disability insurance, Social Security, Private
> Retirement, and even private savings, and of course social welfare programs.
> 
> Of course the only one of concern for most people is social welfare programs because it's tax payer funded.  However, any program that encourages productive workers to leave the workforce is not necessary good and in many cases bad. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's what it does.
> 
> Republicans cut funding for FS.  Nobody starved to death.  Republican run states made requirements to receive food stamps if you didn't have dependents.  In Maine for instance, most of those people dropped out of the program.
> 
> Productive people have no use for programs like food stamps.  If their income is inadequate for their lifestyle, they get higher paying jobs, work more hours, or even take on two jobs.  It's the people with no inclination to work that's the problem.  As long as they have just enough to get by, that's what they do using any means.
> 
> A friend of mine works at a place that has many temp workers.  He said that most of them live with others of like kind.  They all combine their cards, get what they need to eat, and sell the rest of the cards for cash.  They have no need to work more hours or strive to make more money.  If they are working let's say 20 hours a week bringing in X amount of money, it sure beats working 40 hours a week for just a little bit more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Keep mind that 60% of those that receive food stamps are elderly, disabled or children.  In general, they are the least productive people in society.  And they are certainly not lightly to take a 2nd job or work an extra 20 hours a week. *
Click to expand...


The would if they were hungry. 

And how does an elderly person collecting SS get food stamps anyway?  If they can get food stamps, everybody on SS are eligible for food stamps.


----------



## Flopper

AZGAL said:


> * YES  At a minimum, the law should be changed so people can apply at a port of entry for asylum *


*Why not in their home country?  When they arrive at a port entry, they are instructed to tell the inspector they are afraid to return to their home.  The inspector or another agent will administer a short test along with several questions to determine in his opinion that the person meets the requirements of fear to return home.  If he denies the plea which happens in about half the cases, the person either  goes home, tries to enter illegally, or in rare cases hires a lawyer.  This could all be done in the home country which would eliminate a lot of the problems we are having now.  If the person passes the test, then he or she could come to the US either on a visa or be put in detention while waiting to plead their case before and immigration judge.  The person would not have to have their children with them. *


----------



## MaryL

I stand back and take a deep breath of air after reading some of the posts on this thread.  I am flustered and just left speechless after reading many of the posts here. I have dealt with this issue for 30 years. I have seen how it mutated from angry people strongly FOR immigration law enforcement (those goddamed wettbacks) to  today, we have  OTHER angry people strongly against immigration law enforcement (those  poor wretched "undocumented " Immigrants)

 Something is wrong here. I see entire industries given over to hiring people of questionable status. And letting American employees go. And that change is remarkable. And added to that, I see camps of homeless people (families too) living camps. These are Americans, white, black or god knows whom else. And it doesn't matter. Many of them displaced by cheap labor of these so called "New undocumented immigrants" liberals tout so much.

So what about the people displaced by these illegals? It's weird that certain people only see what benefit undocumented immigrants DO, and minimize if not even blame the people hurt by illegals. I can't apologize for being angry about the unfairness of this, and the excuses just aren't valid.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The number on food stamps in 2017 dropped to 40.3 million, the lowest since 2010 and projected to drop to 38.8 in 2018. Over 60 percent of SNAP participants were children, elderly, or had disabilities.
> 
> SNAP is probably one of the best welfare programs.  It is the least likely to discourage employment.  Unlike Medicaid where if you go a dollar over the limit, you lose all benefits, SNAP benefits decrease gradually as income increases.  Unlike many welfare programs it considers both current income and assets for eligibility, so you're very unlike to find a wealthy person on SNAP.  Currently the net asset limits are $2250 and $3500 for the elderly or disabled. Lastly it is designed to serve poor families, the disabled, and the elderly.   Individuals who are over age 18 and under 50 are limited to three months of SNAP benefits out of every three years.  Like all federal programs, undocumented immigrants are not eligible.
> 
> In regard to Planned Parenthood, 95% of federal funds that go to Planned Parenthood are distributed by state Medicaid.  Of those funds, only 3% go to abortion services but not specifically abortion. 75% go to diagnosis and treatment of STD/STIs and Contraception.   If the federal government cut funding, those funds would be reduced in state Medicaid funding.  Over 90% of those funds would have to be made up by the state because Obamacare requires all those services funded by Planned Parenthood be covered except the 3% that goes to abortion services.  The bottom line is cutting funds would have little impact on Planned Parenthood.  This topic is just a political football the two sides kick around to appeal to voters.
> 
> NPR does not receive any direct federal funding.  PBS is member station supported.  The only federal funding that either receives are from small competitive grants.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous.  HTF does one separate money going to an entity?  Nobody can prove our money didn't go to abortions.
> 
> It's kind of like when they were trying to pass the lottery here many years ago.  It was written that proceeds for the lottery will go to fund Ohio schools.  Well.........after it passed, the proceeds did go to the school, but they never benefited because they cut state funds so the schools really didn't see one dime.
> 
> When you collect a slew of money from various places, it literally goes into one pile, and then you sort out where the money goes.  Yes, you can do some paperwork shuffling to make the claim tax dollars are not going to abortions, but they actually are.
> 
> And yes, food stamps does discourage work.  I make deliveries and pickups to our customers, some of whom use temporary services.  When they ask the temps if they can work overtime, most of them refuse.  Why?  Because after making X amount of dollars, it comes out out of their food stamp stipend, so it's like working for free.
> 
> A few years ago I was renting to an unmarried couple with two children.  The guy had a full time job but refused to work one hour past 40.  His girlfriend didn't work at all.  When problems developed with rent, I asked them to discuss the situation at my apartment.
> 
> I knew their circumstance and came up with a perfect solution to their money problem.  I suggested that since he doesn't work weekends, he can watch the kids and she can get a part-time job somewhere.  It would not only help them with rent, but other money problems they were experiencing.
> 
> That didn't go over very well, and I had to evict them.  A good rent is hard to come by these days over here and across the country, and now he has this eviction on his record that any potential landlord can look up.  They lost their apartment, and I had his wages garnished for a year.   Why didn't they consider my solution?  She was getting $280.00 a month in food stamps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I didn't say food stamps did not discourage employment. I said, "It is the least likely to discourage employment."  Any funds a person receives that makes it possible not to work, discourages employment which include unemployment insurance, disability insurance, Social Security, Private
> Retirement, and even private savings, and of course social welfare programs.
> 
> Of course the only one of concern for most people is social welfare programs because it's tax payer funded.  However, any program that encourages productive workers to leave the workforce is not necessary good and in many cases bad. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's what it does.
> 
> Republicans cut funding for FS.  Nobody starved to death.  Republican run states made requirements to receive food stamps if you didn't have dependents.  In Maine for instance, most of those people dropped out of the program.
> 
> Productive people have no use for programs like food stamps.  If their income is inadequate for their lifestyle, they get higher paying jobs, work more hours, or even take on two jobs.  It's the people with no inclination to work that's the problem.  As long as they have just enough to get by, that's what they do using any means.
> 
> A friend of mine works at a place that has many temp workers.  He said that most of them live with others of like kind.  They all combine their cards, get what they need to eat, and sell the rest of the cards for cash.  They have no need to work more hours or strive to make more money.  If they are working let's say 20 hours a week bringing in X amount of money, it sure beats working 40 hours a week for just a little bit more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Keep mind that 60% of those that receive food stamps are elderly, disabled or children.  In general, they are the least productive people in society.  And they are certainly not lightly to take a 2nd job or work an extra 20 hours a week. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The would if they were hungry.
> 
> And how does an elderly person collecting SS get food stamps anyway?  If they can get food stamps, everybody on SS are eligible for food stamps.
Click to expand...

*There are lot's people who don't qualify for S.S., about 4% and there are many whose benefits are only a hundred or so a month. The minimum monthly SS benefit is about $40.
The purpose of SNAP is to prevent hunger not to feed starving people.  Hungry people are 2.9 times more likely to be in poor health which means a bigger healthcare bill for the nation.  They are also 4 times more likely to have severe emotional problems which leads to poor performance in school and on job.  Hunger has also been linked to both petty and serious crimes. 

The idea that people will worker harder if they are hungry has been proven to be false. *


----------



## MaryL

Let's step back and take  deep deep breath. Relax and go to your happy place. Close your eyes and relax. Ok, is your chi centered now? Um I hate to break it to you fine and beautiful people, but here in America we have something called Child welfare services, and other such agencies. And well, they take children away from their parents every minute of the day of the week of the year.Yep, it happens all the time. Kids weeping, the anguish and despair of the parents. But THAT ain't showin' up on ABC, CBS or NBC nightly news.  So what all of sudden got into the media to make this issue a humanitarian crisis all of a sudden? Oh,the humanity!


----------



## Flopper

MaryL said:


> I stand back and take a deep breath of air after reading some of the posts on this thread.  I am flustered and just left speechless after reading many of the posts here. I have dealt with this issue for 30 years. I have seen how it mutated from angry people strongly FOR immigration law enforcement (those goddamed wettbacks) to  today, we have  OTHER angry people strongly against immigration law enforcement (those  poor wretched "undocumented " Immigrants)
> 
> Something is wrong here. I see entire industries given over to hiring people of questionable status. And letting American employees go. And that change is remarkable. And added to that, I see camps of homeless people (families too) living camps. These are Americans, white, black or god knows whom else. And it doesn't matter. Many of them displaced by cheap labor of these so called "New undocumented immigrants" liberals tout so much.
> 
> So what about the people displaced by these illegals? It's weird that certain people only see what benefit undocumented immigrants DO, and minimize if not even blame the people hurt by illegals. I can't apologize for being angry about the unfairness of this, and the excuses just aren't valid.


*There is no way to prove that undocumented immigrants take away jobs from American workers to any degree.  I say that because they are undocumented.  We don't really how many there are in the US, most reliable sources say 9 to 12 million. We don't know what their unemployment rate is. Some say 3%, 5%, and 10%.

However there are some pretty good estimates from census surveys.  Assuming there are 10 million undocumented immigrants and 4.5 million are under the age of 16.  Then we most probably have an undocumented potential work force of 5.5 million.    Our total workforce is 156 million.  So that means undocumented immigrants are about 3.5% of our workforce.  What we don't know is what percent are employed and would Americans do the work they are doing.

The dept agriculture estimates that there are over 2 million undocumented immigrants doing farm work and there are 2 job for every worker so I think it's safe to assume that undocumented immigrants are not taking jobs from Americans on our farms.

I think anything more than this would be just a guess but it seems to mean that we are talking about a potential undocumented workforce outside of farm labor of only 2.2%.  When you consider that many of these people are working for relatives I don't think there is any threat to the the American Workforce which is 156 million. *


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous.  HTF does one separate money going to an entity?  Nobody can prove our money didn't go to abortions.
> 
> It's kind of like when they were trying to pass the lottery here many years ago.  It was written that proceeds for the lottery will go to fund Ohio schools.  Well.........after it passed, the proceeds did go to the school, but they never benefited because they cut state funds so the schools really didn't see one dime.
> 
> When you collect a slew of money from various places, it literally goes into one pile, and then you sort out where the money goes.  Yes, you can do some paperwork shuffling to make the claim tax dollars are not going to abortions, but they actually are.
> 
> And yes, food stamps does discourage work.  I make deliveries and pickups to our customers, some of whom use temporary services.  When they ask the temps if they can work overtime, most of them refuse.  Why?  Because after making X amount of dollars, it comes out out of their food stamp stipend, so it's like working for free.
> 
> A few years ago I was renting to an unmarried couple with two children.  The guy had a full time job but refused to work one hour past 40.  His girlfriend didn't work at all.  When problems developed with rent, I asked them to discuss the situation at my apartment.
> 
> I knew their circumstance and came up with a perfect solution to their money problem.  I suggested that since he doesn't work weekends, he can watch the kids and she can get a part-time job somewhere.  It would not only help them with rent, but other money problems they were experiencing.
> 
> That didn't go over very well, and I had to evict them.  A good rent is hard to come by these days over here and across the country, and now he has this eviction on his record that any potential landlord can look up.  They lost their apartment, and I had his wages garnished for a year.   Why didn't they consider my solution?  She was getting $280.00 a month in food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> *I didn't say food stamps did not discourage employment. I said, "It is the least likely to discourage employment."  Any funds a person receives that makes it possible not to work, discourages employment which include unemployment insurance, disability insurance, Social Security, Private
> Retirement, and even private savings, and of course social welfare programs.
> 
> Of course the only one of concern for most people is social welfare programs because it's tax payer funded.  However, any program that encourages productive workers to leave the workforce is not necessary good and in many cases bad. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's what it does.
> 
> Republicans cut funding for FS.  Nobody starved to death.  Republican run states made requirements to receive food stamps if you didn't have dependents.  In Maine for instance, most of those people dropped out of the program.
> 
> Productive people have no use for programs like food stamps.  If their income is inadequate for their lifestyle, they get higher paying jobs, work more hours, or even take on two jobs.  It's the people with no inclination to work that's the problem.  As long as they have just enough to get by, that's what they do using any means.
> 
> A friend of mine works at a place that has many temp workers.  He said that most of them live with others of like kind.  They all combine their cards, get what they need to eat, and sell the rest of the cards for cash.  They have no need to work more hours or strive to make more money.  If they are working let's say 20 hours a week bringing in X amount of money, it sure beats working 40 hours a week for just a little bit more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Keep mind that 60% of those that receive food stamps are elderly, disabled or children.  In general, they are the least productive people in society.  And they are certainly not lightly to take a 2nd job or work an extra 20 hours a week. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The would if they were hungry.
> 
> And how does an elderly person collecting SS get food stamps anyway?  If they can get food stamps, everybody on SS are eligible for food stamps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There are lot's people who don't qualify for S.S., about 4% and there are many whose benefits are only a hundred or so a month. The minimum monthly SS benefit is about $40.
> The purpose of SNAP is to prevent hunger not to feed starving people.  Hungry people are 2.9 times more likely to be in poor health which means a bigger healthcare bill for the nation.  They are also 4 times more likely to have severe emotional problems which leads to poor performance in school and on job.  Hunger has also been linked to both petty and serious crimes.
> 
> The idea that people will worker harder if they are hungry has been proven to be false. *
Click to expand...


I see, so why is their SS payment so low?  Could it be because they never really worked in their lives?  And if so, it's to be our problem now?  

I don't want to hear about disabilities because you can apply for that, and everybody gets the same.  If you are denied disability, it means the government feels you are mentally or physically capable of holding a job.  

So now we need to draw sympathy because these lifelong government freeloaders are older now.


----------



## Flopper

MaryL said:


> Let's step back and take  deep deep breath. Relax and go to your happy place. Close your eyes and relax. Ok, is your chi centered now? Um I hate to break it to you fine and beautiful people, but here in America we have something called Child welfare services, and other such agencies. And well, they take children away from their parents every minute of the day of the week of the year.Yep, it happens all the time. Kids weeping, the anguish and despair of the parents. But THAT ain't showin' up on ABC, CBS or NBC nightly news.  So what all of sudden got into the media to make this issue a humanitarian crisis all of a sudden? Oh,the humanity!


*The child welfare agencies my sister works with can locate any child within an hour.  Why can't the feds.  Some of the mothers that have been released from detention are out looking for their kids. One mother has completed all 45 pages of documentation for ICE provided fingerprints and after two weeks still does not have her 9 year old son.  Only after hiring a lawyer and entering suit has she been able to find the child, sick in a government contracted facility in Chicago.  That is not right.   The Trump administration should have had a plan to reunited parents and children before they took them away. *


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I didn't say food stamps did not discourage employment. I said, "It is the least likely to discourage employment."  Any funds a person receives that makes it possible not to work, discourages employment which include unemployment insurance, disability insurance, Social Security, Private
> Retirement, and even private savings, and of course social welfare programs.
> 
> Of course the only one of concern for most people is social welfare programs because it's tax payer funded.  However, any program that encourages productive workers to leave the workforce is not necessary good and in many cases bad. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's what it does.
> 
> Republicans cut funding for FS.  Nobody starved to death.  Republican run states made requirements to receive food stamps if you didn't have dependents.  In Maine for instance, most of those people dropped out of the program.
> 
> Productive people have no use for programs like food stamps.  If their income is inadequate for their lifestyle, they get higher paying jobs, work more hours, or even take on two jobs.  It's the people with no inclination to work that's the problem.  As long as they have just enough to get by, that's what they do using any means.
> 
> A friend of mine works at a place that has many temp workers.  He said that most of them live with others of like kind.  They all combine their cards, get what they need to eat, and sell the rest of the cards for cash.  They have no need to work more hours or strive to make more money.  If they are working let's say 20 hours a week bringing in X amount of money, it sure beats working 40 hours a week for just a little bit more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Keep mind that 60% of those that receive food stamps are elderly, disabled or children.  In general, they are the least productive people in society.  And they are certainly not lightly to take a 2nd job or work an extra 20 hours a week. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The would if they were hungry.
> 
> And how does an elderly person collecting SS get food stamps anyway?  If they can get food stamps, everybody on SS are eligible for food stamps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There are lot's people who don't qualify for S.S., about 4% and there are many whose benefits are only a hundred or so a month. The minimum monthly SS benefit is about $40.
> The purpose of SNAP is to prevent hunger not to feed starving people.  Hungry people are 2.9 times more likely to be in poor health which means a bigger healthcare bill for the nation.  They are also 4 times more likely to have severe emotional problems which leads to poor performance in school and on job.  Hunger has also been linked to both petty and serious crimes.
> 
> The idea that people will worker harder if they are hungry has been proven to be false. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so why is their SS payment so low?  Could it be because they never really worked in their lives?  And if so, it's to be our problem now?
> 
> I don't want to hear about disabilities because you can apply for that, and everybody gets the same.  If you are denied disability, it means the government feels you are mentally or physically capable of holding a job.
> 
> So now we need to draw sympathy because these lifelong government freeloaders are older now.
Click to expand...

*Here are the main groups that get little or no social security and it's not because they don't work.  Many of these are women who have worked most of their life raising kids.

The three main groups of people who never receive Social Security benefits include infrequent workers (44.3%) who do not have sufficient earnings to qualify for the benefits, immigrants who arrived in the U.S. at 50 or older (37.3%) and therefore haven’t worked long enough to qualify for the benefits, and non-covered workers (11.4%), such as state and local government employees. A little less than 7% of “never beneficiaries” were individuals who were expected to get Social Security benefits, but died before receiving them, according to a 2015 Social Security Administration report

These Americans will never get Social Security benefits — and we don’t mean millennials*


----------



## WEATHER53

A terrible human cost has  been wrought
The loss of the importance of law. The loss of the importance of truth
If you and your kid want to come and live  with us  in the USA then it is up to You to work it out.  It’s not up to us to ignore our laws and pretzel twist ourselves to make it happen
You and you kid want up come to live with me and lap it up?
It’s you who is to be humble, obedient  and grateful ; not me or citizens of the USA
And libbies, stop trying to be Mother
 of the planet when you own constituency  runs away from the family he created over and over.


----------



## WEATHER53

Flopper said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's step back and take  deep deep breath. Relax and go to your happy place. Close your eyes and relax. Ok, is your chi centered now? Um I hate to break it to you fine and beautiful people, but here in America we have something called Child welfare services, and other such agencies. And well, they take children away from their parents every minute of the day of the week of the year.Yep, it happens all the time. Kids weeping, the anguish and despair of the parents. But THAT ain't showin' up on ABC, CBS or NBC nightly news.  So what all of sudden got into the media to make this issue a humanitarian crisis all of a sudden? Oh,the humanity!
> 
> 
> 
> *The child welfare agencies my sister works with can locate any child within an hour.  Why can't the feds.  Some of the mothers that have been released from detention are out looking for their kids. One mother has completed all 45 pages of documentation for ICE provided fingerprints and after two weeks still does not have her 9 year old son.  Only after hiring a lawyer and entering suit has she been able to find the child, sick in a government contracted facility in Chicago.  That is not right.   The Trump administration should have had a plan to reunited parents and children before they took them away. *
Click to expand...

How about don’t break the law with your child in tow?


----------



## Natural Citizen

Did you all ever figure this stuff out? It's up to over 4000 replies, and I'm not reading al of that. Help a feller out.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's what it does.
> 
> Republicans cut funding for FS.  Nobody starved to death.  Republican run states made requirements to receive food stamps if you didn't have dependents.  In Maine for instance, most of those people dropped out of the program.
> 
> Productive people have no use for programs like food stamps.  If their income is inadequate for their lifestyle, they get higher paying jobs, work more hours, or even take on two jobs.  It's the people with no inclination to work that's the problem.  As long as they have just enough to get by, that's what they do using any means.
> 
> A friend of mine works at a place that has many temp workers.  He said that most of them live with others of like kind.  They all combine their cards, get what they need to eat, and sell the rest of the cards for cash.  They have no need to work more hours or strive to make more money.  If they are working let's say 20 hours a week bringing in X amount of money, it sure beats working 40 hours a week for just a little bit more money.
> 
> 
> 
> *Keep mind that 60% of those that receive food stamps are elderly, disabled or children.  In general, they are the least productive people in society.  And they are certainly not lightly to take a 2nd job or work an extra 20 hours a week. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The would if they were hungry.
> 
> And how does an elderly person collecting SS get food stamps anyway?  If they can get food stamps, everybody on SS are eligible for food stamps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There are lot's people who don't qualify for S.S., about 4% and there are many whose benefits are only a hundred or so a month. The minimum monthly SS benefit is about $40.
> The purpose of SNAP is to prevent hunger not to feed starving people.  Hungry people are 2.9 times more likely to be in poor health which means a bigger healthcare bill for the nation.  They are also 4 times more likely to have severe emotional problems which leads to poor performance in school and on job.  Hunger has also been linked to both petty and serious crimes.
> 
> The idea that people will worker harder if they are hungry has been proven to be false. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so why is their SS payment so low?  Could it be because they never really worked in their lives?  And if so, it's to be our problem now?
> 
> I don't want to hear about disabilities because you can apply for that, and everybody gets the same.  If you are denied disability, it means the government feels you are mentally or physically capable of holding a job.
> 
> So now we need to draw sympathy because these lifelong government freeloaders are older now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Here are the main groups that get little or no social security and it's not because they don't work.  Many of these are women who have worked most of their life raising kids.
> 
> The three main groups of people who never receive Social Security benefits include infrequent workers (44.3%) who do not have sufficient earnings to qualify for the benefits, immigrants who arrived in the U.S. at 50 or older (37.3%) and therefore haven’t worked long enough to qualify for the benefits, and non-covered workers (11.4%), such as state and local government employees. A little less than 7% of “never beneficiaries” were individuals who were expected to get Social Security benefits, but died before receiving them, according to a 2015 Social Security Administration report
> 
> These Americans will never get Social Security benefits — and we don’t mean millennials*
Click to expand...


So let's go through this:

Infrequent workers.  WTF is an infrequent worker anyway?  Is it somebody that worked once in a while when they felt like it? 

Immigrants.  Okay, so what you're saying is that we have yet another problem by allowing immigrants into this country.  I'll keep that in mind for future discussions on immigration. 

State and local government employees.  Why would state or local government employees be denied contributing to our Social Security plan like every other working American?  Could it be they had their own program setup; a program that exceeds what SS pays out?  And if not, why are not all government employees eligible for food stamps?  Why only 11.4%? 

Raising children.  If the woman raising the children is married, then he is supposed to continue support of his wife when he retires.  If not, that's his fault.  If he passes away, she gets his SS check. 

If she was single her entire life, WTF is she having children she couldn't afford to support?  Okay, so let's say a married woman has a family of two children, something happens to her husband, and he didn't have a big SS account. If she was 22 years old when she had her last child, that child was in school all day when she turned 27 years old.  Certainly she could have contributed a good amount of SS contributions between  27 and 65 years old.  So that just doesn't make sense.  There is something left out of that figure.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Only after hiring a lawyer and entering suit has she been able to find the child, sick in a government contracted facility in Chicago.



Great.  So if it's not bad enough they broke our laws and brought children with them, they are suing us on top of it.


----------



## Slyhunter

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I didn't say food stamps did not discourage employment. I said, "It is the least likely to discourage employment."  Any funds a person receives that makes it possible not to work, discourages employment which include unemployment insurance, disability insurance, Social Security, Private
> Retirement, and even private savings, and of course social welfare programs.
> 
> Of course the only one of concern for most people is social welfare programs because it's tax payer funded.  However, any program that encourages productive workers to leave the workforce is not necessary good and in many cases bad. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's what it does.
> 
> Republicans cut funding for FS.  Nobody starved to death.  Republican run states made requirements to receive food stamps if you didn't have dependents.  In Maine for instance, most of those people dropped out of the program.
> 
> Productive people have no use for programs like food stamps.  If their income is inadequate for their lifestyle, they get higher paying jobs, work more hours, or even take on two jobs.  It's the people with no inclination to work that's the problem.  As long as they have just enough to get by, that's what they do using any means.
> 
> A friend of mine works at a place that has many temp workers.  He said that most of them live with others of like kind.  They all combine their cards, get what they need to eat, and sell the rest of the cards for cash.  They have no need to work more hours or strive to make more money.  If they are working let's say 20 hours a week bringing in X amount of money, it sure beats working 40 hours a week for just a little bit more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Keep mind that 60% of those that receive food stamps are elderly, disabled or children.  In general, they are the least productive people in society.  And they are certainly not lightly to take a 2nd job or work an extra 20 hours a week. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The would if they were hungry.
> 
> And how does an elderly person collecting SS get food stamps anyway?  If they can get food stamps, everybody on SS are eligible for food stamps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There are lot's people who don't qualify for S.S., about 4% and there are many whose benefits are only a hundred or so a month. The minimum monthly SS benefit is about $40.
> The purpose of SNAP is to prevent hunger not to feed starving people.  Hungry people are 2.9 times more likely to be in poor health which means a bigger healthcare bill for the nation.  They are also 4 times more likely to have severe emotional problems which leads to poor performance in school and on job.  Hunger has also been linked to both petty and serious crimes.
> 
> The idea that people will worker harder if they are hungry has been proven to be false. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so why is their SS payment so low?  Could it be because they never really worked in their lives?  And if so, it's to be our problem now?
> 
> I don't want to hear about disabilities because you can apply for that, and everybody gets the same.  If you are denied disability, it means the government feels you are mentally or physically capable of holding a job.
> 
> So now we need to draw sympathy because these lifelong government freeloaders are older now.
Click to expand...

I applied for disability. I'm bipolar. I also have arthritis, pre-diabetic, recovered rectum cancer patient, emphysema even though I quit smoking over 20 years ago, and suffer from diabetic nerve damage in my toes and fingers. They turned me down because I had a job. I can't afford to sit around for 6-months to 3-years waiting for approval from the disability office without a job. Unemployment doesn't last that long. I'm responsible for about 20% of my family's support and as little as it is my family can't make it without it. My mother is retired and my sister doesn't work and is on year 3 of her approval process of getting disability for her hepatitis c, liver cirrhosis, GallBladder operation, COPD, and an extreme Menopause situation that I won't go into. I currently don't have a job and Unemployment has run out. My new job starts in two weeks, haven't told the Landlord yet. If I take the job and make more than $1000 a month my disability claim will get denied. Because of my bipolar, I'm liable to be fired within a month to 12 months after being employed. oh and we qualify for $50 a month for food stamps. Family of 5, got two kids too.


----------



## Slyhunter

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Keep mind that 60% of those that receive food stamps are elderly, disabled or children.  In general, they are the least productive people in society.  And they are certainly not lightly to take a 2nd job or work an extra 20 hours a week. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The would if they were hungry.
> 
> And how does an elderly person collecting SS get food stamps anyway?  If they can get food stamps, everybody on SS are eligible for food stamps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There are lot's people who don't qualify for S.S., about 4% and there are many whose benefits are only a hundred or so a month. The minimum monthly SS benefit is about $40.
> The purpose of SNAP is to prevent hunger not to feed starving people.  Hungry people are 2.9 times more likely to be in poor health which means a bigger healthcare bill for the nation.  They are also 4 times more likely to have severe emotional problems which leads to poor performance in school and on job.  Hunger has also been linked to both petty and serious crimes.
> 
> The idea that people will worker harder if they are hungry has been proven to be false. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so why is their SS payment so low?  Could it be because they never really worked in their lives?  And if so, it's to be our problem now?
> 
> I don't want to hear about disabilities because you can apply for that, and everybody gets the same.  If you are denied disability, it means the government feels you are mentally or physically capable of holding a job.
> 
> So now we need to draw sympathy because these lifelong government freeloaders are older now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Here are the main groups that get little or no social security and it's not because they don't work.  Many of these are women who have worked most of their life raising kids.
> 
> The three main groups of people who never receive Social Security benefits include infrequent workers (44.3%) who do not have sufficient earnings to qualify for the benefits, immigrants who arrived in the U.S. at 50 or older (37.3%) and therefore haven’t worked long enough to qualify for the benefits, and non-covered workers (11.4%), such as state and local government employees. A little less than 7% of “never beneficiaries” were individuals who were expected to get Social Security benefits, but died before receiving them, according to a 2015 Social Security Administration report
> 
> These Americans will never get Social Security benefits — and we don’t mean millennials*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let's go through this:
> 
> Infrequent workers.  WTF is an infrequent worker anyway?  Is it somebody that worked once in a while when they felt like it?
> 
> Immigrants.  Okay, so what you're saying is that we have yet another problem by allowing immigrants into this country.  I'll keep that in mind for future discussions on immigration.
> 
> State and local government employees.  Why would state or local government employees be denied contributing to our Social Security plan like every other working American?  Could it be they had their own program setup; a program that exceeds what SS pays out?  And if not, why are not all government employees eligible for food stamps?  Why only 11.4%?
> 
> Raising children.  If the woman raising the children is married, then he is supposed to continue support of his wife when he retires.  If not, that's his fault.  If he passes away, she gets his SS check.
> 
> If she was single her entire life, WTF is she having children she couldn't afford to support?  Okay, so let's say a married woman has a family of two children, something happens to her husband, and he didn't have a big SS account. If she was 22 years old when she had her last child, that child was in school all day when she turned 27 years old.  Certainly she could have contributed a good amount of SS contributions between  27 and 65 years old.  So that just doesn't make sense.  There is something left out of that figure.
Click to expand...

I'm an infrequent worker. I keep getting fired because of either falling asleep on the job or saying something someone doesn't like. 2 jobs ago I was fired for saying something they didn't like on FB on my own time that had nothing to do with them. I put down who I worked for in my profile and some customer sent my post to my employer.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Slyhunter said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's what it does.
> 
> Republicans cut funding for FS.  Nobody starved to death.  Republican run states made requirements to receive food stamps if you didn't have dependents.  In Maine for instance, most of those people dropped out of the program.
> 
> Productive people have no use for programs like food stamps.  If their income is inadequate for their lifestyle, they get higher paying jobs, work more hours, or even take on two jobs.  It's the people with no inclination to work that's the problem.  As long as they have just enough to get by, that's what they do using any means.
> 
> A friend of mine works at a place that has many temp workers.  He said that most of them live with others of like kind.  They all combine their cards, get what they need to eat, and sell the rest of the cards for cash.  They have no need to work more hours or strive to make more money.  If they are working let's say 20 hours a week bringing in X amount of money, it sure beats working 40 hours a week for just a little bit more money.
> 
> 
> 
> *Keep mind that 60% of those that receive food stamps are elderly, disabled or children.  In general, they are the least productive people in society.  And they are certainly not lightly to take a 2nd job or work an extra 20 hours a week. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The would if they were hungry.
> 
> And how does an elderly person collecting SS get food stamps anyway?  If they can get food stamps, everybody on SS are eligible for food stamps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There are lot's people who don't qualify for S.S., about 4% and there are many whose benefits are only a hundred or so a month. The minimum monthly SS benefit is about $40.
> The purpose of SNAP is to prevent hunger not to feed starving people.  Hungry people are 2.9 times more likely to be in poor health which means a bigger healthcare bill for the nation.  They are also 4 times more likely to have severe emotional problems which leads to poor performance in school and on job.  Hunger has also been linked to both petty and serious crimes.
> 
> The idea that people will worker harder if they are hungry has been proven to be false. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so why is their SS payment so low?  Could it be because they never really worked in their lives?  And if so, it's to be our problem now?
> 
> I don't want to hear about disabilities because you can apply for that, and everybody gets the same.  If you are denied disability, it means the government feels you are mentally or physically capable of holding a job.
> 
> So now we need to draw sympathy because these lifelong government freeloaders are older now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I applied for disability. I'm bipolar. I also have arthritis, pre-diabetic, recovered rectum cancer patient, emphysema even though I quit smoking over 20 years ago, and suffer from diabetic nerve damage in my toes and fingers. They turned me down because I had a job. I can't afford to sit around for 6-months to 3-years waiting for approval from the disability office without a job. Unemployment doesn't last that long. I'm responsible for about 20% of my family's support and as little as it is my family can't make it without it. My mother is retired and my sister doesn't work and is on year 3 of her approval process of getting disability for her hepatitis c, liver cirrhosis, GallBladder operation, COPD, and an extreme Menopause situation that I won't go into. I currently don't have a job and Unemployment has run out. My new job starts in two weeks, haven't told the Landlord yet. If I take the job and make more than $1000 a month my disability claim will get denied. Because of my bipolar, I'm liable to be fired within a month to 12 months after being employed. oh and we qualify for $50 a month for food stamps. Family of 5, got two kids too.
Click to expand...


That is a fault of disability: you can't be working until they accept you.  I would be in the same position if they don't allow me to work.  I take my physical at the end of the year.  

If worse comes to worse, I can perhaps take money out of my IRA which I really don't want to do because of the fines and penalties.  I'm busting my ass now to payoff bills in the event that happens.  

I have two tenants (one of whom just left) that are on disability.  The one used a lawyer and it took him a year to get on it.  The other did the same, but the second time she tried, she did it on her own and was accepted.  

Both still work, but have to keep their income low enough to keep their current disability check coming.  If they work too many hours, the additional money gets deducted from their check.


----------



## Slyhunter

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Keep mind that 60% of those that receive food stamps are elderly, disabled or children.  In general, they are the least productive people in society.  And they are certainly not lightly to take a 2nd job or work an extra 20 hours a week. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The would if they were hungry.
> 
> And how does an elderly person collecting SS get food stamps anyway?  If they can get food stamps, everybody on SS are eligible for food stamps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There are lot's people who don't qualify for S.S., about 4% and there are many whose benefits are only a hundred or so a month. The minimum monthly SS benefit is about $40.
> The purpose of SNAP is to prevent hunger not to feed starving people.  Hungry people are 2.9 times more likely to be in poor health which means a bigger healthcare bill for the nation.  They are also 4 times more likely to have severe emotional problems which leads to poor performance in school and on job.  Hunger has also been linked to both petty and serious crimes.
> 
> The idea that people will worker harder if they are hungry has been proven to be false. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so why is their SS payment so low?  Could it be because they never really worked in their lives?  And if so, it's to be our problem now?
> 
> I don't want to hear about disabilities because you can apply for that, and everybody gets the same.  If you are denied disability, it means the government feels you are mentally or physically capable of holding a job.
> 
> So now we need to draw sympathy because these lifelong government freeloaders are older now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I applied for disability. I'm bipolar. I also have arthritis, pre-diabetic, recovered rectum cancer patient, emphysema even though I quit smoking over 20 years ago, and suffer from diabetic nerve damage in my toes and fingers. They turned me down because I had a job. I can't afford to sit around for 6-months to 3-years waiting for approval from the disability office without a job. Unemployment doesn't last that long. I'm responsible for about 20% of my family's support and as little as it is my family can't make it without it. My mother is retired and my sister doesn't work and is on year 3 of her approval process of getting disability for her hepatitis c, liver cirrhosis, GallBladder operation, COPD, and an extreme Menopause situation that I won't go into. I currently don't have a job and Unemployment has run out. My new job starts in two weeks, haven't told the Landlord yet. If I take the job and make more than $1000 a month my disability claim will get denied. Because of my bipolar, I'm liable to be fired within a month to 12 months after being employed. oh and we qualify for $50 a month for food stamps. Family of 5, got two kids too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a fault of disability: you can't be working until they accept you.  I would be in the same position if they don't allow me to work.  I take my physical at the end of the year.
> 
> If worse comes to worse, I can perhaps take money out of my IRA which I really don't want to do because of the fines and penalties.  I'm busting my ass now to payoff bills in the event that happens.
> 
> I have two tenants (one of whom just left) that are on disability.  The one used a lawyer and it took him a year to get on it.  The other did the same, but the second time she tried, she did it on her own and was accepted.
> 
> Both still work, but have to keep their income low enough to keep their current disability check coming.  If they work too many hours, the additional money gets deducted from their check.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with them deducting disability payments say 1 for 2 for any income I have or a set amount. They won't approve me for disability if I have a job, my lawyer tells me. And this is the third time I applied, this time with a lawyer. Previous two times one was for service disability which was denied because I can't prove I got ill while in the Army, and the other was denied because I had a job. Lawyer says even $1,000 A month may be too much. I can't even type straight, had to correct a lot of typos, because I can't feel the keyboard with my pinkies. Made it real hard to find someone to hire me.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Slyhunter said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The would if they were hungry.
> 
> And how does an elderly person collecting SS get food stamps anyway?  If they can get food stamps, everybody on SS are eligible for food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> *There are lot's people who don't qualify for S.S., about 4% and there are many whose benefits are only a hundred or so a month. The minimum monthly SS benefit is about $40.
> The purpose of SNAP is to prevent hunger not to feed starving people.  Hungry people are 2.9 times more likely to be in poor health which means a bigger healthcare bill for the nation.  They are also 4 times more likely to have severe emotional problems which leads to poor performance in school and on job.  Hunger has also been linked to both petty and serious crimes.
> 
> The idea that people will worker harder if they are hungry has been proven to be false. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so why is their SS payment so low?  Could it be because they never really worked in their lives?  And if so, it's to be our problem now?
> 
> I don't want to hear about disabilities because you can apply for that, and everybody gets the same.  If you are denied disability, it means the government feels you are mentally or physically capable of holding a job.
> 
> So now we need to draw sympathy because these lifelong government freeloaders are older now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I applied for disability. I'm bipolar. I also have arthritis, pre-diabetic, recovered rectum cancer patient, emphysema even though I quit smoking over 20 years ago, and suffer from diabetic nerve damage in my toes and fingers. They turned me down because I had a job. I can't afford to sit around for 6-months to 3-years waiting for approval from the disability office without a job. Unemployment doesn't last that long. I'm responsible for about 20% of my family's support and as little as it is my family can't make it without it. My mother is retired and my sister doesn't work and is on year 3 of her approval process of getting disability for her hepatitis c, liver cirrhosis, GallBladder operation, COPD, and an extreme Menopause situation that I won't go into. I currently don't have a job and Unemployment has run out. My new job starts in two weeks, haven't told the Landlord yet. If I take the job and make more than $1000 a month my disability claim will get denied. Because of my bipolar, I'm liable to be fired within a month to 12 months after being employed. oh and we qualify for $50 a month for food stamps. Family of 5, got two kids too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a fault of disability: you can't be working until they accept you.  I would be in the same position if they don't allow me to work.  I take my physical at the end of the year.
> 
> If worse comes to worse, I can perhaps take money out of my IRA which I really don't want to do because of the fines and penalties.  I'm busting my ass now to payoff bills in the event that happens.
> 
> I have two tenants (one of whom just left) that are on disability.  The one used a lawyer and it took him a year to get on it.  The other did the same, but the second time she tried, she did it on her own and was accepted.
> 
> Both still work, but have to keep their income low enough to keep their current disability check coming.  If they work too many hours, the additional money gets deducted from their check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no problem with them deducting disability payments say 1 for 2 for any income I have or a set amount. They won't approve me for disability if I have a job, my lawyer tells me. And this is the third time I applied, this time with a lawyer. Previous two times one was for service disability which was denied because I can't prove I got ill while in the Army, and the other was denied because I had a job. Lawyer says even $1,000 A month may be too much. I can't even type straight, had to correct a lot of typos, because I can't feel the keyboard with my pinkies. Made it real hard to find someone to hire me.
Click to expand...


It does suck.  Disability requirements are okay for a two family income.  If your wife is working and making enough for you to get by for a while, your in good shape.  But I'm not married and live alone, so it would be rough for me even with being a landlord.  

If you are working, you will never get disability unless you are part-time and apply for partial disability like my tenant did.  As for typing, you may want to look into voice recognition capabilities on your computer or phone.  They've come a long way in the last ten years and some of those programs are really impressive.


----------



## Slyhunter

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There are lot's people who don't qualify for S.S., about 4% and there are many whose benefits are only a hundred or so a month. The minimum monthly SS benefit is about $40.
> The purpose of SNAP is to prevent hunger not to feed starving people.  Hungry people are 2.9 times more likely to be in poor health which means a bigger healthcare bill for the nation.  They are also 4 times more likely to have severe emotional problems which leads to poor performance in school and on job.  Hunger has also been linked to both petty and serious crimes.
> 
> The idea that people will worker harder if they are hungry has been proven to be false. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so why is their SS payment so low?  Could it be because they never really worked in their lives?  And if so, it's to be our problem now?
> 
> I don't want to hear about disabilities because you can apply for that, and everybody gets the same.  If you are denied disability, it means the government feels you are mentally or physically capable of holding a job.
> 
> So now we need to draw sympathy because these lifelong government freeloaders are older now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I applied for disability. I'm bipolar. I also have arthritis, pre-diabetic, recovered rectum cancer patient, emphysema even though I quit smoking over 20 years ago, and suffer from diabetic nerve damage in my toes and fingers. They turned me down because I had a job. I can't afford to sit around for 6-months to 3-years waiting for approval from the disability office without a job. Unemployment doesn't last that long. I'm responsible for about 20% of my family's support and as little as it is my family can't make it without it. My mother is retired and my sister doesn't work and is on year 3 of her approval process of getting disability for her hepatitis c, liver cirrhosis, GallBladder operation, COPD, and an extreme Menopause situation that I won't go into. I currently don't have a job and Unemployment has run out. My new job starts in two weeks, haven't told the Landlord yet. If I take the job and make more than $1000 a month my disability claim will get denied. Because of my bipolar, I'm liable to be fired within a month to 12 months after being employed. oh and we qualify for $50 a month for food stamps. Family of 5, got two kids too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a fault of disability: you can't be working until they accept you.  I would be in the same position if they don't allow me to work.  I take my physical at the end of the year.
> 
> If worse comes to worse, I can perhaps take money out of my IRA which I really don't want to do because of the fines and penalties.  I'm busting my ass now to payoff bills in the event that happens.
> 
> I have two tenants (one of whom just left) that are on disability.  The one used a lawyer and it took him a year to get on it.  The other did the same, but the second time she tried, she did it on her own and was accepted.
> 
> Both still work, but have to keep their income low enough to keep their current disability check coming.  If they work too many hours, the additional money gets deducted from their check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no problem with them deducting disability payments say 1 for 2 for any income I have or a set amount. They won't approve me for disability if I have a job, my lawyer tells me. And this is the third time I applied, this time with a lawyer. Previous two times one was for service disability which was denied because I can't prove I got ill while in the Army, and the other was denied because I had a job. Lawyer says even $1,000 A month may be too much. I can't even type straight, had to correct a lot of typos, because I can't feel the keyboard with my pinkies. Made it real hard to find someone to hire me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does suck.  Disability requirements are okay for a two family income.  If your wife is working and making enough for you to get by for a while, your in good shape.  But I'm not married and live alone, so it would be rough for me even with being a landlord.
> 
> If you are working, you will never get disability unless you are part-time and apply for partial disability like my tenant did.  As for typing, you may want to look into voice recognition capabilities on your computer or phone.  They've come a long way in the last ten years and some of those programs are really impressive.
Click to expand...

I'm not married. When I divorced instead of killing myself I moved in with my sister. Sometimes I wished I killed myself. Kids are nephews, they're not mine. But I've been living here for 10+ years with them instead of either of their fathers who don't even call them on their birthdays. My landlord lost his job at the Cape, then had a heart attack. He's not going to like me telling him I have no idea when the rent is going to be paid. I can pay only about 2/3 of it. Well I do have an idea. New job starts the 17th payday will probably be the 27th. Rent is due on the 10th. And if I take the job to pay the rent I risk losing my disability petition for the third time.


----------



## Flopper

WEATHER53 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's step back and take  deep deep breath. Relax and go to your happy place. Close your eyes and relax. Ok, is your chi centered now? Um I hate to break it to you fine and beautiful people, but here in America we have something called Child welfare services, and other such agencies. And well, they take children away from their parents every minute of the day of the week of the year.Yep, it happens all the time. Kids weeping, the anguish and despair of the parents. But THAT ain't showin' up on ABC, CBS or NBC nightly news.  So what all of sudden got into the media to make this issue a humanitarian crisis all of a sudden? Oh,the humanity!
> 
> 
> 
> *The child welfare agencies my sister works with can locate any child within an hour.  Why can't the feds.  Some of the mothers that have been released from detention are out looking for their kids. One mother has completed all 45 pages of documentation for ICE provided fingerprints and after two weeks still does not have her 9 year old son.  Only after hiring a lawyer and entering suit has she been able to find the child, sick in a government contracted facility in Chicago.  That is not right.   The Trump administration should have had a plan to reunited parents and children before they took them away. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How about don’t break the law with your child in tow?*
Click to expand...

*How do you keep from breaking the law when you must be on US soil to petition for asylum?

However, asylum today is just a US public relations gimmick, an attempt to show the world that we are the same country that proclaimed  “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, 
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. 

What a lot of crap.  We offer asylum to a chosen few that can get past Trump's goons at the border.  We should probably repeal the law and hang the keep out sign on the Statue of Liberty.
*


----------



## MaryL

How did sanctuary cities even happen? I don't care, liberals don't answer that. My next best guess would be: liberal Politicians  over  reached and felt so emboldened over the years  just pulled that out of their … magicians hat . It was never on any ballot anywhere.  Why not? Now I digress, people are  pissed that Donald Trump Is our President. I understand THAT. On the same sour  note, WHO got to vote whether or not your city or state gives sanctuary to illegal aliens? You can be pissed off seven ways till Sunday about Trump's election.  But I say this loud and obnoxiously as  I can: NOBODY got a say electorally or otherwise  on sanctuary cities. And that is the be all-end- all here. That is why we have TRUMP.


----------



## Flopper

MaryL said:


> How did sanctuary cities even happen? I don't care, liberals don't answer that. My next best guess would be: liberal Politicians  over  reached and felt so emboldened over the years  just pulled that out of their … magicians hat . It was never on any ballot anywhere.  Why not? Now I digress, people are  pissed that Donald Trump Is our President. I understand THAT. On the same sour  note, WHO got to vote whether or not your city or state gives sanctuary to illegal aliens? You can be pissed off seven ways till Sunday about Trump's election.  But I say this loud and obnoxiously as  I can: NOBODY got a say electorally or otherwise  on sanctuary cities. And that is the be all-end- all here. That is why we have TRUMP.


*How did sanctuary cities even happen? Well, probably one of the first was thousands of years ago.  After slavery, the Hebrews established “cities of refuge” that could be accessed by a person who had “accidentally and unintentionally” killed another and was being pursued by the person’s kin.

Sanctuary cities actually have a long history in America that has always been bound up—in a good way—in  the problem of American federalism. The sanctuary city was home to America’s first significant class of refugees—fugitive slaves. 

The specific name “sanctuary cities” comes from 1980s protests against federal immigration policies that denied asylum to refugees from El Salvador and Guatemala. San Francisco led the way by passing a city ordinance in 1985 that specifically forbade city police or civil magistrates from assisting federal immigration officers.

The real sanctuary cities in America will not be based on government opposition to Trump's Zero Tolerance Policy but rather citizens opposition.  That will determine the true sanctuary cities. For Trump to be successful, he's going to need the help of the pubic turning in neighbors, employees, and family members that are illegal.  In Germany, it was called Kristallnacht.  Trump needs to come come up with a catchy name. *


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Since all the jobs moved to a right to work state,  maybe you can explain how all those other white areas around here are doing so great.



I've driven though Ohio. The whole state is a fucking dump. You'd know this if you traveled outside of it. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> You need to start looking at the man behind the curtain. The Democrats can't tell you the truth. If they told their people the truth, many of them would just stay home and not vote. So they need to lie to you every time you lose an election.



again, says a loser who can't get health insurance.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> When Trump wins reelection, we will be treated to another host of excuses by the Democrat party.



he won't. He was never "elected" to start with.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> again, says a loser who can't get health insurance.



Maybe, but at least I don't have major mental problems I'm scared to address. 



JoeB131 said:


> he won't. He was never "elected" to start with.



Correct.  Hillary was elected, it's just that she's such a nice person she let Trump have it instead.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> A few years ago I was renting to an unmarried couple with two children. The guy had a full time job but refused to work one hour past 40. His girlfriend didn't work at all. When problems developed with rent, I asked them to discuss the situation at my apartment.
> 
> I knew their circumstance and came up with a perfect solution to their money problem. I suggested that since he doesn't work weekends, he can watch the kids and she can get a part-time job somewhere. It would not only help them with rent, but other money problems they were experiencing.
> 
> That didn't go over very well, and I had to evict them. A good rent is hard to come by these days over here and across the country, and now he has this eviction on his record that any potential landlord can look up. They lost their apartment, and I had his wages garnished for a year. Why didn't they consider my solution? She was getting $280.00 a month in food stamps.



Ah, Ray... never willing to punch up, always willing to kick down.

You really think that any part time job was going to make up for the $280.00 they were getting in SNAP?

Let's look at that.  Let's say she worked 16 hours on the weekend for minimum wage.  

7.25 x 16 = 116. Take out 6% for Social Security, 1% for Medicare and 6 in Income tax... and that comes out to a little less $90 a month.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Correct. Hillary was elected, it's just that she's such a nice person she let Trump have it instead.



Nope, more to do with the GOP was willing to let a Nazi into the White House so they could get tax breaks for rich people.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> For one, women produce less. They go a little slower than men especially when it comes to packaging or lifting heavy material. Women take maternity leave, sometimes for a year or more. It's unfair to their coworkers that they come back making the same wage as them with perfect attendance records.



why? 

You see, this is the kind of mentality the One Percent uses to keep you down, bud.  The fear that someone else might want half your cookie.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's why it has to stop now; because it has been our problem, a problem we don't need any longer. Let people solve their own problems. I too never had kids. The wonderful thing about having kids is that it's a choice--not an infliction. I chose not to have children because of the expense and my health problems I didn't want to pass along. But now my taxes have to support kids other people had in countries where they should have known better? It's bad enough I have to support American kids lowlifes have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your argument is that we are trying to make sure these kids are productive citizens, and you want to complain about that?
> 
> We need the replacement workers, that's the thing...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm complaining because other people create problems that we have to solve, and we can't even solve our own yet.
> 
> STF out of this country.  If your country is so bad, fight to change it as we have ours in history.  We can't babysit the world.  We have 7.6 billion people on this planet, some of which have children living in worse environments than south America.  How many of these 7.6 billion are we to take in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look Ray - OUR ancestors didn't stay to fight to change their country - the FLED.  HERE.  That's a weak argument Ray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is "our"?  MY ancestors didn't "flee" anything.  They were colonists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many of whom were fleeing persecution and poverty to strike out in a new land.  Why didn’t they stay and fight?
Click to expand...


Thank you for kindly deciding to make definitive assertions concerning my ancestors, about whom you know nothing.  Aside from trying to impose your ASSumptions onto them, you ALSO clearly know nothing about the English language.  What part of "they didn't flee anything" sounded like "but they were fleeing SOMETHING", Noah Webster?  Do you not comprehend what the word "colonist" means?  (That's rhetorical, since word meanings are obviously not your forte.)

The colonists who came here - my ancestors among them - came at the behest of their mother country, as citizens of their mother country, funded and supported by their mother country.  They were not "fleeing" their home nations; they were expanding them.  Far from thinking their countries needed to be "changed", they thought they needed to be extended.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> GENOCIDAL , who knows , import a fifth column , GENOCIDAL , who knows what the future holds  Ray .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I know and it's obvious when people vote.  DumBama and gang was a shot in the arm of what Socialism/ Communism is all about, and it left a bad taste in our mouths.  Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of problems with the Republicans as well, but at least we're doing something to fix our party and send a message at the same time.
> 
> I also believe that leftist brainwashing is finally starting to fade away; not totally rejected just yet, but in the right direction.  More and more people are starting to scratch their heads at Democrat policy and coming to the realization they are all phonies.  They always have an ulterior motive when they make policies and laws.
> 
> For instance most people understand that it's un-American for leftist entities to force people to give them money.  The SC ruled that is not acceptable, and Piglosi ran out there saying how it was an attack on the working people.  The right thing (in the mind of a leftist) is force people to pay unions money even though they are not part of the union.  Democrats are upset because much of that money comes back to them in campaign contributions.  It was a money laundering scheme all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think it is ok then to force the unions to represent those who don’t pay?
Click to expand...


Depends on the union and the representation.

I used to work for the US Postal Service back in the day.  Postal workers were not compelled to join the union, but the APWU ended up representing everyone by default, since our employment contracts were all negotiated between management and the union.  The USPS pays all of its employees on a strict wage scale, with regimented cost-of-living increases and merit raises.  So the APWU was negotiating on behalf of all employees, whether they wanted to or not, and whether or not the employees in question wanted them to.

As a public-sector union, they're also required to represent non-members in other regards as a trade-off for the power and managerial support they get.  I never got the impression they actually minded that situation or felt that it was an imposition on them.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> All criminals should be treated humanely.  I concur totally. We have children taken into custody of child protective services every freeking day, and nobody bats a freekin eyebrow. That is the very definition of "Humane".  Abusive or neglectful  parents should have their offspring  taken away and put into better hands. Same with illegal aliens that sneak in here, wow. They knew the risks of getting caught.  Seeing how abusive Mexicans can be, I am just not seeing this as a bad thing.  I am bemused at this topic. It's like a big fat nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> *Most children are taken from their parents because the parent is abusive or fails to protect the child.  It is pretty hard to argue that a parent that takes their children away from a dangerous environment and travels over a thousand miles to seek safety is either abusive or non-protective.  Yet that is exactly how these parents are being treated by the US government.
> 
> “Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door, except if you're from a shithole country.*
Click to expand...


As I've said every time you leftists pull out that "stop thinking and FEELZ!" quote, please notice that the "golden door" she's lifting her lamp beside is Ellis Island, at that time the premiere spot for LEGAL immigration.  She is NOT standing out in the desert outside of Yuma, Arizona.

Also, I don't consider a late-addition poem on a statue pedestal commenting on Russian pogroms of the late 19th century to exactly have the force of law demanding "We can't have border enforcement!" in 2018.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> and.. WHY the protests now? Didn't the President already SIGN an Executive action to stop the family separation? The only FRUCK UP Trumpy is doing is yelling about no due process for the immigrants. Even I DO AGREE they DESERVE DUE PROCESS and then when denied they have to pack up and leave. Anyone who pleads Asylum deserves a day in court.
> 
> 
> 
> *Even after Trump's executive order and a federal judge ordering the separation to end, the government can't seem to locate all the kids.  Could that be because ICE didn't bother to put id brackets on the kids?  When the foster care people ask a five year old their mother's name, he says, "Mama".
> 
> The government had no real plan to handle the separation and even less to unite them.  This whole thing smacks of another ill planned action from the Orange Clown.*
Click to expand...


And your proof that "they can't locate the kids" would be . . . ?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's step back and take  deep deep breath. Relax and go to your happy place. Close your eyes and relax. Ok, is your chi centered now? Um I hate to break it to you fine and beautiful people, but here in America we have something called Child welfare services, and other such agencies. And well, they take children away from their parents every minute of the day of the week of the year.Yep, it happens all the time. Kids weeping, the anguish and despair of the parents. But THAT ain't showin' up on ABC, CBS or NBC nightly news.  So what all of sudden got into the media to make this issue a humanitarian crisis all of a sudden? Oh,the humanity!
> 
> 
> 
> *The child welfare agencies my sister works with can locate any child within an hour.  Why can't the feds.  Some of the mothers that have been released from detention are out looking for their kids. One mother has completed all 45 pages of documentation for ICE provided fingerprints and after two weeks still does not have her 9 year old son.  Only after hiring a lawyer and entering suit has she been able to find the child, sick in a government contracted facility in Chicago.  That is not right.   The Trump administration should have had a plan to reunited parents and children before they took them away. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How about don’t break the law with your child in tow?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How do you keep from breaking the law when you must be on US soil to petition for asylum?
> 
> However, asylum today is just a US public relations gimmick, an attempt to show the world that we are the same country that proclaimed  “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> 
> What a lot of crap.  We offer asylum to a chosen few that can get past Trump's goons at the border.  We should probably repeal the law and hang the keep out sign on the Statue of Liberty.*
Click to expand...


We should stop listening to crying Nancies like you who think with their glands.  God, what a cheesy load of Lifetime-Movie crap.

We give asylum status to over 20,000 people a year.  They're only a "chosen few" in the sense that they have to meet the actual criteria, rather than getting it simply because they say the word when they're caught.

And ANYONE can "get past Trump's goons (aka the hard-working BP agents who actually have to DEAL with this situation, rather than sitting comfortably on their asses several states away and making pronouncements about it online) at the border".  All they have to do is show up at an actual port of entry and ask for asylum.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's step back and take  deep deep breath. Relax and go to your happy place. Close your eyes and relax. Ok, is your chi centered now? Um I hate to break it to you fine and beautiful people, but here in America we have something called Child welfare services, and other such agencies. And well, they take children away from their parents every minute of the day of the week of the year.Yep, it happens all the time. Kids weeping, the anguish and despair of the parents. But THAT ain't showin' up on ABC, CBS or NBC nightly news.  So what all of sudden got into the media to make this issue a humanitarian crisis all of a sudden? Oh,the humanity!
> 
> 
> 
> *The child welfare agencies my sister works with can locate any child within an hour.  Why can't the feds.  Some of the mothers that have been released from detention are out looking for their kids. One mother has completed all 45 pages of documentation for ICE provided fingerprints and after two weeks still does not have her 9 year old son.  Only after hiring a lawyer and entering suit has she been able to find the child, sick in a government contracted facility in Chicago.  That is not right.   The Trump administration should have had a plan to reunited parents and children before they took them away. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How about don’t break the law with your child in tow?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How do you keep from breaking the law when you must be on US soil to petition for asylum?
> 
> However, asylum today is just a US public relations gimmick, an attempt to show the world that we are the same country that proclaimed  “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> 
> What a lot of crap.  We offer asylum to a chosen few that can get past Trump's goons at the border.  We should probably repeal the law and hang the keep out sign on the Statue of Liberty.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should stop listening to crying Nancies like you who think with their glands.  God, what a cheesy load of Lifetime-Movie crap.
> 
> We give asylum status to over 20,000 people a year.  They're only a "chosen few" in the sense that they have to meet the actual criteria, rather than getting it simply because they say the word when they're caught.
> 
> And ANYONE can "get past Trump's goons (aka the hard-working BP agents who actually have to DEAL with this situation, rather than sitting comfortably on their asses several states away and making pronouncements about it online) at the border".  All they have to do is show up at an actual port of entry and ask for asylum.
Click to expand...


I didn't have time to check it out, but I heard on the radio that Trump wants to make it a law that anybody trying to (or successfully does) sneak into the country is an automatic disqualification for asylum.  

Oh I can see the leftists boil in anger if Trump can do that.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> For one, women produce less. They go a little slower than men especially when it comes to packaging or lifting heavy material. Women take maternity leave, sometimes for a year or more. It's unfair to their coworkers that they come back making the same wage as them with perfect attendance records.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why?
> 
> You see, this is the kind of mentality the One Percent uses to keep you down, bud.  The fear that someone else might want half your cookie.
Click to expand...


I don't even understand what that means. Why would I care what a female coworker makes?  It's none of my business.  That's between my employer and her.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. Hillary was elected, it's just that she's such a nice person she let Trump have it instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, more to do with the GOP was willing to let a Nazi into the White House so they could get tax breaks for rich people.
Click to expand...


Let a Nazi into the White House?  I didn't know the Republicans "let" somebody in.  I thought we all voted on that.  In fact, the GOP didn't even want Trump running.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> A few years ago I was renting to an unmarried couple with two children. The guy had a full time job but refused to work one hour past 40. His girlfriend didn't work at all. When problems developed with rent, I asked them to discuss the situation at my apartment.
> 
> I knew their circumstance and came up with a perfect solution to their money problem. I suggested that since he doesn't work weekends, he can watch the kids and she can get a part-time job somewhere. It would not only help them with rent, but other money problems they were experiencing.
> 
> That didn't go over very well, and I had to evict them. A good rent is hard to come by these days over here and across the country, and now he has this eviction on his record that any potential landlord can look up. They lost their apartment, and I had his wages garnished for a year. Why didn't they consider my solution? She was getting $280.00 a month in food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, Ray... never willing to punch up, always willing to kick down.
> 
> You really think that any part time job was going to make up for the $280.00 they were getting in SNAP?
> 
> Let's look at that.  Let's say she worked 16 hours on the weekend for minimum wage.
> 
> 7.25 x 16 = 116. Take out 6% for Social Security, 1% for Medicare and 6 in Income tax... and that comes out to a little less $90 a month.
Click to expand...


Nice try Gizmo.  But your calculations are way off.  If she worked every weekend, that would be your figure times 5 which comes to 580 a month.  Minus the 280 she got on food stamps, and she would have netted 300 bucks per month.  Now that's given she only works two eight hour days.  I'm sure she could have landed something that gave her two 10 hour days.  

And at 580  a month with two dependents, I'm sure she still qualified for food stamps, just not as much.  So again, your figures are way off.  

From her perspective though, she would be working 80 hours a month which after the total loss of food stamps would come to $3.75 per hour.  Hence that our social programs discourage people from getting ahead when they otherwise could.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's step back and take  deep deep breath. Relax and go to your happy place. Close your eyes and relax. Ok, is your chi centered now? Um I hate to break it to you fine and beautiful people, but here in America we have something called Child welfare services, and other such agencies. And well, they take children away from their parents every minute of the day of the week of the year.Yep, it happens all the time. Kids weeping, the anguish and despair of the parents. But THAT ain't showin' up on ABC, CBS or NBC nightly news.  So what all of sudden got into the media to make this issue a humanitarian crisis all of a sudden? Oh,the humanity!
> 
> 
> 
> *The child welfare agencies my sister works with can locate any child within an hour.  Why can't the feds.  Some of the mothers that have been released from detention are out looking for their kids. One mother has completed all 45 pages of documentation for ICE provided fingerprints and after two weeks still does not have her 9 year old son.  Only after hiring a lawyer and entering suit has she been able to find the child, sick in a government contracted facility in Chicago.  That is not right.   The Trump administration should have had a plan to reunited parents and children before they took them away. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How about don’t break the law with your child in tow?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How do you keep from breaking the law when you must be on US soil to petition for asylum?
> 
> However, asylum today is just a US public relations gimmick, an attempt to show the world that we are the same country that proclaimed  “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> 
> What a lot of crap.  We offer asylum to a chosen few that can get past Trump's goons at the border.  We should probably repeal the law and hang the keep out sign on the Statue of Liberty.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should stop listening to crying Nancies like you who think with their glands.  God, what a cheesy load of Lifetime-Movie crap.
> 
> We give asylum status to over 20,000 people a year.  They're only a "chosen few" in the sense that they have to meet the actual criteria, rather than getting it simply because they say the word when they're caught.
> 
> And ANYONE can "get past Trump's goons (aka the hard-working BP agents who actually have to DEAL with this situation, rather than sitting comfortably on their asses several states away and making pronouncements about it online) at the border".  All they have to do is show up at an actual port of entry and ask for asylum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't have time to check it out, but I heard on the radio that Trump wants to make it a law that anybody trying to (or successfully does) sneak into the country is an automatic disqualification for asylum.
> 
> Oh I can see the leftists boil in anger if Trump can do that.
Click to expand...


Sounds like a plan to me, frankly, because I can assure you that the people sneaking across our border know our immigration laws better than the left-twits on this message board.  They know perfectly well that they don't have to sneak in if they legitimately qualify for asylum, but they also know if they get caught, claiming they want asylum USED to give them a chance to disappear into the interior of the country.


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you got a speeding ticket while your kids were in the car, they should be taken from you and locked in a cage without you knowing where they are?
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on how fast they were going. News report about a guy going 110 over the speed limit. He didn't get a ticket he got arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because there's such a thing as "felony speeding" in some states.
> 
> For the thinking-impaired (I'm looking at you, Coyote), anything that gets you taken into law enforcement custody while your children are with you WILL result in you being separated from your children at that time.  There is no amount of bullshit you can throw up about "speeding" and "jaywalking" and whatever else you dream up that doesn't involve being arrested that is going to change the fact that crossing the border illegally IS an offense that results in being arrested, and being arrested IS a circumstance that involves being separated from any children you have in tow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can pretend this policy of Trump's is business as usual. It isn't and humans that haven't abandoned their compassion know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compassion can end you up in the poor house and make everyone in America Poverty stricken.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I watched your video and the speaker makes some good points but totally misses the reason we need immigrants.  We need immigration to fill the jobs of the future.  We can not fill the jobs we're creating with native born Americans because our birthrate is too low and our retirement rate is too high.  We don't need the poorest of the poor but the best of the poor.  We need people that can be an asset to the nation.  Our immigration laws concentrate on bringing in close family member but we need to keep in mind that we need good people, not just family members.*
Click to expand...

Were talking about illegal aliens, not immigrants, racist race baiting dickhead.  Fuck you lying scum


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know...I've asked that many times.  They never answer.  The thing is - many of those illegally immigrating are fleeing horrific situations, they aren't economic migrants.  Many are trying to claim asylum - a perfectly LEGAL thing to do even if they cross illegally - it's the federal law, it's international law, it's their right.  They may not get it, often don't - but it's legal.
> 
> I was just listening to a piece on this...and one woman from El Salvador, who fled with her 5 yr old son.  She tried 6 times to claim asylum at a legal point of entry only to be turned away each time because they "didn't have enough facilities or resources to take more people" (illegal to turn away asylum seekers).  So she finally entered illegally and turned herself in.  She was promptly arrested, charged with a crime and her son was taken away from her.  For two months she had no idea where he was.  Finally he was located in a foster home in NY.  So now he is in the foster care system which is ANOTHER nightmare to get a kid out of.
> 
> It's absolutely sickening.
Click to expand...

How was she going fron el salvador to the us?  There is no border


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The child welfare agencies my sister works with can locate any child within an hour.  Why can't the feds.  Some of the mothers that have been released from detention are out looking for their kids. One mother has completed all 45 pages of documentation for ICE provided fingerprints and after two weeks still does not have her 9 year old son.  Only after hiring a lawyer and entering suit has she been able to find the child, sick in a government contracted facility in Chicago.  That is not right.   The Trump administration should have had a plan to reunited parents and children before they took them away. *
> 
> 
> 
> *How about don’t break the law with your child in tow?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How do you keep from breaking the law when you must be on US soil to petition for asylum?
> 
> However, asylum today is just a US public relations gimmick, an attempt to show the world that we are the same country that proclaimed  “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> 
> What a lot of crap.  We offer asylum to a chosen few that can get past Trump's goons at the border.  We should probably repeal the law and hang the keep out sign on the Statue of Liberty.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should stop listening to crying Nancies like you who think with their glands.  God, what a cheesy load of Lifetime-Movie crap.
> 
> We give asylum status to over 20,000 people a year.  They're only a "chosen few" in the sense that they have to meet the actual criteria, rather than getting it simply because they say the word when they're caught.
> 
> And ANYONE can "get past Trump's goons (aka the hard-working BP agents who actually have to DEAL with this situation, rather than sitting comfortably on their asses several states away and making pronouncements about it online) at the border".  All they have to do is show up at an actual port of entry and ask for asylum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't have time to check it out, but I heard on the radio that Trump wants to make it a law that anybody trying to (or successfully does) sneak into the country is an automatic disqualification for asylum.
> 
> Oh I can see the leftists boil in anger if Trump can do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like a plan to me, frankly, because I can assure you that the people sneaking across our border know our immigration laws better than the left-twits on this message board.  They know perfectly well that they don't have to sneak in if they legitimately qualify for asylum, but they also know if they get caught, claiming they want asylum USED to give them a chance to disappear into the interior of the country.
Click to expand...


Without a doubt.  Depending on how far they got, they could be kicked out immediately.  So instead of that, they just use the phony excuse for asylum and then they have a chance at staying.  

If Trump does this by law or executive order, then those who get caught within 20 miles of the  border will be immediately kicked out, and they would not be able to stall the action by using asylum since they would be disqualified.  Same goes for those smuggling kids into the country claiming they are their own.  It would''t matter because you can't claim asylum if you are caught here outside of entry ports.  Turn around and take those kids with you.


----------



## WEATHER53

I have as much right  to seek asylum in a 12 million dollar Potomac mansion as these law breakers 
Asylum is to protect you from imminent death or harm due to a tyrannical government. Coming to the USA for better income opportunity is not compatible with “seeking asylum”


----------



## hazlnut

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you got a speeding ticket while your kids were in the car, they should be taken from you and locked in a cage without you knowing where they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Depends on how fast they were going. News report about a guy going 110 over the speed limit. He didn't get a ticket he got arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because there's such a thing as "felony speeding" in some states.
> 
> For the thinking-impaired (I'm looking at you, Coyote), anything that gets you taken into law enforcement custody while your children are with you WILL result in you being separated from your children at that time.  There is no amount of bullshit you can throw up about "speeding" and "jaywalking" and whatever else you dream up that doesn't involve being arrested that is going to change the fact that crossing the border illegally IS an offense that results in being arrested, and being arrested IS a circumstance that involves being separated from any children you have in tow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can pretend this policy of Trump's is business as usual. It isn't and humans that haven't abandoned their compassion know it.
Click to expand...

well said


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

WEATHER53 said:


> I have as much right  to seek asylum in a 12 million dollar Potomac mansion as these law breakers
> Asylum is to protect you from imminent death or harm due to a tyrannical government. Coming to the USA for better income opportunity is not compatible with “seeking asylum”



Asylum is granted to foreigners who's government presents a serious threat to them or their family.  Asylum is shelter from such a tyrannical government.  Once they stepped foot in Mexico, they were safe from their government.  There is no reason to grant them asylum here.


----------



## AZGAL

Legislative crackdown Monday, December 18, 2006
Metrowest Daily News
A report by Brazilian congressmen who investigated the human smuggling rings sheds light on the underground industry that has been sending thousands to the United States and Europe over the past decade
As part of the investigation, the congressmen visited the United States last year and came to Framingham and Marlborough, considered some of the primary destinations for Brazilian immigrants
The legislators presented their findings in a congressional report in May With key testimony from two Brazilian smugglers, brothers Itamar and Claudio Alves de Souza, who spoke in exchange for judicial pardon, the congressmen were able to identify the smugglers' modus operandi and the routes of the illegal journey.
As a result of the commission's work, 50 people belonging to smuggling rings were arrested In one of the most striking findings, the legislators found that two mayors of small towns near Valadares were involved in smuggling people into the United States.
*Brazilian Woman, Son To Be Reunited Per Federal Court Order*
June 28, 2018 at 3:21 pm
*CHICAGO (CBS) — *A Brazilian woman separated from her son at the U.S.-Mexico border will be reunited with her child.
A federal judge in Chicago has ordered the immediate release from detention of the nine-year-old Brazilian boy.
Judge Manish Shah said Thursday that Lidia Karine Souza can have custody of her son, Diogo, who has spent four weeks at a government-contracted shelter in Chicago.
..............................................................................................................................................
*The Latest: Plaintiff hopes ruling will spare other mothers - Porterville ...*
www.recorderonline.com/.../image_48c16fb5-58e3-5625-b078-45c66f62c188.html
The mother from Governador _*Valadares*_, _*Brazil*_ has filed a federal lawsuit ... The lawsuit filed Tuesday, June 26, 2018, says _*Lidia Karine Souza*_ ...


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I don't even understand what that means. Why would I care what a female coworker makes? It's none of my business. That's between my employer and her.



You just whined and bitched that a female employee coming back from Maternity leave still gets the same pay advantages...  
Really, Fifty First Dates, do you forget your own arguments?


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Let a Nazi into the White House? I didn't know the Republicans "let" somebody in. I thought we all voted on that. In fact, the GOP didn't even want Trump running.



Except when he got the nomination, they went along with it... 

You see, it used to be, when your party nominated a nut, you made damned sure he lost.  Goldwater in 1964, McGovern in 1972.  

But the GOP probably figured that this was their last chance before they ran out of old angry white people.


----------



## AZGAL

President Trump is not a nut. You are Joe Blow. Trump outwitted and outdid a field of Republicans and some democrats. And-there is no Russia collusion!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let a Nazi into the White House? I didn't know the Republicans "let" somebody in. I thought we all voted on that. In fact, the GOP didn't even want Trump running.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except when he got the nomination, they went along with it...
> 
> You see, it used to be, when your party nominated a nut, you made damned sure he lost.  Goldwater in 1964, McGovern in 1972.
> 
> But the GOP probably figured that this was their last chance before they ran out of old angry white people.
Click to expand...


No, the GOP knew we were sending a message by nominating Trump.  If they dared to cross us, it would have been the end of the Republican party and they knew it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even understand what that means. Why would I care what a female coworker makes? It's none of my business. That's between my employer and her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just whined and bitched that a female employee coming back from Maternity leave still gets the same pay advantages...
> Really, Fifty First Dates, do you forget your own arguments?
Click to expand...


As I pointed out illiterate resume maker, that was not my opinion.  When the subject came out a few years back, I did some research on it.  What they did was find employers accused of paying women less, and they asked these employers why that was.  I only wrote what some of the findings were.


----------



## AZGAL

*Judge rules that Trump administration has been wrongly detaining asylum seekers*
Alan Gomez, USA TODAY Published 6:34 p.m. ET July 2, 2018 | Updated 7:58 p.m. ET July 2, 2018


A federal judge ruled on Monday that the Department of Homeland Security has violated its own policies by refusing to release most asylum-seekers from immigration detention even if they are likely to win their asylum case.

District Judge James Boasberg in the District of Columbia ordered the department to stop making blanket determinations against most asylum-seekers and resume the long-standing practice of deciding each applicant's detention status on a case by case basis.

Boasberg pointed to data provided by the nine plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit to show how dramatically detention determinations have changed under President Donald Trump.

In recent years, Homeland Security allowed more than 90 percent of asylum-seekers who had proven they have a "credible fear" of returning to their home country to be released in the U.S. to await their final hearing before an immigration judge. Since President Donald Trump took office, those rates plummeted to 8 percent in Los Angeles, 2 percent in Detroit, and 0 percent in El Paso, Philadelphia and Newark. the locations where the plaintiffs are being held.


----------



## AZGAL

_even if they are *UNLIKELY* to win their asylum cases.... _A deliberate "Freudian slip" by the lyin' media...(Mr. Gomez)...


----------



## AZGAL

*Illegal Alien Kiddie Colonists Invited by Obama Administration*
by Fred Elbel

*July 2, 2014 *

Would you send your ten-year-old child to travel unaccompanied 1,000 miles from Guatemala to the United States – riding on top of gang-infested trains? It’s quite commonplace south of the border. So much for “immigrant family values.”

It’s anticipated that 60,000 children will be sent up – or sent for – to sneak into the U.S. in 2014, and the number is expected to more than double to 130,000 in 2015.

We, the taxpayers, are paying to house, care for and transport these illegal aliens to parents and relatives in the U.S. The White House has projected a staggering cost of $2.28 billion to care for and resettle child migrants from Central America. On top of that, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. announced that the Obama administration would pay for 100 lawyers to help these underage illegal aliens remain in the U.S.

*Why are they sneaking into the U.S. anyway?*

In 2010, the DREAM Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) failed to pass the House. It specified a six-year path for illegal alien “children” between the ages of 12 and 35 to eventually become U.S. citizens. Nevertheless, in 2012, President Obama unilaterally implemented a new program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

Now, Obama is renewing this two-year amnesty for a half-million illegal aliens.


----------



## AZGAL




----------



## WEATHER53

Good
Obama is going to take all of them under his wing.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have as much right  to seek asylum in a 12 million dollar Potomac mansion as these law breakers
> Asylum is to protect you from imminent death or harm due to a tyrannical government. Coming to the USA for better income opportunity is not compatible with “seeking asylum”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum is granted to foreigners who's government presents a serious threat to them or their family.  Asylum is shelter from such a tyrannical government.  Once they stepped foot in Mexico, they were safe from their government.  There is no reason to grant them asylum here.
Click to expand...

*Partially correct.
An asylum seeker must prove that he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution based on one or more of five grounds:*

*Race.*
*Religion.*
*Nationality.*
*Membership in a particular social group such as LGBTQ*
*Political opinion*
*Mexico does not offer asylum, 180 days residence and you have to leave.  Since the main reason these people are asking for asylum is fear of the gangs and cartels which exist in Mexico.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have as much right  to seek asylum in a 12 million dollar Potomac mansion as these law breakers
> Asylum is to protect you from imminent death or harm due to a tyrannical government. Coming to the USA for better income opportunity is not compatible with “seeking asylum”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum is granted to foreigners who's government presents a serious threat to them or their family.  Asylum is shelter from such a tyrannical government.  Once they stepped foot in Mexico, they were safe from their government.  There is no reason to grant them asylum here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Partially correct.
> An asylum seeker must prove that he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution based on one or more of five grounds:*
> 
> *Race.*
> *Religion.*
> *Nationality.*
> *Membership in a particular social group such as LGBTQ*
> *Political opinion*
> *Mexico does not offer asylum, 180 days residence and you have to leave.  Since the main reason these people are asking for asylum is fear of the gangs and cartels which exist in Mexico.*
Click to expand...


It doesn't qualify.  Asylum is meant to be for protection against governments--not gangs or bad guys.  Americans go to Mexico for vacations.  It's not a a totally oppressive country.  Much like America, there are safer places to go than others.


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> A few years ago I was renting to an unmarried couple with two children. The guy had a full time job but refused to work one hour past 40. His girlfriend didn't work at all. When problems developed with rent, I asked them to discuss the situation at my apartment.
> 
> I knew their circumstance and came up with a perfect solution to their money problem. I suggested that since he doesn't work weekends, he can watch the kids and she can get a part-time job somewhere. It would not only help them with rent, but other money problems they were experiencing.
> 
> That didn't go over very well, and I had to evict them. A good rent is hard to come by these days over here and across the country, and now he has this eviction on his record that any potential landlord can look up. They lost their apartment, and I had his wages garnished for a year. Why didn't they consider my solution? She was getting $280.00 a month in food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, Ray... never willing to punch up, always willing to kick down.
> 
> You really think that any part time job was going to make up for the $280.00 they were getting in SNAP?
> 
> Let's look at that.  Let's say she worked 16 hours on the weekend for minimum wage.
> 
> 7.25 x 16 = 116. Take out 6% for Social Security, 1% for Medicare and 6 in Income tax... and that comes out to a little less $90 a month.
Click to expand...

bad math, that's a weeks wages.


----------



## Slyhunter

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's step back and take  deep deep breath. Relax and go to your happy place. Close your eyes and relax. Ok, is your chi centered now? Um I hate to break it to you fine and beautiful people, but here in America we have something called Child welfare services, and other such agencies. And well, they take children away from their parents every minute of the day of the week of the year.Yep, it happens all the time. Kids weeping, the anguish and despair of the parents. But THAT ain't showin' up on ABC, CBS or NBC nightly news.  So what all of sudden got into the media to make this issue a humanitarian crisis all of a sudden? Oh,the humanity!
> 
> 
> 
> *The child welfare agencies my sister works with can locate any child within an hour.  Why can't the feds.  Some of the mothers that have been released from detention are out looking for their kids. One mother has completed all 45 pages of documentation for ICE provided fingerprints and after two weeks still does not have her 9 year old son.  Only after hiring a lawyer and entering suit has she been able to find the child, sick in a government contracted facility in Chicago.  That is not right.   The Trump administration should have had a plan to reunited parents and children before they took them away. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How about don’t break the law with your child in tow?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How do you keep from breaking the law when you must be on US soil to petition for asylum?
> 
> However, asylum today is just a US public relations gimmick, an attempt to show the world that we are the same country that proclaimed  “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> 
> What a lot of crap.  We offer asylum to a chosen few that can get past Trump's goons at the border.  We should probably repeal the law and hang the keep out sign on the Statue of Liberty.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should stop listening to crying Nancies like you who think with their glands.  God, what a cheesy load of Lifetime-Movie crap.
> 
> We give asylum status to over 20,000 people a year.  They're only a "chosen few" in the sense that they have to meet the actual criteria, rather than getting it simply because they say the word when they're caught.
> 
> And ANYONE can "get past Trump's goons (aka the hard-working BP agents who actually have to DEAL with this situation, rather than sitting comfortably on their asses several states away and making pronouncements about it online) at the border".  All they have to do is show up at an actual port of entry and ask for asylum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't have time to check it out, but I heard on the radio that Trump wants to make it a law that anybody trying to (or successfully does) sneak into the country is an automatic disqualification for asylum.
> 
> Oh I can see the leftists boil in anger if Trump can do that.
Click to expand...

You can't come here for asylum simply because your country is a shithole. If all you want is government handouts we don't want you.


----------



## Old Yeller

AZGAL said:


> View attachment 202577




That's hsrdly noticeable at all.  No wonder the Mexican Govt can't stop it.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> No, the GOP knew we were sending a message by nominating Trump. If they dared to cross us, it would have been the end of the Republican party and they knew it.



The GOP is a dead party walking... You see, you had an opportunity to change with the demographics... but you went full on racist...



Ray From Cleveland said:


> As I pointed out illiterate resume maker, that was not my opinion. When the subject came out a few years back, I did some research on it. What they did was find employers accused of paying women less, and they asked these employers why that was. I only wrote what some of the findings were.



Oh, fifty First dates, you said it with an approving tone...  that it was horrible that these women got pay protections.  



AZGAL said:


> President Trump is not a nut. You are Joe Blow. Trump outwitted and outdid a field of Republicans and some democrats. And-there is no Russia collusion!



Most Republicans voted against him in the primaries, and most Americans voted against him in the General.   The system FAILED, and now we have a Nazi Nut in the White House. 

Don't worry, when the economy crashes next year, you guys will be disowning Trump faster than you disowned poor Baby Bush, who was actually a decent human being.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> The GOP is a dead party walking... You see, you had an opportunity to change with the demographics... but you went full on racist...



Yeah, I heard that...........for the last 30 years.  



JoeB131 said:


> Oh, fifty First dates, you said it with an approving tone... that it was horrible that these women got pay protections.



Oh, so now you hear "tones" when reading posts?  But you don't need a shrink............naaaaah.  



JoeB131 said:


> Most Republicans voted against him in the primaries, and most Americans voted against him in the General. The system FAILED, and now we have a Nazi Nut in the White House.
> 
> Don't worry, when the economy crashes next year, you guys will be disowning Trump faster than you disowned poor Baby Bush, who was actually a decent human being.



You leftists wish everybody was as dumb as you are.  Most voted against Trump, how?  Because the other 13 candidates collectively got more votes than one guy?    Well...........that's what leftists consider a talking point I guess. 

Yes, we will turn against Trump is something goes seriously wrong.  That's what we on the right do when one of ours is not living up to our expectations.  We are not like you on the left that stick up for your guy no matter what.  We are not the party that believes our cannot do any wrong.  That's your party.  Makes you pretty proud, doesn't it?


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Oh, so now you hear "tones" when reading posts? But you don't need a shrink............naaaaah.



Guy, your every post drips with racism and misogyny... 

You are sad man who needs to blame others for your failures... 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> You leftists wish everybody was as dumb as you are. Most voted against Trump, how? Because the other 13 candidates collectively got more votes than one guy?  Well...........that's what leftists consider a talking point I guess.



Um, yeah... that's the thing. Most Republicans had the good sense to realize this was an awful idea.  The fact the Establishment and Conservatives couldn't agree on an alternative put you were you are at. 

If you talk to educated, establishment Republicans, they wake up every day horrified by what Trump is doing to their party.  

My own opinion, when you spend 40 years pandering to racism and misogyny, you shouldn't be shocked when a part of your base starts mainlining the stuff. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes, we will turn against Trump is something goes seriously wrong. That's what we on the right do when one of ours is not living up to our expectations. We are not like you on the left that stick up for your guy no matter what. We are not the party that believes our cannot do any wrong. That's your party. Makes you pretty proud, doesn't it?



Well, no, you see, you turn on him when it effects YOU.  YOu guys didn't turn on Bush when he let black people drown in Katrina or sent kids off to die in Iraq over weapons that didn't exist. 

When he crashed your 401K and put your mortgages underwater, that's when you turned on him.  

Same thing with Trump, it won't be the awful stuff he's doing now that bothers you.  "Meh, they aren't OUR kids" (actually said by a Fox News host).


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ray From Cleveland said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have as much right  to seek asylum in a 12 million dollar Potomac mansion as these law breakers
> Asylum is to protect you from imminent death or harm due to a tyrannical government. Coming to the USA for better income opportunity is not compatible with “seeking asylum”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum is granted to foreigners who's government presents a serious threat to them or their family.  Asylum is shelter from such a tyrannical government.  Once they stepped foot in Mexico, they were safe from their government.  There is no reason to grant them asylum here.
Click to expand...


Which is why the legal procedure for asylum is that you are supposed to request it in the first country in which you feel safe.  NOT in the country where you would most prefer to live.

And you are supposed to proactively contact the authorities to request asylum, not wait until they catch you sneaking in.


----------



## danielpalos

WEATHER53 said:


> I have as much right  to seek asylum in a 12 million dollar Potomac mansion as these law breakers
> Asylum is to protect you from imminent death or harm due to a tyrannical government. Coming to the USA for better income opportunity is not compatible with “seeking asylum”


You better hope their is no, Zombie Apocalypse.


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.*
Click to expand...


OMG, you've gone full wig out.  I'll give you a second to put your girdle back on.

1)  You're talking about a tiny percent as if it's most of them, dumb ass.

- The cop gave the speeder a ticket.  Flopper - OMG, he could have been taking his wife to the hospital in labor!!!   

2)  They had already left those countries, they were in Mexico and decided to then commit a crime and come here.

- Sir, I clocked you at 85 in a 60 zone.  Flopper, my WIFE is in labor!  Cop, you mean with that baby there? Flopper.  Yes, we're going home now, but she WAS in labor and I took her to the  hospital!  That's why I am speeding, I'm taking her home now!

3)  They also ignored the consulates across Mexico they could have gone to and ran across the border illegally.

- Flopper, shoplifts a pack of cigs on the way home from the hospital because his wife was in labor when they went there

No, Flopper, you have nothing but an emotional chick blow up in your head.

And why are these model parent having kids in what you say is a  war zone in a shithole country?


----------



## kaz

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you got a speeding ticket while your kids were in the car, they should be taken from you and locked in a cage without you knowing where they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How fucking fast were you going when you got pulled over, Seabiscuit, that you got arrested for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A misdemeanor is a misdemeanor. I’ve only gotten one speeding ticket in my life...55 in a 40. How many people get hauled off to jail, their children stripped from their feeding breast, for a misdemeanor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you blockheaded twat, as I've said so many times I'm sick of it, all misdemeanors are NOT the same.  You can keep ignoring it and coming back every couple of days to restate your imbecilic take on the world as though it's fresh and new, but it's not gonna help.
> 
> Speeding tickets and jaywalking and littering and whatever other godforsaken thing you leftist mouthbreathers dredge up are NOT the sum total of what constitutes a misdemeanor.  Just as was the case the LAST six times I said this, misdemeanors come in several different classes, depending on the jurisdiction.  And the most serious class of misdemeanors includes things like DUI, assault, hit-and-run, burglary . . . all things for which many people can and do "get hauled off to jail" and have "their children stripped from their feeding breast"  (seriously, you have GOT to tone down the melodrama).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re right...they aren’t treated the same. A misdemeanor if you’re brown means your children get taken and locked in concentration-like camps and you don’t know where they are.
> 
> Tone down the truth so you don’t have to be so uncomfortable? Nah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine.  You want to be the worst possible stereotype of an emptyheaded ambulatory vagina, then feel free to embrace it.  God knows, it's doubtful that you could be anything more.
> 
> Meanwhile, if anything you said was "truth", other than overblown hyperbole a Harlequin paperback would reject as too cheesy, you wouldn't be moving the goalposts around like they were motorized.
> 
> "All misdemeanors are the same, uh . . . I mean, it's about race, I mean . . . never mind that, NAZIS!!!!"
Click to expand...


It's all about hate for the left. Obviously we don't want poor whites to come here and fill our welfare rolls, medical facilities, schools or prisons any more than non-whites.  Hate is their main product now, they've distilled everything else out from what they offer


----------



## kaz

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if you got a speeding ticket while your kids were in the car, they should be taken from you and locked in a cage without you knowing where they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Depends on how fast they were going. News report about a guy going 110 over the speed limit. He didn't get a ticket he got arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because there's such a thing as "felony speeding" in some states.
> 
> For the thinking-impaired (I'm looking at you, Coyote), anything that gets you taken into law enforcement custody while your children are with you WILL result in you being separated from your children at that time.  There is no amount of bullshit you can throw up about "speeding" and "jaywalking" and whatever else you dream up that doesn't involve being arrested that is going to change the fact that crossing the border illegally IS an offense that results in being arrested, and being arrested IS a circumstance that involves being separated from any children you have in tow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can pretend this policy of Trump's is business as usual. It isn't and humans that haven't abandoned their compassion know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can pretend that reality and history change according to whatever your glands are overwrought about today, but it doesn't, and humans who haven't abandoned using their brains are not going to be shamed into anything by the likes of you.
> 
> It amuses me when you try to throw around moral condemnation as though you think anyone respects you, Seabiscuit.
Click to expand...


One thing leftists have none of is shame


----------



## Cecilie1200

kaz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How fucking fast were you going when you got pulled over, Seabiscuit, that you got arrested for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A misdemeanor is a misdemeanor. I’ve only gotten one speeding ticket in my life...55 in a 40. How many people get hauled off to jail, their children stripped from their feeding breast, for a misdemeanor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you blockheaded twat, as I've said so many times I'm sick of it, all misdemeanors are NOT the same.  You can keep ignoring it and coming back every couple of days to restate your imbecilic take on the world as though it's fresh and new, but it's not gonna help.
> 
> Speeding tickets and jaywalking and littering and whatever other godforsaken thing you leftist mouthbreathers dredge up are NOT the sum total of what constitutes a misdemeanor.  Just as was the case the LAST six times I said this, misdemeanors come in several different classes, depending on the jurisdiction.  And the most serious class of misdemeanors includes things like DUI, assault, hit-and-run, burglary . . . all things for which many people can and do "get hauled off to jail" and have "their children stripped from their feeding breast"  (seriously, you have GOT to tone down the melodrama).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re right...they aren’t treated the same. A misdemeanor if you’re brown means your children get taken and locked in concentration-like camps and you don’t know where they are.
> 
> Tone down the truth so you don’t have to be so uncomfortable? Nah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine.  You want to be the worst possible stereotype of an emptyheaded ambulatory vagina, then feel free to embrace it.  God knows, it's doubtful that you could be anything more.
> 
> Meanwhile, if anything you said was "truth", other than overblown hyperbole a Harlequin paperback would reject as too cheesy, you wouldn't be moving the goalposts around like they were motorized.
> 
> "All misdemeanors are the same, uh . . . I mean, it's about race, I mean . . . never mind that, NAZIS!!!!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's all about hate for the left. Obviously we don't want poor whites to come here and fill our welfare rolls, medical facilities, schools or prisons any more than non-whites.  Hate is their main product now, they've distilled everything else out from what they offer
Click to expand...


Don't even get me started on the hypocrisy of the left criticizing ANYONE for being a "hater".


----------



## WEATHER53

kaz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you got a speeding ticket while your kids were in the car, they should be taken from you and locked in a cage without you knowing where they are?
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on how fast they were going. News report about a guy going 110 over the speed limit. He didn't get a ticket he got arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because there's such a thing as "felony speeding" in some states.
> 
> For the thinking-impaired (I'm looking at you, Coyote), anything that gets you taken into law enforcement custody while your children are with you WILL result in you being separated from your children at that time.  There is no amount of bullshit you can throw up about "speeding" and "jaywalking" and whatever else you dream up that doesn't involve being arrested that is going to change the fact that crossing the border illegally IS an offense that results in being arrested, and being arrested IS a circumstance that involves being separated from any children you have in tow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can pretend this policy of Trump's is business as usual. It isn't and humans that haven't abandoned their compassion know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can pretend that reality and history change according to whatever your glands are overwrought about today, but it doesn't, and humans who haven't abandoned using their brains are not going to be shamed into anything by the likes of you.
> 
> It amuses me when you try to throw around moral condemnation as though you think anyone respects you, Seabiscuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One thing leftists have none of is shame
Click to expand...

Responsibility and guilt and shame for not having any are all repressive action from those in power and need to be discarded
Lib 101


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know...I've asked that many times.  They never answer.  The thing is - many of those illegally immigrating are fleeing horrific situations, they aren't economic migrants.  Many are trying to claim asylum - a perfectly LEGAL thing to do even if they cross illegally - it's the federal law, it's international law, it's their right.  They may not get it, often don't - but it's legal.
> 
> I was just listening to a piece on this...and one woman from El Salvador, who fled with her 5 yr old son.  She tried 6 times to claim asylum at a legal point of entry only to be turned away each time because they "didn't have enough facilities or resources to take more people" (illegal to turn away asylum seekers).  So she finally entered illegally and turned herself in.  She was promptly arrested, charged with a crime and her son was taken away from her.  For two months she had no idea where he was.  Finally he was located in a foster home in NY.  So now he is in the foster care system which is ANOTHER nightmare to get a kid out of.
> 
> It's absolutely sickening.
Click to expand...


You're full of shit, I answer you every time on every subject.  Stop being a stupid dick, you never get me to shut up with answering your stupid crap.  You know that.  You can't not.

In this case, you don't want to do shit for anyone in what you call shithole countries.  Fuck em, they're on their own.  But if the poor, jobless ones want to come here and vote for Democrats, you're in.  The more the merrier.

That you care about people in other countries is the total joke that you are.  You have great empathy for them, but ONLY when you benefit.  

You're a humanitarian ... 

Yeah.  When you come up with a plan to help people where you don't benefit, let me know.  We'll do lunch, then you can start talking ...


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if you got a speeding ticket while your kids were in the car, they should be taken from you and locked in a cage without you knowing where they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How fucking fast were you going when you got pulled over, Seabiscuit, that you got arrested for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A misdemeanor is a misdemeanor. I’ve only gotten one speeding ticket in my life...55 in a 40. How many people get hauled off to jail, their children stripped from their feeding breast, for a misdemeanor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you blockheaded twat, as I've said so many times I'm sick of it, all misdemeanors are NOT the same.  You can keep ignoring it and coming back every couple of days to restate your imbecilic take on the world as though it's fresh and new, but it's not gonna help.
> 
> Speeding tickets and jaywalking and littering and whatever other godforsaken thing you leftist mouthbreathers dredge up are NOT the sum total of what constitutes a misdemeanor.  Just as was the case the LAST six times I said this, misdemeanors come in several different classes, depending on the jurisdiction.  And the most serious class of misdemeanors includes things like DUI, assault, hit-and-run, burglary . . . all things for which many people can and do "get hauled off to jail" and have "their children stripped from their feeding breast"  (seriously, you have GOT to tone down the melodrama).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously.  I hope YOU have your children or grandchildren taken from you.  I hope you have no idea where they are or how to get them back.  Then maybe you would have an iota of compassion for what these mothers go through.  Oh.  And while you are at it why don't you move your fat comfortable ass to El Salvador and see what it's like there?
> 
> Never mind.  You are far too entitled.
Click to expand...


You wish someone has their kids taken from them because they think kids should be taken from criminals.  Remember how I said you're a crappy human being?  Nailed it ...


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
> 
> WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that *separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, *a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
> “Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
> It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here.  It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I'm sure everyone of them are using their kids to draw sympathy - hell why else would they be leaving some of the most violent gang ridden regions of the America's.
Click to expand...


Yes, you're clearly exploiting children to draw sympathy.  You want to do nothing for them in what you describe as shithole countries where they are supposedly subject to warfare.  But if voting for Democrats is on the table, suddenly you want to be dealt in.  And say oh, the children!

You're a piece of work.  And by piece of work, I sure don't mean art work.  You're self centered


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's why it has to stop now; because it has been our problem, a problem we don't need any longer. Let people solve their own problems. I too never had kids. The wonderful thing about having kids is that it's a choice--not an infliction. I chose not to have children because of the expense and my health problems I didn't want to pass along. But now my taxes have to support kids other people had in countries where they should have known better? It's bad enough I have to support American kids lowlifes have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your argument is that we are trying to make sure these kids are productive citizens, and you want to complain about that?
> 
> We need the replacement workers, that's the thing...
Click to expand...


The black and white left.  Either we support unlimited legal immigration or no immigration at all.  This is just a product of your stupidity.

If people can prove they can support themselves and we can verify they aren't criminals or bringing diseases, let them come in.  Legally.  Through the front door.  If they climb through the unlocked kitchen window, treat them as the criminals they are


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Um, yeah... that's the thing. Most Republicans had the good sense to realize this was an awful idea. The fact the Establishment and Conservatives couldn't agree on an alternative put you were you are at.
> 
> If you talk to educated, establishment Republicans, they wake up every day horrified by what Trump is doing to their party.
> 
> My own opinion, when you spend 40 years pandering to racism and misogyny, you shouldn't be shocked when a part of your base starts mainlining the stuff.



Well you on the left keep up with that racist, misogyny, deplorable stuff, and that way we can expand our leadership in the Senate.  We love it.

I find it amazing how the left thinks.  If a three year old accidentally touches the oven door and burns himself, the three year old learns something.  It's too bad Democrats don't have that kind of instinct or smarts.

Yes, the establishment is horrified, and that's the way we like it.  The establishment is nothing more than Democrat lite.  The Republican party is not their party, the Democrat party is. 



JoeB131 said:


> Well, no, you see, you turn on him when it effects YOU. YOu guys didn't turn on Bush when he let black people drown in Katrina or sent kids off to die in Iraq over weapons that didn't exist.
> 
> When he crashed your 401K and put your mortgages underwater, that's when you turned on him.
> 
> Same thing with Trump, it won't be the awful stuff he's doing now that bothers you. "Meh, they aren't OUR kids" (actually said by a Fox News host).



Not only is what Trump doing today not bothering me, I celebrate it. 

You're not talking politics with your Starbucks busboy  Joe, you're talking politics with people that know the second you start lying.  Like letting brown people drown.  Even a political novice understands that a President cannot send help to a city or state the doesn't request it or refuses any offer to help.  Bush didn't "send" kids anywhere. These brave soles joined our military to fight for our country.  Not one went kicking and screaming.  The recession didn't start until AFTER the Democrats took leadership of Congress.  It is they who led the charge of forcing banks to make loans to the poor and minorities that started the housing collapse.

See how easy that was to disprove your lies?


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have as much right  to seek asylum in a 12 million dollar Potomac mansion as these law breakers
> Asylum is to protect you from imminent death or harm due to a tyrannical government. Coming to the USA for better income opportunity is not compatible with “seeking asylum”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum is granted to foreigners who's government presents a serious threat to them or their family.  Asylum is shelter from such a tyrannical government.  Once they stepped foot in Mexico, they were safe from their government.  There is no reason to grant them asylum here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Partially correct.
> An asylum seeker must prove that he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution based on one or more of five grounds:*
> 
> *Race.*
> *Religion.*
> *Nationality.*
> *Membership in a particular social group such as LGBTQ*
> *Political opinion*
> *Mexico does not offer asylum, 180 days residence and you have to leave.  Since the main reason these people are asking for asylum is fear of the gangs and cartels which exist in Mexico.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't qualify.  Asylum is meant to be for protection against governments--not gangs or bad guys.  Americans go to Mexico for vacations.  It's not a a totally oppressive country.  Much like America, there are safer places to go than others.
Click to expand...




Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have as much right  to seek asylum in a 12 million dollar Potomac mansion as these law breakers
> Asylum is to protect you from imminent death or harm due to a tyrannical government. Coming to the USA for better income opportunity is not compatible with “seeking asylum”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum is granted to foreigners who's government presents a serious threat to them or their family.  Asylum is shelter from such a tyrannical government.  Once they stepped foot in Mexico, they were safe from their government.  There is no reason to grant them asylum here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Partially correct.
> An asylum seeker must prove that he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution based on one or more of five grounds:*
> 
> *Race.*
> *Religion.*
> *Nationality.*
> *Membership in a particular social group such as LGBTQ*
> *Political opinion*
> *Mexico does not offer asylum, 180 days residence and you have to leave.  Since the main reason these people are asking for asylum is fear of the gangs and cartels which exist in Mexico.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't qualify.  Asylum is meant to be for protection against governments--not gangs or bad guys.  Americans go to Mexico for vacations.  It's not a a totally oppressive country.  Much like America, there are safer places to go than others.
Click to expand...

*Many people have been granted asylum because of religious persecuted, not by government necessary but by the community. 
Read the law. the applicant must  establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting of the applicant. It does not have to be government doing the persecuting. The reason for the persuasion is critical, not who is doing it.  For example, if a person seeks asylum because they fear gang violence or police corruption, they will fail.  However, if the person seeks asylum because they fear returning home due to persecution by the police or gangs due to their religion, race, political opinion, etc, they will meet the eligibility requirements.  However, the applicant must convince an immigration judge that they are actually in fear due to persecution for those reason.

8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum*


----------



## WEATHER53

You try to portray the bolded part as law but that’s not the quote
The idea that you owe money to a drug dealer or gang  member and are therefore elegible for asylum is just another liberal feelings fairy tale


----------



## kaz

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
> 
> 
> 
> *If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here.  It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to hide behind the skirts of a small minority of extreme "hard cases" is standard leftism.  They try to excuse millions of abortions of convenience by screaming about "rape, incest, life of the mother!" and they try to excuse millions of illegals motivated by economics by screaming about "fear for their lives!"
> 
> And then they wonder how we ended up with President Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was some sort of war or government takeover in these counties, I could better understand.  But these countries haven't changed in some time.  There is no sudden need to escape an environment they've lived in most of their lives.   Sure, they want a better place to live, and that's understandable.  But I'm certain you will find many children and parents in Asia and Africa that feel the same way.    I'm sure there are billions of people that would love to invade the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's face it, the United States is preferable to 90% of the countries on Earth, including a lot of the ones in Europe.  Personally, I think it's better than any other country on Earth.
> 
> Doesn't mean we're obligated to let everyone else on Earth live here.
Click to expand...


Democrats don't want everyone here either.  Just the poor people who will vote Democrat and take jobs from our poor keeping them voting Democrat.  Every illegal alien is two kachings for them


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have as much right  to seek asylum in a 12 million dollar Potomac mansion as these law breakers
> Asylum is to protect you from imminent death or harm due to a tyrannical government. Coming to the USA for better income opportunity is not compatible with “seeking asylum”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum is granted to foreigners who's government presents a serious threat to them or their family.  Asylum is shelter from such a tyrannical government.  Once they stepped foot in Mexico, they were safe from their government.  There is no reason to grant them asylum here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Partially correct.
> An asylum seeker must prove that he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution based on one or more of five grounds:*
> 
> *Race.*
> *Religion.*
> *Nationality.*
> *Membership in a particular social group such as LGBTQ*
> *Political opinion*
> *Mexico does not offer asylum, 180 days residence and you have to leave.  Since the main reason these people are asking for asylum is fear of the gangs and cartels which exist in Mexico.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't qualify.  Asylum is meant to be for protection against governments--not gangs or bad guys.  Americans go to Mexico for vacations.  It's not a a totally oppressive country.  Much like America, there are safer places to go than others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have as much right  to seek asylum in a 12 million dollar Potomac mansion as these law breakers
> Asylum is to protect you from imminent death or harm due to a tyrannical government. Coming to the USA for better income opportunity is not compatible with “seeking asylum”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum is granted to foreigners who's government presents a serious threat to them or their family.  Asylum is shelter from such a tyrannical government.  Once they stepped foot in Mexico, they were safe from their government.  There is no reason to grant them asylum here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Partially correct.
> An asylum seeker must prove that he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution based on one or more of five grounds:*
> 
> *Race.*
> *Religion.*
> *Nationality.*
> *Membership in a particular social group such as LGBTQ*
> *Political opinion*
> *Mexico does not offer asylum, 180 days residence and you have to leave.  Since the main reason these people are asking for asylum is fear of the gangs and cartels which exist in Mexico.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't qualify.  Asylum is meant to be for protection against governments--not gangs or bad guys.  Americans go to Mexico for vacations.  It's not a a totally oppressive country.  Much like America, there are safer places to go than others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Many people have been granted asylum because of religious persecuted, not by government necessary but by the community.
> Read the law. the applicant must  establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting of the applicant. It does not have to be government doing the persecuting. The reason for the persuasion is critical, not who is doing it.  For example, if a person seeks asylum because they fear gang violence or police corruption, they will fail.  However, if the person seeks asylum because they fear returning home due to persecution by the police or gangs due to their religion, race, political opinion, etc, they will meet the eligibility requirements.  However, the applicant must convince an immigration judge that they are actually in fear due to persecution for those reason.
> 
> 8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum*
Click to expand...


Wrong.  If you are being persecuted for any of the stated reasons outside of government, you simply move to a part of your country where that doesn't take place.  The only people that can persecute you everywhere within that country is the government itself, or a group of fighters that took over your government and proclaimed the territory for themselves.


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here.  It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to hide behind the skirts of a small minority of extreme "hard cases" is standard leftism.  They try to excuse millions of abortions of convenience by screaming about "rape, incest, life of the mother!" and they try to excuse millions of illegals motivated by economics by screaming about "fear for their lives!"
> 
> And then they wonder how we ended up with President Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was some sort of war or government takeover in these counties, I could better understand.  But these countries haven't changed in some time.  There is no sudden need to escape an environment they've lived in most of their lives.   Sure, they want a better place to live, and that's understandable.  But I'm certain you will find many children and parents in Asia and Africa that feel the same way.    I'm sure there are billions of people that would love to invade the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's face it, the United States is preferable to 90% of the countries on Earth, including a lot of the ones in Europe.  Personally, I think it's better than any other country on Earth.
> 
> Doesn't mean we're obligated to let everyone else on Earth live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm with you on that one, we are the greatest country on earth in spite of what the liberals claim.  Notice they never leave for any of these other socialist utopias they constantly praise.
> 
> And as I asked Coyote, how many countries would she like to move into the USA?  She never provided an answer.
> 
> If word ever got out that we are a virtual open border country, South America will be the least of our problems.  They will be coming by the hundreds of millions in boats and planes from all over the world.  It's simply not feasible.
Click to expand...


If Democrats actually cared as much as they claim, they'd want to do more to help people in the countries they claim are shitholes.  They want to do shit for them other than the ones who want to come here.  And they only care about them because it's all about votes.  Someone they help in El Salvador who stays in El Salvador isn't going to vote Democrat


----------



## WEATHER53

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have as much right  to seek asylum in a 12 million dollar Potomac mansion as these law breakers
> Asylum is to protect you from imminent death or harm due to a tyrannical government. Coming to the USA for better income opportunity is not compatible with “seeking asylum”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum is granted to foreigners who's government presents a serious threat to them or their family.  Asylum is shelter from such a tyrannical government.  Once they stepped foot in Mexico, they were safe from their government.  There is no reason to grant them asylum here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Partially correct.
> An asylum seeker must prove that he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution based on one or more of five grounds:*
> 
> *Race.*
> *Religion.*
> *Nationality.*
> *Membership in a particular social group such as LGBTQ*
> *Political opinion*
> *Mexico does not offer asylum, 180 days residence and you have to leave.  Since the main reason these people are asking for asylum is fear of the gangs and cartels which exist in Mexico.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't qualify.  Asylum is meant to be for protection against governments--not gangs or bad guys.  Americans go to Mexico for vacations.  It's not a a totally oppressive country.  Much like America, there are safer places to go than others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have as much right  to seek asylum in a 12 million dollar Potomac mansion as these law breakers
> Asylum is to protect you from imminent death or harm due to a tyrannical government. Coming to the USA for better income opportunity is not compatible with “seeking asylum”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asylum is granted to foreigners who's government presents a serious threat to them or their family.  Asylum is shelter from such a tyrannical government.  Once they stepped foot in Mexico, they were safe from their government.  There is no reason to grant them asylum here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Partially correct.
> An asylum seeker must prove that he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution based on one or more of five grounds:*
> 
> *Race.*
> *Religion.*
> *Nationality.*
> *Membership in a particular social group such as LGBTQ*
> *Political opinion*
> *Mexico does not offer asylum, 180 days residence and you have to leave.  Since the main reason these people are asking for asylum is fear of the gangs and cartels which exist in Mexico.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't qualify.  Asylum is meant to be for protection against governments--not gangs or bad guys.  Americans go to Mexico for vacations.  It's not a a totally oppressive country.  Much like America, there are safer places to go than others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Many people have been granted asylum because of religious persecuted, not by government necessary but by the community.
> Read the law. the applicant must  establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting of the applicant. It does not have to be government doing the persecuting. The reason for the persuasion is critical, not who is doing it.  For example, if a person seeks asylum because they fear gang violence or police corruption, they will fail.  However, if the person seeks asylum because they fear returning home due to persecution by the police or gangs due to their religion, race, political opinion, etc, they will meet the eligibility requirements.  However, the applicant must convince an immigration judge that they are actually in fear due to persecution for those reason.
> 
> 8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  If you are being persecuted for any of the stated reasons outside of government, you simply move to a part of your country where that doesn't take place.  The only people that can persecute you everywhere within that country is the government itself, or a group of fighters that took over your government and proclaimed the territory for themselves.
Click to expand...

They want asylum from facing facts and government payments for their fractured feelings


----------



## Cecilie1200

kaz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here.  It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to hide behind the skirts of a small minority of extreme "hard cases" is standard leftism.  They try to excuse millions of abortions of convenience by screaming about "rape, incest, life of the mother!" and they try to excuse millions of illegals motivated by economics by screaming about "fear for their lives!"
> 
> And then they wonder how we ended up with President Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was some sort of war or government takeover in these counties, I could better understand.  But these countries haven't changed in some time.  There is no sudden need to escape an environment they've lived in most of their lives.   Sure, they want a better place to live, and that's understandable.  But I'm certain you will find many children and parents in Asia and Africa that feel the same way.    I'm sure there are billions of people that would love to invade the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's face it, the United States is preferable to 90% of the countries on Earth, including a lot of the ones in Europe.  Personally, I think it's better than any other country on Earth.
> 
> Doesn't mean we're obligated to let everyone else on Earth live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats don't want everyone here either.  Just the poor people who will vote Democrat and take jobs from our poor keeping them voting Democrat.  Every illegal alien is two kachings for them
Click to expand...


And I just don't want leftists.


----------



## MisterBeale

HappyJoy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that if we see all the criminals that are in prison right now that have children as "human," we should just release them?

Is that a new legal defense?

"Oh look your honor, this person might have robbed this convenience store, but they have a son and a daughter, they are human, therefor, they must be set free.  Clearly, they just needed the money for their family and they can't be separated from their babies."


Grow up.


----------



## MisterBeale

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here.  It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to hide behind the skirts of a small minority of extreme "hard cases" is standard leftism.  They try to excuse millions of abortions of convenience by screaming about "rape, incest, life of the mother!" and they try to excuse millions of illegals motivated by economics by screaming about "fear for their lives!"
> 
> And then they wonder how we ended up with President Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was some sort of war or government takeover in these counties, I could better understand.  But these countries haven't changed in some time.  There is no sudden need to escape an environment they've lived in most of their lives.   Sure, they want a better place to live, and that's understandable.  But I'm certain you will find many children and parents in Asia and Africa that feel the same way.    I'm sure there are billions of people that would love to invade the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's face it, the United States is preferable to 90% of the countries on Earth, including a lot of the ones in Europe.  Personally, I think it's better than any other country on Earth.
> 
> Doesn't mean we're obligated to let everyone else on Earth live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm with you on that one, we are the greatest country on earth in spite of what the liberals claim.  Notice they never leave for any of these other socialist utopias they constantly praise.
> 
> And as I asked Coyote, how many countries would she like to move into the USA?  She never provided an answer.
> 
> If word ever got out that we are a virtual open border country, South America will be the least of our problems.  They will be coming by the hundreds of millions in boats and planes from all over the world.  It's simply not feasible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Democrats actually cared as much as they claim, they'd want to do more to help people in the countries they claim are shitholes.  They want to do shit for them other than the ones who want to come here.  And they only care about them because it's all about votes.  Someone they help in El Salvador who stays in El Salvador isn't going to vote Democrat
Click to expand...



Actually, in fact, quite the reverse is true in some cases.

Hillary actually helped _cause_ the problem.

*How US Policy in Honduras Set the Stage for Today’s Mass Migration*
How US Policy in Honduras Set the Stage for Today’s Mass Migration

"Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in particular, sent conflicting messages, and worked to ensure that Zelaya did not return to power. This was contrary to the wishes of the Organization of American States, the leading hemispheric political forum composed of the 35 member-countries of the Americas, including the Caribbean. Several months after the coup, Clinton supported a highly questionable election aimed at legitimating the post-coup government.


Strong military ties between the U.S. and Honduras persist: several hundred U.S. troops are stationed at Soto Cano Air Base (formerly Palmerola) in the name of fighting the drug war and providing humanitarian aid.


Since the coup, writes historian Dana Frank, “a series of corrupt administrations has unleashed open criminal control of Honduras, from top to bottom of the government.”


Organized crime, drug traffickers and the country’s police heavily overlap. Impunity reigns in a country with frequent politically-motivated killings. It is the world’s most dangerous country for environmental activists, according to Global Witness, an international nongovernmental organization.


Although its once sky-high murder rate has declined, the continuing exodus of many youth demonstrates that violent gangs still plague urban neighborhoods."


----------



## HappyJoy

MisterBeale said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are saying that if we see all the criminals that are in prison right now that have children as "human," we should just release them?
Click to expand...


No, I'm saying many on the right don't see immigrants as human and therefore don't weigh the human cost of incarcerating children separate from their families. Simple enough for you?



> Is that a new legal defense?
> 
> "Oh look your honor, this person might have robbed this convenience store, but they have a son and a daughter, they are human, therefor, they must be set free.  Clearly, they just needed the money for their family and they can't be separated from their babies."
> 
> 
> Grow up.



Yeah, wow not my argument at all, freak.


----------



## kaz

HappyJoy said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are saying that if we see all the criminals that are in prison right now that have children as "human," we should just release them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm saying many on the right don't see immigrants as human and therefore don't weigh the human cost of incarcerating children separate from their families. Simple enough for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a new legal defense?
> 
> "Oh look your honor, this person might have robbed this convenience store, but they have a son and a daughter, they are human, therefor, they must be set free.  Clearly, they just needed the money for their family and they can't be separated from their babies."
> 
> 
> Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, wow not my argument at all, freak.
Click to expand...


You meant is that simpleton enough for him.  You're welcome


----------



## HappyJoy

kaz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are saying that if we see all the criminals that are in prison right now that have children as "human," we should just release them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm saying many on the right don't see immigrants as human and therefore don't weigh the human cost of incarcerating children separate from their families. Simple enough for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a new legal defense?
> 
> "Oh look your honor, this person might have robbed this convenience store, but they have a son and a daughter, they are human, therefor, they must be set free.  Clearly, they just needed the money for their family and they can't be separated from their babies."
> 
> 
> Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, wow not my argument at all, freak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You meant is that simpleton enough for him.  You're welcome
Click to expand...


Actually, no.


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the GOP knew we were sending a message by nominating Trump. If they dared to cross us, it would have been the end of the Republican party and they knew it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP is a dead party walking... You see, you had an opportunity to change with the demographics... but you went full on racist...
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out illiterate resume maker, that was not my opinion. When the subject came out a few years back, I did some research on it. What they did was find employers accused of paying women less, and they asked these employers why that was. I only wrote what some of the findings were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, fifty First dates, you said it with an approving tone...  that it was horrible that these women got pay protections.
> 
> 
> 
> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Trump is not a nut. You are Joe Blow. Trump outwitted and outdid a field of Republicans and some democrats. And-there is no Russia collusion!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Republicans voted against him in the primaries, and most Americans voted against him in the General.   The system FAILED, and now we have a Nazi Nut in the White House.
> 
> Don't worry, when the economy crashes next year, you guys will be disowning Trump faster than you disowned poor Baby Bush, who was actually a decent human being.
Click to expand...

#walkaway.


----------



## kaz

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are saying that if we see all the criminals that are in prison right now that have children as "human," we should just release them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm saying many on the right don't see immigrants as human and therefore don't weigh the human cost of incarcerating children separate from their families. Simple enough for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a new legal defense?
> 
> "Oh look your honor, this person might have robbed this convenience store, but they have a son and a daughter, they are human, therefor, they must be set free.  Clearly, they just needed the money for their family and they can't be separated from their babies."
> 
> 
> Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, wow not my argument at all, freak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You meant is that simpleton enough for him.  You're welcome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, no.
Click to expand...


You worked on that reply for hours, didn't you?


----------



## HappyJoy

kaz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that if we see all the criminals that are in prison right now that have children as "human," we should just release them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm saying many on the right don't see immigrants as human and therefore don't weigh the human cost of incarcerating children separate from their families. Simple enough for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a new legal defense?
> 
> "Oh look your honor, this person might have robbed this convenience store, but they have a son and a daughter, they are human, therefor, they must be set free.  Clearly, they just needed the money for their family and they can't be separated from their babies."
> 
> 
> Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, wow not my argument at all, freak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You meant is that simpleton enough for him.  You're welcome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You worked on that reply for hours, didn't you?
Click to expand...


Actually, no.


----------



## kaz

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that if we see all the criminals that are in prison right now that have children as "human," we should just release them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm saying many on the right don't see immigrants as human and therefore don't weigh the human cost of incarcerating children separate from their families. Simple enough for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a new legal defense?
> 
> "Oh look your honor, this person might have robbed this convenience store, but they have a son and a daughter, they are human, therefor, they must be set free.  Clearly, they just needed the money for their family and they can't be separated from their babies."
> 
> 
> Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, wow not my argument at all, freak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You meant is that simpleton enough for him.  You're welcome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You worked on that reply for hours, didn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, no.
Click to expand...


What's it like being stupid?  I guess you don't know how to answer the question since you know no other way


----------



## HappyJoy

kaz said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm saying many on the right don't see immigrants as human and therefore don't weigh the human cost of incarcerating children separate from their families. Simple enough for you?
> 
> Yeah, wow not my argument at all, freak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You meant is that simpleton enough for him.  You're welcome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You worked on that reply for hours, didn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's it like being stupid?  I guess you don't know how to answer the question since you know no other way
Click to expand...


If I didn't know any better I'd say you're trolling.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here.  It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to hide behind the skirts of a small minority of extreme "hard cases" is standard leftism.  They try to excuse millions of abortions of convenience by screaming about "rape, incest, life of the mother!" and they try to excuse millions of illegals motivated by economics by screaming about "fear for their lives!"
> 
> And then they wonder how we ended up with President Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was some sort of war or government takeover in these counties, I could better understand.  But these countries haven't changed in some time.  There is no sudden need to escape an environment they've lived in most of their lives.   Sure, they want a better place to live, and that's understandable.  But I'm certain you will find many children and parents in Asia and Africa that feel the same way.    I'm sure there are billions of people that would love to invade the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's face it, the United States is preferable to 90% of the countries on Earth, including a lot of the ones in Europe.  Personally, I think it's better than any other country on Earth.
> 
> Doesn't mean we're obligated to let everyone else on Earth live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm with you on that one, we are the greatest country on earth in spite of what the liberals claim.  Notice they never leave for any of these other socialist utopias they constantly praise.
> 
> And as I asked Coyote, how many countries would she like to move into the USA?  She never provided an answer.
> 
> If word ever got out that we are a virtual open border country, South America will be the least of our problems.  They will be coming by the hundreds of millions in boats and planes from all over the world.  It's simply not feasible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Democrats actually cared as much as they claim, they'd want to do more to help people in the countries they claim are shitholes.  They want to do shit for them other than the ones who want to come here.  And they only care about them because it's all about votes.  Someone they help in El Salvador who stays in El Salvador isn't going to vote Democrat
Click to expand...

all the right wing wants to do is make a profit out of our use of weapons of micro and mass destruction.

and,

then complain about refugees.


----------



## AZGAL

*from Senator Ted Cruz page*

* Office  /  News
Breitbart: Cruz Calls Out DHS: Unaccompanied Minor Crisis the Result of Amnesty

Wednesday at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) confronted Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson about the increase of unaccompanied minors illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border by calling it a "direct consequence" of President Barack Obama's executive version of the DREAM Act. 

Cruz said “In 2011, there were roughly 7,000 unaccompanied minors who were apprehended, In 2012, that number rose to 14,000. In 2013, it rose to 24,000. And, in 2014, your agency is estimating it is going to be as high as 90,000. In 2015, the administration is estimating that it will rise all the way to 145,000.” 

“It’s important to understand what those numbers represent. These numbers represent children, Little boys and little girls, their parents are handing them over not to some noble social worker trying to help them. They are handing them over to international, global criminal cartels that smuggle human beings in. They put kids, among other places, on top of fast-moving freight trains. They are criminals who assault, sexually assault, and sometimes murder these children. These are little girls that are sometimes being sold into prostitution and sex slavery.”




*


----------



## MaryL

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to hide behind the skirts of a small minority of extreme "hard cases" is standard leftism.  They try to excuse millions of abortions of convenience by screaming about "rape, incest, life of the mother!" and they try to excuse millions of illegals motivated by economics by screaming about "fear for their lives!"
> 
> And then they wonder how we ended up with President Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was some sort of war or government takeover in these counties, I could better understand.  But these countries haven't changed in some time.  There is no sudden need to escape an environment they've lived in most of their lives.   Sure, they want a better place to live, and that's understandable.  But I'm certain you will find many children and parents in Asia and Africa that feel the same way.    I'm sure there are billions of people that would love to invade the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's face it, the United States is preferable to 90% of the countries on Earth, including a lot of the ones in Europe.  Personally, I think it's better than any other country on Earth.
> 
> Doesn't mean we're obligated to let everyone else on Earth live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm with you on that one, we are the greatest country on earth in spite of what the liberals claim.  Notice they never leave for any of these other socialist utopias they constantly praise.
> 
> And as I asked Coyote, how many countries would she like to move into the USA?  She never provided an answer.
> 
> If word ever got out that we are a virtual open border country, South America will be the least of our problems.  They will be coming by the hundreds of millions in boats and planes from all over the world.  It's simply not feasible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Democrats actually cared as much as they claim, they'd want to do more to help people in the countries they claim are shitholes.  They want to do shit for them other than the ones who want to come here.  And they only care about them because it's all about votes.  Someone they help in El Salvador who stays in El Salvador isn't going to vote Democrat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all the right wing wants to do is make a profit out of our use of weapons of micro and mass destruction.
> 
> and,
> 
> then complain about refugees.
Click to expand...

So what about people that aren't affiliated to any political party?  Those poor wretched  poor American trash that  that seem to fall through the cracks. In fact, I can't count  the number of times poor jobless Americans are mocked and disparaged. By these same liberals  can't stand to hear illegals disparaged and mocked. American poor are trash, Mexican poor are mucho grande!  Rich white elitist liberals or rich white elitist conservatives, liberals pander to illegals to the detriment of American poor,  conservatives hire illegals and then bash illegals. The American politician's saint would be JANUS, the two faced god.


----------



## AZGAL




----------



## Missouri_Mike

After 424 pages have we arrived at the logical conclusion that the human cost of illegal immigration falls on the criminals not us as US citizens?


----------



## MaryL

AZGAL: Sorry, not reposting that pic. What about SOME pictures of American homeless displaced by illegal aliens? Along with some artistically chosen words of theirs about the hard life they have lived because of illegals? This is propaganda.


----------



## danielpalos

MaryL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was some sort of war or government takeover in these counties, I could better understand.  But these countries haven't changed in some time.  There is no sudden need to escape an environment they've lived in most of their lives.   Sure, they want a better place to live, and that's understandable.  But I'm certain you will find many children and parents in Asia and Africa that feel the same way.    I'm sure there are billions of people that would love to invade the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's face it, the United States is preferable to 90% of the countries on Earth, including a lot of the ones in Europe.  Personally, I think it's better than any other country on Earth.
> 
> Doesn't mean we're obligated to let everyone else on Earth live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm with you on that one, we are the greatest country on earth in spite of what the liberals claim.  Notice they never leave for any of these other socialist utopias they constantly praise.
> 
> And as I asked Coyote, how many countries would she like to move into the USA?  She never provided an answer.
> 
> If word ever got out that we are a virtual open border country, South America will be the least of our problems.  They will be coming by the hundreds of millions in boats and planes from all over the world.  It's simply not feasible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Democrats actually cared as much as they claim, they'd want to do more to help people in the countries they claim are shitholes.  They want to do shit for them other than the ones who want to come here.  And they only care about them because it's all about votes.  Someone they help in El Salvador who stays in El Salvador isn't going to vote Democrat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all the right wing wants to do is make a profit out of our use of weapons of micro and mass destruction.
> 
> and,
> 
> then complain about refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what about people that aren't affiliated to any political party?  Those poor wretched  poor American trash that  that seem to fall through the cracks. In fact, I can't count  the number of times poor jobless Americans are mocked and disparaged. By these same liberals  can't stand to hear illegals disparaged and mocked. American poor are trash, Mexican poor are mucho grande!  Rich white elitist liberals or rich white elitist conservatives, liberals pander to illegals to the detriment of American poor,  conservatives hire illegals and then bash illegals. The American politician's saint would be JANUS, the two faced god.
Click to expand...

We could have solved simple poverty in the US, yesterday.  The right wing doesn't like it, Because the poor may benefit.


----------



## MisterBeale

HappyJoy said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are saying that if we see all the criminals that are in prison right now that have children as "human," we should just release them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm saying many on the right don't see immigrants as human and therefore don't weigh the human cost of incarcerating children separate from their families. Simple enough for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a new legal defense?
> 
> "Oh look your honor, this person might have robbed this convenience store, but they have a son and a daughter, they are human, therefor, they must be set free.  Clearly, they just needed the money for their family and they can't be separated from their babies."
> 
> 
> Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, wow not my argument at all, freak.
Click to expand...

Actually, rational folks, on the left, right and center, who are not manipulated by establishment MSM emotional appeals fallacies, understand the difference between _immigrants_ and _illegal immigrants_.  You keep using the two terms interchangably like it makes no difference.

I am simply showing you that this is precisely your argument.

Even citizens in this nation that commit crimes that land them in jail have their children taken from them.  Perhaps you are just too ignorant of the law to be aware of the power and reach of CPS.

Children need to be protected from bad parents.  That is all there is to it.  We really don't need to debate this, and folks don't have a lot of compassion for parents who put their kids at risk and use them as pawns to break laws and jump the border, hoping to use them as pawns for leniency.

You should be ashamed at yourself for being so easily manipulated by both these criminals and the corporate establishment.


----------



## WEATHER53

Libbies are so immaturely emotionally addled that they believe their idea of compassion and fairness is mandatory for all else, or else.


----------



## danielpalos

MisterBeale said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are saying that if we see all the criminals that are in prison right now that have children as "human," we should just release them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm saying many on the right don't see immigrants as human and therefore don't weigh the human cost of incarcerating children separate from their families. Simple enough for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a new legal defense?
> 
> "Oh look your honor, this person might have robbed this convenience store, but they have a son and a daughter, they are human, therefor, they must be set free.  Clearly, they just needed the money for their family and they can't be separated from their babies."
> 
> 
> Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, wow not my argument at all, freak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, rational folks, on the left, right and center, who are not manipulated by establishment MSM emotional appeals fallacies, understand the difference between _immigrants_ and _illegal immigrants_.  You keep using the two terms interchangably like it makes no difference.
> 
> I am simply showing you that this is precisely your argument.
> 
> Even citizens in this nation that commit crimes that land them in jail have their children taken from them.  Perhaps you are just too ignorant of the law to be aware of the power and reach of CPS.
> 
> Children need to be protected from bad parents.  That is all there is to it.  We really don't need to debate this, and folks don't have a lot of compassion for parents who put their kids at risk and use them as pawns to break laws and jump the border, hoping to use them as pawns for leniency.
> 
> You should be ashamed at yourself for being so easily manipulated by both these criminals and the corporate establishment.
Click to expand...

Let's end our alleged wars on drugs, and terror to stop creating refugees.


----------



## MaryL

It all came down to project Brazos, one of those 40's things to supplant American workers  gone to war by Mexican workers. America never had closed borders.  We didn't need one. We use to have poor whites working in the agricultural industry years ago. Americans used to pick grapes and do itinerant work. Then along came WW2, then American male workers  suddenly became cannon fodder. We suddenly needed jobs filed by anyone, women or Mexicans, it didn't matter.  And Mexicans were welcomed in here (legal or not) in droves. And it pretty much just mushroomed from there. And  illegals  Mexicans are pretty nationalist folks too, and they feel that nationalist pride in Mexico. And well, respecting America and acclimating, that is the least of their priorities. Especially when loco gringos give them sanctuary. It's telling when Mexicans think Americans are crazy for giving them  this much merit. Even Mexicans know it strains credulity. Mexico had all these workers available to project Brazos, because Mexico was non comital in WW2. Mexicans just didn't care. That seems to be their entire national ethos.   But they do like toasted burritos.


----------



## WEATHER53

We are America
We own it
When you break in we don’t like it and assuredly don’t want to help it.


----------



## MisterBeale

danielpalos said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it clearly is not so terrible to you.  It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't see them as human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are saying that if we see all the criminals that are in prison right now that have children as "human," we should just release them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm saying many on the right don't see immigrants as human and therefore don't weigh the human cost of incarcerating children separate from their families. Simple enough for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a new legal defense?
> 
> "Oh look your honor, this person might have robbed this convenience store, but they have a son and a daughter, they are human, therefor, they must be set free.  Clearly, they just needed the money for their family and they can't be separated from their babies."
> 
> 
> Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, wow not my argument at all, freak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, rational folks, on the left, right and center, who are not manipulated by establishment MSM emotional appeals fallacies, understand the difference between _immigrants_ and _illegal immigrants_.  You keep using the two terms interchangably like it makes no difference.
> 
> I am simply showing you that this is precisely your argument.
> 
> Even citizens in this nation that commit crimes that land them in jail have their children taken from them.  Perhaps you are just too ignorant of the law to be aware of the power and reach of CPS.
> 
> Children need to be protected from bad parents.  That is all there is to it.  We really don't need to debate this, and folks don't have a lot of compassion for parents who put their kids at risk and use them as pawns to break laws and jump the border, hoping to use them as pawns for leniency.
> 
> You should be ashamed at yourself for being so easily manipulated by both these criminals and the corporate establishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's end our alleged wars on drugs, and terror to stop creating refugees.
Click to expand...


Agreed.


Why not tell that to Hillary?  We can heap most of the blame on her and the Mr. O's leniency orders for DHS importing illegal alien children. . . . 


*How US Policy in Honduras Set the Stage for Today’s Mass Migration*
How US Policy in Honduras Set the Stage for Today’s Mass Migration
*Post-coup Honduras*



U.S. Marines in Honduras in July 2016. (Wikimedia Commons)

". . .The 2009 coup, more than any other development, explains the increase in Honduran migration across the southern U.S. border in the last few years. The Obama administration played an important role in these developments. Although it officially decried Zelaya’s ouster, it equivocated on whether or not it constituted a coup, which would have required the U.S. to stop sending most aid to the country.


Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in particular, sent conflicting messages, and worked to ensure that Zelaya did not return to power. This was contrary to the wishes of the Organization of American States, the leading hemispheric political forum composed of the 35 member-countries of the Americas, including the Caribbean. Several months after the coup, Clinton supported a highly questionable election aimed at legitimating the post-coup government.


Strong military ties between the U.S. and Honduras persist: several hundred U.S. troops are stationed at Soto Cano Air Base (formerly Palmerola) in the name of fighting the drug war and providing humanitarian aid.


Since the coup, writes historian Dana Frank, “a series of corrupt administrations has unleashed open criminal control of Honduras, from top to bottom of the government.”


Organized crime, drug traffickers and the country’s police heavily overlap. Impunity reigns in a country with frequent politically-motivated killings. It is the world’s most dangerous country for environmental activists, according to Global Witness, an international nongovernmental organization.


Although its once sky-high murder rate has declined, the continuing exodus of many youth demonstrates that violent gangs still plague urban neighborhoods."


Surge of 'Unaccompanied Children' - FactCheck.org


----------



## MaryL

I live with illegal aliens from  MEXICO. I have no Idea what the numbers are. 27 million. It's  staggering the numbers. And  Mexicans have this pride in la raza and Mexico and their "culture" and they will NOT acclimate. out of pride. Anyone else we would call that arrogance and cultural imperialism. Mexicans  seem to  see themselves as a  gift to mankind. Above question . Why  act like  Mexicans above the law? Nobody, not even poor Mexicans with kids,  NOBODY is above ANY law.


----------



## MaryL

I reflect on that   line from  Bill Murray, dogs living with cats mumbo jumbo.  Mexicans  taking over vast swathes of what used to be urban parts of  America.  Well, that's real. But we need Spanish subtitles now, because acclimation isn't  in their subtext.  As immigrants, they don't have to learn no stinkin' English or respect American culture.  Unlike, say Russian Jews or Polish Catholics. Or all the other of those legal European  immigrants were required to acclimate, and DID.  Mexicans are god's gift to mankind, and are above immigration laws. And deserve sanctuary  without  the voter's consent. Because a small group of people called liberals say SO.


----------



## danielpalos

Don't believe in natural rights, right wingers?  must not be about guns.


----------



## Flopper

WEATHER53 said:


> You try to portray the bolded part as law but that’s not the quote
> The idea that you owe money to a drug dealer or gang  member and are therefore elegible for asylum is just another liberal feelings fairy tale


*Correct, those are not acceptable reasons for asylum.  However, if a gang is attacking your family because they are Miskito Indians, there're Jewish, black, political activists, or a member of a neighborhood watch organization then they quality. 

Just being a victim of violence won't do it.  It's the reason that's important.  If a mother claims her husband has murdered two of her children and has sworn he'll murder all of them when they return home, the judge will have no option but to to return her home.  

However if she adds to her claim that his threat of violence is due to the fact, that her children have rejected his religion, then they will qualify.     *


----------



## Flopper

MaryL said:


> I live with illegal aliens from  MEXICO. I have no Idea what the numbers are. 27 million. It's  staggering the numbers. And  Mexicans have this pride in la raza and Mexico and their "culture" and they will NOT acclimate. out of pride. Anyone else we would call that arrogance and cultural imperialism. Mexicans  seem to  see themselves as a  gift to mankind. Above question . Why  act like  Mexicans above the law? Nobody, not even poor Mexicans with kids,  NOBODY is above ANY law.


*What do you mean Mexicans won't  assimilate.  They have been assimilating in American culture for hundreds of years.  Undocumented immigrants general do not assimilate, regardless of nationality because they lack documentation and are here illegally. *


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Flopper said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live with illegal aliens from  MEXICO. I have no Idea what the numbers are. 27 million. It's  staggering the numbers. And  Mexicans have this pride in la raza and Mexico and their "culture" and they will NOT acclimate. out of pride. Anyone else we would call that arrogance and cultural imperialism. Mexicans  seem to  see themselves as a  gift to mankind. Above question . Why  act like  Mexicans above the law? Nobody, not even poor Mexicans with kids,  NOBODY is above ANY law.
> 
> 
> 
> *What do you mean Mexicans won't  assimilate.  They have been assimilating in American culture for hundreds of years.  Undocumented immigrants general do not assimilate, regardless of nationality because they lack documentation and are here illegally. *
Click to expand...

This is actually incorrect.

Undocumented immigrants do in fact assimilate, learn English, and contribute to society as a whole.

And that one might be undocumented doesn’t mean he’s in the country ‘illegally’ – due process must be first afforded before a determination is made by an immigration court that an undocumented immigrant is not entitled to asylum and refugee status, and entered the country absent authorization.

This illustrates the tragedy of Republicans hostile to immigration reform.

Immigration reform measures will have a provision for due process allowing those undocumented to acknowledge they entered the country absent authorization, pay any appropriate fines, fees, and taxes owed, meet other conditions and requirements, and start the process of becoming LPRAs and eventually citizens.

Of course, Republicans oppose immigration reform because of their unwarranted fear of immigration and wrongheaded animosity toward immigrants.


----------



## kaz

HappyJoy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You meant is that simpleton enough for him.  You're welcome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You worked on that reply for hours, didn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's it like being stupid?  I guess you don't know how to answer the question since you know no other way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I didn't know any better I'd say you're trolling.
Click to expand...


Notice that you cut the conversation back so the first post you eliminated was your troll post that I was responding to.  That was obviously intentional.  Obviously you know there's a problem with your ideology since you need to back up your arguments with personal insults


----------



## kaz

MaryL said:


> conservatives hire illegals and then bash illegals



Most conservatives don't hire illegals and the businesses who hire illegals are not just run by conservatives.  Most conservatives think they should be fined or jailed.  This just isn't accurate


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Undocumented immigrants do in fact assimilate, learn English, and contribute to society as a whole.



Of course they do.  That's why our police on the souther border have to know Spanish.  That's why we are becoming a bilingual country against our will.  That's why they ask me what language I want my ballot in when I go to vote; because these people are assimilating so well.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Immigration reform measures will have a provision for due process allowing those undocumented to acknowledge they entered the country absent authorization, pay any appropriate fines, fees, and taxes owed, meet other conditions and requirements, and start the process of becoming LPRAs and eventually citizens.



Yes, in other words, amnesty, just like the Democrats want.  The more minorities in the country, the more likely Democrat votes.  Plus many of the "legal" immigrants end up on our already strained social programs.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> The black and white left. Either we support unlimited legal immigration or no immigration at all. This is just a product of your stupidity.
> 
> If people can prove they can support themselves and we can verify they aren't criminals or bringing diseases, let them come in. Legally. Through the front door. If they climb through the unlocked kitchen window, treat them as the criminals they are



again, someone offered them a job to come up here, so they were "invited".

And given the fact your Fuhrer has the ICE Stormtroopers going after legal immigrants who've been here for years, like the man who had been here for 30 years who was arrested when he was mowing his lawn, your protestations are a little meaningless.


----------



## danielpalos

Flopper said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live with illegal aliens from  MEXICO. I have no Idea what the numbers are. 27 million. It's  staggering the numbers. And  Mexicans have this pride in la raza and Mexico and their "culture" and they will NOT acclimate. out of pride. Anyone else we would call that arrogance and cultural imperialism. Mexicans  seem to  see themselves as a  gift to mankind. Above question . Why  act like  Mexicans above the law? Nobody, not even poor Mexicans with kids,  NOBODY is above ANY law.
> 
> 
> 
> *What do you mean Mexicans won't  assimilate.  They have been assimilating in American culture for hundreds of years.  Undocumented immigrants general do not assimilate, regardless of nationality because they lack documentation and are here illegally. *
Click to expand...

All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.  It could be renewable annually and function as a visa as well.  A simple fee or fine could make it happen. 

Applied Capitalism won't do for the right wing.  Socialism on national basis is the Only thing for them.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> Most conservatives don't hire illegals and the businesses who hire illegals are not just run by conservatives. Most conservatives think they should be fined or jailed. This just isn't accurate



Really?  

I've worked at two companies that knew damned well that the "day laborers" the temp company sent over weren't here legally.  And both cases,the bosses were right wing assholes.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most conservatives don't hire illegals and the businesses who hire illegals are not just run by conservatives. Most conservatives think they should be fined or jailed. This just isn't accurate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> I've worked at two companies that knew damned well that the "day laborers" the temp company sent over weren't here legally.  And both cases,the bosses were right wing assholes.
Click to expand...


Temp agencies are supposed to check out their own workers--not their customers.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> conservatives hire illegals and then bash illegals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most conservatives don't hire illegals and the businesses who hire illegals are not just run by conservatives.  Most conservatives think they should be fined or jailed.  This just isn't accurate
Click to expand...

The right wing has no solutions.  

The left would like all foreign nationals in the US to have a federal id., so we know which government to bill.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Temp agencies are supposed to check out their own workers--not their customers.



Yes, that's why they hired these guys... they knew that someone else would take the blame.  







"I'm shocked, absolutely shocked that these day laborers aren't legal immigrants."


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most conservatives don't hire illegals and the businesses who hire illegals are not just run by conservatives. Most conservatives think they should be fined or jailed. This just isn't accurate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> I've worked at two companies that knew damned well that the "day laborers" the temp company sent over weren't here legally.  And both cases,the bosses were right wing assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Temp agencies are supposed to check out their own workers--not their customers.
Click to expand...

Even States are Constitutionally barred from impairing in the Obligation of Contracts.  

Employment contracts are contracts.


----------



## danielpalos

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Temp agencies are supposed to check out their own workers--not their customers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's why they hired these guys... they knew that someone else would take the blame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm shocked, absolutely shocked that these day laborers aren't legal immigrants."
Click to expand...

That's right.  Entry into the Union is a federal Obligation since 1808.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The black and white left. Either we support unlimited legal immigration or no immigration at all. This is just a product of your stupidity.
> 
> If people can prove they can support themselves and we can verify they aren't criminals or bringing diseases, let them come in. Legally. Through the front door. If they climb through the unlocked kitchen window, treat them as the criminals they are
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, someone offered them a job to come up here, so they were "invited".
> 
> And given the fact your Fuhrer has the ICE Stormtroopers going after legal immigrants who've been here for years, like the man who had been here for 30 years who was arrested when he was mowing his lawn, your protestations are a little meaningless.
Click to expand...


So American citizens can invite people to ignore what is an actual Constitutional power of the Federal government?  Did you seriously just argue that, Joe?  You're truly an idiot.  Then again you followed that up by proving you're an idiot again by going back to Nazis.

After you learn to read and speak English, put those skills to good use and pick up a history book


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most conservatives don't hire illegals and the businesses who hire illegals are not just run by conservatives. Most conservatives think they should be fined or jailed. This just isn't accurate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> I've worked at two companies that knew damned well that the "day laborers" the temp company sent over weren't here legally.  And both cases,the bosses were right wing assholes.
Click to expand...


OK, and?  You know two, therefore ...


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most conservatives don't hire illegals and the businesses who hire illegals are not just run by conservatives. Most conservatives think they should be fined or jailed. This just isn't accurate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> I've worked at two companies that knew damned well that the "day laborers" the temp company sent over weren't here legally.  And both cases,the bosses were right wing assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Temp agencies are supposed to check out their own workers--not their customers.
Click to expand...


I wonder how Joe knew they weren't here legally.  Probably they had a Mexican accent and he was using his bigotry


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The black and white left. Either we support unlimited legal immigration or no immigration at all. This is just a product of your stupidity.
> 
> If people can prove they can support themselves and we can verify they aren't criminals or bringing diseases, let them come in. Legally. Through the front door. If they climb through the unlocked kitchen window, treat them as the criminals they are
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, someone offered them a job to come up here, so they were "invited".
> 
> And given the fact your Fuhrer has the ICE Stormtroopers going after legal immigrants who've been here for years, like the man who had been here for 30 years who was arrested when he was mowing his lawn, your protestations are a little meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So American citizens can invite people to ignore what is an actual Constitutional power of the Federal government?  Did you seriously just argue that, Joe?  You're truly an idiot.  Then again you followed that up by proving you're an idiot again by going back to Nazis.
> 
> After you learn to read and speak English, put those skills to good use and pick up a history book
Click to expand...

they aren't immigrants if they don't apply for citizenship or permanent residence.  tourists.


----------



## Manonthestreet

National Manhunt Underway for Three Illegal Aliens Accused of Raping Teens in Ohio


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have as much right  to seek asylum in a 12 million dollar Potomac mansion as these law breakers
> Asylum is to protect you from imminent death or harm due to a tyrannical government. Coming to the USA for better income opportunity is not compatible with “seeking asylum”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asylum is granted to foreigners who's government presents a serious threat to them or their family.  Asylum is shelter from such a tyrannical government.  Once they stepped foot in Mexico, they were safe from their government.  There is no reason to grant them asylum here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Partially correct.
> An asylum seeker must prove that he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution based on one or more of five grounds:*
> 
> *Race.*
> *Religion.*
> *Nationality.*
> *Membership in a particular social group such as LGBTQ*
> *Political opinion*
> *Mexico does not offer asylum, 180 days residence and you have to leave.  Since the main reason these people are asking for asylum is fear of the gangs and cartels which exist in Mexico.*
Click to expand...


So illegal aliens follow Mexican law.  I got you, they would never stay in a country beyond when they are allowed to stay ...

Idiot

And obviously you don't care about these tyrannical shithole countries or the people in them since you don't want to do anything for any of them other than the ones who are helping you by coming here and voting for Democrats.

When you care enough to help them when you don't benefit, then you may start having a point


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> So American citizens can invite people to ignore what is an actual Constitutional power of the Federal government? Did you seriously just argue that, Joe? You're truly an idiot. Then again you followed that up by proving you're an idiot again by going back to Nazis.



Guy, when they bust the guy who hires a bunch of day laborers outside the Home Depot, then I'll take this seriously.   

Reality.. there's always been a need for undocumented labor to grease the wheels... 

And Americans ignore the law all the time.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> OK, and? You know two, therefore ...



Never met a liberal business owner who did this kind of shit.


----------



## danielpalos

Manonthestreet said:


> National Manhunt Underway for Three Illegal Aliens Accused of Raping Teens in Ohio


First degrees should go first!


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, and? You know two, therefore ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never met a liberal business owner who did this kind of shit.
Click to expand...


You've met two.  What you committed is called a hasty generalization fallacy.

I've known a lot of business owners, I've been one several times.  Leftists running their businesses don't practice any of the policies you idiots preach in politics.  That's why leftism is a failure.  It's based on a lie that you won't do yourselves


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most conservatives don't hire illegals and the businesses who hire illegals are not just run by conservatives. Most conservatives think they should be fined or jailed. This just isn't accurate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> I've worked at two companies that knew damned well that the "day laborers" the temp company sent over weren't here legally.  And both cases,the bosses were right wing assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Temp agencies are supposed to check out their own workers--not their customers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder how Joe knew they weren't here legally.  Probably they had a Mexican accent and he was using his bigotry
Click to expand...


Or maybe his supervisor told him since they (somehow) knew they were illegals as well.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, and? You know two, therefore ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never met a liberal business owner who did this kind of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've met two.  What you committed is called a hasty generalization fallacy.
> 
> I've known a lot of business owners, I've been one several times.  Leftists running their businesses don't practice any of the policies you idiots preach in politics.  That's why leftism is a failure.  It's based on a lie that you won't do yourselves
Click to expand...

lol.  dear, the Right Wing has Nothing but fallacy and repeal.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Temp agencies are supposed to check out their own workers--not their customers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's why they hired these guys... they knew that someone else would take the blame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm shocked, absolutely shocked that these day laborers aren't legal immigrants."
Click to expand...


It doesn't work like that Joe.  When industry needs temporary workers, they don't hire labor themselves.  Otherwise they would be on the hook for unemployment benefits when the work was completed.  They call a temp agency who handles all of that.  The Temp agency takes the application, checks them out, hires them, sends them to the job sites, and makes out their paycheck.  The company that hired the agency doesn't do any of that, nor do they care where the workers are from, just as long as they get the work done.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> I've known a lot of business owners, I've been one several times. Leftists running their businesses don't practice any of the policies you idiots preach in politics. That's why leftism is a failure. It's based on a lie that you won't do yourselves



I don't know anyone who can run a business by a strict ideological dogma, do you?


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most conservatives don't hire illegals and the businesses who hire illegals are not just run by conservatives. Most conservatives think they should be fined or jailed. This just isn't accurate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> I've worked at two companies that knew damned well that the "day laborers" the temp company sent over weren't here legally.  And both cases,the bosses were right wing assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Temp agencies are supposed to check out their own workers--not their customers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder how Joe knew they weren't here legally.  Probably they had a Mexican accent and he was using his bigotry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or maybe his supervisor told him since they (somehow) knew they were illegals as well.
Click to expand...


Yep.  I've known a lot of Mexican workers. I've never known them to go around telling people they are here illegally.  Particularly if they are working.  I have no idea which are and are not legal.  Apparently Joe does, he knows them from his Archie Bunker stereotyping


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> Yep. I've known a lot of Mexican workers. I've never known them to go around telling people they are here illegally. Particularly if they are working. I have no idea which are and are not legal. Apparently Joe does, he knows them from his Archie Bunker stereotyping



Well, no, we knew that because they barely spoke English and they'd go back to Mexico after a certain amount of time.  

But I'm sure you make sure that you studiously "don't know'.  That's the point, we all pretend we "don't know' when we get a benefit.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. I've known a lot of Mexican workers. I've never known them to go around telling people they are here illegally. Particularly if they are working. I have no idea which are and are not legal. Apparently Joe does, he knows them from his Archie Bunker stereotyping
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no, we knew that because they barely spoke English and they'd go back to Mexico after a certain amount of time.
> 
> But I'm sure you make sure that you studiously "don't know'.  That's the point, we all pretend we "don't know' when we get a benefit.
Click to expand...


Mexicans do that all the time legal or illegal.  They put 20 people in a three bedroom home and able to live off of shit money.  The leftover money gets sent back over the border, and they use it once their Visa or work permit expires and they return home.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most conservatives don't hire illegals and the businesses who hire illegals are not just run by conservatives. Most conservatives think they should be fined or jailed. This just isn't accurate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> I've worked at two companies that knew damned well that the "day laborers" the temp company sent over weren't here legally.  And both cases,the bosses were right wing assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Temp agencies are supposed to check out their own workers--not their customers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder how Joe knew they weren't here legally.  Probably they had a Mexican accent and he was using his bigotry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or maybe his supervisor told him since they (somehow) knew they were illegals as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  I've known a lot of Mexican workers. I've never known them to go around telling people they are here illegally.  Particularly if they are working.  I have no idea which are and are not legal.  Apparently Joe does, he knows them from his Archie Bunker stereotyping
Click to expand...


It's like people in prison.  Ask any one of them, and none of them ever did the crime they were sent there for.


----------



## Flopper

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live with illegal aliens from  MEXICO. I have no Idea what the numbers are. 27 million. It's  staggering the numbers. And  Mexicans have this pride in la raza and Mexico and their "culture" and they will NOT acclimate. out of pride. Anyone else we would call that arrogance and cultural imperialism. Mexicans  seem to  see themselves as a  gift to mankind. Above question . Why  act like  Mexicans above the law? Nobody, not even poor Mexicans with kids,  NOBODY is above ANY law.
> 
> 
> 
> *What do you mean Mexicans won't  assimilate.  They have been assimilating in American culture for hundreds of years.  Undocumented immigrants general do not assimilate, regardless of nationality because they lack documentation and are here illegally. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is actually incorrect.
> 
> Undocumented immigrants do in fact assimilate, learn English, and contribute to society as a whole.
> 
> And that one might be undocumented doesn’t mean he’s in the country ‘illegally’ – due process must be first afforded before a determination is made by an immigration court that an undocumented immigrant is not entitled to asylum and refugee status, and entered the country absent authorization.
> 
> This illustrates the tragedy of Republicans hostile to immigration reform.
> 
> Immigration reform measures will have a provision for due process allowing those undocumented to acknowledge they entered the country absent authorization, pay any appropriate fines, fees, and taxes owed, meet other conditions and requirements, and start the process of becoming LPRAs and eventually citizens.
> 
> Of course, Republicans oppose immigration reform because of their unwarranted fear of immigration and wrongheaded animosity toward immigrants.
Click to expand...

*I should have said being undocumented makes it more difficult to assimilate into the culture.  The lack of proper documentation and fear of exposure makes people trepidatious, particularly around police and government workers.  Activities such as renewing a drivers license, meeting with school personnel about your children, changing jobs,  disputing a traffic ticket, or just about any activity that draws public attention can be a landmine.

My grandson dated a girl in high school whose parents were undocumented. She was born in the US but both parents overstayed visas many years ago. They settled in the US, and raised a family. 

Although the family spoke English, lived in a nice house in the suburbs, they were always reluctant to do anything that would call attention to the family. They wanted their kids to excel but not to standout.  The parents wanted better jobs but were reluctant to change jobs.  I suspect that many families do not do as well as this family assimilating into our culture.      *


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live with illegal aliens from  MEXICO. I have no Idea what the numbers are. 27 million. It's  staggering the numbers. And  Mexicans have this pride in la raza and Mexico and their "culture" and they will NOT acclimate. out of pride. Anyone else we would call that arrogance and cultural imperialism. Mexicans  seem to  see themselves as a  gift to mankind. Above question . Why  act like  Mexicans above the law? Nobody, not even poor Mexicans with kids,  NOBODY is above ANY law.
> 
> 
> 
> *What do you mean Mexicans won't  assimilate.  They have been assimilating in American culture for hundreds of years.  Undocumented immigrants general do not assimilate, regardless of nationality because they lack documentation and are here illegally. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is actually incorrect.
> 
> Undocumented immigrants do in fact assimilate, learn English, and contribute to society as a whole.
> 
> And that one might be undocumented doesn’t mean he’s in the country ‘illegally’ – due process must be first afforded before a determination is made by an immigration court that an undocumented immigrant is not entitled to asylum and refugee status, and entered the country absent authorization.
> 
> This illustrates the tragedy of Republicans hostile to immigration reform.
> 
> Immigration reform measures will have a provision for due process allowing those undocumented to acknowledge they entered the country absent authorization, pay any appropriate fines, fees, and taxes owed, meet other conditions and requirements, and start the process of becoming LPRAs and eventually citizens.
> 
> Of course, Republicans oppose immigration reform because of their unwarranted fear of immigration and wrongheaded animosity toward immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I should have said being undocumented makes it more difficult to assimilate into the culture.  The lack of proper documentation and fear of exposure makes people trepidatious, particularly around police and government workers.  Activities such as renewing a drivers license, meeting with school personnel about your children, changing jobs,  disputing a traffic ticket, or just about any activity that draws public attention can be a landmine.
> 
> My grandson dated a girl in high school whose parents were undocumented. She was born in the US but both parents overstayed visas many years ago. They settled in the US, and raised a family.
> 
> Although the family spoke English, lived in a nice house in the suburbs, they were always reluctant to do anything that would call attention to the family. They wanted their kids to excel but not to standout.  The parents wanted better jobs but were reluctant to change jobs.  I suspect that many families do not do as well as this family assimilating into our culture.      *
Click to expand...


And I have the perfect solution to that: kick their asses out of the country.  

You just said it well: these illegals lived in the suburbs, had jobs, had drivers licenses, sent their kids to our schools, let their Visa's expire without a second thought.  And no, I don't call them undocumented, I call them illegals because that's what they are.  Calling illegals undocumented is like calling the guy that broke into your house an uninvited guest.  

I don't know where these people are from, but don't you think they talked to their family back home and told them about how nobody will bother you if you are here illegally?  This is what has to stop.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrants do in fact assimilate, learn English, and contribute to society as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they do.  That's why our police on the souther border have to know Spanish.  That's why we are becoming a bilingual country against our will.  That's why they ask me what language I want my ballot in when I go to vote; because these people are assimilating so well.
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration reform measures will have a provision for due process allowing those undocumented to acknowledge they entered the country absent authorization, pay any appropriate fines, fees, and taxes owed, meet other conditions and requirements, and start the process of becoming LPRAs and eventually citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, in other words, amnesty, just like the Democrats want.  The more minorities in the country, the more likely Democrat votes.  Plus many of the "legal" immigrants end up on our already strained social programs.
Click to expand...

*Learning the language is a key component of assimilating into a culture. 

Since you seem to have no interest in understanding the viewpoint of anyone from a foreign country, learning a foreign language would be waste of your time.  

No one is forcing you to be bilingual.  80% of this country speaks only English.  Furthermore, most people in this country whose native language is not English speak English as a second language.  However, just as Americans abroad, they prefer their native tongue.*


----------



## WEATHER53

Since Mexico won’t play ball let’s just shepherd them by the truckload right up to the Canadian border, turn about Is fair play, and the wide open spaces of Canada can be their new home in need of “poor and tired and deadbeat”


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live with illegal aliens from  MEXICO. I have no Idea what the numbers are. 27 million. It's  staggering the numbers. And  Mexicans have this pride in la raza and Mexico and their "culture" and they will NOT acclimate. out of pride. Anyone else we would call that arrogance and cultural imperialism. Mexicans  seem to  see themselves as a  gift to mankind. Above question . Why  act like  Mexicans above the law? Nobody, not even poor Mexicans with kids,  NOBODY is above ANY law.
> 
> 
> 
> *What do you mean Mexicans won't  assimilate.  They have been assimilating in American culture for hundreds of years.  Undocumented immigrants general do not assimilate, regardless of nationality because they lack documentation and are here illegally. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is actually incorrect.
> 
> Undocumented immigrants do in fact assimilate, learn English, and contribute to society as a whole.
> 
> And that one might be undocumented doesn’t mean he’s in the country ‘illegally’ – due process must be first afforded before a determination is made by an immigration court that an undocumented immigrant is not entitled to asylum and refugee status, and entered the country absent authorization.
> 
> This illustrates the tragedy of Republicans hostile to immigration reform.
> 
> Immigration reform measures will have a provision for due process allowing those undocumented to acknowledge they entered the country absent authorization, pay any appropriate fines, fees, and taxes owed, meet other conditions and requirements, and start the process of becoming LPRAs and eventually citizens.
> 
> Of course, Republicans oppose immigration reform because of their unwarranted fear of immigration and wrongheaded animosity toward immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I should have said being undocumented makes it more difficult to assimilate into the culture.  The lack of proper documentation and fear of exposure makes people trepidatious, particularly around police and government workers.  Activities such as renewing a drivers license, meeting with school personnel about your children, changing jobs,  disputing a traffic ticket, or just about any activity that draws public attention can be a landmine.
> 
> My grandson dated a girl in high school whose parents were undocumented. She was born in the US but both parents overstayed visas many years ago. They settled in the US, and raised a family.
> 
> Although the family spoke English, lived in a nice house in the suburbs, they were always reluctant to do anything that would call attention to the family. They wanted their kids to excel but not to standout.  The parents wanted better jobs but were reluctant to change jobs.  I suspect that many families do not do as well as this family assimilating into our culture.      *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I have the perfect solution to that: kick their asses out of the country.
> 
> You just said it well: these illegals lived in the suburbs, had jobs, had drivers licenses, sent their kids to our schools, let their Visa's expire without a second thought.  And no, I don't call them undocumented, I call them illegals because that's what they are.  Calling illegals undocumented is like calling the guy that broke into your house an uninvited guest.
> 
> I don't know where these people are from, but don't you think they talked to their family back home and told them about how nobody will bother you if you are here illegally?  This is what has to stop.
Click to expand...

*No, a person is an illegal immigrant only when the court says so.  That is how our judicial system works.  There is always a presumption of innocence regardless of the evidence. It is the foundation of American Jurisprudence

Also, half of those that are undocumented entered the country legally and are not in violation of any criminal statue.    *


----------



## WEATHER53

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live with illegal aliens from  MEXICO. I have no Idea what the numbers are. 27 million. It's  staggering the numbers. And  Mexicans have this pride in la raza and Mexico and their "culture" and they will NOT acclimate. out of pride. Anyone else we would call that arrogance and cultural imperialism. Mexicans  seem to  see themselves as a  gift to mankind. Above question . Why  act like  Mexicans above the law? Nobody, not even poor Mexicans with kids,  NOBODY is above ANY law.
> 
> 
> 
> *What do you mean Mexicans won't  assimilate.  They have been assimilating in American culture for hundreds of years.  Undocumented immigrants general do not assimilate, regardless of nationality because they lack documentation and are here illegally. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is actually incorrect.
> 
> Undocumented immigrants do in fact assimilate, learn English, and contribute to society as a whole.
> 
> And that one might be undocumented doesn’t mean he’s in the country ‘illegally’ – due process must be first afforded before a determination is made by an immigration court that an undocumented immigrant is not entitled to asylum and refugee status, and entered the country absent authorization.
> 
> This illustrates the tragedy of Republicans hostile to immigration reform.
> 
> Immigration reform measures will have a provision for due process allowing those undocumented to acknowledge they entered the country absent authorization, pay any appropriate fines, fees, and taxes owed, meet other conditions and requirements, and start the process of becoming LPRAs and eventually citizens.
> 
> Of course, Republicans oppose immigration reform because of their unwarranted fear of immigration and wrongheaded animosity toward immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I should have said being undocumented makes it more difficult to assimilate into the culture.  The lack of proper documentation and fear of exposure makes people trepidatious, particularly around police and government workers.  Activities such as renewing a drivers license, meeting with school personnel about your children, changing jobs,  disputing a traffic ticket, or just about any activity that draws public attention can be a landmine.
> 
> My grandson dated a girl in high school whose parents were undocumented. She was born in the US but both parents overstayed visas many years ago. They settled in the US, and raised a family.
> 
> Although the family spoke English, lived in a nice house in the suburbs, they were always reluctant to do anything that would call attention to the family. They wanted their kids to excel but not to standout.  The parents wanted better jobs but were reluctant to change jobs.  I suspect that many families do not do as well as this family assimilating into our culture.      *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I have the perfect solution to that: kick their asses out of the country.
> 
> You just said it well: these illegals lived in the suburbs, had jobs, had drivers licenses, sent their kids to our schools, let their Visa's expire without a second thought.  And no, I don't call them undocumented, I call them illegals because that's what they are.  Calling illegals undocumented is like calling the guy that broke into your house an uninvited guest.
> 
> I don't know where these people are from, but don't you think they talked to their family back home and told them about how nobody will bother you if you are here illegally?  This is what has to stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, a person is an illegal immigrant only when the court says so.  That is how our judicial system works.  There is always a presumption of innocence regardless of the evidence. It is the foundation of American Jurisprudence
> 
> Also, half of those that are undocumented entered the country legally and are not in violation of any criminal statue.    *
Click to expand...

Incorrect
Forms of visual observation as well as conduct are sufficient for arrest. You are criminal by your own act, no court Must declare you so
A guy pointing a gun does not go to court first and become arrested second


----------



## Flopper

WEATHER53 said:


> Since Mexico won’t play ball let’s just shepherd them by the truckload right up to the Canadian border, turn about Is fair play, and the wide open spaces of Canada can be their new home in need of “poor and tired and deadbeat”


*Why should the Mexican government "playball" with the US on immigration? It is certainly not their responsibility to defend the US border. The US president has displayed nothing but hostility, threats and insults toward the goverment and the people of Mexico.

Exactly how do you expect the Mexican government to defend the US border?*


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've known a lot of business owners, I've been one several times. Leftists running their businesses don't practice any of the policies you idiots preach in politics. That's why leftism is a failure. It's based on a lie that you won't do yourselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know anyone who can run a business by a strict ideological dogma, do you?
Click to expand...


Leftists don't practice your ideology at all in your daily lives.  That's why your policies have such a horrible track record.  You assume people are willing to not act in their own interest, and you're not even willing to do that even though you advocate it.

That's why libertarian policies are the only ones that do work.  We know that people will act in their own interest, so our policies are designed to leverage that for everyone's benefit


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Mexico won’t play ball let’s just shepherd them by the truckload right up to the Canadian border, turn about Is fair play, and the wide open spaces of Canada can be their new home in need of “poor and tired and deadbeat”
> 
> 
> 
> *Why should the Mexican government "playball" with the US on immigration? It is certainly not their responsibility to defend the US border. The US president has displayed nothing but hostility, threats and insults toward the goverment and the people of Mexico.
> 
> Exactly how do you expect the Mexican government to defend the US border?*
Click to expand...


Now see, I was about to agree with your post, and you as typical have to go into your racist, race whoring crap.  "*The US president has displayed nothing but hostility, threats and insults toward the goverment and the people of Mexico.*"

No, he's not.  We're against ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION you piece of shit garbage jackass


----------



## pismoe

Flopper said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Mexico won’t play ball let’s just shepherd them by the truckload right up to the Canadian border, turn about Is fair play, and the wide open spaces of Canada can be their new home in need of “poor and tired and deadbeat”
> 
> 
> 
> *Why should the Mexican government "playball" with the US on immigration? It is certainly not their responsibility to defend the US border. The US president has displayed nothing but hostility, threats and insults toward the goverment and the people of Mexico.
> 
> Exactly how do you expect the Mexican government to defend the US border?*
Click to expand...

---------------------------   personally , i want NO help from 'mexico' or other third world zhithole countries .   'zhithole' countries help and then they expect respect and handshakes and then something in return .  Its far past time for the USA to stand on its own 2 feet and handle its own problems with the current and future invasions of third worlders . -------------  GO Trump !!


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. I've known a lot of Mexican workers. I've never known them to go around telling people they are here illegally. Particularly if they are working. I have no idea which are and are not legal. Apparently Joe does, he knows them from his Archie Bunker stereotyping
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no, we knew that because they barely spoke English and they'd go back to Mexico after a certain amount of time.
> 
> But I'm sure you make sure that you studiously "don't know'.  That's the point, we all pretend we "don't know' when we get a benefit.
Click to expand...


I had a Mexican family clean my business every weekend.  The parents barely spoke English.  Their two daughters who spoke perfect English helped them.  They also called me every January asking for their 1099 so they could do their taxes.

You on the other hand assume that any Mexican is an illegal alien because you're a big-ot.  At least you admitted that


----------



## Flopper

WEATHER53 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What do you mean Mexicans won't  assimilate.  They have been assimilating in American culture for hundreds of years.  Undocumented immigrants general do not assimilate, regardless of nationality because they lack documentation and are here illegally. *
> 
> 
> 
> This is actually incorrect.
> 
> Undocumented immigrants do in fact assimilate, learn English, and contribute to society as a whole.
> 
> And that one might be undocumented doesn’t mean he’s in the country ‘illegally’ – due process must be first afforded before a determination is made by an immigration court that an undocumented immigrant is not entitled to asylum and refugee status, and entered the country absent authorization.
> 
> This illustrates the tragedy of Republicans hostile to immigration reform.
> 
> Immigration reform measures will have a provision for due process allowing those undocumented to acknowledge they entered the country absent authorization, pay any appropriate fines, fees, and taxes owed, meet other conditions and requirements, and start the process of becoming LPRAs and eventually citizens.
> 
> Of course, Republicans oppose immigration reform because of their unwarranted fear of immigration and wrongheaded animosity toward immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I should have said being undocumented makes it more difficult to assimilate into the culture.  The lack of proper documentation and fear of exposure makes people trepidatious, particularly around police and government workers.  Activities such as renewing a drivers license, meeting with school personnel about your children, changing jobs,  disputing a traffic ticket, or just about any activity that draws public attention can be a landmine.
> 
> My grandson dated a girl in high school whose parents were undocumented. She was born in the US but both parents overstayed visas many years ago. They settled in the US, and raised a family.
> 
> Although the family spoke English, lived in a nice house in the suburbs, they were always reluctant to do anything that would call attention to the family. They wanted their kids to excel but not to standout.  The parents wanted better jobs but were reluctant to change jobs.  I suspect that many families do not do as well as this family assimilating into our culture.      *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I have the perfect solution to that: kick their asses out of the country.
> 
> You just said it well: these illegals lived in the suburbs, had jobs, had drivers licenses, sent their kids to our schools, let their Visa's expire without a second thought.  And no, I don't call them undocumented, I call them illegals because that's what they are.  Calling illegals undocumented is like calling the guy that broke into your house an uninvited guest.
> 
> I don't know where these people are from, but don't you think they talked to their family back home and told them about how nobody will bother you if you are here illegally?  This is what has to stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, a person is an illegal immigrant only when the court says so.  That is how our judicial system works.  There is always a presumption of innocence regardless of the evidence. It is the foundation of American Jurisprudence
> 
> Also, half of those that are undocumented entered the country legally and are not in violation of any criminal statue.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect
> Forms of visual observation as well as conduct are sufficient for arrest. You are criminal by your own act, no court Must declare you so
> A guy pointing a gun does not go to court first and become arrested second
Click to expand...

*Being arrested does not make you guilty of anything. Without a fair trial, victims can have no confidence that justice will be done. Without fair trials, trust in government and the rule of law collapses.  It doesn't matter whether the accused is a kid sneaking across the border or someone accused of a mass murder, the principals are the same and violating those principals will lead to the same results.*


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is actually incorrect.
> 
> Undocumented immigrants do in fact assimilate, learn English, and contribute to society as a whole.
> 
> And that one might be undocumented doesn’t mean he’s in the country ‘illegally’ – due process must be first afforded before a determination is made by an immigration court that an undocumented immigrant is not entitled to asylum and refugee status, and entered the country absent authorization.
> 
> This illustrates the tragedy of Republicans hostile to immigration reform.
> 
> Immigration reform measures will have a provision for due process allowing those undocumented to acknowledge they entered the country absent authorization, pay any appropriate fines, fees, and taxes owed, meet other conditions and requirements, and start the process of becoming LPRAs and eventually citizens.
> 
> Of course, Republicans oppose immigration reform because of their unwarranted fear of immigration and wrongheaded animosity toward immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> *I should have said being undocumented makes it more difficult to assimilate into the culture.  The lack of proper documentation and fear of exposure makes people trepidatious, particularly around police and government workers.  Activities such as renewing a drivers license, meeting with school personnel about your children, changing jobs,  disputing a traffic ticket, or just about any activity that draws public attention can be a landmine.
> 
> My grandson dated a girl in high school whose parents were undocumented. She was born in the US but both parents overstayed visas many years ago. They settled in the US, and raised a family.
> 
> Although the family spoke English, lived in a nice house in the suburbs, they were always reluctant to do anything that would call attention to the family. They wanted their kids to excel but not to standout.  The parents wanted better jobs but were reluctant to change jobs.  I suspect that many families do not do as well as this family assimilating into our culture.      *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I have the perfect solution to that: kick their asses out of the country.
> 
> You just said it well: these illegals lived in the suburbs, had jobs, had drivers licenses, sent their kids to our schools, let their Visa's expire without a second thought.  And no, I don't call them undocumented, I call them illegals because that's what they are.  Calling illegals undocumented is like calling the guy that broke into your house an uninvited guest.
> 
> I don't know where these people are from, but don't you think they talked to their family back home and told them about how nobody will bother you if you are here illegally?  This is what has to stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, a person is an illegal immigrant only when the court says so.  That is how our judicial system works.  There is always a presumption of innocence regardless of the evidence. It is the foundation of American Jurisprudence
> 
> Also, half of those that are undocumented entered the country legally and are not in violation of any criminal statue.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect
> Forms of visual observation as well as conduct are sufficient for arrest. You are criminal by your own act, no court Must declare you so
> A guy pointing a gun does not go to court first and become arrested second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Being arrested does not make you guilty of anything. Without a fair trial, victims can have no confidence that justice will be done. Without fair trials, trust in government and the rule of law collapses.  It doesn't matter whether the accused is a kid sneaking across the border or someone accused of a mass murder, the principals are the same and violating those principals will lead to the same results.*
Click to expand...


That's just stupid.  You either are or are not in the country legally and if you are you can prove it.

You can't provide unequivocal documentation that you didn't commit a crime.

I guess that's why you need to rely on race whoring and the endless conflating of illegal aliens with legal immigrants.  You're an idiot


----------



## WEATHER53

Flopper said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Mexico won’t play ball let’s just shepherd them by the truckload right up to the Canadian border, turn about Is fair play, and the wide open spaces of Canada can be their new home in need of “poor and tired and deadbeat”
> 
> 
> 
> *Why should the Mexican government "playball" with the US on immigration? It is certainly not their responsibility to defend the US border. The US president has displayed nothing but hostility, threats and insults toward the goverment and the people of Mexico.
> 
> Exactly how do you expect the Mexican government to defend the US border?*
Click to expand...

By not permitting sanctuary traffic thru their country and into ours


----------



## Flopper

danielpalos said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live with illegal aliens from  MEXICO. I have no Idea what the numbers are. 27 million. It's  staggering the numbers. And  Mexicans have this pride in la raza and Mexico and their "culture" and they will NOT acclimate. out of pride. Anyone else we would call that arrogance and cultural imperialism. Mexicans  seem to  see themselves as a  gift to mankind. Above question . Why  act like  Mexicans above the law? Nobody, not even poor Mexicans with kids,  NOBODY is above ANY law.
> 
> 
> 
> *What do you mean Mexicans won't  assimilate.  They have been assimilating in American culture for hundreds of years.  Undocumented immigrants general do not assimilate, regardless of nationality because they lack documentation and are here illegally. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.  It could be renewable annually and function as a visa as well.  A simple fee or fine could make it happen.
> 
> Applied Capitalism won't do for the right wing.  Socialism on national basis is the Only thing for them.
Click to expand...

*That seems like a good idea.  Let me explain something you may not be aware of.

Immigration and Customs do not track who leaves the country, only who enters.  ICE can tell you who entered the country, when they entered, and when their visa expires.  They do not track where visa holders reside in the US.  So as the head ICE testified before congress, they can not determine with any accuracy who is in the country nor can they tell where they are.  Since most people that enter the country with a visa do not have social security numbers data mining does not produce good results.  

Finding people that overstay their visas is often difficult, costly, and not worth the effort.  When they are discovered, their fate is determined in civil court not criminal courts where over half the cases are resolved in voluntary removals which carry no ban on re-entry.  However, most people that are found can not be removed from the US for multiple reasons covered by law. *


----------



## Flopper

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. I've known a lot of Mexican workers. I've never known them to go around telling people they are here illegally. Particularly if they are working. I have no idea which are and are not legal. Apparently Joe does, he knows them from his Archie Bunker stereotyping
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no, we knew that because they barely spoke English and they'd go back to Mexico after a certain amount of time.
> 
> But I'm sure you make sure that you studiously "don't know'.  That's the point, we all pretend we "don't know' when we get a benefit.
Click to expand...

*Hundreds of thousands of Mexican workers are here legally on temporary work permits. Most barely speak English and they're all going back to Mexico, so I don't think that's a good criteria for determining legality.

I know Mexicans that are in the country both legally and illegally.  There is no way to tell who is legal and who isn't without papers. *


----------



## WEATHER53

Flopper said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is actually incorrect.
> 
> Undocumented immigrants do in fact assimilate, learn English, and contribute to society as a whole.
> 
> And that one might be undocumented doesn’t mean he’s in the country ‘illegally’ – due process must be first afforded before a determination is made by an immigration court that an undocumented immigrant is not entitled to asylum and refugee status, and entered the country absent authorization.
> 
> This illustrates the tragedy of Republicans hostile to immigration reform.
> 
> Immigration reform measures will have a provision for due process allowing those undocumented to acknowledge they entered the country absent authorization, pay any appropriate fines, fees, and taxes owed, meet other conditions and requirements, and start the process of becoming LPRAs and eventually citizens.
> 
> Of course, Republicans oppose immigration reform because of their unwarranted fear of immigration and wrongheaded animosity toward immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> *I should have said being undocumented makes it more difficult to assimilate into the culture.  The lack of proper documentation and fear of exposure makes people trepidatious, particularly around police and government workers.  Activities such as renewing a drivers license, meeting with school personnel about your children, changing jobs,  disputing a traffic ticket, or just about any activity that draws public attention can be a landmine.
> 
> My grandson dated a girl in high school whose parents were undocumented. She was born in the US but both parents overstayed visas many years ago. They settled in the US, and raised a family.
> 
> Although the family spoke English, lived in a nice house in the suburbs, they were always reluctant to do anything that would call attention to the family. They wanted their kids to excel but not to standout.  The parents wanted better jobs but were reluctant to change jobs.  I suspect that many families do not do as well as this family assimilating into our culture.      *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I have the perfect solution to that: kick their asses out of the country.
> 
> You just said it well: these illegals lived in the suburbs, had jobs, had drivers licenses, sent their kids to our schools, let their Visa's expire without a second thought.  And no, I don't call them undocumented, I call them illegals because that's what they are.  Calling illegals undocumented is like calling the guy that broke into your house an uninvited guest.
> 
> I don't know where these people are from, but don't you think they talked to their family back home and told them about how nobody will bother you if you are here illegally?  This is what has to stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, a person is an illegal immigrant only when the court says so.  That is how our judicial system works.  There is always a presumption of innocence regardless of the evidence. It is the foundation of American Jurisprudence
> 
> Also, half of those that are undocumented entered the country legally and are not in violation of any criminal statue.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect
> Forms of visual observation as well as conduct are sufficient for arrest. You are criminal by your own act, no court Must declare you so
> A guy pointing a gun does not go to court first and become arrested second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Being arrested does not make you guilty of anything. Without a fair trial, victims can have no confidence that justice will be done. Without fair trials, trust in government and the rule of law collapses.  It doesn't matter whether the accused is a kid sneaking across the border or someone accused of a mass murder, the principals are the same and violating those principals will lead to the same results.*
Click to expand...


You have illegally gained access to this country without any court having to so “certify”. What you are engaging in is semantics and an element of that is emotionalism.  Those rebutting you are engaging in facts and not pretzel twists.


----------



## Flopper

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I should have said being undocumented makes it more difficult to assimilate into the culture.  The lack of proper documentation and fear of exposure makes people trepidatious, particularly around police and government workers.  Activities such as renewing a drivers license, meeting with school personnel about your children, changing jobs,  disputing a traffic ticket, or just about any activity that draws public attention can be a landmine.
> 
> My grandson dated a girl in high school whose parents were undocumented. She was born in the US but both parents overstayed visas many years ago. They settled in the US, and raised a family.
> 
> Although the family spoke English, lived in a nice house in the suburbs, they were always reluctant to do anything that would call attention to the family. They wanted their kids to excel but not to standout.  The parents wanted better jobs but were reluctant to change jobs.  I suspect that many families do not do as well as this family assimilating into our culture.      *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I have the perfect solution to that: kick their asses out of the country.
> 
> You just said it well: these illegals lived in the suburbs, had jobs, had drivers licenses, sent their kids to our schools, let their Visa's expire without a second thought.  And no, I don't call them undocumented, I call them illegals because that's what they are.  Calling illegals undocumented is like calling the guy that broke into your house an uninvited guest.
> 
> I don't know where these people are from, but don't you think they talked to their family back home and told them about how nobody will bother you if you are here illegally?  This is what has to stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, a person is an illegal immigrant only when the court says so.  That is how our judicial system works.  There is always a presumption of innocence regardless of the evidence. It is the foundation of American Jurisprudence
> 
> Also, half of those that are undocumented entered the country legally and are not in violation of any criminal statue.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect
> Forms of visual observation as well as conduct are sufficient for arrest. You are criminal by your own act, no court Must declare you so
> A guy pointing a gun does not go to court first and become arrested second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Being arrested does not make you guilty of anything. Without a fair trial, victims can have no confidence that justice will be done. Without fair trials, trust in government and the rule of law collapses.  It doesn't matter whether the accused is a kid sneaking across the border or someone accused of a mass murder, the principals are the same and violating those principals will lead to the same results.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just stupid.  You either are or are not in the country legally and if you are you can prove it.
> 
> You can't provide unequivocal documentation that you didn't commit a crime.
> 
> I guess that's why you need to rely on race whoring and the endless conflating of illegal aliens with legal immigrants.  You're an idiot
Click to expand...




kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Mexico won’t play ball let’s just shepherd them by the truckload right up to the Canadian border, turn about Is fair play, and the wide open spaces of Canada can be their new home in need of “poor and tired and deadbeat”
> 
> 
> 
> *Why should the Mexican government "playball" with the US on immigration? It is certainly not their responsibility to defend the US border. The US president has displayed nothing but hostility, threats and insults toward the goverment and the people of Mexico.
> 
> Exactly how do you expect the Mexican government to defend the US border?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now see, I was about to agree with your post, and you as typical have to go into your racist, race whoring crap.  "*The US president has displayed nothing but hostility, threats and insults toward the goverment and the people of Mexico.*"
> 
> No, he's not.  We're against ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION you piece of shit garbage jackass
Click to expand...

*There is nothing racist in what I said.  Trump has been spewing out insults, threats, and hostility toward Mexico since he was a candidate and has continued right through his presidency.  Do I need to quote his vile remarks?*


----------



## WEATHER53

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I have the perfect solution to that: kick their asses out of the country.
> 
> You just said it well: these illegals lived in the suburbs, had jobs, had drivers licenses, sent their kids to our schools, let their Visa's expire without a second thought.  And no, I don't call them undocumented, I call them illegals because that's what they are.  Calling illegals undocumented is like calling the guy that broke into your house an uninvited guest.
> 
> I don't know where these people are from, but don't you think they talked to their family back home and told them about how nobody will bother you if you are here illegally?  This is what has to stop.
> 
> 
> 
> *No, a person is an illegal immigrant only when the court says so.  That is how our judicial system works.  There is always a presumption of innocence regardless of the evidence. It is the foundation of American Jurisprudence
> 
> Also, half of those that are undocumented entered the country legally and are not in violation of any criminal statue.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect
> Forms of visual observation as well as conduct are sufficient for arrest. You are criminal by your own act, no court Must declare you so
> A guy pointing a gun does not go to court first and become arrested second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Being arrested does not make you guilty of anything. Without a fair trial, victims can have no confidence that justice will be done. Without fair trials, trust in government and the rule of law collapses.  It doesn't matter whether the accused is a kid sneaking across the border or someone accused of a mass murder, the principals are the same and violating those principals will lead to the same results.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just stupid.  You either are or are not in the country legally and if you are you can prove it.
> 
> You can't provide unequivocal documentation that you didn't commit a crime.
> 
> I guess that's why you need to rely on race whoring and the endless conflating of illegal aliens with legal immigrants.  You're an idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Mexico won’t play ball let’s just shepherd them by the truckload right up to the Canadian border, turn about Is fair play, and the wide open spaces of Canada can be their new home in need of “poor and tired and deadbeat”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Why should the Mexican government "playball" with the US on immigration? It is certainly not their responsibility to defend the US border. The US president has displayed nothing but hostility, threats and insults toward the goverment and the people of Mexico.
> 
> Exactly how do you expect the Mexican government to defend the US border?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now see, I was about to agree with your post, and you as typical have to go into your racist, race whoring crap.  "*The US president has displayed nothing but hostility, threats and insults toward the goverment and the people of Mexico.*"
> 
> No, he's not.  We're against ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION you piece of shit garbage jackass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There is nothing racist in what I said.  Trump has been spewing out insults, threats, and hostility toward Mexico since he was a candidate and has continued right through his presidency.  Do I need to quote his vile remarks?*
Click to expand...

Fake
He has persistently referenced illegal acts and never those of a legal nature


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live with illegal aliens from  MEXICO. I have no Idea what the numbers are. 27 million. It's  staggering the numbers. And  Mexicans have this pride in la raza and Mexico and their "culture" and they will NOT acclimate. out of pride. Anyone else we would call that arrogance and cultural imperialism. Mexicans  seem to  see themselves as a  gift to mankind. Above question . Why  act like  Mexicans above the law? Nobody, not even poor Mexicans with kids,  NOBODY is above ANY law.
> 
> 
> 
> *What do you mean Mexicans won't  assimilate.  They have been assimilating in American culture for hundreds of years.  Undocumented immigrants general do not assimilate, regardless of nationality because they lack documentation and are here illegally. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is actually incorrect.
> 
> Undocumented immigrants do in fact assimilate, learn English, and contribute to society as a whole.
> 
> And that one might be undocumented doesn’t mean he’s in the country ‘illegally’ – due process must be first afforded before a determination is made by an immigration court that an undocumented immigrant is not entitled to asylum and refugee status, and entered the country absent authorization.
> 
> This illustrates the tragedy of Republicans hostile to immigration reform.
> 
> Immigration reform measures will have a provision for due process allowing those undocumented to acknowledge they entered the country absent authorization, pay any appropriate fines, fees, and taxes owed, meet other conditions and requirements, and start the process of becoming LPRAs and eventually citizens.
> 
> Of course, Republicans oppose immigration reform because of their unwarranted fear of immigration and wrongheaded animosity toward immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I should have said being undocumented makes it more difficult to assimilate into the culture.  The lack of proper documentation and fear of exposure makes people trepidatious, particularly around police and government workers.  Activities such as renewing a drivers license, meeting with school personnel about your children, changing jobs,  disputing a traffic ticket, or just about any activity that draws public attention can be a landmine.
> 
> My grandson dated a girl in high school whose parents were undocumented. She was born in the US but both parents overstayed visas many years ago. They settled in the US, and raised a family.
> 
> Although the family spoke English, lived in a nice house in the suburbs, they were always reluctant to do anything that would call attention to the family. They wanted their kids to excel but not to standout.  The parents wanted better jobs but were reluctant to change jobs.  I suspect that many families do not do as well as this family assimilating into our culture.      *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I have the perfect solution to that: kick their asses out of the country.
> 
> You just said it well: these illegals lived in the suburbs, had jobs, had drivers licenses, sent their kids to our schools, let their Visa's expire without a second thought.  And no, I don't call them undocumented, I call them illegals because that's what they are.  Calling illegals undocumented is like calling the guy that broke into your house an uninvited guest.
> 
> I don't know where these people are from, but don't you think they talked to their family back home and told them about how nobody will bother you if you are here illegally?  This is what has to stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, a person is an illegal immigrant only when the court says so.  That is how our judicial system works.  There is always a presumption of innocence regardless of the evidence. It is the foundation of American Jurisprudence
> 
> Also, half of those that are undocumented entered the country legally and are not in violation of any criminal statue.    *
Click to expand...


You can Clintonize all you like, but if you're not here legally, you are here illegally regardless how or when you got here.


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I have the perfect solution to that: kick their asses out of the country.
> 
> You just said it well: these illegals lived in the suburbs, had jobs, had drivers licenses, sent their kids to our schools, let their Visa's expire without a second thought.  And no, I don't call them undocumented, I call them illegals because that's what they are.  Calling illegals undocumented is like calling the guy that broke into your house an uninvited guest.
> 
> I don't know where these people are from, but don't you think they talked to their family back home and told them about how nobody will bother you if you are here illegally?  This is what has to stop.
> 
> 
> 
> *No, a person is an illegal immigrant only when the court says so.  That is how our judicial system works.  There is always a presumption of innocence regardless of the evidence. It is the foundation of American Jurisprudence
> 
> Also, half of those that are undocumented entered the country legally and are not in violation of any criminal statue.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect
> Forms of visual observation as well as conduct are sufficient for arrest. You are criminal by your own act, no court Must declare you so
> A guy pointing a gun does not go to court first and become arrested second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Being arrested does not make you guilty of anything. Without a fair trial, victims can have no confidence that justice will be done. Without fair trials, trust in government and the rule of law collapses.  It doesn't matter whether the accused is a kid sneaking across the border or someone accused of a mass murder, the principals are the same and violating those principals will lead to the same results.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just stupid.  You either are or are not in the country legally and if you are you can prove it.
> 
> You can't provide unequivocal documentation that you didn't commit a crime.
> 
> I guess that's why you need to rely on race whoring and the endless conflating of illegal aliens with legal immigrants.  You're an idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Mexico won’t play ball let’s just shepherd them by the truckload right up to the Canadian border, turn about Is fair play, and the wide open spaces of Canada can be their new home in need of “poor and tired and deadbeat”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Why should the Mexican government "playball" with the US on immigration? It is certainly not their responsibility to defend the US border. The US president has displayed nothing but hostility, threats and insults toward the goverment and the people of Mexico.
> 
> Exactly how do you expect the Mexican government to defend the US border?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now see, I was about to agree with your post, and you as typical have to go into your racist, race whoring crap.  "*The US president has displayed nothing but hostility, threats and insults toward the goverment and the people of Mexico.*"
> 
> No, he's not.  We're against ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION you piece of shit garbage jackass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There is nothing racist in what I said.  Trump has been spewing out insults, threats, and hostility toward Mexico since he was a candidate and has continued right through his presidency.  Do I need to quote his vile remarks?*
Click to expand...


Yes.   And race baiting IS racism in itself.  You're exploiting brown people for your own personal benefit.  That's just flat out racist


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What do you mean Mexicans won't  assimilate.  They have been assimilating in American culture for hundreds of years.  Undocumented immigrants general do not assimilate, regardless of nationality because they lack documentation and are here illegally. *
> 
> 
> 
> This is actually incorrect.
> 
> Undocumented immigrants do in fact assimilate, learn English, and contribute to society as a whole.
> 
> And that one might be undocumented doesn’t mean he’s in the country ‘illegally’ – due process must be first afforded before a determination is made by an immigration court that an undocumented immigrant is not entitled to asylum and refugee status, and entered the country absent authorization.
> 
> This illustrates the tragedy of Republicans hostile to immigration reform.
> 
> Immigration reform measures will have a provision for due process allowing those undocumented to acknowledge they entered the country absent authorization, pay any appropriate fines, fees, and taxes owed, meet other conditions and requirements, and start the process of becoming LPRAs and eventually citizens.
> 
> Of course, Republicans oppose immigration reform because of their unwarranted fear of immigration and wrongheaded animosity toward immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I should have said being undocumented makes it more difficult to assimilate into the culture.  The lack of proper documentation and fear of exposure makes people trepidatious, particularly around police and government workers.  Activities such as renewing a drivers license, meeting with school personnel about your children, changing jobs,  disputing a traffic ticket, or just about any activity that draws public attention can be a landmine.
> 
> My grandson dated a girl in high school whose parents were undocumented. She was born in the US but both parents overstayed visas many years ago. They settled in the US, and raised a family.
> 
> Although the family spoke English, lived in a nice house in the suburbs, they were always reluctant to do anything that would call attention to the family. They wanted their kids to excel but not to standout.  The parents wanted better jobs but were reluctant to change jobs.  I suspect that many families do not do as well as this family assimilating into our culture.      *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I have the perfect solution to that: kick their asses out of the country.
> 
> You just said it well: these illegals lived in the suburbs, had jobs, had drivers licenses, sent their kids to our schools, let their Visa's expire without a second thought.  And no, I don't call them undocumented, I call them illegals because that's what they are.  Calling illegals undocumented is like calling the guy that broke into your house an uninvited guest.
> 
> I don't know where these people are from, but don't you think they talked to their family back home and told them about how nobody will bother you if you are here illegally?  This is what has to stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, a person is an illegal immigrant only when the court says so.  That is how our judicial system works.  There is always a presumption of innocence regardless of the evidence. It is the foundation of American Jurisprudence
> 
> Also, half of those that are undocumented entered the country legally and are not in violation of any criminal statue.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can Clintonize all you like, but if you're not here legally, you are here illegally regardless how or when you got here.
Click to expand...


Just more of Flopper's racist crap.  If you haven't been convicted of Bank Robbery, that doesn't mean you aren't a bank robber.  He's just following the racist plan of exploiting Mexicans for Democrat votes.  He hasn't been convicted of being a racist, yet here is is one!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrants do in fact assimilate, learn English, and contribute to society as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they do.  That's why our police on the souther border have to know Spanish.  That's why we are becoming a bilingual country against our will.  That's why they ask me what language I want my ballot in when I go to vote; because these people are assimilating so well.
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration reform measures will have a provision for due process allowing those undocumented to acknowledge they entered the country absent authorization, pay any appropriate fines, fees, and taxes owed, meet other conditions and requirements, and start the process of becoming LPRAs and eventually citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, in other words, amnesty, just like the Democrats want.  The more minorities in the country, the more likely Democrat votes.  Plus many of the "legal" immigrants end up on our already strained social programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Learning the language is a key component of assimilating into a culture.
> 
> Since you seem to have no interest in understanding the viewpoint of anyone from a foreign country, learning a foreign language would be waste of your time.
> 
> No one is forcing you to be bilingual.  80% of this country speaks only English.  Furthermore, most people in this country whose native language is not English speak English as a second language.  However, just as Americans abroad, they prefer their native tongue.*
Click to expand...


I understand that, but how many other countries vote using ballots in different languages? 

They may not be forcing me to personally be bilingual..........yet, but our industry and government they are.  Bilingual signs drive me crazy.  It's a reminder to me of those who surrendered our country to foreigners and continue today.  It's something we never would have tolerated 30 years ago.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is actually incorrect.
> 
> Undocumented immigrants do in fact assimilate, learn English, and contribute to society as a whole.
> 
> And that one might be undocumented doesn’t mean he’s in the country ‘illegally’ – due process must be first afforded before a determination is made by an immigration court that an undocumented immigrant is not entitled to asylum and refugee status, and entered the country absent authorization.
> 
> This illustrates the tragedy of Republicans hostile to immigration reform.
> 
> Immigration reform measures will have a provision for due process allowing those undocumented to acknowledge they entered the country absent authorization, pay any appropriate fines, fees, and taxes owed, meet other conditions and requirements, and start the process of becoming LPRAs and eventually citizens.
> 
> Of course, Republicans oppose immigration reform because of their unwarranted fear of immigration and wrongheaded animosity toward immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> *I should have said being undocumented makes it more difficult to assimilate into the culture.  The lack of proper documentation and fear of exposure makes people trepidatious, particularly around police and government workers.  Activities such as renewing a drivers license, meeting with school personnel about your children, changing jobs,  disputing a traffic ticket, or just about any activity that draws public attention can be a landmine.
> 
> My grandson dated a girl in high school whose parents were undocumented. She was born in the US but both parents overstayed visas many years ago. They settled in the US, and raised a family.
> 
> Although the family spoke English, lived in a nice house in the suburbs, they were always reluctant to do anything that would call attention to the family. They wanted their kids to excel but not to standout.  The parents wanted better jobs but were reluctant to change jobs.  I suspect that many families do not do as well as this family assimilating into our culture.      *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I have the perfect solution to that: kick their asses out of the country.
> 
> You just said it well: these illegals lived in the suburbs, had jobs, had drivers licenses, sent their kids to our schools, let their Visa's expire without a second thought.  And no, I don't call them undocumented, I call them illegals because that's what they are.  Calling illegals undocumented is like calling the guy that broke into your house an uninvited guest.
> 
> I don't know where these people are from, but don't you think they talked to their family back home and told them about how nobody will bother you if you are here illegally?  This is what has to stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, a person is an illegal immigrant only when the court says so.  That is how our judicial system works.  There is always a presumption of innocence regardless of the evidence. It is the foundation of American Jurisprudence
> 
> Also, half of those that are undocumented entered the country legally and are not in violation of any criminal statue.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can Clintonize all you like, but if you're not here legally, you are here illegally regardless how or when you got here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just more of Flopper's racist crap.  If you haven't been convicted of Bank Robbery, that doesn't mean you aren't a bank robber.  He's just following the racist plan of exploiting Mexicans for Democrat votes.  He hasn't been convicted of being a racist, yet here is is one!
Click to expand...


In that case, OJ never killed one person in his life.


----------



## Flopper

WEATHER53 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I should have said being undocumented makes it more difficult to assimilate into the culture.  The lack of proper documentation and fear of exposure makes people trepidatious, particularly around police and government workers.  Activities such as renewing a drivers license, meeting with school personnel about your children, changing jobs,  disputing a traffic ticket, or just about any activity that draws public attention can be a landmine.
> 
> My grandson dated a girl in high school whose parents were undocumented. She was born in the US but both parents overstayed visas many years ago. They settled in the US, and raised a family.
> 
> Although the family spoke English, lived in a nice house in the suburbs, they were always reluctant to do anything that would call attention to the family. They wanted their kids to excel but not to standout.  The parents wanted better jobs but were reluctant to change jobs.  I suspect that many families do not do as well as this family assimilating into our culture.      *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I have the perfect solution to that: kick their asses out of the country.
> 
> You just said it well: these illegals lived in the suburbs, had jobs, had drivers licenses, sent their kids to our schools, let their Visa's expire without a second thought.  And no, I don't call them undocumented, I call them illegals because that's what they are.  Calling illegals undocumented is like calling the guy that broke into your house an uninvited guest.
> 
> I don't know where these people are from, but don't you think they talked to their family back home and told them about how nobody will bother you if you are here illegally?  This is what has to stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, a person is an illegal immigrant only when the court says so.  That is how our judicial system works.  There is always a presumption of innocence regardless of the evidence. It is the foundation of American Jurisprudence
> 
> Also, half of those that are undocumented entered the country legally and are not in violation of any criminal statue.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect
> Forms of visual observation as well as conduct are sufficient for arrest. You are criminal by your own act, no court Must declare you so
> A guy pointing a gun does not go to court first and become arrested second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Being arrested does not make you guilty of anything. Without a fair trial, victims can have no confidence that justice will be done. Without fair trials, trust in government and the rule of law collapses.  It doesn't matter whether the accused is a kid sneaking across the border or someone accused of a mass murder, the principals are the same and violating those principals will lead to the same results.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have illegally gained access to this country without any court having to so “certify”. What you are engaging in is semantics and an element of that is emotionalism.  Those rebutting you are engaging in facts and not pretzel twists.
Click to expand...

*Determination of guilt or innocents by the courts is not semantics.  It's the foundation of our legal system. 

Determination of guilt or innocents is not always as cut and dry as you seem to think.  Arresting officers are just looking for evidence, not proof.  That's up the court. 

For example:
A fourteen year old kid was picked up near the Mexican boarder.  He claimed he was hiking with friends and got separated.  He was not carrying sufficient identification so he was put in a van with 10 other people picked up by the border patrol.  Since the boy was picked up near the border, he qualified for expedited deportation which meant no court appearance.  He was held for 24 hours and transferred to Mexican authorizes in Tijuana.  They did not believe he was a Mexican citizen but agreed to keep him and check out his story.  They contacted his guardian in the US and after a week, ICE admitted they fucked up.  He was a US citizen born in LA.

Thousands of foreign students are walking around with expired visa.  Trump would love to grab these kids and toss them because they are in the country illegally.  But are they?  The law specifies that they can remain in the US until they have completed their studies, but what exactly does that mean?

Violation of immigration laws are not always as simple as a Mexican family caught walking across the border.  And that is why we need the courts to make the decision on guilt or innocence.*


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Mexicans do that all the time legal or illegal. They put 20 people in a three bedroom home and able to live off of shit money. The leftover money gets sent back over the border, and they use it once their Visa or work permit expires and they return home.



Oooookay... if you really need to believe that about "those people", have at it.  

We all know you got the best trailer in the trailer park.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexicans do that all the time legal or illegal. They put 20 people in a three bedroom home and able to live off of shit money. The leftover money gets sent back over the border, and they use it once their Visa or work permit expires and they return home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oooookay... if you really need to believe that about "those people", have at it.
> 
> We all know you got the best trailer in the trailer park.
Click to expand...


And we all know that's all you have are insults and not a cogent argument.  I would post links for you, but you never want to learn anything so you won't read them.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrants do in fact assimilate, learn English, and contribute to society as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they do.  That's why our police on the souther border have to know Spanish.  That's why we are becoming a bilingual country against our will.  That's why they ask me what language I want my ballot in when I go to vote; because these people are assimilating so well.
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration reform measures will have a provision for due process allowing those undocumented to acknowledge they entered the country absent authorization, pay any appropriate fines, fees, and taxes owed, meet other conditions and requirements, and start the process of becoming LPRAs and eventually citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, in other words, amnesty, just like the Democrats want.  The more minorities in the country, the more likely Democrat votes.  Plus many of the "legal" immigrants end up on our already strained social programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Learning the language is a key component of assimilating into a culture.
> 
> Since you seem to have no interest in understanding the viewpoint of anyone from a foreign country, learning a foreign language would be waste of your time.
> 
> No one is forcing you to be bilingual.  80% of this country speaks only English.  Furthermore, most people in this country whose native language is not English speak English as a second language.  However, just as Americans abroad, they prefer their native tongue.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that, but how many other countries vote using ballots in different languages?
> 
> They may not be forcing me to personally be bilingual..........yet, but our industry and government they are.  Bilingual signs drive me crazy.  It's a reminder to me of those who surrendered our country to foreigners and continue today.  It's something we never would have tolerated 30 years ago.
Click to expand...

*A better question is what countries don't make ballots available in multiple languages since most countries are multilingual.  For example half the people in Europe are bilingual compared to 20% in the US.  In Europe 38% speak 3 languages or more.  I know the UK makes ballots available in 5 languages and most countries in Europe will provide translations of their ballots in all the major languages.

Most of communities in the US do not provide multilingual ballots.  The Voters Act requires that a community with a certain percent of voters that speak a foreign language must be provide ballots in that language.  There are about 280 communities in 23 states that meet that requirement.

Practically all voters in the US speak English.  However people almost always have better comprehension in their native language.  So to have the best informed voters, we make ballots available in different languages.*


----------



## MaryL

Think about it, if Mexicans just applied for immigration visas legally  and stopped dragging their kids along trying to skirt american immigration laws, wouldn't that be the best of all worlds?Why do we have to accommodate THEM being total  100% bastards when they could have just followed the law to begin with?


----------



## Flopper

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is actually incorrect.
> 
> Undocumented immigrants do in fact assimilate, learn English, and contribute to society as a whole.
> 
> And that one might be undocumented doesn’t mean he’s in the country ‘illegally’ – due process must be first afforded before a determination is made by an immigration court that an undocumented immigrant is not entitled to asylum and refugee status, and entered the country absent authorization.
> 
> This illustrates the tragedy of Republicans hostile to immigration reform.
> 
> Immigration reform measures will have a provision for due process allowing those undocumented to acknowledge they entered the country absent authorization, pay any appropriate fines, fees, and taxes owed, meet other conditions and requirements, and start the process of becoming LPRAs and eventually citizens.
> 
> Of course, Republicans oppose immigration reform because of their unwarranted fear of immigration and wrongheaded animosity toward immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> *I should have said being undocumented makes it more difficult to assimilate into the culture.  The lack of proper documentation and fear of exposure makes people trepidatious, particularly around police and government workers.  Activities such as renewing a drivers license, meeting with school personnel about your children, changing jobs,  disputing a traffic ticket, or just about any activity that draws public attention can be a landmine.
> 
> My grandson dated a girl in high school whose parents were undocumented. She was born in the US but both parents overstayed visas many years ago. They settled in the US, and raised a family.
> 
> Although the family spoke English, lived in a nice house in the suburbs, they were always reluctant to do anything that would call attention to the family. They wanted their kids to excel but not to standout.  The parents wanted better jobs but were reluctant to change jobs.  I suspect that many families do not do as well as this family assimilating into our culture.      *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I have the perfect solution to that: kick their asses out of the country.
> 
> You just said it well: these illegals lived in the suburbs, had jobs, had drivers licenses, sent their kids to our schools, let their Visa's expire without a second thought.  And no, I don't call them undocumented, I call them illegals because that's what they are.  Calling illegals undocumented is like calling the guy that broke into your house an uninvited guest.
> 
> I don't know where these people are from, but don't you think they talked to their family back home and told them about how nobody will bother you if you are here illegally?  This is what has to stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, a person is an illegal immigrant only when the court says so.  That is how our judicial system works.  There is always a presumption of innocence regardless of the evidence. It is the foundation of American Jurisprudence
> 
> Also, half of those that are undocumented entered the country legally and are not in violation of any criminal statue.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can Clintonize all you like, but if you're not here legally, you are here illegally regardless how or when you got here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just more of Flopper's racist crap.  If you haven't been convicted of Bank Robbery, that doesn't mean you aren't a bank robber.  He's just following the racist plan of exploiting Mexicans for Democrat votes.  He hasn't been convicted of being a racist, yet here is is one!
Click to expand...

*If you haven't been convicted of Bank Robbery, that doesn't mean you are a bank robber either.  Can't you get it through your head, we have courts to determine guilt or innocence.  That is not the responsibility of law enforcement. 

I don't take race baits.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrants do in fact assimilate, learn English, and contribute to society as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they do.  That's why our police on the souther border have to know Spanish.  That's why we are becoming a bilingual country against our will.  That's why they ask me what language I want my ballot in when I go to vote; because these people are assimilating so well.
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration reform measures will have a provision for due process allowing those undocumented to acknowledge they entered the country absent authorization, pay any appropriate fines, fees, and taxes owed, meet other conditions and requirements, and start the process of becoming LPRAs and eventually citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, in other words, amnesty, just like the Democrats want.  The more minorities in the country, the more likely Democrat votes.  Plus many of the "legal" immigrants end up on our already strained social programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Learning the language is a key component of assimilating into a culture.
> 
> Since you seem to have no interest in understanding the viewpoint of anyone from a foreign country, learning a foreign language would be waste of your time.
> 
> No one is forcing you to be bilingual.  80% of this country speaks only English.  Furthermore, most people in this country whose native language is not English speak English as a second language.  However, just as Americans abroad, they prefer their native tongue.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that, but how many other countries vote using ballots in different languages?
> 
> They may not be forcing me to personally be bilingual..........yet, but our industry and government they are.  Bilingual signs drive me crazy.  It's a reminder to me of those who surrendered our country to foreigners and continue today.  It's something we never would have tolerated 30 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A better question is what countries don't make ballots available in multiple languages since most countries are multilingual.  For example half the people in Europe are bilingual compared to 20% in the US.  In Europe 38% speak 3 languages or more.  I know the UK makes ballots available in 5 languages and most countries in Europe will provide translations of their ballots in all the major languages.
> 
> Most of communities in the US do not provide multilingual ballots.  The Voters Act requires that a community with a certain percent of voters that speak a foreign language must be provide ballots in that language.  There are about 280 communities in 23 states that meet that requirement.
> 
> Practically all voters in the US speak English.  However people almost always have better comprehension in their native language.  So to have the best informed voters, we make ballots available in different languages.*
Click to expand...


Or we could not allow them to vote (or be here) if they don't speak our language.  Again, an assimilation problem.  

I live in a mostly black and partially white community, yet they had three different ballots to choose from.  So I doubt it has anything to do with percentages, and everything to do with foreigners making demands of our country that we bend over and accommodate.  And how much is that costing the taxpayers to have those ballots designed and printed out?  Probably most of them get thrown away anyhow.


----------



## Flopper

MaryL said:


> Think about it, if Mexicans just applied for immigration visas legally  and stopped dragging their kids along trying to skirt american immigration laws, wouldn't that be the best of all worlds?Why do we have to accommodate THEM being total  100% bastards when they could have just followed the law to begin with?


*Last year about 170,000 Mexicans were granted permanent residency.  However about half were already in the country on temporary visa.  There are about 1.6 million applicants outstanding. So the wait time is between 10 and 15 years. I'm sure most Mexicans would be happy to apply but the fact is their family will probably be grown before they get into the States legally. 

For those that don't have a family member or an employer in the US to sponsor them, the wait is somewhere between the end of time and until hell freezes over.

*


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented immigrants do in fact assimilate, learn English, and contribute to society as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they do.  That's why our police on the souther border have to know Spanish.  That's why we are becoming a bilingual country against our will.  That's why they ask me what language I want my ballot in when I go to vote; because these people are assimilating so well.
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration reform measures will have a provision for due process allowing those undocumented to acknowledge they entered the country absent authorization, pay any appropriate fines, fees, and taxes owed, meet other conditions and requirements, and start the process of becoming LPRAs and eventually citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, in other words, amnesty, just like the Democrats want.  The more minorities in the country, the more likely Democrat votes.  Plus many of the "legal" immigrants end up on our already strained social programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Learning the language is a key component of assimilating into a culture.
> 
> Since you seem to have no interest in understanding the viewpoint of anyone from a foreign country, learning a foreign language would be waste of your time.
> 
> No one is forcing you to be bilingual.  80% of this country speaks only English.  Furthermore, most people in this country whose native language is not English speak English as a second language.  However, just as Americans abroad, they prefer their native tongue.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that, but how many other countries vote using ballots in different languages?
> 
> They may not be forcing me to personally be bilingual..........yet, but our industry and government they are.  Bilingual signs drive me crazy.  It's a reminder to me of those who surrendered our country to foreigners and continue today.  It's something we never would have tolerated 30 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A better question is what countries don't make ballots available in multiple languages since most countries are multilingual.  For example half the people in Europe are bilingual compared to 20% in the US.  In Europe 38% speak 3 languages or more.  I know the UK makes ballots available in 5 languages and most countries in Europe will provide translations of their ballots in all the major languages.
> 
> Most of communities in the US do not provide multilingual ballots.  The Voters Act requires that a community with a certain percent of voters that speak a foreign language must be provide ballots in that language.  There are about 280 communities in 23 states that meet that requirement.
> 
> Practically all voters in the US speak English.  However people almost always have better comprehension in their native language.  So to have the best informed voters, we make ballots available in different languages.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or we could not allow them to vote (or be here) if they don't speak our language.  Again, an assimilation problem.
> 
> I live in a mostly black and partially white community, yet they had three different ballots to choose from.  So I doubt it has anything to do with percentages, and everything to do with foreigners making demands of our country that we bend over and accommodate.  And how much is that costing the taxpayers to have those ballots designed and printed out?  Probably most of them get thrown away anyhow.
Click to expand...

*To vote they have to be a citizen and that requires them to pass an English proficiency test.

A number of states go beyond the Voter Act requirements for the reason I mention.  Having informed voters is a goal of every state.

I doubt the cost is very high for providing a translated ballot.  If they don't provide translated ballots, voters with English as a second language tend to vote for candidates and skip the proposals because they are more difficult to read and understand.*


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I should have said being undocumented makes it more difficult to assimilate into the culture.  The lack of proper documentation and fear of exposure makes people trepidatious, particularly around police and government workers.  Activities such as renewing a drivers license, meeting with school personnel about your children, changing jobs,  disputing a traffic ticket, or just about any activity that draws public attention can be a landmine.
> 
> My grandson dated a girl in high school whose parents were undocumented. She was born in the US but both parents overstayed visas many years ago. They settled in the US, and raised a family.
> 
> Although the family spoke English, lived in a nice house in the suburbs, they were always reluctant to do anything that would call attention to the family. They wanted their kids to excel but not to standout.  The parents wanted better jobs but were reluctant to change jobs.  I suspect that many families do not do as well as this family assimilating into our culture.      *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I have the perfect solution to that: kick their asses out of the country.
> 
> You just said it well: these illegals lived in the suburbs, had jobs, had drivers licenses, sent their kids to our schools, let their Visa's expire without a second thought.  And no, I don't call them undocumented, I call them illegals because that's what they are.  Calling illegals undocumented is like calling the guy that broke into your house an uninvited guest.
> 
> I don't know where these people are from, but don't you think they talked to their family back home and told them about how nobody will bother you if you are here illegally?  This is what has to stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, a person is an illegal immigrant only when the court says so.  That is how our judicial system works.  There is always a presumption of innocence regardless of the evidence. It is the foundation of American Jurisprudence
> 
> Also, half of those that are undocumented entered the country legally and are not in violation of any criminal statue.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can Clintonize all you like, but if you're not here legally, you are here illegally regardless how or when you got here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just more of Flopper's racist crap.  If you haven't been convicted of Bank Robbery, that doesn't mean you aren't a bank robber.  He's just following the racist plan of exploiting Mexicans for Democrat votes.  He hasn't been convicted of being a racist, yet here is is one!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you haven't been convicted of Bank Robbery, that doesn't mean you are a bank robber either.  Can't you get it through your head, we have courts to determine guilt or innocence.  That is not the responsibility of law enforcement.
> 
> I don't take race baits.*
Click to expand...


Your last sentence doesn't make sense.  You are a race baiter.  You constantly conflate illegal aliens with legal immigrants and focus on brown people to imply anyone who disagrees with you is a racist.  You're a race baiter, which is itself racist since you're exploiting them for your own personal greed.

You don't want Mexicans, you want poor Mexicans to vote Democrat.  I want people who can support themselves from wherever they are from and I don't want people who can't from wherever they are from


----------



## Flopper

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I have the perfect solution to that: kick their asses out of the country.
> 
> You just said it well: these illegals lived in the suburbs, had jobs, had drivers licenses, sent their kids to our schools, let their Visa's expire without a second thought.  And no, I don't call them undocumented, I call them illegals because that's what they are.  Calling illegals undocumented is like calling the guy that broke into your house an uninvited guest.
> 
> I don't know where these people are from, but don't you think they talked to their family back home and told them about how nobody will bother you if you are here illegally?  This is what has to stop.
> 
> 
> 
> *No, a person is an illegal immigrant only when the court says so.  That is how our judicial system works.  There is always a presumption of innocence regardless of the evidence. It is the foundation of American Jurisprudence
> 
> Also, half of those that are undocumented entered the country legally and are not in violation of any criminal statue.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can Clintonize all you like, but if you're not here legally, you are here illegally regardless how or when you got here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just more of Flopper's racist crap.  If you haven't been convicted of Bank Robbery, that doesn't mean you aren't a bank robber.  He's just following the racist plan of exploiting Mexicans for Democrat votes.  He hasn't been convicted of being a racist, yet here is is one!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you haven't been convicted of Bank Robbery, that doesn't mean you are a bank robber either.  Can't you get it through your head, we have courts to determine guilt or innocence.  That is not the responsibility of law enforcement.
> 
> I don't take race baits.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your last sentence doesn't make sense.  You are a race baiter.  You constantly conflate illegal aliens with legal immigrants and focus on brown people to imply anyone who disagrees with you is a racist.  You're a race baiter, which is itself racist since you're exploiting them for your own personal greed.
> 
> You don't want Mexicans, you want poor Mexicans to vote Democrat.  I want people who can support themselves from wherever they are from and I don't want people who can't from wherever they are from
Click to expand...

*If you think I'm race baiting please don't reply.*


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No, a person is an illegal immigrant only when the court says so.  That is how our judicial system works.  There is always a presumption of innocence regardless of the evidence. It is the foundation of American Jurisprudence
> 
> Also, half of those that are undocumented entered the country legally and are not in violation of any criminal statue.    *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can Clintonize all you like, but if you're not here legally, you are here illegally regardless how or when you got here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just more of Flopper's racist crap.  If you haven't been convicted of Bank Robbery, that doesn't mean you aren't a bank robber.  He's just following the racist plan of exploiting Mexicans for Democrat votes.  He hasn't been convicted of being a racist, yet here is is one!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you haven't been convicted of Bank Robbery, that doesn't mean you are a bank robber either.  Can't you get it through your head, we have courts to determine guilt or innocence.  That is not the responsibility of law enforcement.
> 
> I don't take race baits.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your last sentence doesn't make sense.  You are a race baiter.  You constantly conflate illegal aliens with legal immigrants and focus on brown people to imply anyone who disagrees with you is a racist.  You're a race baiter, which is itself racist since you're exploiting them for your own personal greed.
> 
> You don't want Mexicans, you want poor Mexicans to vote Democrat.  I want people who can support themselves from wherever they are from and I don't want people who can't from wherever they are from
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you think I'm race baiting please don't reply.*
Click to expand...


When I want instructions from you, I'll let you know.  And there is zero doubt you are race baiting given your repeated conflating of illegal aliens with legal immigrants.  You know exactly what you are doing, racist


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they do.  That's why our police on the souther border have to know Spanish.  That's why we are becoming a bilingual country against our will.  That's why they ask me what language I want my ballot in when I go to vote; because these people are assimilating so well.
> 
> Yes, in other words, amnesty, just like the Democrats want.  The more minorities in the country, the more likely Democrat votes.  Plus many of the "legal" immigrants end up on our already strained social programs.
> 
> 
> 
> *Learning the language is a key component of assimilating into a culture.
> 
> Since you seem to have no interest in understanding the viewpoint of anyone from a foreign country, learning a foreign language would be waste of your time.
> 
> No one is forcing you to be bilingual.  80% of this country speaks only English.  Furthermore, most people in this country whose native language is not English speak English as a second language.  However, just as Americans abroad, they prefer their native tongue.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that, but how many other countries vote using ballots in different languages?
> 
> They may not be forcing me to personally be bilingual..........yet, but our industry and government they are.  Bilingual signs drive me crazy.  It's a reminder to me of those who surrendered our country to foreigners and continue today.  It's something we never would have tolerated 30 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A better question is what countries don't make ballots available in multiple languages since most countries are multilingual.  For example half the people in Europe are bilingual compared to 20% in the US.  In Europe 38% speak 3 languages or more.  I know the UK makes ballots available in 5 languages and most countries in Europe will provide translations of their ballots in all the major languages.
> 
> Most of communities in the US do not provide multilingual ballots.  The Voters Act requires that a community with a certain percent of voters that speak a foreign language must be provide ballots in that language.  There are about 280 communities in 23 states that meet that requirement.
> 
> Practically all voters in the US speak English.  However people almost always have better comprehension in their native language.  So to have the best informed voters, we make ballots available in different languages.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or we could not allow them to vote (or be here) if they don't speak our language.  Again, an assimilation problem.
> 
> I live in a mostly black and partially white community, yet they had three different ballots to choose from.  So I doubt it has anything to do with percentages, and everything to do with foreigners making demands of our country that we bend over and accommodate.  And how much is that costing the taxpayers to have those ballots designed and printed out?  Probably most of them get thrown away anyhow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *To vote they have to be a citizen and that requires them to pass an English proficiency test.
> 
> A number of states go beyond the Voter Act requirements for the reason I mention.  Having informed voters is a goal of every state.
> 
> I doubt the cost is very high for providing a translated ballot.  If they don't provide translated ballots, voters with English as a second language tend to vote for candidates and skip the proposals because they are more difficult to read and understand.*
Click to expand...


Well maybe if it's that difficult, they shouldn't be voting.  What kind of proficiency test is it where  they can pass and still not able to read a ballot?  

I know you're kind of sticking up for them, but this is one of many reasons I'm a closed border guy; at least until the people here can understand and speak the language.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> And we all know that's all you have are insults and not a cogent argument. I would post links for you, but you never want to learn anything so you won't read them.



Naw, nothing to learn from your links to Stormfront, buddy.  

The reality is, Mexican immigrants are just like every other immigrant group. They come here, they work hard and they take the jobs Americans don't want to do.  

Just like the Poles did 50 years ago
The Germans and Italians did 100 years ago
The Irish did 150 years ago.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> Your last sentence doesn't make sense. You are a race baiter. You constantly conflate illegal aliens with legal immigrants and focus on brown people to imply anyone who disagrees with you is a racist. You're a race baiter, which is itself racist since you're exploiting them for your own personal greed.



Again, your Trumpenfuhrer is arresting legal immigrants on flimsy pretexts. 

It's not just people in the U.S. illegally — ICE is nabbing lawful permanent residents too

He has slowed the process for resident immigrants to become citizens down to a crawl.

A 'shocking increase' in citizenship application backlog, new report finds

Your Fuhrer is against all immigrants, not just the undocumented ones.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your last sentence doesn't make sense. You are a race baiter. You constantly conflate illegal aliens with legal immigrants and focus on brown people to imply anyone who disagrees with you is a racist. You're a race baiter, which is itself racist since you're exploiting them for your own personal greed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your Trumpenfuhrer is arresting legal immigrants on flimsy pretexts.
> 
> It's not just people in the U.S. illegally — ICE is nabbing lawful permanent residents too
Click to expand...


That article is about cracking down on people with criminal records, Hitler.  Did you read it?



JoeB131 said:


> He has slowed the process for resident immigrants to become citizens down to a crawl.
> 
> A 'shocking increase' in citizenship application backlog, new report finds
> 
> Your Fuhrer is against all immigrants, not just the undocumented ones.



Again, Hitler, did you actually read the article?  It doesn't say that we're processing fewer applications, just that the backlog is up to 20 months.  You of course misrepresent it and present it as if the administration isn't processing applications because you're a liar.

Also, your goose step is a little loose, you need to practice tightening it.  Maybe you need to put in a couple more hours a day.  Remember to put in a good Heil Hitler as you do it


----------



## danielpalos

WEATHER53 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I should have said being undocumented makes it more difficult to assimilate into the culture.  The lack of proper documentation and fear of exposure makes people trepidatious, particularly around police and government workers.  Activities such as renewing a drivers license, meeting with school personnel about your children, changing jobs,  disputing a traffic ticket, or just about any activity that draws public attention can be a landmine.
> 
> My grandson dated a girl in high school whose parents were undocumented. She was born in the US but both parents overstayed visas many years ago. They settled in the US, and raised a family.
> 
> Although the family spoke English, lived in a nice house in the suburbs, they were always reluctant to do anything that would call attention to the family. They wanted their kids to excel but not to standout.  The parents wanted better jobs but were reluctant to change jobs.  I suspect that many families do not do as well as this family assimilating into our culture.      *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I have the perfect solution to that: kick their asses out of the country.
> 
> You just said it well: these illegals lived in the suburbs, had jobs, had drivers licenses, sent their kids to our schools, let their Visa's expire without a second thought.  And no, I don't call them undocumented, I call them illegals because that's what they are.  Calling illegals undocumented is like calling the guy that broke into your house an uninvited guest.
> 
> I don't know where these people are from, but don't you think they talked to their family back home and told them about how nobody will bother you if you are here illegally?  This is what has to stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, a person is an illegal immigrant only when the court says so.  That is how our judicial system works.  There is always a presumption of innocence regardless of the evidence. It is the foundation of American Jurisprudence
> 
> Also, half of those that are undocumented entered the country legally and are not in violation of any criminal statue.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect
> Forms of visual observation as well as conduct are sufficient for arrest. You are criminal by your own act, no court Must declare you so
> A guy pointing a gun does not go to court first and become arrested second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Being arrested does not make you guilty of anything. Without a fair trial, victims can have no confidence that justice will be done. Without fair trials, trust in government and the rule of law collapses.  It doesn't matter whether the accused is a kid sneaking across the border or someone accused of a mass murder, the principals are the same and violating those principals will lead to the same results.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have illegally gained access to this country without any court having to so “certify”. What you are engaging in is semantics and an element of that is emotionalism.  Those rebutting you are engaging in facts and not pretzel twists.
Click to expand...

10USC246 is more Important than Any federal Immigration laws.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Learning the language is a key component of assimilating into a culture.
> 
> Since you seem to have no interest in understanding the viewpoint of anyone from a foreign country, learning a foreign language would be waste of your time.
> 
> No one is forcing you to be bilingual.  80% of this country speaks only English.  Furthermore, most people in this country whose native language is not English speak English as a second language.  However, just as Americans abroad, they prefer their native tongue.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that, but how many other countries vote using ballots in different languages?
> 
> They may not be forcing me to personally be bilingual..........yet, but our industry and government they are.  Bilingual signs drive me crazy.  It's a reminder to me of those who surrendered our country to foreigners and continue today.  It's something we never would have tolerated 30 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A better question is what countries don't make ballots available in multiple languages since most countries are multilingual.  For example half the people in Europe are bilingual compared to 20% in the US.  In Europe 38% speak 3 languages or more.  I know the UK makes ballots available in 5 languages and most countries in Europe will provide translations of their ballots in all the major languages.
> 
> Most of communities in the US do not provide multilingual ballots.  The Voters Act requires that a community with a certain percent of voters that speak a foreign language must be provide ballots in that language.  There are about 280 communities in 23 states that meet that requirement.
> 
> Practically all voters in the US speak English.  However people almost always have better comprehension in their native language.  So to have the best informed voters, we make ballots available in different languages.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or we could not allow them to vote (or be here) if they don't speak our language.  Again, an assimilation problem.
> 
> I live in a mostly black and partially white community, yet they had three different ballots to choose from.  So I doubt it has anything to do with percentages, and everything to do with foreigners making demands of our country that we bend over and accommodate.  And how much is that costing the taxpayers to have those ballots designed and printed out?  Probably most of them get thrown away anyhow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *To vote they have to be a citizen and that requires them to pass an English proficiency test.
> 
> A number of states go beyond the Voter Act requirements for the reason I mention.  Having informed voters is a goal of every state.
> 
> I doubt the cost is very high for providing a translated ballot.  If they don't provide translated ballots, voters with English as a second language tend to vote for candidates and skip the proposals because they are more difficult to read and understand.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well maybe if it's that difficult, they shouldn't be voting.  What kind of proficiency test is it where  they can pass and still not able to read a ballot?
> 
> I know you're kind of sticking up for them, but this is one of many reasons I'm a closed border guy; at least until the people here can understand and speak the language.
Click to expand...

*Of course they can read English. We provide ballots and supporting information in the native language because the voter's comprehension is better in one's native language.  

Not sure what your ballot looks like but mine always contains propositions which are discussed in detail with accompanying information.

To provide ballots in English only would accomplish nothing other than having less informed voters voting on important ballot issues such tax proposals, infrastructure and schools.     *


----------



## Cecilie1200

Missouri_Mike said:


> After 424 pages have we arrived at the logical conclusion that the human cost of illegal immigration falls on the criminals not us as US citizens?



Not really.  Those of us who have come to that conclusion were there from the beginning, and those who haven't never will.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most conservatives don't hire illegals and the businesses who hire illegals are not just run by conservatives. Most conservatives think they should be fined or jailed. This just isn't accurate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> I've worked at two companies that knew damned well that the "day laborers" the temp company sent over weren't here legally.  And both cases,the bosses were right wing assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Temp agencies are supposed to check out their own workers--not their customers.
Click to expand...


True.  One of the benefits you pay for when using an employment/temp agency is having them do the work of screening prospective employees for you.  And if I'm not mistaken, the contract you sign with them does specify that the agency bears the responsibility for the outcome of that screening.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> Again, Hitler, did you actually read the article? It doesn't say that we're processing fewer applications, just that the backlog is up to 20 months. You of course misrepresent it and present it as if the administration isn't processing applications because you're a liar.



Shouldn't be 20 months when Obama had it down to  5.   



kaz said:


> That article is about cracking down on people with criminal records, Hitler. Did you read it?



Yes, I did. And they are arresting people with minor offenses from years ago, not people who are an actual danger.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most conservatives don't hire illegals and the businesses who hire illegals are not just run by conservatives. Most conservatives think they should be fined or jailed. This just isn't accurate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> I've worked at two companies that knew damned well that the "day laborers" the temp company sent over weren't here legally.  And both cases,the bosses were right wing assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Temp agencies are supposed to check out their own workers--not their customers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  One of the benefits you pay for when using an employment/temp agency is having them do the work of screening prospective employees for you.  And if I'm not mistaken, the contract you sign with them does specify that the agency bears the responsibility for the outcome of that screening.
Click to expand...


Several of our customers use temp agencies.  One of my friends works for a company that does the same thing.  Years ago even I signed up with several temp agencies during the Reagan recession.  Unlike the Obama recession, there wasn't even a McDonald's job around.  Only one called me for work, but after the first job, they got such a positive evaluation from their customer they had me working every day somewhere.  They even asked me to work two shifts.  I stayed with them for about six or eight months.  

So I know how they work.  No matter where they sent me, I had to stop by the Manpower office every Friday to pickup my paycheck.  Even though it wasn't much, they gave me a great reference when I applied for full-time work at other companies.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that, but how many other countries vote using ballots in different languages?
> 
> They may not be forcing me to personally be bilingual..........yet, but our industry and government they are.  Bilingual signs drive me crazy.  It's a reminder to me of those who surrendered our country to foreigners and continue today.  It's something we never would have tolerated 30 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> *A better question is what countries don't make ballots available in multiple languages since most countries are multilingual.  For example half the people in Europe are bilingual compared to 20% in the US.  In Europe 38% speak 3 languages or more.  I know the UK makes ballots available in 5 languages and most countries in Europe will provide translations of their ballots in all the major languages.
> 
> Most of communities in the US do not provide multilingual ballots.  The Voters Act requires that a community with a certain percent of voters that speak a foreign language must be provide ballots in that language.  There are about 280 communities in 23 states that meet that requirement.
> 
> Practically all voters in the US speak English.  However people almost always have better comprehension in their native language.  So to have the best informed voters, we make ballots available in different languages.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or we could not allow them to vote (or be here) if they don't speak our language.  Again, an assimilation problem.
> 
> I live in a mostly black and partially white community, yet they had three different ballots to choose from.  So I doubt it has anything to do with percentages, and everything to do with foreigners making demands of our country that we bend over and accommodate.  And how much is that costing the taxpayers to have those ballots designed and printed out?  Probably most of them get thrown away anyhow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *To vote they have to be a citizen and that requires them to pass an English proficiency test.
> 
> A number of states go beyond the Voter Act requirements for the reason I mention.  Having informed voters is a goal of every state.
> 
> I doubt the cost is very high for providing a translated ballot.  If they don't provide translated ballots, voters with English as a second language tend to vote for candidates and skip the proposals because they are more difficult to read and understand.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well maybe if it's that difficult, they shouldn't be voting.  What kind of proficiency test is it where  they can pass and still not able to read a ballot?
> 
> I know you're kind of sticking up for them, but this is one of many reasons I'm a closed border guy; at least until the people here can understand and speak the language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Of course they can read English. We provide ballots and supporting information in the native language because the voter's comprehension is better in one's native language.
> 
> Not sure what your ballot looks like but mine always contains propositions which are discussed in detail with accompanying information.
> 
> To provide ballots in English only would accomplish nothing other than having less informed voters voting on important ballot issues such tax proposals, infrastructure and schools.     *
Click to expand...


Trust me, I see voting results.  No matter what language used, people don't understand important issues they are voting on.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we all know that's all you have are insults and not a cogent argument. I would post links for you, but you never want to learn anything so you won't read them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, nothing to learn from your links to Stormfront, buddy.
> 
> The reality is, Mexican immigrants are just like every other immigrant group. They come here, they work hard and they take the jobs Americans don't want to do.
> 
> Just like the Poles did 50 years ago
> The Germans and Italians did 100 years ago
> The Irish did 150 years ago.
Click to expand...


Oh, you mean all those groups of people that came here legally and followed by the rules?


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Oh, you mean all those groups of people that came here legally and followed by the rules?



No, those groups that came here and were hated by small minded bigots...


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most conservatives don't hire illegals and the businesses who hire illegals are not just run by conservatives. Most conservatives think they should be fined or jailed. This just isn't accurate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> I've worked at two companies that knew damned well that the "day laborers" the temp company sent over weren't here legally.  And both cases,the bosses were right wing assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Temp agencies are supposed to check out their own workers--not their customers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  One of the benefits you pay for when using an employment/temp agency is having them do the work of screening prospective employees for you.  And if I'm not mistaken, the contract you sign with them does specify that the agency bears the responsibility for the outcome of that screening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several of our customers use temp agencies.  One of my friends works for a company that does the same thing.  Years ago even I signed up with several temp agencies during the Reagan recession.  Unlike the Obama recession, there wasn't even a McDonald's job around.  Only one called me for work, but after the first job, they got such a positive evaluation from their customer they had me working every day somewhere.  They even asked me to work two shifts.  I stayed with them for about six or eight months.
> 
> So I know how they work.  No matter where they sent me, I had to stop by the Manpower office every Friday to pickup my paycheck.  Even though it wasn't much, they gave me a great reference when I applied for full-time work at other companies.
Click to expand...


Thankfully, most of them have direct deposit now. 

I did the temp-to-hire thing when I moved to Phoenix, because I didn't know the employers and the job market well, and it was a good way to get working quickly.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most conservatives don't hire illegals and the businesses who hire illegals are not just run by conservatives. Most conservatives think they should be fined or jailed. This just isn't accurate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> I've worked at two companies that knew damned well that the "day laborers" the temp company sent over weren't here legally.  And both cases,the bosses were right wing assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Temp agencies are supposed to check out their own workers--not their customers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  One of the benefits you pay for when using an employment/temp agency is having them do the work of screening prospective employees for you.  And if I'm not mistaken, the contract you sign with them does specify that the agency bears the responsibility for the outcome of that screening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several of our customers use temp agencies.  One of my friends works for a company that does the same thing.  Years ago even I signed up with several temp agencies during the Reagan recession.  Unlike the Obama recession, there wasn't even a McDonald's job around.  Only one called me for work, but after the first job, they got such a positive evaluation from their customer they had me working every day somewhere.  They even asked me to work two shifts.  I stayed with them for about six or eight months.
> 
> So I know how they work.  No matter where they sent me, I had to stop by the Manpower office every Friday to pickup my paycheck.  Even though it wasn't much, they gave me a great reference when I applied for full-time work at other companies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thankfully, most of them have direct deposit now.
> 
> I did the temp-to-hire thing when I moved to Phoenix, because I didn't know the employers and the job market well, and it was a good way to get working quickly.
Click to expand...


These temp agencies today do more than just offer temp services.  They are screeners for full-time jobs for their customers.  Some of our customers only hire through their temp agency.  Their employees work for our customer for several months.  They get to try employees out first before hiring them.  If they do well, the company has some process they go through with the temp agency to hire the temp worker full-time. For non-skilled labor, some of them pay pretty well. 

If they ask a temp worker to work more hours or come in on Saturday and they refuse because they need to keep their income down to continue receiving full benefits from food stamps, those people are not even considered for a full-time job offer.  They only give those offers to people who have the mindset of getting ahead in life--not just getting by.  It's really a shame what some people do to themselves just to stay on government programs and go nowhere for the rest of their life.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean all those groups of people that came here legally and followed by the rules?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, those groups that came here and were hated by small minded bigots...
Click to expand...


You mean those white people who were bigoted against other white people?


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Hitler, did you actually read the article? It doesn't say that we're processing fewer applications, just that the backlog is up to 20 months. You of course misrepresent it and present it as if the administration isn't processing applications because you're a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't be 20 months when Obama had it down to  5.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That article is about cracking down on people with criminal records, Hitler. Did you read it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I did. And they are arresting people with minor offenses from years ago, not people who are an actual danger.
Click to expand...


The person they mentioned in the article was a wife beater.  Not a threat?  You be the wife


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most conservatives don't hire illegals and the businesses who hire illegals are not just run by conservatives. Most conservatives think they should be fined or jailed. This just isn't accurate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> I've worked at two companies that knew damned well that the "day laborers" the temp company sent over weren't here legally.  And both cases,the bosses were right wing assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Temp agencies are supposed to check out their own workers--not their customers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  One of the benefits you pay for when using an employment/temp agency is having them do the work of screening prospective employees for you.  And if I'm not mistaken, the contract you sign with them does specify that the agency bears the responsibility for the outcome of that screening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several of our customers use temp agencies.  One of my friends works for a company that does the same thing.  Years ago even I signed up with several temp agencies during the Reagan recession.  Unlike the Obama recession, there wasn't even a McDonald's job around.  Only one called me for work, but after the first job, they got such a positive evaluation from their customer they had me working every day somewhere.  They even asked me to work two shifts.  I stayed with them for about six or eight months.
> 
> So I know how they work.  No matter where they sent me, I had to stop by the Manpower office every Friday to pickup my paycheck.  Even though it wasn't much, they gave me a great reference when I applied for full-time work at other companies.
Click to expand...


You're a good man, Ray.  No matter what happens, you keep a good attitude and you keep swinging.  That's what it takes.

And that's what leftists don't have which is why they'd rather get a cell upgrade from government instead of living the life of a free man like you and me


----------



## kaz

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most conservatives don't hire illegals and the businesses who hire illegals are not just run by conservatives. Most conservatives think they should be fined or jailed. This just isn't accurate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> I've worked at two companies that knew damned well that the "day laborers" the temp company sent over weren't here legally.  And both cases,the bosses were right wing assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Temp agencies are supposed to check out their own workers--not their customers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  One of the benefits you pay for when using an employment/temp agency is having them do the work of screening prospective employees for you.  And if I'm not mistaken, the contract you sign with them does specify that the agency bears the responsibility for the outcome of that screening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several of our customers use temp agencies.  One of my friends works for a company that does the same thing.  Years ago even I signed up with several temp agencies during the Reagan recession.  Unlike the Obama recession, there wasn't even a McDonald's job around.  Only one called me for work, but after the first job, they got such a positive evaluation from their customer they had me working every day somewhere.  They even asked me to work two shifts.  I stayed with them for about six or eight months.
> 
> So I know how they work.  No matter where they sent me, I had to stop by the Manpower office every Friday to pickup my paycheck.  Even though it wasn't much, they gave me a great reference when I applied for full-time work at other companies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thankfully, most of them have direct deposit now.
> 
> I did the temp-to-hire thing when I moved to Phoenix, because I didn't know the employers and the job market well, and it was a good way to get working quickly.
Click to expand...


I've been doing contract work since I sold my businesses.  The money is still good and wow, my quality of life is so much better.  I was home at 5pm today.  I wasn't home at 5pm regularly my whole career to this point


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> If they ask a temp worker to work more hours or come in on Saturday and they refuse because they need to keep their income down to continue receiving full benefits from food stamps, those people are not even considered for a full-time job offer. They only give those offers to people who have the mindset of getting ahead in life--not just getting by. It's really a shame what some people do to themselves just to stay on government programs and go nowhere for the rest of their life.



Here's the thing.. they can get health insurance through a government program. 

"Work harder for less benefits? That's brilliant!!!" said no one ever.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> You're a good man, Ray. No matter what happens, you keep a good attitude and you keep swinging. That's what it takes.
> 
> And that's what leftists don't have which is why they'd rather get a cell upgrade from government instead of living the life of a free man like you and me



When you work for a  turdbag who screws you at every opportunity. that's hardly "Freedom". 

Freedom is an equal playing field.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> The person they mentioned in the article was a wife beater. Not a threat? You be the wife



A domestic misdemeanor from 18 years ago?  Really? 

Well, fuck him, he's brown... lock him up.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a good man, Ray. No matter what happens, you keep a good attitude and you keep swinging. That's what it takes.
> 
> And that's what leftists don't have which is why they'd rather get a cell upgrade from government instead of living the life of a free man like you and me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you work for a  turdbag who screws you at every opportunity. that's hardly "Freedom".
> 
> Freedom is an equal playing field.
Click to expand...


In fairness, Hitler, his employee was a turdbag with no loyalty and a bad attitude


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> In fairness, his employee was a turdbag with no loyalty and a bad attitude



Wouldn't know. Rarely saw that. 

Saw a young lady fired because the boss found out she was gay. 

Saw another young lady fired because she got pregnant. 

Saw another woman fired so the boss could hire his drinking buddy.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The person they mentioned in the article was a wife beater. Not a threat? You be the wife
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A domestic misdemeanor from 18 years ago?  Really?
> 
> Well, fuck him, he's brown... lock him up.
Click to expand...


Once a wife beater, always a wife beater, Hitler


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness, his employee was a turdbag with no loyalty and a bad attitude
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't know. Rarely saw that.
> 
> Saw a young lady fired because the boss found out she was gay.
> 
> Saw another young lady fired because she got pregnant.
> 
> Saw another woman fired so the boss could hire his drinking buddy.
Click to expand...


You just make it up as you go Hitler.  Remember you said you could look at Mexicans and just tell which ones were legal and which ones were illegal?  Why would anyone believe a liar, Adolph


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they ask a temp worker to work more hours or come in on Saturday and they refuse because they need to keep their income down to continue receiving full benefits from food stamps, those people are not even considered for a full-time job offer. They only give those offers to people who have the mindset of getting ahead in life--not just getting by. It's really a shame what some people do to themselves just to stay on government programs and go nowhere for the rest of their life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.. they can get health insurance through a government program.
> 
> "Work harder for less benefits? That's brilliant!!!" said no one ever.
Click to expand...


Who said for no benefits?  Sure, they can get government insurance cheap.  That's how the Communists designed the plan.  Get cheap insurance for their voters, and F the Republican voters by setting their prices too high to afford it.  That's what's wrong with putting control freaks in power.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> And that's what leftists don't have which is why they'd rather get a cell upgrade from government instead of living the life of a free man like you and me



The problem is they think they're free because living under government control is all many of them know.  Work 20 hours a week or less, have four or five kids that you can't afford to have, get a HUD house in the suburbs and ruin the neighborhood, eat like a pig so you're too fat to do anything with your life even if you wanted to.  That's freedom to some people.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A better question is what countries don't make ballots available in multiple languages since most countries are multilingual.  For example half the people in Europe are bilingual compared to 20% in the US.  In Europe 38% speak 3 languages or more.  I know the UK makes ballots available in 5 languages and most countries in Europe will provide translations of their ballots in all the major languages.
> 
> Most of communities in the US do not provide multilingual ballots.  The Voters Act requires that a community with a certain percent of voters that speak a foreign language must be provide ballots in that language.  There are about 280 communities in 23 states that meet that requirement.
> 
> Practically all voters in the US speak English.  However people almost always have better comprehension in their native language.  So to have the best informed voters, we make ballots available in different languages.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or we could not allow them to vote (or be here) if they don't speak our language.  Again, an assimilation problem.
> 
> I live in a mostly black and partially white community, yet they had three different ballots to choose from.  So I doubt it has anything to do with percentages, and everything to do with foreigners making demands of our country that we bend over and accommodate.  And how much is that costing the taxpayers to have those ballots designed and printed out?  Probably most of them get thrown away anyhow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *To vote they have to be a citizen and that requires them to pass an English proficiency test.
> 
> A number of states go beyond the Voter Act requirements for the reason I mention.  Having informed voters is a goal of every state.
> 
> I doubt the cost is very high for providing a translated ballot.  If they don't provide translated ballots, voters with English as a second language tend to vote for candidates and skip the proposals because they are more difficult to read and understand.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well maybe if it's that difficult, they shouldn't be voting.  What kind of proficiency test is it where  they can pass and still not able to read a ballot?
> 
> I know you're kind of sticking up for them, but this is one of many reasons I'm a closed border guy; at least until the people here can understand and speak the language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Of course they can read English. We provide ballots and supporting information in the native language because the voter's comprehension is better in one's native language.
> 
> Not sure what your ballot looks like but mine always contains propositions which are discussed in detail with accompanying information.
> 
> To provide ballots in English only would accomplish nothing other than having less informed voters voting on important ballot issues such tax proposals, infrastructure and schools.     *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trust me, I see voting results.  No matter what language used, people don't understand important issues they are voting on.
Click to expand...

*All the state can due is provide the information in the easiest readable form.  If voters ignore it, there's not much can done about it.  I always tell people to ignore any proposal on the ballot that they don't understand.  Unfortunately, most voters vote for people they have never heard of and proposals they don't understand.*


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's what leftists don't have which is why they'd rather get a cell upgrade from government instead of living the life of a free man like you and me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is they think they're free because living under government control is all many of them know.  Work 20 hours a week or less, have four or five kids that you can't afford to have, get a HUD house in the suburbs and ruin the neighborhood, eat like a pig so you're too fat to do anything with your life even if you wanted to.  That's freedom to some people.
Click to expand...


What government gives, government can take away.  And they want a government which is petty and spiteful.  They can lose control of that just like they're losing control of the supreme court


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's what leftists don't have which is why they'd rather get a cell upgrade from government instead of living the life of a free man like you and me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is they think they're free because living under government control is all many of them know.  Work 20 hours a week or less, have four or five kids that you can't afford to have, get a HUD house in the suburbs and ruin the neighborhood, eat like a pig so you're too fat to do anything with your life even if you wanted to.  That's freedom to some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What government gives, government can take away.  And they want a government which is petty and spiteful.  They can lose control of that just like they're losing control of the supreme court
Click to expand...


In 1980 at the age of 20, I got my first apartment in the fall.  As an animal lover, I was fascinated with birds, so one of the first things I did was hang a bird feeder on my upstairs back porch. I would sit in my bedroom watching them from my window for hours.

Spring came along and I got to meet my elderly neighbor.  After some small talk, he said "You know Ray, what you're doing for the birds is a nice gesture.  But you may be doing them more harm than good.  You see, feeding them in the winter is a good thing because food is scarce.  But if you leave that feeder out year long, the birds will forget how to obtain food on their own.  If you move or get bored feeding the birds, they will likely parish."

I never forgot the lesson the old man gave me; not because of the birds, but because as I grew older, I realized this is what our government does for people; leave the feeder up year long.

If we ever had a financial collapse in this country (and yes, it could happen) what would happen to all these people who depend on government when these programs have to stop?  How would they feed themselves, their family?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or we could not allow them to vote (or be here) if they don't speak our language.  Again, an assimilation problem.
> 
> I live in a mostly black and partially white community, yet they had three different ballots to choose from.  So I doubt it has anything to do with percentages, and everything to do with foreigners making demands of our country that we bend over and accommodate.  And how much is that costing the taxpayers to have those ballots designed and printed out?  Probably most of them get thrown away anyhow.
> 
> 
> 
> *To vote they have to be a citizen and that requires them to pass an English proficiency test.
> 
> A number of states go beyond the Voter Act requirements for the reason I mention.  Having informed voters is a goal of every state.
> 
> I doubt the cost is very high for providing a translated ballot.  If they don't provide translated ballots, voters with English as a second language tend to vote for candidates and skip the proposals because they are more difficult to read and understand.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well maybe if it's that difficult, they shouldn't be voting.  What kind of proficiency test is it where  they can pass and still not able to read a ballot?
> 
> I know you're kind of sticking up for them, but this is one of many reasons I'm a closed border guy; at least until the people here can understand and speak the language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Of course they can read English. We provide ballots and supporting information in the native language because the voter's comprehension is better in one's native language.
> 
> Not sure what your ballot looks like but mine always contains propositions which are discussed in detail with accompanying information.
> 
> To provide ballots in English only would accomplish nothing other than having less informed voters voting on important ballot issues such tax proposals, infrastructure and schools.     *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trust me, I see voting results.  No matter what language used, people don't understand important issues they are voting on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *All the state can due is provide the information in the easiest readable form.  If voters ignore it, there's not much can done about it.  I always tell people to ignore any proposal on the ballot that they don't understand.  Unfortunately, most voters vote for people they have never heard of and proposals they don't understand.*
Click to expand...


Then maybe foreigners who do not totally understand our ballots in English should do the same: if they can't understand it, don't vote on it.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's what leftists don't have which is why they'd rather get a cell upgrade from government instead of living the life of a free man like you and me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is they think they're free because living under government control is all many of them know.  Work 20 hours a week or less, have four or five kids that you can't afford to have, get a HUD house in the suburbs and ruin the neighborhood, eat like a pig so you're too fat to do anything with your life even if you wanted to.  That's freedom to some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What government gives, government can take away.  And they want a government which is petty and spiteful.  They can lose control of that just like they're losing control of the supreme court
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 1980 at the age of 20, I got my first apartment in the fall.  As an animal lover, I was fascinated with birds, so one of the first things I did was hang a bird feeder on my upstairs back porch. I would sit in my bedroom watching them from my window for hours.
> 
> Spring came along and I got to meet my elderly neighbor.  After some small talk, he said "You know Ray, what you're doing for the birds is a nice gesture.  But you may be doing them more harm than good.  You see, feeding them in the winter is a good thing because food is scarce.  But if you leave that feeder out year long, the birds will forget how to obtain food on their own.  If you move or get bored feeding the birds, they will likely parish."
> 
> I never forgot the lesson the old man gave me; not because of the birds, but because as I grew older, I realized this is what our government does for people; leave the feeder up year long.
> 
> If we ever had a financial collapse in this country (and yes, it could happen) what would happen to all these people who depend on government when these programs have to stop?  How would they feed themselves, their family?
Click to expand...

The rich always get bailed out and get to keep their multimillion dollar bonuses.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's what leftists don't have which is why they'd rather get a cell upgrade from government instead of living the life of a free man like you and me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is they think they're free because living under government control is all many of them know.  Work 20 hours a week or less, have four or five kids that you can't afford to have, get a HUD house in the suburbs and ruin the neighborhood, eat like a pig so you're too fat to do anything with your life even if you wanted to.  That's freedom to some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What government gives, government can take away.  And they want a government which is petty and spiteful.  They can lose control of that just like they're losing control of the supreme court
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 1980 at the age of 20, I got my first apartment in the fall.  As an animal lover, I was fascinated with birds, so one of the first things I did was hang a bird feeder on my upstairs back porch. I would sit in my bedroom watching them from my window for hours.
> 
> Spring came along and I got to meet my elderly neighbor.  After some small talk, he said "You know Ray, what you're doing for the birds is a nice gesture.  But you may be doing them more harm than good.  You see, feeding them in the winter is a good thing because food is scarce.  But if you leave that feeder out year long, the birds will forget how to obtain food on their own.  If you move or get bored feeding the birds, they will likely parish."
> 
> I never forgot the lesson the old man gave me; not because of the birds, but because as I grew older, I realized this is what our government does for people; leave the feeder up year long.
> 
> If we ever had a financial collapse in this country (and yes, it could happen) what would happen to all these people who depend on government when these programs have to stop?  How would they feed themselves, their family?
Click to expand...

*Who says it's going to stop, feeding the birds or feeding the people but I get your point.  The key is moderation.  You don't want to feed the birds so much that they stop hunting or people for that matter.  

However, let me remind you of the differences between people and birds.  Birds have only 3 goals in life, eat, keep from being eaten, and reproduce.  Humans are far more complex and have goals more complex goals than birds such as building wealth, gaining the respect of others, and providing a better life for their children for starters.*


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *To vote they have to be a citizen and that requires them to pass an English proficiency test.
> 
> A number of states go beyond the Voter Act requirements for the reason I mention.  Having informed voters is a goal of every state.
> 
> I doubt the cost is very high for providing a translated ballot.  If they don't provide translated ballots, voters with English as a second language tend to vote for candidates and skip the proposals because they are more difficult to read and understand.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well maybe if it's that difficult, they shouldn't be voting.  What kind of proficiency test is it where  they can pass and still not able to read a ballot?
> 
> I know you're kind of sticking up for them, but this is one of many reasons I'm a closed border guy; at least until the people here can understand and speak the language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Of course they can read English. We provide ballots and supporting information in the native language because the voter's comprehension is better in one's native language.
> 
> Not sure what your ballot looks like but mine always contains propositions which are discussed in detail with accompanying information.
> 
> To provide ballots in English only would accomplish nothing other than having less informed voters voting on important ballot issues such tax proposals, infrastructure and schools.     *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trust me, I see voting results.  No matter what language used, people don't understand important issues they are voting on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *All the state can due is provide the information in the easiest readable form.  If voters ignore it, there's not much can done about it.  I always tell people to ignore any proposal on the ballot that they don't understand.  Unfortunately, most voters vote for people they have never heard of and proposals they don't understand.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then maybe foreigners who do not totally understand our ballots in English should do the same: if they can't understand it, don't vote on it.
Click to expand...

*However, they are US citizens, not foreigners and voting is their responsibility and right so don't we want them to have the best understanding possible of the issues they are voting on?  Knowledgeable voting is one of the best ways of assimilation in a society.*


----------



## danielpalos

we need to increase our watersheds; that means, picking beavers as winners.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well maybe if it's that difficult, they shouldn't be voting.  What kind of proficiency test is it where  they can pass and still not able to read a ballot?
> 
> I know you're kind of sticking up for them, but this is one of many reasons I'm a closed border guy; at least until the people here can understand and speak the language.
> 
> 
> 
> *Of course they can read English. We provide ballots and supporting information in the native language because the voter's comprehension is better in one's native language.
> 
> Not sure what your ballot looks like but mine always contains propositions which are discussed in detail with accompanying information.
> 
> To provide ballots in English only would accomplish nothing other than having less informed voters voting on important ballot issues such tax proposals, infrastructure and schools.     *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trust me, I see voting results.  No matter what language used, people don't understand important issues they are voting on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *All the state can due is provide the information in the easiest readable form.  If voters ignore it, there's not much can done about it.  I always tell people to ignore any proposal on the ballot that they don't understand.  Unfortunately, most voters vote for people they have never heard of and proposals they don't understand.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then maybe foreigners who do not totally understand our ballots in English should do the same: if they can't understand it, don't vote on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However, they are US citizens, not foreigners and voting is their responsibility and right so don't we want them to have the best understanding possible of the issues they are voting on.
Click to expand...


Well if we're going to go down that road, what do you say about drawing big color pictures on the ballots and Big Bird videos explaining what issues actually mean to Americans who don't understand them?  

If you don't understand WTF is gong on when voting, then don't vote is all.  We can't pander to everybody who doesn't understand issues, taxation or policies.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Birds have only 3 goals in life, eat, keep from being eaten, and reproduce.



And it's not like that in lower income areas of humans?


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we all know that's all you have are insults and not a cogent argument. I would post links for you, but you never want to learn anything so you won't read them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, nothing to learn from your links to Stormfront, buddy.
> 
> The reality is, Mexican immigrants are just like every other immigrant group. They come here, they work hard and they take the jobs Americans don't want to do.
> 
> Just like the Poles did 50 years ago
> The Germans and Italians did 100 years ago
> The Irish did 150 years ago.
Click to expand...

They lower wages so that Americans on the bottom can't afford to pay rent.
They collect welfare, through their anchor babies, costing our government money that should be reserved for Americans.
They take slots in Universities, that should be reserved to Citizens.
They use resources in Medical Centers and then don't pay their bills, sticking it to the Americans citizens to pay it for them.
Nobody gives a fuck about their race.


----------



## danielpalos

tree sparrows help control insects.


----------



## Clementine

The left bitches because people who break the law are temporarily separated from their children.   The children are taken care of and returned to the parents.

Here is yet another case of illegal aliens harming citizens.    4 illegal aliens kidnapped and raped two young girls.   One was caught.   It may be difficult to find the other 3 unless people recognize their photos.   Police aren't sure if they are using their real names.   This is common.

NATIONWIDE MANHUNT Underway For 3 ILLEGAL ALIENS Who KIDNAPPED And RAPED 13 and 14-Yr-Old Sisters At Days Inn [VIDEO] * 100PercentFedUp.com

Many are murdered or harmed each year by illegal aliens.   What human cost is acceptable when we don't secure our borders?  

While the left cries that children are separated from parents who rightfully go to jail, where is their outrage for all the victims of illegal aliens?      Maybe if we had real border security, thousands of people would still be alive.    But, by all mean, liberals can keep shedding fake tears for law breakers to be apart from their children for a time.    They have every opportunity not to be separated.   They can obey the law.   Even after they caught breaking the law, most have the option of returning to the other side of the border rather than be detained.    They are only separated if they have previous crimes or are suspected of human trafficking.    Obama deported over 3 million illegals, separating over 800,000 children from their parents.   The claim was that the focus was on deporting dangerous criminals.   That is a lot of dangerous criminals coming through our border.

And the Trump administration is being asked to take everyone at their word and not separate anyone.    This is so fucked up.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Of course they can read English. We provide ballots and supporting information in the native language because the voter's comprehension is better in one's native language.
> 
> Not sure what your ballot looks like but mine always contains propositions which are discussed in detail with accompanying information.
> 
> To provide ballots in English only would accomplish nothing other than having less informed voters voting on important ballot issues such tax proposals, infrastructure and schools.     *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trust me, I see voting results.  No matter what language used, people don't understand important issues they are voting on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *All the state can due is provide the information in the easiest readable form.  If voters ignore it, there's not much can done about it.  I always tell people to ignore any proposal on the ballot that they don't understand.  Unfortunately, most voters vote for people they have never heard of and proposals they don't understand.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then maybe foreigners who do not totally understand our ballots in English should do the same: if they can't understand it, don't vote on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However, they are US citizens, not foreigners and voting is their responsibility and right so don't we want them to have the best understanding possible of the issues they are voting on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if we're going to go down that road, what do you say about drawing big color pictures on the ballots and Big Bird videos explaining what issues actually mean to Americans who don't understand them?
> 
> If you don't understand WTF is gong on when voting, then don't vote is all.  We can't pander to everybody who doesn't understand issues, taxation or policies.
Click to expand...

*If I were a Republican I would certainly be supporting ballots and ballot information in the native languages of citizens.  If they don't understand the proposals, and both the pros and cons of those proposals, they will not make informed choices and that means most likely they will vote for democrat supported issues because democrats court minorities much more than republicans.  If your argument is sound, then informed voters are more likely to be your allies than adversaries.   *


----------



## WEATHER53

danielpalos said:


> we need to increase our watersheds; that means, picking beavers as winners.


Beavers already are winners 
I feed birds only when snowcover


----------



## danielpalos

Clementine said:


> The left bitches because people who break the law are temporarily separated from their children.   The children are taken care of and returned to the parents.
> 
> Here is yet another case of illegal aliens harming citizens.    4 illegal aliens kidnapped and raped two young girls.   One was caught.   It may be difficult to find the other 3 unless people recognize their photos.   Police aren't sure if they are using their real names.   This is common.
> 
> NATIONWIDE MANHUNT Underway For 3 ILLEGAL ALIENS Who KIDNAPPED And RAPED 13 and 14-Yr-Old Sisters At Days Inn [VIDEO] * 100PercentFedUp.com
> 
> Many are murdered or harmed each year by illegal aliens.   What human cost is acceptable when we don't secure our borders?
> 
> While the left cries that children are separated from parents who rightfully go to jail, where is their outrage for all the victims of illegal aliens?      Maybe if we had real border security, thousands of people would still be alive.    But, by all mean, liberals can keep shedding fake tears for law breakers to be apart from their children for a time.    They have every opportunity not to be separated.   They can obey the law.   Even after they caught breaking the law, most have the option of returning to the other side of the border rather than be detained.    They are only separated if they have previous crimes or are suspected of human trafficking.    Obama deported over 3 million illegals, separating over 800,000 children from their parents.   The claim was that the focus was on deporting dangerous criminals.   That is a lot of dangerous criminals coming through our border.
> 
> And the Trump administration is being asked to take everyone at their word and not separate anyone.    This is so fucked up.


lousy policies.   we create our own illegal problem.  why not actually solve our problem and make money at the same time?  applied capitalism too much incentive for the right wing.


----------



## danielpalos

WEATHER53 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we need to increase our watersheds; that means, picking beavers as winners.
> 
> 
> 
> Beavers already are winners
> I feed birds only when snowcover
Click to expand...

i help out the birds that hang out anyway.  we got into some chickens and pigeons.  i am trying to grow some of our own bird food.


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's what leftists don't have which is why they'd rather get a cell upgrade from government instead of living the life of a free man like you and me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is they think they're free because living under government control is all many of them know.  Work 20 hours a week or less, have four or five kids that you can't afford to have, get a HUD house in the suburbs and ruin the neighborhood, eat like a pig so you're too fat to do anything with your life even if you wanted to.  That's freedom to some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What government gives, government can take away.  And they want a government which is petty and spiteful.  They can lose control of that just like they're losing control of the supreme court
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 1980 at the age of 20, I got my first apartment in the fall.  As an animal lover, I was fascinated with birds, so one of the first things I did was hang a bird feeder on my upstairs back porch. I would sit in my bedroom watching them from my window for hours.
> 
> Spring came along and I got to meet my elderly neighbor.  After some small talk, he said "You know Ray, what you're doing for the birds is a nice gesture.  But you may be doing them more harm than good.  You see, feeding them in the winter is a good thing because food is scarce.  But if you leave that feeder out year long, the birds will forget how to obtain food on their own.  If you move or get bored feeding the birds, they will likely parish."
> 
> I never forgot the lesson the old man gave me; not because of the birds, but because as I grew older, I realized this is what our government does for people; leave the feeder up year long.
> 
> If we ever had a financial collapse in this country (and yes, it could happen) what would happen to all these people who depend on government when these programs have to stop?  How would they feed themselves, their family?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Who says it's going to stop, feeding the birds or feeding the people but I get your point.  The key is moderation.  You don't want to feed the birds so much that they stop hunting or people for that matter.
> 
> However, let me remind you of the differences between people and birds.  Birds have only 3 goals in life, eat, keep from being eaten, and reproduce.  Humans are far more complex and have goals more complex goals than birds such as building wealth, gaining the respect of others, and providing a better life for their children for starters.*
Click to expand...


You endlessly parrot that platitude.  First of all, I know of no study that has demonstrated that's a major factor for the criminals breaking our laws and coming here illegally.

Even if it is, that they chose to break the law and come here as criminals is a terrible example to set for their kids.  If they really cared about their kids, they would work to show they can support themselves and go to a US consulate in Mexico and find out what it takes to come here legally and ... wait their turn ...

Having children is not any justification to commit a crime even if your platitude is accepted as fact.

And remind me again how you're against illegal immigration while you fight tooth and nail to ensure we do nothing to stop them


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trust me, I see voting results.  No matter what language used, people don't understand important issues they are voting on.
> 
> 
> 
> *All the state can due is provide the information in the easiest readable form.  If voters ignore it, there's not much can done about it.  I always tell people to ignore any proposal on the ballot that they don't understand.  Unfortunately, most voters vote for people they have never heard of and proposals they don't understand.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then maybe foreigners who do not totally understand our ballots in English should do the same: if they can't understand it, don't vote on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However, they are US citizens, not foreigners and voting is their responsibility and right so don't we want them to have the best understanding possible of the issues they are voting on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if we're going to go down that road, what do you say about drawing big color pictures on the ballots and Big Bird videos explaining what issues actually mean to Americans who don't understand them?
> 
> If you don't understand WTF is gong on when voting, then don't vote is all.  We can't pander to everybody who doesn't understand issues, taxation or policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If I were a Republican I would certainly be supporting ballots and ballot information in the native languages of citizens.  If they don't understand the proposals, and both the pros and cons of those proposals, they will not make informed choices and that means most likely they will vote for democrat supported issues because democrats court minorities much more than republicans.  If your argument is sound, then informed voters are more likely to be your allies than adversaries.   *
Click to expand...


Flopper, WTF do you think this is all about anyway?  It's all about Democrats ushering more votes from third world countries.  Do you think for one minute that if Republicans stood a chance with these people, or that they were renown to vote Republican, the Democrats would not be getting rid of their sanctuary cities, support building the highest tech wall money can buy?  Of course they would.. 

It's statistics.  These people ARE going to vote Democrat no matter what, and because Democrats can't win elections fair and square, they need to find ways to cheat the system so they can win.  If not for obtaining power, the Democrats would be more anti-immigrant than the Republicans.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Who said for no benefits? Sure, they can get government insurance cheap. That's how the Communists designed the plan. Get cheap insurance for their voters, and F the Republican voters by setting their prices too high to afford it. That's what's wrong with putting control freaks in power.



Again, I had no problem getting affordable insurance, so you are blowing smoke... 

The real problem is, you keep taking it up the butt from the One Percent and asking if you can have another.  ANd it makes you so angry that someone is making the system work for them.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The problem is they think they're free because living under government control is all many of them know. Work 20 hours a week or less, have four or five kids that you can't afford to have, get a HUD house in the suburbs and ruin the neighborhood, eat like a pig so you're too fat to do anything with your life even if you wanted to. That's freedom to some people.



As opposed to the Racist from Cleveland, who lives in the same slum, spends half his day on USMB complaining about poor people while his boss cheats him out of insurance.. 

And never looks for a better job.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Spring came along and I got to meet my elderly neighbor. After some small talk, he said "You know Ray, what you're doing for the birds is a nice gesture. But you may be doing them more harm than good. You see, feeding them in the winter is a good thing because food is scarce. But if you leave that feeder out year long, the birds will forget how to obtain food on their own. If you move or get bored feeding the birds, they will likely parish."
> 
> I never forgot the lesson the old man gave me; not because of the birds, but because as I grew older, I realized this is what our government does for people; leave the feeder up year long.



That's the dumbest thing I've heard yet.  Birds don't have that kind of memory, and their food gathering abilities are largely instinct, not learned. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> If we ever had a financial collapse in this country (and yes, it could happen) what would happen to all these people who depend on government when these programs have to stop? How would they feed themselves, their family?



If we had a financial collapse, we'd probably finally redistribute the 87% of the wealth held by the top 20% to make sure the 40% on the bottom that have less than 1% get their fair share.  It's why the rich never let big recessions go too far. The absolute last thing they want is another FDR giving working people another "New Deal".  It took them 70 years to undo the last "New Deal".  

The problem isn't a lack of wealth, it's the distribution of it.


----------



## Cosmos

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​



If being in the custody of the US Government under HHS is worse than being in the custody of human sex traffickers, we got a problem.  Did you support Obamacare?  I believe that was also administered by HHS.


----------



## JoeB131

Slyhunter said:


> They lower wages so that Americans on the bottom can't afford to pay rent.
> They collect welfare, through their anchor babies, costing our government money that should be reserved for Americans.
> They take slots in Universities, that should be reserved to Citizens.
> They use resources in Medical Centers and then don't pay their bills, sticking it to the Americans citizens to pay it for them.
> Nobody gives a fuck about their race.



All these same things were said about the Poles, Germans, Irish... 

Shit, I'm old enough to remember when Pollock jokes were still a thing.  

My Grandfather encountered so much discrimination for his German Heritage between the World Wars that he changed the pronunciation of the family name and called himself "Louis" instead of "Ludwig".  

Here's the thing about Immigrants. They come into this country, they do the jobs Americans don't really want, and they make a better life for their kids. And sometimes, those kids get it... and sometimes those kids become Americanized and miss the point.


----------



## Cosmos

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Undocumented immigrants have the right to seek asylum, apply for refugee status, and remain in the country pending approval of that application.



Uh....the very fact that they are "undocumented" means they have entered the country illegally. If they were "documented" they would have had their passport stamped by US immigration at a legal port of entry.


----------



## Cosmos

JoeB131 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> They lower wages so that Americans on the bottom can't afford to pay rent.
> They collect welfare, through their anchor babies, costing our government money that should be reserved for Americans.
> They take slots in Universities, that should be reserved to Citizens.
> They use resources in Medical Centers and then don't pay their bills, sticking it to the Americans citizens to pay it for them.
> Nobody gives a fuck about their race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All these same things were said about the Poles, Germans, Irish...
> 
> Shit, I'm old enough to remember when Pollock jokes were still a thing.
> 
> My Grandfather encountered so much discrimination for his German Heritage between the World Wars that he changed the pronunciation of the family name and called himself "Louis" instead of "Ludwig".
> 
> Here's the thing about Immigrants. They come into this country, they do the jobs Americans don't really want, and they make a better life for their kids. And sometimes, those kids get it... and sometimes those kids become Americanized and miss the point.
Click to expand...


Amazingly, we have a legal means for people to do that.  It starts by them obtaining an immigrant visa at the US Consulate in their country of origin.  It's illegal to just walk into the country without permission.


----------



## JoeB131

Cosmos said:


> Amazingly, we have a legal means for people to do that. It starts by them obtaining an immigrant visa at the US Consulate in their country of origin. It's illegal to just walk into the country without permission.



Lots of things are "illegal" and Americans do them every day... 

I don't get worked up about that.  

The problem with our immigration system is that it is DESIGNED to encourage undocumented immigration, to provide the One Percent with a pool of labor with no rights.


----------



## Cosmos

JoeB131 said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazingly, we have a legal means for people to do that. It starts by them obtaining an immigrant visa at the US Consulate in their country of origin. It's illegal to just walk into the country without permission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of things are "illegal" and Americans do them every day...
> 
> I don't get worked up about that.
> 
> The problem with our immigration system is that it is DESIGNED to encourage undocumented immigration, to provide the One Percent with a pool of labor with no rights.
Click to expand...


Oh, ok.  So you're advocating for people to defy our immigration system and break the law by coming here illegally.  Just because "lots of things are illegal".

So why not just come out and say that in the first place?  Is there some reason you want this and can you tell us why it's best for the USA to have the country flooded with undocumented aliens whose identities and backgrounds we do not know?


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's what leftists don't have which is why they'd rather get a cell upgrade from government instead of living the life of a free man like you and me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is they think they're free because living under government control is all many of them know.  Work 20 hours a week or less, have four or five kids that you can't afford to have, get a HUD house in the suburbs and ruin the neighborhood, eat like a pig so you're too fat to do anything with your life even if you wanted to.  That's freedom to some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What government gives, government can take away.  And they want a government which is petty and spiteful.  They can lose control of that just like they're losing control of the supreme court
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 1980 at the age of 20, I got my first apartment in the fall.  As an animal lover, I was fascinated with birds, so one of the first things I did was hang a bird feeder on my upstairs back porch. I would sit in my bedroom watching them from my window for hours.
> 
> Spring came along and I got to meet my elderly neighbor.  After some small talk, he said "You know Ray, what you're doing for the birds is a nice gesture.  But you may be doing them more harm than good.  You see, feeding them in the winter is a good thing because food is scarce.  But if you leave that feeder out year long, the birds will forget how to obtain food on their own.  If you move or get bored feeding the birds, they will likely parish."
> 
> I never forgot the lesson the old man gave me; not because of the birds, but because as I grew older, I realized this is what our government does for people; leave the feeder up year long.
> 
> If we ever had a financial collapse in this country (and yes, it could happen) what would happen to all these people who depend on government when these programs have to stop?  How would they feed themselves, their family?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Who says it's going to stop, feeding the birds or feeding the people but I get your point.  The key is moderation.  You don't want to feed the birds so much that they stop hunting or people for that matter.
> 
> However, let me remind you of the differences between people and birds.  Birds have only 3 goals in life, eat, keep from being eaten, and reproduce.  Humans are far more complex and have goals more complex goals than birds such as building wealth, gaining the respect of others, and providing a better life for their children for starters.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You endlessly parrot that platitude.  First of all, I know of no study that has demonstrated that's a major factor for the criminals breaking our laws and coming here illegally.
> 
> Even if it is, that they chose to break the law and come here as criminals is a terrible example to set for their kids.  If they really cared about their kids, they would work to show they can support themselves and go to a US consulate in Mexico and find out what it takes to come here legally and ... wait their turn ...
> 
> Having children is not any justification to commit a crime even if your platitude is accepted as fact.
> 
> And remind me again how you're against illegal immigration while you fight tooth and nail to ensure we do nothing to stop them
Click to expand...

let's end our alleged wars on drugs and terror to stop creating refugees.


----------



## OODA_Loop

JoeB131 said:


> That's the dumbest thing I've heard yet.  Birds don't have that kind of memory, and their food gathering abilities are largely instinct, not learned.




From National Geographic

Memory Aids Birds in Migration, Study Finds


----------



## OODA_Loop

Hummingbird's huge memory lets them remember the location of every flower in their territory | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Cosmos

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is they think they're free because living under government control is all many of them know.  Work 20 hours a week or less, have four or five kids that you can't afford to have, get a HUD house in the suburbs and ruin the neighborhood, eat like a pig so you're too fat to do anything with your life even if you wanted to.  That's freedom to some people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What government gives, government can take away.  And they want a government which is petty and spiteful.  They can lose control of that just like they're losing control of the supreme court
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 1980 at the age of 20, I got my first apartment in the fall.  As an animal lover, I was fascinated with birds, so one of the first things I did was hang a bird feeder on my upstairs back porch. I would sit in my bedroom watching them from my window for hours.
> 
> Spring came along and I got to meet my elderly neighbor.  After some small talk, he said "You know Ray, what you're doing for the birds is a nice gesture.  But you may be doing them more harm than good.  You see, feeding them in the winter is a good thing because food is scarce.  But if you leave that feeder out year long, the birds will forget how to obtain food on their own.  If you move or get bored feeding the birds, they will likely parish."
> 
> I never forgot the lesson the old man gave me; not because of the birds, but because as I grew older, I realized this is what our government does for people; leave the feeder up year long.
> 
> If we ever had a financial collapse in this country (and yes, it could happen) what would happen to all these people who depend on government when these programs have to stop?  How would they feed themselves, their family?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Who says it's going to stop, feeding the birds or feeding the people but I get your point.  The key is moderation.  You don't want to feed the birds so much that they stop hunting or people for that matter.
> 
> However, let me remind you of the differences between people and birds.  Birds have only 3 goals in life, eat, keep from being eaten, and reproduce.  Humans are far more complex and have goals more complex goals than birds such as building wealth, gaining the respect of others, and providing a better life for their children for starters.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You endlessly parrot that platitude.  First of all, I know of no study that has demonstrated that's a major factor for the criminals breaking our laws and coming here illegally.
> 
> Even if it is, that they chose to break the law and come here as criminals is a terrible example to set for their kids.  If they really cared about their kids, they would work to show they can support themselves and go to a US consulate in Mexico and find out what it takes to come here legally and ... wait their turn ...
> 
> Having children is not any justification to commit a crime even if your platitude is accepted as fact.
> 
> And remind me again how you're against illegal immigration while you fight tooth and nail to ensure we do nothing to stop them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let's end our alleged wars on drugs and terror to stop creating refugees.
Click to expand...


Seriously?  Ok.  So it's our fault then, eh?  In that case we need to take responsibility and fix it.  The first step is to approach all these countries diplomatically  and put the pressure on their governments to stop the drug trade which is supposedly generating the asylum seekers.  If that doesn't work with start applying economic pressure to let them know we're serious.  And if that doesn't work we execute a regime change and in the process wipe out their drug trading infrastructure since they're too incompetent or corrupt to do it themselves.  Then on our end we start applying stiff prison terms in the jails of the countries we conquered to any drug users or traffickers we catch in the USA.  And we force them into community service and reconstruction in the countries we've probably destroyed.  I'd say something along the lines of 25-30 years before we let them back into the country.   Would that do it?


----------



## Cecilie1200

kaz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> I've worked at two companies that knew damned well that the "day laborers" the temp company sent over weren't here legally.  And both cases,the bosses were right wing assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Temp agencies are supposed to check out their own workers--not their customers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  One of the benefits you pay for when using an employment/temp agency is having them do the work of screening prospective employees for you.  And if I'm not mistaken, the contract you sign with them does specify that the agency bears the responsibility for the outcome of that screening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several of our customers use temp agencies.  One of my friends works for a company that does the same thing.  Years ago even I signed up with several temp agencies during the Reagan recession.  Unlike the Obama recession, there wasn't even a McDonald's job around.  Only one called me for work, but after the first job, they got such a positive evaluation from their customer they had me working every day somewhere.  They even asked me to work two shifts.  I stayed with them for about six or eight months.
> 
> So I know how they work.  No matter where they sent me, I had to stop by the Manpower office every Friday to pickup my paycheck.  Even though it wasn't much, they gave me a great reference when I applied for full-time work at other companies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thankfully, most of them have direct deposit now.
> 
> I did the temp-to-hire thing when I moved to Phoenix, because I didn't know the employers and the job market well, and it was a good way to get working quickly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been doing contract work since I sold my businesses.  The money is still good and wow, my quality of life is so much better.  I was home at 5pm today.  I wasn't home at 5pm regularly my whole career to this point
Click to expand...


I really love my job.  I'm debating hard whether or not I want to go through with my plan to take a four-month course to get my certification as a medical coder.  On the one hand, it would increase my income by at least $5 an hour, which is inarguable.  On the other hand, I hate the whole idea of leaving a place and job and group of people I really like to go work somewhere I will probably hate everything but the paycheck.

But there are worse problems to have than too many opportunities, right?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Lots of things are "illegal" and Americans do them every day...



We are Americans doing illegal things in America.  And when Americans get caught doing these illegal things, they pay the penalty for them.  

Go to Mexico and so something illegal.  When you get caught, tell the police that Mexicans do the same thing all the time.  



JoeB131 said:


> The problem with our immigration system is that it is DESIGNED to encourage undocumented immigration, to provide the One Percent with a pool of labor with no rights.



No, the system isn't--the Democrats are. 

It's Democrats who fight for illegals to be here. 
It's Democrats who fight to keep their sanctuary cities and now states. 
It's Democrats who are fighting against the wall. 
It's Democrats who allow them to have drivers licenses in their states so they can get to the jobs they're not supposed to have. 

The system isn't the problem.  Democrats are the problem.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> That's the dumbest thing I've heard yet. Birds don't have that kind of memory, and their food gathering abilities are largely instinct, not learned.



Yes it is, and when their instinct tells them to go to the feeder to eat, that's what they do.  Yes, birds do learn things.  I've had several canaries and several tropical parrots.  



JoeB131 said:


> If we had a financial collapse, we'd probably finally redistribute the 87% of the wealth held by the top 20% to make sure the 40% on the bottom that have less than 1% get their fair share. It's why the rich never let big recessions go too far. The absolute last thing they want is another FDR giving working people another "New Deal". It took them 70 years to undo the last "New Deal".
> 
> The problem isn't a lack of wealth, it's the distribution of it.



What a Nazi you are.  You're talking about stealing the property of citizens using government siege for mistakes the government made in the past.  Then you people wonder why we want to keep our guns?  But even if we could do that, it won't cover 1/100th of what we owe to others.  You really think that rich people have all the money in the world, don't you?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is they think they're free because living under government control is all many of them know. Work 20 hours a week or less, have four or five kids that you can't afford to have, get a HUD house in the suburbs and ruin the neighborhood, eat like a pig so you're too fat to do anything with your life even if you wanted to. That's freedom to some people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to the Racist from Cleveland, who lives in the same slum, spends half his day on USMB complaining about poor people while his boss cheats him out of insurance..
> 
> And never looks for a better job.
Click to expand...


Yes, because in the makeup world of Joe, Democrats are not responsible for my insurance coverage today. Democrats are not responsible for putting their lowlifes in otherwise fantastic neighborhoods to ruin them in the name of social justice.  

It's never a Democrats fault, is it Joe?  

I bet when you were a kid and threw a rock through your neighbors window, you blamed your neighbor for not having thick enough glass.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> The real problem is, you keep taking it up the butt from the One Percent and asking if you can have another.



And you keep avoiding getting psychological help for that OCD of yours.  How many times have you brought up my insurance Joe?  Like over 200 times already?  You don't think you have a serious problem?????


----------



## Flopper

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's what leftists don't have which is why they'd rather get a cell upgrade from government instead of living the life of a free man like you and me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is they think they're free because living under government control is all many of them know.  Work 20 hours a week or less, have four or five kids that you can't afford to have, get a HUD house in the suburbs and ruin the neighborhood, eat like a pig so you're too fat to do anything with your life even if you wanted to.  That's freedom to some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What government gives, government can take away.  And they want a government which is petty and spiteful.  They can lose control of that just like they're losing control of the supreme court
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 1980 at the age of 20, I got my first apartment in the fall.  As an animal lover, I was fascinated with birds, so one of the first things I did was hang a bird feeder on my upstairs back porch. I would sit in my bedroom watching them from my window for hours.
> 
> Spring came along and I got to meet my elderly neighbor.  After some small talk, he said "You know Ray, what you're doing for the birds is a nice gesture.  But you may be doing them more harm than good.  You see, feeding them in the winter is a good thing because food is scarce.  But if you leave that feeder out year long, the birds will forget how to obtain food on their own.  If you move or get bored feeding the birds, they will likely parish."
> 
> I never forgot the lesson the old man gave me; not because of the birds, but because as I grew older, I realized this is what our government does for people; leave the feeder up year long.
> 
> If we ever had a financial collapse in this country (and yes, it could happen) what would happen to all these people who depend on government when these programs have to stop?  How would they feed themselves, their family?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Who says it's going to stop, feeding the birds or feeding the people but I get your point.  The key is moderation.  You don't want to feed the birds so much that they stop hunting or people for that matter.
> 
> However, let me remind you of the differences between people and birds.  Birds have only 3 goals in life, eat, keep from being eaten, and reproduce.  Humans are far more complex and have goals more complex goals than birds such as building wealth, gaining the respect of others, and providing a better life for their children for starters.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You endlessly parrot that platitude.  First of all, I know of no study that has demonstrated that's a major factor for the criminals breaking our laws and coming here illegally.
> 
> Even if it is, that they chose to break the law and come here as criminals is a terrible example to set for their kids.  If they really cared about their kids, they would work to show they can support themselves and go to a US consulate in Mexico and find out what it takes to come here legally and ... wait their turn ...
> 
> Having children is not any justification to commit a crime even if your platitude is accepted as fact.
> 
> And remind me again how you're against illegal immigration while you fight tooth and nail to ensure we do nothing to stop them
Click to expand...

*They know quite well what it takes to immigrate to the US.  $312 for themselves and each of their children and a 10 to 15 year wait provided they have a  sponsor in the US.  If not, they are wasting their time and money as they will never get in legally.  For most of these people the chance of getting in legally doesn't exist, there is little reason not try to petitioning for asylum or coming in illegally.*


----------



## Flopper

Cosmos said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What government gives, government can take away.  And they want a government which is petty and spiteful.  They can lose control of that just like they're losing control of the supreme court
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1980 at the age of 20, I got my first apartment in the fall.  As an animal lover, I was fascinated with birds, so one of the first things I did was hang a bird feeder on my upstairs back porch. I would sit in my bedroom watching them from my window for hours.
> 
> Spring came along and I got to meet my elderly neighbor.  After some small talk, he said "You know Ray, what you're doing for the birds is a nice gesture.  But you may be doing them more harm than good.  You see, feeding them in the winter is a good thing because food is scarce.  But if you leave that feeder out year long, the birds will forget how to obtain food on their own.  If you move or get bored feeding the birds, they will likely parish."
> 
> I never forgot the lesson the old man gave me; not because of the birds, but because as I grew older, I realized this is what our government does for people; leave the feeder up year long.
> 
> If we ever had a financial collapse in this country (and yes, it could happen) what would happen to all these people who depend on government when these programs have to stop?  How would they feed themselves, their family?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Who says it's going to stop, feeding the birds or feeding the people but I get your point.  The key is moderation.  You don't want to feed the birds so much that they stop hunting or people for that matter.
> 
> However, let me remind you of the differences between people and birds.  Birds have only 3 goals in life, eat, keep from being eaten, and reproduce.  Humans are far more complex and have goals more complex goals than birds such as building wealth, gaining the respect of others, and providing a better life for their children for starters.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You endlessly parrot that platitude.  First of all, I know of no study that has demonstrated that's a major factor for the criminals breaking our laws and coming here illegally.
> 
> Even if it is, that they chose to break the law and come here as criminals is a terrible example to set for their kids.  If they really cared about their kids, they would work to show they can support themselves and go to a US consulate in Mexico and find out what it takes to come here legally and ... wait their turn ...
> 
> Having children is not any justification to commit a crime even if your platitude is accepted as fact.
> 
> And remind me again how you're against illegal immigration while you fight tooth and nail to ensure we do nothing to stop them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let's end our alleged wars on drugs and terror to stop creating refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Ok.  So it's our fault then, eh?  In that case we need to take responsibility and fix it.  The first step is to approach all these countries diplomatically  and put the pressure on their governments to stop the drug trade which is supposedly generating the asylum seekers.  If that doesn't work with start applying economic pressure to let them know we're serious.  And if that doesn't work we execute a regime change and in the process wipe out their drug trading infrastructure since they're too incompetent or corrupt to do it themselves.  Then on our end we start applying stiff prison terms in the jails of the countries we conquered to any drug users or traffickers we catch in the USA.  And we force them into community service and reconstruction in the countries we've probably destroyed.  I'd say something along the lines of 25-30 years before we let them back into the country.   Would that do it?
Click to expand...

*The US is the biggest market for illegal drugs in the world.  Expecting countries with a small fraction of the wealth of the US to control the cartels is down right stupid.  We must stop the demand and that begins with curtailing American's insatiable demand for illegal drugs.   *


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1980 at the age of 20, I got my first apartment in the fall.  As an animal lover, I was fascinated with birds, so one of the first things I did was hang a bird feeder on my upstairs back porch. I would sit in my bedroom watching them from my window for hours.
> 
> Spring came along and I got to meet my elderly neighbor.  After some small talk, he said "You know Ray, what you're doing for the birds is a nice gesture.  But you may be doing them more harm than good.  You see, feeding them in the winter is a good thing because food is scarce.  But if you leave that feeder out year long, the birds will forget how to obtain food on their own.  If you move or get bored feeding the birds, they will likely parish."
> 
> I never forgot the lesson the old man gave me; not because of the birds, but because as I grew older, I realized this is what our government does for people; leave the feeder up year long.
> 
> If we ever had a financial collapse in this country (and yes, it could happen) what would happen to all these people who depend on government when these programs have to stop?  How would they feed themselves, their family?
> 
> 
> 
> *Who says it's going to stop, feeding the birds or feeding the people but I get your point.  The key is moderation.  You don't want to feed the birds so much that they stop hunting or people for that matter.
> 
> However, let me remind you of the differences between people and birds.  Birds have only 3 goals in life, eat, keep from being eaten, and reproduce.  Humans are far more complex and have goals more complex goals than birds such as building wealth, gaining the respect of others, and providing a better life for their children for starters.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You endlessly parrot that platitude.  First of all, I know of no study that has demonstrated that's a major factor for the criminals breaking our laws and coming here illegally.
> 
> Even if it is, that they chose to break the law and come here as criminals is a terrible example to set for their kids.  If they really cared about their kids, they would work to show they can support themselves and go to a US consulate in Mexico and find out what it takes to come here legally and ... wait their turn ...
> 
> Having children is not any justification to commit a crime even if your platitude is accepted as fact.
> 
> And remind me again how you're against illegal immigration while you fight tooth and nail to ensure we do nothing to stop them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let's end our alleged wars on drugs and terror to stop creating refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Ok.  So it's our fault then, eh?  In that case we need to take responsibility and fix it.  The first step is to approach all these countries diplomatically  and put the pressure on their governments to stop the drug trade which is supposedly generating the asylum seekers.  If that doesn't work with start applying economic pressure to let them know we're serious.  And if that doesn't work we execute a regime change and in the process wipe out their drug trading infrastructure since they're too incompetent or corrupt to do it themselves.  Then on our end we start applying stiff prison terms in the jails of the countries we conquered to any drug users or traffickers we catch in the USA.  And we force them into community service and reconstruction in the countries we've probably destroyed.  I'd say something along the lines of 25-30 years before we let them back into the country.   Would that do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The US is the biggest market for illegal drugs in the world.  Expecting countries with a small fraction of the wealth of the US to control the cartels is down right stupid.  We must stop the demand and that begins with curtailing American's insatiable demand for illegal drugs.   *
Click to expand...


Okay, and we do that how?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is they think they're free because living under government control is all many of them know.  Work 20 hours a week or less, have four or five kids that you can't afford to have, get a HUD house in the suburbs and ruin the neighborhood, eat like a pig so you're too fat to do anything with your life even if you wanted to.  That's freedom to some people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What government gives, government can take away.  And they want a government which is petty and spiteful.  They can lose control of that just like they're losing control of the supreme court
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 1980 at the age of 20, I got my first apartment in the fall.  As an animal lover, I was fascinated with birds, so one of the first things I did was hang a bird feeder on my upstairs back porch. I would sit in my bedroom watching them from my window for hours.
> 
> Spring came along and I got to meet my elderly neighbor.  After some small talk, he said "You know Ray, what you're doing for the birds is a nice gesture.  But you may be doing them more harm than good.  You see, feeding them in the winter is a good thing because food is scarce.  But if you leave that feeder out year long, the birds will forget how to obtain food on their own.  If you move or get bored feeding the birds, they will likely parish."
> 
> I never forgot the lesson the old man gave me; not because of the birds, but because as I grew older, I realized this is what our government does for people; leave the feeder up year long.
> 
> If we ever had a financial collapse in this country (and yes, it could happen) what would happen to all these people who depend on government when these programs have to stop?  How would they feed themselves, their family?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Who says it's going to stop, feeding the birds or feeding the people but I get your point.  The key is moderation.  You don't want to feed the birds so much that they stop hunting or people for that matter.
> 
> However, let me remind you of the differences between people and birds.  Birds have only 3 goals in life, eat, keep from being eaten, and reproduce.  Humans are far more complex and have goals more complex goals than birds such as building wealth, gaining the respect of others, and providing a better life for their children for starters.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You endlessly parrot that platitude.  First of all, I know of no study that has demonstrated that's a major factor for the criminals breaking our laws and coming here illegally.
> 
> Even if it is, that they chose to break the law and come here as criminals is a terrible example to set for their kids.  If they really cared about their kids, they would work to show they can support themselves and go to a US consulate in Mexico and find out what it takes to come here legally and ... wait their turn ...
> 
> Having children is not any justification to commit a crime even if your platitude is accepted as fact.
> 
> And remind me again how you're against illegal immigration while you fight tooth and nail to ensure we do nothing to stop them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *They know quite well what it takes to immigrate to the US.  $312 for themselves and each of their children and a 10 to 15 year wait provided they have a  sponsor in the US.  If not, they are wasting their time and money as they will never get in legally.  For most of these people the chance of getting in legally doesn't exist, there is little reason not try to petitioning for asylum or coming in illegally.*
Click to expand...


Correct, because there isn't enough deterrent.  Now Americans are fighting each other over the separation of foreign families which the left seems to feel they have an AMERICAN RIGHT to challenge.  Some stupid bitch from the Congo; a woman who came to this country almost 25 years ago and can barely be understood, put our law enforcement at risk to get her off the Statue of Liberty.  She cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars, risked rescue teams lives, and stopped real Americans from a one-time experience of the statue on our Independence day.

Hell of a way to say thanks for letting her into this country.  Close the border to everybody.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who says it's going to stop, feeding the birds or feeding the people but I get your point.  The key is moderation.  You don't want to feed the birds so much that they stop hunting or people for that matter.
> 
> However, let me remind you of the differences between people and birds.  Birds have only 3 goals in life, eat, keep from being eaten, and reproduce.  Humans are far more complex and have goals more complex goals than birds such as building wealth, gaining the respect of others, and providing a better life for their children for starters.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You endlessly parrot that platitude.  First of all, I know of no study that has demonstrated that's a major factor for the criminals breaking our laws and coming here illegally.
> 
> Even if it is, that they chose to break the law and come here as criminals is a terrible example to set for their kids.  If they really cared about their kids, they would work to show they can support themselves and go to a US consulate in Mexico and find out what it takes to come here legally and ... wait their turn ...
> 
> Having children is not any justification to commit a crime even if your platitude is accepted as fact.
> 
> And remind me again how you're against illegal immigration while you fight tooth and nail to ensure we do nothing to stop them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let's end our alleged wars on drugs and terror to stop creating refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Ok.  So it's our fault then, eh?  In that case we need to take responsibility and fix it.  The first step is to approach all these countries diplomatically  and put the pressure on their governments to stop the drug trade which is supposedly generating the asylum seekers.  If that doesn't work with start applying economic pressure to let them know we're serious.  And if that doesn't work we execute a regime change and in the process wipe out their drug trading infrastructure since they're too incompetent or corrupt to do it themselves.  Then on our end we start applying stiff prison terms in the jails of the countries we conquered to any drug users or traffickers we catch in the USA.  And we force them into community service and reconstruction in the countries we've probably destroyed.  I'd say something along the lines of 25-30 years before we let them back into the country.   Would that do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The US is the biggest market for illegal drugs in the world.  Expecting countries with a small fraction of the wealth of the US to control the cartels is down right stupid.  We must stop the demand and that begins with curtailing American's insatiable demand for illegal drugs.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, and we do that how?
Click to expand...

*Well sort of. Heroin users have tripped since 2003. Positive drug tests have increased 47% between 2011 and  2014. We need to increase the outreach programs aimed at young people about 500% for starters. Media campaigns work.  We have seen it work with smoking and alcohol and it will work with drugs.  Lastly, we need to rework our drug addition programs.  

If you dry up the demand, supply will not be problem.  In addition we will solve a major problem in countries like Mexico and also reduce illegal immigration problem.*


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What government gives, government can take away.  And they want a government which is petty and spiteful.  They can lose control of that just like they're losing control of the supreme court
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1980 at the age of 20, I got my first apartment in the fall.  As an animal lover, I was fascinated with birds, so one of the first things I did was hang a bird feeder on my upstairs back porch. I would sit in my bedroom watching them from my window for hours.
> 
> Spring came along and I got to meet my elderly neighbor.  After some small talk, he said "You know Ray, what you're doing for the birds is a nice gesture.  But you may be doing them more harm than good.  You see, feeding them in the winter is a good thing because food is scarce.  But if you leave that feeder out year long, the birds will forget how to obtain food on their own.  If you move or get bored feeding the birds, they will likely parish."
> 
> I never forgot the lesson the old man gave me; not because of the birds, but because as I grew older, I realized this is what our government does for people; leave the feeder up year long.
> 
> If we ever had a financial collapse in this country (and yes, it could happen) what would happen to all these people who depend on government when these programs have to stop?  How would they feed themselves, their family?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Who says it's going to stop, feeding the birds or feeding the people but I get your point.  The key is moderation.  You don't want to feed the birds so much that they stop hunting or people for that matter.
> 
> However, let me remind you of the differences between people and birds.  Birds have only 3 goals in life, eat, keep from being eaten, and reproduce.  Humans are far more complex and have goals more complex goals than birds such as building wealth, gaining the respect of others, and providing a better life for their children for starters.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You endlessly parrot that platitude.  First of all, I know of no study that has demonstrated that's a major factor for the criminals breaking our laws and coming here illegally.
> 
> Even if it is, that they chose to break the law and come here as criminals is a terrible example to set for their kids.  If they really cared about their kids, they would work to show they can support themselves and go to a US consulate in Mexico and find out what it takes to come here legally and ... wait their turn ...
> 
> Having children is not any justification to commit a crime even if your platitude is accepted as fact.
> 
> And remind me again how you're against illegal immigration while you fight tooth and nail to ensure we do nothing to stop them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *They know quite well what it takes to immigrate to the US.  $312 for themselves and each of their children and a 10 to 15 year wait provided they have a  sponsor in the US.  If not, they are wasting their time and money as they will never get in legally.  For most of these people the chance of getting in legally doesn't exist, there is little reason not try to petitioning for asylum or coming in illegally.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, because there isn't enough deterrent.  Now Americans are fighting each other over the separation of foreign families which the left seems to feel they have an AMERICAN RIGHT to challenge.  Some stupid bitch from the Congo; a woman who came to this country almost 25 years ago and can barely be understood, put our law enforcement at risk to get her off the Statue of Liberty.  She cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars, risked rescue teams lives, and stopped real Americans from a one-time experience of the statue on our Independence day.
> 
> Hell of a way to say thanks for letting her into this country.  Close the border to everybody.
Click to expand...

*How do you create a deterrent that will dissuade families from crossing our borders when their kids are being kidnapped and murdered or families that that see their future is working endlessly at starvation wages.  US detention and even prison is a far better option than what they face at home.*


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is they think they're free because living under government control is all many of them know.  Work 20 hours a week or less, have four or five kids that you can't afford to have, get a HUD house in the suburbs and ruin the neighborhood, eat like a pig so you're too fat to do anything with your life even if you wanted to.  That's freedom to some people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What government gives, government can take away.  And they want a government which is petty and spiteful.  They can lose control of that just like they're losing control of the supreme court
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 1980 at the age of 20, I got my first apartment in the fall.  As an animal lover, I was fascinated with birds, so one of the first things I did was hang a bird feeder on my upstairs back porch. I would sit in my bedroom watching them from my window for hours.
> 
> Spring came along and I got to meet my elderly neighbor.  After some small talk, he said "You know Ray, what you're doing for the birds is a nice gesture.  But you may be doing them more harm than good.  You see, feeding them in the winter is a good thing because food is scarce.  But if you leave that feeder out year long, the birds will forget how to obtain food on their own.  If you move or get bored feeding the birds, they will likely parish."
> 
> I never forgot the lesson the old man gave me; not because of the birds, but because as I grew older, I realized this is what our government does for people; leave the feeder up year long.
> 
> If we ever had a financial collapse in this country (and yes, it could happen) what would happen to all these people who depend on government when these programs have to stop?  How would they feed themselves, their family?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Who says it's going to stop, feeding the birds or feeding the people but I get your point.  The key is moderation.  You don't want to feed the birds so much that they stop hunting or people for that matter.
> 
> However, let me remind you of the differences between people and birds.  Birds have only 3 goals in life, eat, keep from being eaten, and reproduce.  Humans are far more complex and have goals more complex goals than birds such as building wealth, gaining the respect of others, and providing a better life for their children for starters.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You endlessly parrot that platitude.  First of all, I know of no study that has demonstrated that's a major factor for the criminals breaking our laws and coming here illegally.
> 
> Even if it is, that they chose to break the law and come here as criminals is a terrible example to set for their kids.  If they really cared about their kids, they would work to show they can support themselves and go to a US consulate in Mexico and find out what it takes to come here legally and ... wait their turn ...
> 
> Having children is not any justification to commit a crime even if your platitude is accepted as fact.
> 
> And remind me again how you're against illegal immigration while you fight tooth and nail to ensure we do nothing to stop them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *They know quite well what it takes to immigrate to the US.  $312 for themselves and each of their children and a 10 to 15 year wait provided they have a  sponsor in the US.  If not, they are wasting their time and money as they will never get in legally.  For most of these people the chance of getting in legally doesn't exist, there is little reason not try to petitioning for asylum or coming in illegally.*
Click to expand...


People come here legally all the time.  The problem you have is that to get here legally, they need to be able to support themselves and those aren't the ones you want.  The ones who support themselves aren't as certain to vote Democrat.  And if we stopped line cutters, we could get the line moving more quickly.

Regardless, you didn't support the crap you made up that they only want to come here to give their children a better life.  If they thought like that, they wouldn't be the poorest Mexicans.  The poor live in the now.  That's why they're poor


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1980 at the age of 20, I got my first apartment in the fall.  As an animal lover, I was fascinated with birds, so one of the first things I did was hang a bird feeder on my upstairs back porch. I would sit in my bedroom watching them from my window for hours.
> 
> Spring came along and I got to meet my elderly neighbor.  After some small talk, he said "You know Ray, what you're doing for the birds is a nice gesture.  But you may be doing them more harm than good.  You see, feeding them in the winter is a good thing because food is scarce.  But if you leave that feeder out year long, the birds will forget how to obtain food on their own.  If you move or get bored feeding the birds, they will likely parish."
> 
> I never forgot the lesson the old man gave me; not because of the birds, but because as I grew older, I realized this is what our government does for people; leave the feeder up year long.
> 
> If we ever had a financial collapse in this country (and yes, it could happen) what would happen to all these people who depend on government when these programs have to stop?  How would they feed themselves, their family?
> 
> 
> 
> *Who says it's going to stop, feeding the birds or feeding the people but I get your point.  The key is moderation.  You don't want to feed the birds so much that they stop hunting or people for that matter.
> 
> However, let me remind you of the differences between people and birds.  Birds have only 3 goals in life, eat, keep from being eaten, and reproduce.  Humans are far more complex and have goals more complex goals than birds such as building wealth, gaining the respect of others, and providing a better life for their children for starters.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You endlessly parrot that platitude.  First of all, I know of no study that has demonstrated that's a major factor for the criminals breaking our laws and coming here illegally.
> 
> Even if it is, that they chose to break the law and come here as criminals is a terrible example to set for their kids.  If they really cared about their kids, they would work to show they can support themselves and go to a US consulate in Mexico and find out what it takes to come here legally and ... wait their turn ...
> 
> Having children is not any justification to commit a crime even if your platitude is accepted as fact.
> 
> And remind me again how you're against illegal immigration while you fight tooth and nail to ensure we do nothing to stop them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let's end our alleged wars on drugs and terror to stop creating refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Ok.  So it's our fault then, eh?  In that case we need to take responsibility and fix it.  The first step is to approach all these countries diplomatically  and put the pressure on their governments to stop the drug trade which is supposedly generating the asylum seekers.  If that doesn't work with start applying economic pressure to let them know we're serious.  And if that doesn't work we execute a regime change and in the process wipe out their drug trading infrastructure since they're too incompetent or corrupt to do it themselves.  Then on our end we start applying stiff prison terms in the jails of the countries we conquered to any drug users or traffickers we catch in the USA.  And we force them into community service and reconstruction in the countries we've probably destroyed.  I'd say something along the lines of 25-30 years before we let them back into the country.   Would that do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The US is the biggest market for illegal drugs in the world.  Expecting countries with a small fraction of the wealth of the US to control the cartels is down right stupid.  We must stop the demand and that begins with curtailing American's insatiable demand for illegal drugs.   *
Click to expand...


"We must stop demand."  That's leftist for do nothing.  You're not going to stop demand, that's another moronic platitude.  We need to legalize drugs.  And we need to build a wall so drug dealers can't walk across the line we erroneously refer to as a "border" because it isn't.

Tough choice, huh, Flopper?  We stop drugs from crossing the border so easily with a wall, and it keeps out Democrat voters too.  You pass on that deal, keeping the flow of Democrat voters is more important


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who says it's going to stop, feeding the birds or feeding the people but I get your point.  The key is moderation.  You don't want to feed the birds so much that they stop hunting or people for that matter.
> 
> However, let me remind you of the differences between people and birds.  Birds have only 3 goals in life, eat, keep from being eaten, and reproduce.  Humans are far more complex and have goals more complex goals than birds such as building wealth, gaining the respect of others, and providing a better life for their children for starters.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You endlessly parrot that platitude.  First of all, I know of no study that has demonstrated that's a major factor for the criminals breaking our laws and coming here illegally.
> 
> Even if it is, that they chose to break the law and come here as criminals is a terrible example to set for their kids.  If they really cared about their kids, they would work to show they can support themselves and go to a US consulate in Mexico and find out what it takes to come here legally and ... wait their turn ...
> 
> Having children is not any justification to commit a crime even if your platitude is accepted as fact.
> 
> And remind me again how you're against illegal immigration while you fight tooth and nail to ensure we do nothing to stop them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let's end our alleged wars on drugs and terror to stop creating refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Ok.  So it's our fault then, eh?  In that case we need to take responsibility and fix it.  The first step is to approach all these countries diplomatically  and put the pressure on their governments to stop the drug trade which is supposedly generating the asylum seekers.  If that doesn't work with start applying economic pressure to let them know we're serious.  And if that doesn't work we execute a regime change and in the process wipe out their drug trading infrastructure since they're too incompetent or corrupt to do it themselves.  Then on our end we start applying stiff prison terms in the jails of the countries we conquered to any drug users or traffickers we catch in the USA.  And we force them into community service and reconstruction in the countries we've probably destroyed.  I'd say something along the lines of 25-30 years before we let them back into the country.   Would that do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The US is the biggest market for illegal drugs in the world.  Expecting countries with a small fraction of the wealth of the US to control the cartels is down right stupid.  We must stop the demand and that begins with curtailing American's insatiable demand for illegal drugs.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, and we do that how?
Click to expand...


That's it, that's his plan.  We need to stop the demand for illegal drugs.

Just like his plan is that we need to stop shootings and his plan is to keep guns from criminals.

There's a theme to Floppers plans ...


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You endlessly parrot that platitude.  First of all, I know of no study that has demonstrated that's a major factor for the criminals breaking our laws and coming here illegally.
> 
> Even if it is, that they chose to break the law and come here as criminals is a terrible example to set for their kids.  If they really cared about their kids, they would work to show they can support themselves and go to a US consulate in Mexico and find out what it takes to come here legally and ... wait their turn ...
> 
> Having children is not any justification to commit a crime even if your platitude is accepted as fact.
> 
> And remind me again how you're against illegal immigration while you fight tooth and nail to ensure we do nothing to stop them
> 
> 
> 
> let's end our alleged wars on drugs and terror to stop creating refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Ok.  So it's our fault then, eh?  In that case we need to take responsibility and fix it.  The first step is to approach all these countries diplomatically  and put the pressure on their governments to stop the drug trade which is supposedly generating the asylum seekers.  If that doesn't work with start applying economic pressure to let them know we're serious.  And if that doesn't work we execute a regime change and in the process wipe out their drug trading infrastructure since they're too incompetent or corrupt to do it themselves.  Then on our end we start applying stiff prison terms in the jails of the countries we conquered to any drug users or traffickers we catch in the USA.  And we force them into community service and reconstruction in the countries we've probably destroyed.  I'd say something along the lines of 25-30 years before we let them back into the country.   Would that do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The US is the biggest market for illegal drugs in the world.  Expecting countries with a small fraction of the wealth of the US to control the cartels is down right stupid.  We must stop the demand and that begins with curtailing American's insatiable demand for illegal drugs.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, and we do that how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Well sort of. Heroin users have tripped since 2003. Positive drug tests have increased 47% between 2011 and  2014. We need to increase the outreach programs aimed at young people about 500% for starters. Media campaigns work.  We have seen it work with smoking and alcohol and it will work with drugs.  Lastly, we need to rework our drug addition programs.
> 
> If you dry up the demand, supply will not be problem.  In addition we will solve a major problem in countries like Mexico and also reduce illegal immigration problem.*
Click to expand...


OMG, increase outreach and take out ads.  It'll work!  We'll eliminate drugs and clean up Latin America!

I didn't think I could think you were any more stupid than I already thought you were.  Nicely done, my friend.  You proved me wrong


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1980 at the age of 20, I got my first apartment in the fall.  As an animal lover, I was fascinated with birds, so one of the first things I did was hang a bird feeder on my upstairs back porch. I would sit in my bedroom watching them from my window for hours.
> 
> Spring came along and I got to meet my elderly neighbor.  After some small talk, he said "You know Ray, what you're doing for the birds is a nice gesture.  But you may be doing them more harm than good.  You see, feeding them in the winter is a good thing because food is scarce.  But if you leave that feeder out year long, the birds will forget how to obtain food on their own.  If you move or get bored feeding the birds, they will likely parish."
> 
> I never forgot the lesson the old man gave me; not because of the birds, but because as I grew older, I realized this is what our government does for people; leave the feeder up year long.
> 
> If we ever had a financial collapse in this country (and yes, it could happen) what would happen to all these people who depend on government when these programs have to stop?  How would they feed themselves, their family?
> 
> 
> 
> *Who says it's going to stop, feeding the birds or feeding the people but I get your point.  The key is moderation.  You don't want to feed the birds so much that they stop hunting or people for that matter.
> 
> However, let me remind you of the differences between people and birds.  Birds have only 3 goals in life, eat, keep from being eaten, and reproduce.  Humans are far more complex and have goals more complex goals than birds such as building wealth, gaining the respect of others, and providing a better life for their children for starters.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You endlessly parrot that platitude.  First of all, I know of no study that has demonstrated that's a major factor for the criminals breaking our laws and coming here illegally.
> 
> Even if it is, that they chose to break the law and come here as criminals is a terrible example to set for their kids.  If they really cared about their kids, they would work to show they can support themselves and go to a US consulate in Mexico and find out what it takes to come here legally and ... wait their turn ...
> 
> Having children is not any justification to commit a crime even if your platitude is accepted as fact.
> 
> And remind me again how you're against illegal immigration while you fight tooth and nail to ensure we do nothing to stop them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *They know quite well what it takes to immigrate to the US.  $312 for themselves and each of their children and a 10 to 15 year wait provided they have a  sponsor in the US.  If not, they are wasting their time and money as they will never get in legally.  For most of these people the chance of getting in legally doesn't exist, there is little reason not try to petitioning for asylum or coming in illegally.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, because there isn't enough deterrent.  Now Americans are fighting each other over the separation of foreign families which the left seems to feel they have an AMERICAN RIGHT to challenge.  Some stupid bitch from the Congo; a woman who came to this country almost 25 years ago and can barely be understood, put our law enforcement at risk to get her off the Statue of Liberty.  She cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars, risked rescue teams lives, and stopped real Americans from a one-time experience of the statue on our Independence day.
> 
> Hell of a way to say thanks for letting her into this country.  Close the border to everybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How do you create a deterrent that will dissuade families from crossing our borders when their kids are being kidnapped and murdered or families that that see their future is working endlessly at starvation wages.  US detention and even prison is a far better option than what they face at home.*
Click to expand...


It is?  Then why haven't we tried it yet?  Oh, that's right, because the Democrats would never allow it because prison would work. 

If it's so bad there, why did these people have kids?  Why isn't everybody in each of those countries trying to get here?  It seems most are staying back.  

I'm not saying it isn't bad there, but no reason to lay that problem on us.  If it's bad in your country, it's time to fight to straighten it out.  If they don't want to fight, then  they can live how they are today.  After all, we have kids that die here too.  Just yesterday a 16 year old took a bullet in the head and one in the chest.  He was dead before the medics even got there, and that happens all the time over here.  We have one of the highest murder rates in the industrialized world.  You leftists are constantly reminding us of that.  We have the highest percentage of our people behind bars to boot.  

So why would they want to come here?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You endlessly parrot that platitude.  First of all, I know of no study that has demonstrated that's a major factor for the criminals breaking our laws and coming here illegally.
> 
> Even if it is, that they chose to break the law and come here as criminals is a terrible example to set for their kids.  If they really cared about their kids, they would work to show they can support themselves and go to a US consulate in Mexico and find out what it takes to come here legally and ... wait their turn ...
> 
> Having children is not any justification to commit a crime even if your platitude is accepted as fact.
> 
> And remind me again how you're against illegal immigration while you fight tooth and nail to ensure we do nothing to stop them
> 
> 
> 
> let's end our alleged wars on drugs and terror to stop creating refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Ok.  So it's our fault then, eh?  In that case we need to take responsibility and fix it.  The first step is to approach all these countries diplomatically  and put the pressure on their governments to stop the drug trade which is supposedly generating the asylum seekers.  If that doesn't work with start applying economic pressure to let them know we're serious.  And if that doesn't work we execute a regime change and in the process wipe out their drug trading infrastructure since they're too incompetent or corrupt to do it themselves.  Then on our end we start applying stiff prison terms in the jails of the countries we conquered to any drug users or traffickers we catch in the USA.  And we force them into community service and reconstruction in the countries we've probably destroyed.  I'd say something along the lines of 25-30 years before we let them back into the country.   Would that do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The US is the biggest market for illegal drugs in the world.  Expecting countries with a small fraction of the wealth of the US to control the cartels is down right stupid.  We must stop the demand and that begins with curtailing American's insatiable demand for illegal drugs.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, and we do that how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's it, that's his plan.  We need to stop the demand for illegal drugs.
> 
> Just like his plan is that we need to stop shootings and his plan is to keep guns from criminals.
> 
> There's a theme to Floppers plans ...
Click to expand...


Yes, there is a theme, it's called failure.


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1980 at the age of 20, I got my first apartment in the fall.  As an animal lover, I was fascinated with birds, so one of the first things I did was hang a bird feeder on my upstairs back porch. I would sit in my bedroom watching them from my window for hours.
> 
> Spring came along and I got to meet my elderly neighbor.  After some small talk, he said "You know Ray, what you're doing for the birds is a nice gesture.  But you may be doing them more harm than good.  You see, feeding them in the winter is a good thing because food is scarce.  But if you leave that feeder out year long, the birds will forget how to obtain food on their own.  If you move or get bored feeding the birds, they will likely parish."
> 
> I never forgot the lesson the old man gave me; not because of the birds, but because as I grew older, I realized this is what our government does for people; leave the feeder up year long.
> 
> If we ever had a financial collapse in this country (and yes, it could happen) what would happen to all these people who depend on government when these programs have to stop?  How would they feed themselves, their family?
> 
> 
> 
> *Who says it's going to stop, feeding the birds or feeding the people but I get your point.  The key is moderation.  You don't want to feed the birds so much that they stop hunting or people for that matter.
> 
> However, let me remind you of the differences between people and birds.  Birds have only 3 goals in life, eat, keep from being eaten, and reproduce.  Humans are far more complex and have goals more complex goals than birds such as building wealth, gaining the respect of others, and providing a better life for their children for starters.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You endlessly parrot that platitude.  First of all, I know of no study that has demonstrated that's a major factor for the criminals breaking our laws and coming here illegally.
> 
> Even if it is, that they chose to break the law and come here as criminals is a terrible example to set for their kids.  If they really cared about their kids, they would work to show they can support themselves and go to a US consulate in Mexico and find out what it takes to come here legally and ... wait their turn ...
> 
> Having children is not any justification to commit a crime even if your platitude is accepted as fact.
> 
> And remind me again how you're against illegal immigration while you fight tooth and nail to ensure we do nothing to stop them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *They know quite well what it takes to immigrate to the US.  $312 for themselves and each of their children and a 10 to 15 year wait provided they have a  sponsor in the US.  If not, they are wasting their time and money as they will never get in legally.  For most of these people the chance of getting in legally doesn't exist, there is little reason not try to petitioning for asylum or coming in illegally.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, because there isn't enough deterrent.  Now Americans are fighting each other over the separation of foreign families which the left seems to feel they have an AMERICAN RIGHT to challenge.  Some stupid bitch from the Congo; a woman who came to this country almost 25 years ago and can barely be understood, put our law enforcement at risk to get her off the Statue of Liberty.  She cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars, risked rescue teams lives, and stopped real Americans from a one-time experience of the statue on our Independence day.
> 
> Hell of a way to say thanks for letting her into this country.  Close the border to everybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How do you create a deterrent that will dissuade families from crossing our borders when their kids are being kidnapped and murdered or families that that see their future is working endlessly at starvation wages.  US detention and even prison is a far better option than what they face at home.*
Click to expand...


OMG, you're a monster.  That's what you think Latin American countries are and you want to do zero about it to help them.  How do you live with yourself?

Again, they got out and are in Mexico.  They're out of it.  First of all you're a dumb ass who presents it as if that's where 100% of illegal aliens come from.  Second, that they came from that and are out of it does not justify committing another crime once they are out

Flopper:  The man only stole the food to feed his starving kids, that's why he took the bread and cheese ... and beer ...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You endlessly parrot that platitude.  First of all, I know of no study that has demonstrated that's a major factor for the criminals breaking our laws and coming here illegally.
> 
> Even if it is, that they chose to break the law and come here as criminals is a terrible example to set for their kids.  If they really cared about their kids, they would work to show they can support themselves and go to a US consulate in Mexico and find out what it takes to come here legally and ... wait their turn ...
> 
> Having children is not any justification to commit a crime even if your platitude is accepted as fact.
> 
> And remind me again how you're against illegal immigration while you fight tooth and nail to ensure we do nothing to stop them
> 
> 
> 
> let's end our alleged wars on drugs and terror to stop creating refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Ok.  So it's our fault then, eh?  In that case we need to take responsibility and fix it.  The first step is to approach all these countries diplomatically  and put the pressure on their governments to stop the drug trade which is supposedly generating the asylum seekers.  If that doesn't work with start applying economic pressure to let them know we're serious.  And if that doesn't work we execute a regime change and in the process wipe out their drug trading infrastructure since they're too incompetent or corrupt to do it themselves.  Then on our end we start applying stiff prison terms in the jails of the countries we conquered to any drug users or traffickers we catch in the USA.  And we force them into community service and reconstruction in the countries we've probably destroyed.  I'd say something along the lines of 25-30 years before we let them back into the country.   Would that do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The US is the biggest market for illegal drugs in the world.  Expecting countries with a small fraction of the wealth of the US to control the cartels is down right stupid.  We must stop the demand and that begins with curtailing American's insatiable demand for illegal drugs.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, and we do that how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Well sort of. Heroin users have tripped since 2003. Positive drug tests have increased 47% between 2011 and  2014. We need to increase the outreach programs aimed at young people about 500% for starters. Media campaigns work.  We have seen it work with smoking and alcohol and it will work with drugs.  Lastly, we need to rework our drug addition programs.
> 
> If you dry up the demand, supply will not be problem.  In addition we will solve a major problem in countries like Mexico and also reduce illegal immigration problem.*
Click to expand...


Alcohol and tobacco usage went down because of taxation--not outreach programs.  We can't tax opioids because they are illegal.  It doesn't work the same way.  Most people who went to rehab go right back on the stuff.  I knew two guys who were dopers, both spent six years in prison.  Two weeks after getting out, they were both back on dope again.  One of them died in January of this year. 

The bottom line is we can't stop demand because we have no control over it.  But we can greatly reduce supply given anybody or their mother can just walk across our border.


----------



## JoeB131

Cosmos said:


> Oh, ok. So you're advocating for people to defy our immigration system and break the law by coming here illegally. Just because "lots of things are illegal".



Nope. I'm saying that when a law is unworkable, impractical and contrary to economic reality, you shouldn't be surprised when people ignore it.  

Kind of like how we had prohibition, and everyone was still getting drunk, until someone slapped themselves on the forehead and said, "Oh, yeah, that was stupid!"  



Cosmos said:


> So why not just come out and say that in the first place? Is there some reason you want this and can you tell us why it's best for the USA to have the country flooded with undocumented aliens whose identities and backgrounds we do not know?



Well, let's look at that.  My late father immigrated from Germany when he was a child. And I'm pretty sure between WWI and WWII, no one was all that keen to see more Germans come over.  But this funny thing happened.  He grew up, served in the US Army in WWII, went on to work very hard, raised 5 kids to be solid citizens.  

Now, there are things we should do to fix our immigration system, absolutely.  But what Trump is doing is playing on the worst instincts of human nature, not anything resembling reform.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> No, the system isn't--the Democrats are.
> 
> It's Democrats who fight for illegals to be here.
> It's Democrats who fight to keep their sanctuary cities and now states.
> It's Democrats who are fighting against the wall.
> It's Democrats who allow them to have drivers licenses in their states so they can get to the jobs they're not supposed to have.
> 
> The system isn't the problem. Democrats are the problem.



It's republicans who gave us SImpson-Mazoli, the law that puts verification on the employer which is like letting the Foxes watch the henhouse. 
It's republicans who own the companies that hire them.
It's Republicans who oppose a national ID system. 
It's Republicans who have blocked immigration reform for over a decade.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Nope. I'm saying that when a law is unworkable, impractical and contrary to economic reality, you shouldn't be surprised when people ignore it.



Sure, if it's law for American citizen, but not if foreigners don't like our laws.  They don't live here.  They are not citizens of this country.  If our laws don't work for them, then they should stay the hell out of this country.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> What a Nazi you are. You're talking about stealing the property of citizens using government siege for mistakes the government made in the past. Then you people wonder why we want to keep our guns? But even if we could do that, it won't cover 1/100th of what we owe to others. You really think that rich people have all the money in the world, don't you?



Well, let's look at that.  

The wealthiest 1 percent of the world's population now owns more than half of the world's wealth, according to a new report. The total wealth in the world grew by 6 percent over the past 12 months to *$280 trillion*, marking the fastest wealth creation since 2012, according to the Credit Suisse report.Nov 14, 2017

Richest 1% now owns half the world's wealth


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Sure, if it's law for American citizen, but not if foreigners don't like our laws. They don't live here. They are not citizens of this country. If our laws don't work for them, then they should stay the hell out of this country.



Again, buddy, it take two to tango. They wouldn't be here if rich people didn't offer them jobs.


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the reasons may be different, but that's what it's like firing people. I keep it short and factual. Leftists of course say, don't you care about people? They have families. First of all of course in their typical style, leftists are telling me what to do with my money, not what they are doing with theirs. Second, of course I care about their family. But they should have cared more about their own family and tried harder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, you are a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.
> 
> Managers who think they can fire their way to a better workplace usually have teams with shitty morale.  Who wants to work at a place where you can be fired on a whim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you are a "resume writer" who knows nothing about business.
> 
> You don't get insurance in addition to full salary.  Jobs pay a fixed total amount.  Whether it comes as medical insurance, healthcare contributions, salary, whatever.
> 
> If I didn't pay market compensation, I wouldn't have had employees.
> 
> Let's say your compensation to make up a number is $80K.  Now would you rather have:
> 
> $70K in salary and $10K in benefits ...
> 
> ... or ...
> 
> $80K in salary.
> 
> Joe:
> 
> Joe:  $70K + $10K, that's greater than $80K !!!
> 
> Dumb ass.  I'm not paying more than market wages, and my employees aren't working for less than market wages.  All you're droning on about is again just that you know zero about business.
> 
> Now, do you want me to explain price and cost to you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would rather have 10K in benefits.  Benefits are not taxed and by not having that in your paycheck, it brings down your tax rate.  It's one of the many failures of Commie Care.  Now, you have to  pay for insurance with after tax money that you won't likely be able to write-off.
Click to expand...


Hey Joe, I meant to address this before.

Note you hit the nail on the head.  You would rather have $70K in pay and $10K in benefits.  I am indifferent, which is what the moron Joe doesn't understand.  It's $80K to me either way.  The reason you'd prefer the $10K in benefits is because of the reason you said, the tax rate.  Also I can get group rates you can't get on your own.  I'm indifferent.  If the market value of the jobs is $80K, I pay $80K or you won't work for me.

What happens with Obamacare is that suddenly It's $50K in pay and $30K in benefits, and the $30K includes crappy medical care.  I am not passing on that deal.  To your point, my employees are.  They don't want their take home pay to go that low.

In Joe's terms, he thinks that $80K, $70K+$10 and $50K+$30K are different amounts to me.  I can afford the $80K, maybe the $70K+$10K but I can't afford the $50K+$30K.  Oh, and he writes business resumes for a living ...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the system isn't--the Democrats are.
> 
> It's Democrats who fight for illegals to be here.
> It's Democrats who fight to keep their sanctuary cities and now states.
> It's Democrats who are fighting against the wall.
> It's Democrats who allow them to have drivers licenses in their states so they can get to the jobs they're not supposed to have.
> 
> The system isn't the problem. Democrats are the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's republicans who gave us SImpson-Mazoli, the law that puts verification on the employer which is like letting the Foxes watch the henhouse.
> It's republicans who own the companies that hire them.
> It's Republicans who oppose a national ID system.
> It's Republicans who have blocked immigration reform for over a decade.
Click to expand...


And what is immigration reform?  Making laws that benefit the foreigners and a disadvantage to Americans. Of course we're against that.  In other words, amnesty.  It didn't work in the past and it won't work today. 

It's Republicans that own companies?  To my knowledge, there are just as many if not more Democrats that own companies as Republicans:  Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Cosco's, Starbucks, Martha Stewart just to name a few.  

National ID?  We used to use drivers licenses as ID's, and then the Democrats started giving them to foreigners and we don't know who is a citizen and who is not.  National ID's............from the same group of people fighting against Voter-ID claiming it won't solve any problems and it won't work????? 

You are a perfect example of the Party of Excuses.


----------



## Norman

JoeB131 said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, ok. So you're advocating for people to defy our immigration system and break the law by coming here illegally. Just because "lots of things are illegal".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I'm saying that when a law is unworkable, impractical and contrary to economic reality, you shouldn't be surprised when people ignore it.
Click to expand...


Of course not being able to come here is "unpractical" for all of central America... scrap that, all of the world.

Wealth and welfare on demand, what's not to like?

This is why we have to make it more unpractical. Wall with armed guards who don't mess around. That or the wealth and welfare will be stripped from us as the low IQ horde steamrolls in.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the reasons may be different, but that's what it's like firing people. I keep it short and factual. Leftists of course say, don't you care about people? They have families. First of all of course in their typical style, leftists are telling me what to do with my money, not what they are doing with theirs. Second, of course I care about their family. But they should have cared more about their own family and tried harder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, you are a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.
> 
> Managers who think they can fire their way to a better workplace usually have teams with shitty morale.  Who wants to work at a place where you can be fired on a whim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you are a "resume writer" who knows nothing about business.
> 
> You don't get insurance in addition to full salary.  Jobs pay a fixed total amount.  Whether it comes as medical insurance, healthcare contributions, salary, whatever.
> 
> If I didn't pay market compensation, I wouldn't have had employees.
> 
> Let's say your compensation to make up a number is $80K.  Now would you rather have:
> 
> $70K in salary and $10K in benefits ...
> 
> ... or ...
> 
> $80K in salary.
> 
> Joe:
> 
> Joe:  $70K + $10K, that's greater than $80K !!!
> 
> Dumb ass.  I'm not paying more than market wages, and my employees aren't working for less than market wages.  All you're droning on about is again just that you know zero about business.
> 
> Now, do you want me to explain price and cost to you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would rather have 10K in benefits.  Benefits are not taxed and by not having that in your paycheck, it brings down your tax rate.  It's one of the many failures of Commie Care.  Now, you have to  pay for insurance with after tax money that you won't likely be able to write-off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Joe, I meant to address this before.
> 
> Note you hit the nail on the head.  You would rather have $70K in pay and $10K in benefits.  I am indifferent, which is what the moron Joe doesn't understand.  It's $80K to me either way.  The reason you'd prefer the $10K in benefits is because of the reason you said, the tax rate.  Also I can get group rates you can't get on your own.  I'm indifferent.  If the market value of the jobs is $80K, I pay $80K or you won't work for me.
> 
> What happens with Obamacare is that suddenly It's $50K in pay and $30K in benefits, and the $30K includes crappy medical care.  I am not passing on that deal.  To your point, my employees are.  They don't want their take home pay to go that low.
> 
> In Joe's terms, he thinks that $80K, $70K+$10 and $50K+$30K are different amounts to me.  I can afford the $80K, maybe the $70K+$10K but I can't afford the $50K+$30K.  Oh, and he writes business resumes for a living ...
Click to expand...


Of course, all benefits are included when you decide on a pay scale.  Vacation is included, overtime pay is included, holiday pay is included, unemployment and workman's compensation are included.  It's all included.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, if it's law for American citizen, but not if foreigners don't like our laws. They don't live here. They are not citizens of this country. If our laws don't work for them, then they should stay the hell out of this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, buddy, it take two to tango. They wouldn't be here if rich people didn't offer them jobs.
Click to expand...


And when the rich get busted giving them jobs, do you see Republicans protesting or Democrats? 

They wouldn't be here for a lot of reasons, so quit laying the entire blame on employers.  Sure, they are part of the problem, but so are anchor babies, so are our welfare programs, so are sanctuary cities, so are allowing them to rent or even buy homes, so are bilingual signs so they can understand WTF is going on around them.  Just a ton of reasons.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> Note you hit the nail on the head. You would rather have $70K in pay and $10K in benefits. I am indifferent, which is what the moron Joe doesn't understand. It's $80K to me either way. The reason you'd prefer the $10K in benefits is because of the reason you said, the tax rate. Also I can get group rates you can't get on your own. I'm indifferent. If the market value of the jobs is $80K, I pay $80K or you won't work for me.



Except that it isn't a constant.  You see, the thing is, if I don't get sick, then you are right, that $10K isn't an advantage at all.  Im just out that $10K. 

If I do get sick, or a member of my family does, or I get into a serious accident, then I get perhaps hundreds of thousands in benefits that would otherwise bankrupt me.  

For instance, some cancer therapies cost up to $30,000 a month to get. 

Which is why no decent employee would work for your cheap ass company if it doesn't offer health insurance. 



kaz said:


> What happens with Obamacare is that suddenly It's $50K in pay and $30K in benefits, and the $30K includes crappy medical care. I am not passing on that deal. To your point, my employees are. They don't want their take home pay to go that low.



Except no one is paying 30K under ObamaCare unless they are chronically sick, and you wouldn't hire that person anyway.  You'd probably be like my ex-boss who got rid of employees when they got six or pregnant to keep his insurance costs down. 

You see, this is kind of why you are sort of a moron who never really has run a business.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> And when the rich get busted giving them jobs, do you see Republicans protesting or Democrats?



The rich don't get busted for giving them jobs. IN fact, Trump just gave a commutation to some guy who was hiring illegals at his Kosher meat plant. 

Trump commutes sentence of kosher meatpacking executive



Ray From Cleveland said:


> They wouldn't be here for a lot of reasons, so quit laying the entire blame on employers. Sure, they are part of the problem, but so are anchor babies, so are our welfare programs, so are sanctuary cities, so are allowing them to rent or even buy homes, so are bilingual signs so they can understand WTF is going on around them. Just a ton of reasons.



Again, none of them would be here if there weren't jobs here. No one is coming here for a bilingual sign.  

Now, here's the thing. This isn't like the 1990's when you had a million people crossing the border after NATFA demolished the Mexican Corn industry and displaced millions of agricultural workers.  In fact, the number of people crossing the border has been reduced to only about 200K a year.


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the reasons may be different, but that's what it's like firing people. I keep it short and factual. Leftists of course say, don't you care about people? They have families. First of all of course in their typical style, leftists are telling me what to do with my money, not what they are doing with theirs. Second, of course I care about their family. But they should have cared more about their own family and tried harder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, you are a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.
> 
> Managers who think they can fire their way to a better workplace usually have teams with shitty morale.  Who wants to work at a place where you can be fired on a whim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you are a "resume writer" who knows nothing about business.
> 
> You don't get insurance in addition to full salary.  Jobs pay a fixed total amount.  Whether it comes as medical insurance, healthcare contributions, salary, whatever.
> 
> If I didn't pay market compensation, I wouldn't have had employees.
> 
> Let's say your compensation to make up a number is $80K.  Now would you rather have:
> 
> $70K in salary and $10K in benefits ...
> 
> ... or ...
> 
> $80K in salary.
> 
> Joe:
> 
> Joe:  $70K + $10K, that's greater than $80K !!!
> 
> Dumb ass.  I'm not paying more than market wages, and my employees aren't working for less than market wages.  All you're droning on about is again just that you know zero about business.
> 
> Now, do you want me to explain price and cost to you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would rather have 10K in benefits.  Benefits are not taxed and by not having that in your paycheck, it brings down your tax rate.  It's one of the many failures of Commie Care.  Now, you have to  pay for insurance with after tax money that you won't likely be able to write-off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Joe, I meant to address this before.
> 
> Note you hit the nail on the head.  You would rather have $70K in pay and $10K in benefits.  I am indifferent, which is what the moron Joe doesn't understand.  It's $80K to me either way.  The reason you'd prefer the $10K in benefits is because of the reason you said, the tax rate.  Also I can get group rates you can't get on your own.  I'm indifferent.  If the market value of the jobs is $80K, I pay $80K or you won't work for me.
> 
> What happens with Obamacare is that suddenly It's $50K in pay and $30K in benefits, and the $30K includes crappy medical care.  I am not passing on that deal.  To your point, my employees are.  They don't want their take home pay to go that low.
> 
> In Joe's terms, he thinks that $80K, $70K+$10 and $50K+$30K are different amounts to me.  I can afford the $80K, maybe the $70K+$10K but I can't afford the $50K+$30K.  Oh, and he writes business resumes for a living ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, all benefits are included when you decide on a pay scale.  Vacation is included, overtime pay is included, holiday pay is included, unemployment and workman's compensation are included.  It's all included.
Click to expand...


Yep.  In corporate, we refer to that as the "fully loaded cost."  Actually, in addition to the things you said, we typically mark it up another percent because there are more tertiary costs like HR, Payroll, computers, work space, break rooms, etc. that are directly related to employees.  If we outsource or automate, those costs go down too.  So whatever work you're doing for the company, those are part of the costs of you doing it that have to be covered by the work you're doing as well.

I had a meeting once at my graphic design business to explain this to the staff.  How they think of their salary, and how I calculate it.  I got a lot of good feedback that made a lot of sense when I explained it.

Joe's of course a business savant who doesn't know any of this.  He thinks thinks it's all just a throw in by the company we don't count.  We count EVERYTHING


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note you hit the nail on the head. You would rather have $70K in pay and $10K in benefits. I am indifferent, which is what the moron Joe doesn't understand. It's $80K to me either way. The reason you'd prefer the $10K in benefits is because of the reason you said, the tax rate. Also I can get group rates you can't get on your own. I'm indifferent. If the market value of the jobs is $80K, I pay $80K or you won't work for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that it isn't a constant.  You see, the thing is, if I don't get sick, then you are right, that $10K isn't an advantage at all.  Im just out that $10K.
> 
> If I do get sick, or a member of my family does, or I get into a serious accident, then I get perhaps hundreds of thousands in benefits that would otherwise bankrupt me.
> 
> For instance, some cancer therapies cost up to $30,000 a month to get.
> 
> Which is why no decent employee would work for your cheap ass company if it doesn't offer health insurance
Click to expand...


That's classic, you still think $70K + $10K is more than $80K.  Not a math major, were you?  If I don't pay market wages, I don't have employees.  The market is far more effective than government at forcing business owners to pay market wages.

I didn't get the relevance of the rest of your post.  Insurance is purchased ex ante, not ex post.  What is your point?


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens with Obamacare is that suddenly It's $50K in pay and $30K in benefits, and the $30K includes crappy medical care. I am not passing on that deal. To your point, my employees are. They don't want their take home pay to go that low.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except no one is paying 30K under ObamaCare unless they are chronically sick, and you wouldn't hire that person anyway.  You'd probably be like my ex-boss who got rid of employees when they got six or pregnant to keep his insurance costs down.
> 
> You see, this is kind of why you are sort of a moron who never really has run a business.
Click to expand...


You're so stupid Joe.  I was showing the dynamic.  Ray got that.  I was just using your $80K salary which you make every year despite having one job, two jobs, changing jobs ...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again, you are a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.
> 
> Managers who think they can fire their way to a better workplace usually have teams with shitty morale.  Who wants to work at a place where you can be fired on a whim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you are a "resume writer" who knows nothing about business.
> 
> You don't get insurance in addition to full salary.  Jobs pay a fixed total amount.  Whether it comes as medical insurance, healthcare contributions, salary, whatever.
> 
> If I didn't pay market compensation, I wouldn't have had employees.
> 
> Let's say your compensation to make up a number is $80K.  Now would you rather have:
> 
> $70K in salary and $10K in benefits ...
> 
> ... or ...
> 
> $80K in salary.
> 
> Joe:
> 
> Joe:  $70K + $10K, that's greater than $80K !!!
> 
> Dumb ass.  I'm not paying more than market wages, and my employees aren't working for less than market wages.  All you're droning on about is again just that you know zero about business.
> 
> Now, do you want me to explain price and cost to you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would rather have 10K in benefits.  Benefits are not taxed and by not having that in your paycheck, it brings down your tax rate.  It's one of the many failures of Commie Care.  Now, you have to  pay for insurance with after tax money that you won't likely be able to write-off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Joe, I meant to address this before.
> 
> Note you hit the nail on the head.  You would rather have $70K in pay and $10K in benefits.  I am indifferent, which is what the moron Joe doesn't understand.  It's $80K to me either way.  The reason you'd prefer the $10K in benefits is because of the reason you said, the tax rate.  Also I can get group rates you can't get on your own.  I'm indifferent.  If the market value of the jobs is $80K, I pay $80K or you won't work for me.
> 
> What happens with Obamacare is that suddenly It's $50K in pay and $30K in benefits, and the $30K includes crappy medical care.  I am not passing on that deal.  To your point, my employees are.  They don't want their take home pay to go that low.
> 
> In Joe's terms, he thinks that $80K, $70K+$10 and $50K+$30K are different amounts to me.  I can afford the $80K, maybe the $70K+$10K but I can't afford the $50K+$30K.  Oh, and he writes business resumes for a living ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, all benefits are included when you decide on a pay scale.  Vacation is included, overtime pay is included, holiday pay is included, unemployment and workman's compensation are included.  It's all included.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  In corporate, we refer to that as the "fully loaded cost."  Actually, in addition to the things you said, we typically mark it up another percent because there are more tertiary costs like HR, Payroll and IT systems that are directly related to employees.  If we outsource or automate, those costs go down too.  So whatever work you're doing for the company, those are part of the costs of you doing it that have to be covered by the work you're doing as well.
> 
> I had a meeting once at my graphic design business to explain this to the staff.  How they think of their salary, and how I calculate it.  I got a lot of good feedback that made a lot of sense when I explained it.
> 
> Joe's of course a business savant who doesn't know any of this.  He thinks thinks it's all just a throw in by the company we don't count.  We count EVERYTHING
Click to expand...


He's also the type of person that thinks if you own a business, you are loaded with money.  Many businesses survive week by week, especially during the first couple of years; business owners who actually make less than their employees because payroll has to be met and the owners pay comes last with whatever is left over.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> That's classic, you still think $70K + $10K is more than $80K. Not a math major, were you? If I don't pay market wages, I don't have employees. The market is far more effective than government at forcing business owners to pay market wages.



Guy, you work on the assumption I give a rats fuck about the business owner's problems. I don't. Quite honestly, fuck those guys. 

I look at it from the viewpoint of the only people that count- the working people who get things done.  

The problem with capitalism is capitalists... they're too fucking greedy.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> The rich don't get busted for giving them jobs. IN fact, Trump just gave a commutation to some guy who was hiring illegals at his Kosher meat plant.
> 
> Trump commutes sentence of kosher meatpacking executive



But that's not why he was sentenced.  You should read your own links. 

He was busted for money laundering.  That's the law he broke which gave him an extremely harsh sentence; a sentence harsher than many murder convictions in this country.  Trump said he felt that this father of 10 children served eight years in prison, and that was enough considering the nature of the crime.  



JoeB131 said:


> Again, none of them would be here if there weren't jobs here. No one is coming here for a bilingual sign.
> 
> Now, here's the thing. This isn't like the 1990's when you had a million people crossing the border after NATFA demolished the Mexican Corn industry and displaced millions of agricultural workers. In fact, the number of people crossing the border has been reduced to only about 200K a year.



So all those women with kids that we are fighting about came here because there are jobs?  I don't think so, at least not from what I read.  

It's estimated (and a very conservative estimate at that) we have over 12 million illegals in this country.  Are you going to tell me most of them are working jobs illegally?  And tell me, WTF have the Democrats done about that?  Nothing, because they want those illegals here and the illegals know it.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> He's also the type of person that thinks if you own a business, you are loaded with money. Many businesses survive week by week, especially during the first couple of years; business owners who actually make less than their employees because payroll has to be met and the owners pay comes last with whatever is left over.



Yeah, here's the thing. In the immortal words of Mrs. Clinton, I can't be concerned about under capitalized businesses. 

The thing is, you guys INSIST on maintaining this awful system getting health coverage through employers, you know, instead of making it a government service that everyone gets by merely being a citizen.  You know, the way the rest of the world does it and gets far better results.  

So if you are going to ABSOLUTELY INSIST that we all have to bow down to employers to get our health insurance, then employers should be compelled to provide that service as a benefit without any fucking bitching about it.  

If you can't provide health coverage for employees, you probably shouldn't be in business... period.  

Now, all that said, what Mrs. Clinton came up with in 1993 wasn't a bad idea. If your company is too small to afford insurance, you put your employees on a public option and pay an extra tax.  

Big insurance, though,realized that employers would happily dump their employees off into that, and panicked.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, you work on the assumption I give a rats fuck about the business owner's problems. I don't. Quite honestly, fuck those guys.



That's obvious. 



JoeB131 said:


> The problem with capitalism is capitalists... they're too fucking greedy.



But people who feel they should be paid what they want aren't greedy.  Gotcha.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> But that's not why he was sentenced. You should read your own links.
> 
> He was busted for money laundering. That's the law he broke which gave him an extremely harsh sentence; a sentence harsher than many murder convictions in this country. Trump said he felt that this father of 10 children served eight years in prison, and that was enough considering the nature of the crime.



doesn't matter.  Hey, Al Capone was busted for tax evasion... but they threw the book at him, too, you know, for the other stuff.  

Not Trump, though. This creep who hired illegals got a commutation.. because, hey, we don't prosecute rich people. Silly darky, rights are for white people.  

(You'd be screaming your head off if it was a black guy with 10 kids getting a commutation.) 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> It's estimated (and a very conservative estimate at that) we have over 12 million illegals in this country. Are you going to tell me most of them are working jobs illegally? And tell me, WTF have the Democrats done about that? Nothing, because they want those illegals here and the illegals know it.



It's closer to 11 million, and 8 million of them are in the workforce... the other 3 million are minor kids and spouses. 

Again, Obama deported more people than Bush did, and you guys still wouldn't meet him halfway...


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> But people who feel they should be paid what they want aren't greedy. Gotcha.



Guy, there's a certain point where it goes beyond what is fair and you are just getting into pure greed.... 

There's no reason why someone should want mansions and yachts and dressage horses and bling.


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again you are a "resume writer" who knows nothing about business.
> 
> You don't get insurance in addition to full salary.  Jobs pay a fixed total amount.  Whether it comes as medical insurance, healthcare contributions, salary, whatever.
> 
> If I didn't pay market compensation, I wouldn't have had employees.
> 
> Let's say your compensation to make up a number is $80K.  Now would you rather have:
> 
> $70K in salary and $10K in benefits ...
> 
> ... or ...
> 
> $80K in salary.
> 
> Joe:
> 
> Joe:  $70K + $10K, that's greater than $80K !!!
> 
> Dumb ass.  I'm not paying more than market wages, and my employees aren't working for less than market wages.  All you're droning on about is again just that you know zero about business.
> 
> Now, do you want me to explain price and cost to you again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would rather have 10K in benefits.  Benefits are not taxed and by not having that in your paycheck, it brings down your tax rate.  It's one of the many failures of Commie Care.  Now, you have to  pay for insurance with after tax money that you won't likely be able to write-off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Joe, I meant to address this before.
> 
> Note you hit the nail on the head.  You would rather have $70K in pay and $10K in benefits.  I am indifferent, which is what the moron Joe doesn't understand.  It's $80K to me either way.  The reason you'd prefer the $10K in benefits is because of the reason you said, the tax rate.  Also I can get group rates you can't get on your own.  I'm indifferent.  If the market value of the jobs is $80K, I pay $80K or you won't work for me.
> 
> What happens with Obamacare is that suddenly It's $50K in pay and $30K in benefits, and the $30K includes crappy medical care.  I am not passing on that deal.  To your point, my employees are.  They don't want their take home pay to go that low.
> 
> In Joe's terms, he thinks that $80K, $70K+$10 and $50K+$30K are different amounts to me.  I can afford the $80K, maybe the $70K+$10K but I can't afford the $50K+$30K.  Oh, and he writes business resumes for a living ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, all benefits are included when you decide on a pay scale.  Vacation is included, overtime pay is included, holiday pay is included, unemployment and workman's compensation are included.  It's all included.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  In corporate, we refer to that as the "fully loaded cost."  Actually, in addition to the things you said, we typically mark it up another percent because there are more tertiary costs like HR, Payroll and IT systems that are directly related to employees.  If we outsource or automate, those costs go down too.  So whatever work you're doing for the company, those are part of the costs of you doing it that have to be covered by the work you're doing as well.
> 
> I had a meeting once at my graphic design business to explain this to the staff.  How they think of their salary, and how I calculate it.  I got a lot of good feedback that made a lot of sense when I explained it.
> 
> Joe's of course a business savant who doesn't know any of this.  He thinks thinks it's all just a throw in by the company we don't count.  We count EVERYTHING
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's also the type of person that thinks if you own a business, you are loaded with money.  Many businesses survive week by week, especially during the first couple of years; business owners who actually make less than their employees because payroll has to be met and the owners pay comes last with whatever is left over.
Click to expand...


Yes, I made very little for several years.  I get paid last.  The real money I made wasn't until I sold the businesses.  Before that as we grow, the profits mostly went back into the company to keep it growing.  Now I'm getting a nice monthly check and will for years to come.  I'm also back to doing management consulting.  Now the money is nice and the stress is low.  It sure wasn't though when I was building the businesses.

If you asked me what I'm most proud of building and selling all those businesses, the first answer without having to think is that I made payroll every time.  That is a very difficult thing to do building a business


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's classic, you still think $70K + $10K is more than $80K. Not a math major, were you? If I don't pay market wages, I don't have employees. The market is far more effective than government at forcing business owners to pay market wages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you work on the assumption I give a rats fuck about the business owner's problems. I don't. Quite honestly, fuck those guys.
> 
> I look at it from the viewpoint of the only people that count- the working people who get things done.
> 
> The problem with capitalism is capitalists... they're too fucking greedy.
Click to expand...


Yes, that's why you're a socialist.  Government doesn't have to care about customers and making a profit because they charge their customers whatever they want and collect it at gunpoint


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's also the type of person that thinks if you own a business, you are loaded with money. Many businesses survive week by week, especially during the first couple of years; business owners who actually make less than their employees because payroll has to be met and the owners pay comes last with whatever is left over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, here's the thing. In the immortal words of Mrs. Clinton, I can't be concerned about under capitalized businesses.
> 
> The thing is, you guys INSIST on maintaining this awful system getting health coverage through employers, you know, instead of making it a government service that everyone gets by merely being a citizen.  You know, the way the rest of the world does it and gets far better results.
> 
> So if you are going to ABSOLUTELY INSIST that we all have to bow down to employers to get our health insurance, then employers should be compelled to provide that service as a benefit without any fucking bitching about it.
> 
> If you can't provide health coverage for employees, you probably shouldn't be in business... period.
> 
> Now, all that said, what Mrs. Clinton came up with in 1993 wasn't a bad idea. If your company is too small to afford insurance, you put your employees on a public option and pay an extra tax.
> 
> Big insurance, though,realized that employers would happily dump their employees off into that, and panicked.
Click to expand...


WTF is going to pay for all this "free" healthcare Joe?  Okay, let's take this a step further.

There are good doctors and not so good doctors.  There are good hospitals and not so good hospitals.  I happen to be a patient at the Cleveland Clinic which is one of the best healthcare facilities in the world. 

Now government provides ALL the healthcare.  Well, then the next problem would be who gets the good doctors and facilities and who gets the bad ones.  After all, everybody wants the good doctors, but only those with insurance or money can have those doctors.

So now it becomes political.  If Democrats are in charge, they give the good doctors and facilities to likely Democrat voters.  If Republicans are in charge, the same thing.  Now if Republicans are in charge, they will give the good facilities to those who pay the most in taxes.  If Democrats are in charge, they will give the good doctors and facilities to those who pay the least or nothing at all.

There is no way to make it fair because if we are all "equally" in the same system, we all want the good doctors, and that would be impossible.  In other words, I would end up at a shithole like Metro and my HUD neighbors would get the care I used to get from the Cleveland Clinic.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's also the type of person that thinks if you own a business, you are loaded with money. Many businesses survive week by week, especially during the first couple of years; business owners who actually make less than their employees because payroll has to be met and the owners pay comes last with whatever is left over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, here's the thing. In the immortal words of Mrs. Clinton, I can't be concerned about under capitalized businesses.
> 
> The thing is, you guys INSIST on maintaining this awful system getting health coverage through employers, you know, instead of making it a government service that everyone gets by merely being a citizen.  You know, the way the rest of the world does it and gets far better results.
> 
> So if you are going to ABSOLUTELY INSIST that we all have to bow down to employers to get our health insurance, then employers should be compelled to provide that service as a benefit without any fucking bitching about it.
> 
> If you can't provide health coverage for employees, you probably shouldn't be in business... period.
> 
> Now, all that said, what Mrs. Clinton came up with in 1993 wasn't a bad idea. If your company is too small to afford insurance, you put your employees on a public option and pay an extra tax.
> 
> Big insurance, though,realized that employers would happily dump their employees off into that, and panicked.
Click to expand...


I see, so only undercapitalized businesses pay market wages.  The rest of them pay more.

I've worked in management in the who's who of big firms, and I can tell you they don't give employees money.  They pay market wages.

It's hilarious how you claim to write resumes and know zero about business.  You think companies can hire people while not paying market wages.  You really believe that.  We have no choice, Joe.  We have to pay market wages.  That's why free markets are SO much more effective at "protecting" employees than government.

Government:  Meet arbitrary, eclectic, counter productive standards word parsed by lawyers

Free markets:  Don't pay market wages, don't get employees.

Now class, which is more effective?

Joe:  I know teacher!  I know!  Government is!


----------



## danielpalos

Cosmos said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What government gives, government can take away.  And they want a government which is petty and spiteful.  They can lose control of that just like they're losing control of the supreme court
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1980 at the age of 20, I got my first apartment in the fall.  As an animal lover, I was fascinated with birds, so one of the first things I did was hang a bird feeder on my upstairs back porch. I would sit in my bedroom watching them from my window for hours.
> 
> Spring came along and I got to meet my elderly neighbor.  After some small talk, he said "You know Ray, what you're doing for the birds is a nice gesture.  But you may be doing them more harm than good.  You see, feeding them in the winter is a good thing because food is scarce.  But if you leave that feeder out year long, the birds will forget how to obtain food on their own.  If you move or get bored feeding the birds, they will likely parish."
> 
> I never forgot the lesson the old man gave me; not because of the birds, but because as I grew older, I realized this is what our government does for people; leave the feeder up year long.
> 
> If we ever had a financial collapse in this country (and yes, it could happen) what would happen to all these people who depend on government when these programs have to stop?  How would they feed themselves, their family?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Who says it's going to stop, feeding the birds or feeding the people but I get your point.  The key is moderation.  You don't want to feed the birds so much that they stop hunting or people for that matter.
> 
> However, let me remind you of the differences between people and birds.  Birds have only 3 goals in life, eat, keep from being eaten, and reproduce.  Humans are far more complex and have goals more complex goals than birds such as building wealth, gaining the respect of others, and providing a better life for their children for starters.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You endlessly parrot that platitude.  First of all, I know of no study that has demonstrated that's a major factor for the criminals breaking our laws and coming here illegally.
> 
> Even if it is, that they chose to break the law and come here as criminals is a terrible example to set for their kids.  If they really cared about their kids, they would work to show they can support themselves and go to a US consulate in Mexico and find out what it takes to come here legally and ... wait their turn ...
> 
> Having children is not any justification to commit a crime even if your platitude is accepted as fact.
> 
> And remind me again how you're against illegal immigration while you fight tooth and nail to ensure we do nothing to stop them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let's end our alleged wars on drugs and terror to stop creating refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Ok.  So it's our fault then, eh?  In that case we need to take responsibility and fix it.  The first step is to approach all these countries diplomatically  and put the pressure on their governments to stop the drug trade which is supposedly generating the asylum seekers.  If that doesn't work with start applying economic pressure to let them know we're serious.  And if that doesn't work we execute a regime change and in the process wipe out their drug trading infrastructure since they're too incompetent or corrupt to do it themselves.  Then on our end we start applying stiff prison terms in the jails of the countries we conquered to any drug users or traffickers we catch in the USA.  And we force them into community service and reconstruction in the countries we've probably destroyed.  I'd say something along the lines of 25-30 years before we let them back into the country.   Would that do it?
Click to expand...

why not end Our drug war?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would rather have 10K in benefits.  Benefits are not taxed and by not having that in your paycheck, it brings down your tax rate.  It's one of the many failures of Commie Care.  Now, you have to  pay for insurance with after tax money that you won't likely be able to write-off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Joe, I meant to address this before.
> 
> Note you hit the nail on the head.  You would rather have $70K in pay and $10K in benefits.  I am indifferent, which is what the moron Joe doesn't understand.  It's $80K to me either way.  The reason you'd prefer the $10K in benefits is because of the reason you said, the tax rate.  Also I can get group rates you can't get on your own.  I'm indifferent.  If the market value of the jobs is $80K, I pay $80K or you won't work for me.
> 
> What happens with Obamacare is that suddenly It's $50K in pay and $30K in benefits, and the $30K includes crappy medical care.  I am not passing on that deal.  To your point, my employees are.  They don't want their take home pay to go that low.
> 
> In Joe's terms, he thinks that $80K, $70K+$10 and $50K+$30K are different amounts to me.  I can afford the $80K, maybe the $70K+$10K but I can't afford the $50K+$30K.  Oh, and he writes business resumes for a living ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, all benefits are included when you decide on a pay scale.  Vacation is included, overtime pay is included, holiday pay is included, unemployment and workman's compensation are included.  It's all included.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  In corporate, we refer to that as the "fully loaded cost."  Actually, in addition to the things you said, we typically mark it up another percent because there are more tertiary costs like HR, Payroll and IT systems that are directly related to employees.  If we outsource or automate, those costs go down too.  So whatever work you're doing for the company, those are part of the costs of you doing it that have to be covered by the work you're doing as well.
> 
> I had a meeting once at my graphic design business to explain this to the staff.  How they think of their salary, and how I calculate it.  I got a lot of good feedback that made a lot of sense when I explained it.
> 
> Joe's of course a business savant who doesn't know any of this.  He thinks thinks it's all just a throw in by the company we don't count.  We count EVERYTHING
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's also the type of person that thinks if you own a business, you are loaded with money.  Many businesses survive week by week, especially during the first couple of years; business owners who actually make less than their employees because payroll has to be met and the owners pay comes last with whatever is left over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I made very little for several years.  I get paid last.  The real money I made wasn't until I sold the businesses.  Before that as we grow, the profits mostly went back into the company to keep it growing.  Now I'm getting a nice monthly check and will for years to come.  I'm also back to doing management consulting.  Now the money is nice and the stress is low.  It sure wasn't though when I was building the businesses.
> 
> If you asked me what I'm most proud of building and selling all those businesses, the first answer without having to think is that I made payroll every time.  That is a very difficult thing to do building a business
Click to expand...


I know about people like Joe because we have his kind in our city Council.  One idiot proposed charging us an annual fee for each tenant we rent to.  Tenants don't cost the city a dime.  In fact, I bring in new taxpayers to this city, but they don't care about that. 

So the proposal is $185.00 per tenant per year.  This is on top of the inspection fee of $250.00 with every new tenant I get. 

So it it's a benefit to bring in new people to this city, and they are not costing the city a dime, why this proposal of raping landlords?  Because the council pig thinks that we landlords are sitting on a boatload of money thanks to the city.  They just count the rental income and don't ask to see expenditures.  They don't ask to see our tax returns.  If they did, they would be in shock how much their assumptions were off.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> But people who feel they should be paid what they want aren't greedy. Gotcha.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, there's a certain point where it goes beyond what is fair and you are just getting into pure greed....
> 
> There's no reason why someone should want mansions and yachts and dressage horses and bling.
Click to expand...


A desire to live great is not a good enough goal for you?  Then tell me, why do tens of millions of people play the lottery every week?  You know, where even though the odds of winning are 150 million to one, they still waste their money anyway? 

As always, you are on the wrong side of the issue.  Just because you may not have the dream of living like that doesn't mean others don't.  In fact most people have that dream.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> doesn't matter. Hey, Al Capone was busted for tax evasion... but they threw the book at him, too, you know, for the other stuff.
> 
> Not Trump, though. This creep who hired illegals got a commutation.. because, hey, we don't prosecute rich people. Silly darky, rights are for white people.
> 
> (You'd be screaming your head off if it was a black guy with 10 kids getting a commutation.)



Don't you understand anything?  I just got done explaining to you that this guy served 8 years in prison before Trump let him off the hook.  Aren't  you guys on the left constantly telling us that our prisons are too loaded with non-violent offenders so we don't have room for the violent ones? 

Speaking of which, Trump let this guy out of prison because he got greedy and broke the law.  Your guy was letting people out of prison for selling dangerous narcotics that likely killed people.  In fact I remember one of those early releases went out and murdered an innocent person right after he got out. 



JoeB131 said:


> It's closer to 11 million, and 8 million of them are in the workforce... the other 3 million are minor kids and spouses.
> 
> Again, Obama deported more people than Bush did, and you guys still wouldn't meet him halfway...



That's because the definition of deportation changed.  During Bush's presidency, he changed the definition of deportation from court cases to simply catching people and telling them to turn around and go home.  Afterwards, if a ICE agent or Border Patrol caught somebody and kicked them back out, it was considered a deportation.


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Joe, I meant to address this before.
> 
> Note you hit the nail on the head.  You would rather have $70K in pay and $10K in benefits.  I am indifferent, which is what the moron Joe doesn't understand.  It's $80K to me either way.  The reason you'd prefer the $10K in benefits is because of the reason you said, the tax rate.  Also I can get group rates you can't get on your own.  I'm indifferent.  If the market value of the jobs is $80K, I pay $80K or you won't work for me.
> 
> What happens with Obamacare is that suddenly It's $50K in pay and $30K in benefits, and the $30K includes crappy medical care.  I am not passing on that deal.  To your point, my employees are.  They don't want their take home pay to go that low.
> 
> In Joe's terms, he thinks that $80K, $70K+$10 and $50K+$30K are different amounts to me.  I can afford the $80K, maybe the $70K+$10K but I can't afford the $50K+$30K.  Oh, and he writes business resumes for a living ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, all benefits are included when you decide on a pay scale.  Vacation is included, overtime pay is included, holiday pay is included, unemployment and workman's compensation are included.  It's all included.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  In corporate, we refer to that as the "fully loaded cost."  Actually, in addition to the things you said, we typically mark it up another percent because there are more tertiary costs like HR, Payroll and IT systems that are directly related to employees.  If we outsource or automate, those costs go down too.  So whatever work you're doing for the company, those are part of the costs of you doing it that have to be covered by the work you're doing as well.
> 
> I had a meeting once at my graphic design business to explain this to the staff.  How they think of their salary, and how I calculate it.  I got a lot of good feedback that made a lot of sense when I explained it.
> 
> Joe's of course a business savant who doesn't know any of this.  He thinks thinks it's all just a throw in by the company we don't count.  We count EVERYTHING
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's also the type of person that thinks if you own a business, you are loaded with money.  Many businesses survive week by week, especially during the first couple of years; business owners who actually make less than their employees because payroll has to be met and the owners pay comes last with whatever is left over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I made very little for several years.  I get paid last.  The real money I made wasn't until I sold the businesses.  Before that as we grow, the profits mostly went back into the company to keep it growing.  Now I'm getting a nice monthly check and will for years to come.  I'm also back to doing management consulting.  Now the money is nice and the stress is low.  It sure wasn't though when I was building the businesses.
> 
> If you asked me what I'm most proud of building and selling all those businesses, the first answer without having to think is that I made payroll every time.  That is a very difficult thing to do building a business
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know about people like Joe because we have his kind in our city Council.  One idiot proposed charging us an annual fee for each tenant we rent to.  Tenants don't cost the city a dime.  In fact, I bring in new taxpayers to this city, but they don't care about that.
> 
> So the proposal is $185.00 per tenant per year.  This is on top of the inspection fee of $250.00 with every new tenant I get.
> 
> So it it's a benefit to bring in new people to this city, and they are not costing the city a dime, why this proposal of raping landlords?  Because the council pig thinks that we landlords are sitting on a boatload of money thanks to the city.  They just count the rental income and don't ask to see expenditures.  They don't ask to see our tax returns.  If they did, they would be in shock how much their assumptions were off.
Click to expand...


Yep.   My brother's wife was a leftist like her parents all her life until she became a veterinarian and joined a practice, which made her a business owner.  Then she stopped voting for Democrats and agrees with me when I say that government is hostile to businesses.  Being a landlord of course the same dynamic as you're pointing out.

We are their source of money, their customers are the people who vote for them.  That's a hostile dynamic.  And it works.  The feds, state and local governments all treat us as the enemy


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> Yes, that's why you're a socialist. Government doesn't have to care about customers and making a profit because they charge their customers whatever they want and collect it at gunpoint



Well, actually, government does care about customers, but they are called "voters".   

The thing is, with Employer run Health care, the "customer" isn't the worker, it's the business.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Don't you understand anything? I just got done explaining to you that this guy served 8 years in prison before Trump let him off the hook. Aren't you guys on the left constantly telling us that our prisons are too loaded with non-violent offenders so we don't have room for the violent ones?



So rich white guys who break the law get commuted sentences and little kids crossing the border get throw into cages... yup, Welcome to Trump's America. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Speaking of which, Trump let this guy out of prison because he got greedy and broke the law. Your guy was letting people out of prison for selling dangerous narcotics that likely killed people. In fact I remember one of those early releases went out and murdered an innocent person right after he got out.



Everyone who died of a drug overdose took those drugs by their own choice.  Can't get that worked up about it...


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> We are their source of money, their customers are the people who vote for them. That's a hostile dynamic. And it works. The feds, state and local governments all treat us as the enemy



Only because by and large, you all treat your employees like the "enemy".  

If employers weren't shitballs, we wouldn't need government agencies or unions or lawyers....


----------



## Maxdeath

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


First let's make it crystal clear that if you are refused entry at the border or are deported, if you are found within U.S. Borders again it is a felony.

Now let's talk about parenting.
I have always considered teaching right and wrong to a child is one of the main responsibilities of being a parent. If you are showing disdain for laws. Right or wrong only applies to others by your actions you are not much of a parent.
Some of these parents are traveling many miles with small children in dangerous conditions. Then they get to the desert southwest and attempt a crossing that kills on average 400 people a year. Does not say much for compassion of the parent. There are better ways then putting a child in such dangers.

There are people who kidnap a child to be sold, I would rather hundreds be inconvenienced then allow one child to spend their life in abuse.

Where was your voice when the last administration was doing the same thing? Where was your voice when Clinton signed the law that made this fiasco?

In short your faux outrage and pretend caring is reprehensible.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's why you're a socialist. Government doesn't have to care about customers and making a profit because they charge their customers whatever they want and collect it at gunpoint
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, actually, government does care about customers, but they are called "voters"
Click to expand...


I vote, government doesn't give a shit about me.  It's not about "voters," it's about tyranny of the majority.  Their customer is the majority they promise to redistribute money to and the rest of us are their victims.  But we're all "voters"



JoeB131 said:


> The thing is, with Employer run Health care, the "customer" isn't the worker, it's the business



Swish.  No, we're the middle man.  You want your salary in pay or benefits?  I don't give a shit.  I'm not the customer.  I just pay market wages.  If the workers want medical insurance rather than that amount of pay, that's fine.  But it comes out of your wages.  All of it, not just what you think you're paying for it.  I pay market wages.

You keep calling me greedy because you're stupid and know nothing about business.  Wages are set by the market, not me.  You don't grasp that if I don't pay market wages, I don't have employees.  I don't even have a choice.  That makes me neither greedy nor generous.  I pay them market wages, my customers pay market prices.  If I don't match those up, I fail.

So you say I'm greedy despite that I had employees saying I should pay them more because you want more, yet I HAD employees

Then you say my employees who could make more money working for someone else hate me, but stay and earn less than someone else would pay them.

Yeah, Joe.  Your smack sucks


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are their source of money, their customers are the people who vote for them. That's a hostile dynamic. And it works. The feds, state and local governments all treat us as the enemy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because by and large, you all treat your employees like the "enemy".
> 
> If employers weren't shitballs, we wouldn't need government agencies or unions or lawyers....
Click to expand...


Just your bitter hatred and bad attitude.

Again, your smack is that I underpaid my employees, other people would pay them more.  But they hate me and stay for less money.

You're an imbecile


----------



## Coyote

Maxdeath said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> First let's make it crystal clear that if you are refused entry at the border or are deported, if you are found within U.S. Borders again it is a felony.
> 
> Now let's talk about parenting.
> I have always considered teaching right and wrong to a child is one of the main responsibilities of being a parent. If you are showing disdain for laws. Right or wrong only applies to others by your actions you are not much of a parent.
> Some of these parents are traveling many miles with small children in dangerous conditions. Then they get to the desert southwest and attempt a crossing that kills on average 400 people a year. Does not say much for compassion of the parent. There are better ways then putting a child in such dangers.
> 
> There are people who kidnap a child to be sold, I would rather hundreds be inconvenienced then allow one child to spend their life in abuse.
> 
> Where was your voice when the last administration was doing the same thing? Where was your voice when Clinton signed the law that made this fiasco?
> 
> In short your faux outrage and pretend caring is reprehensible.
Click to expand...


Many parents in this group of migrants are fleeing horrendous violence in Central America.  But you seem to consider it child abuse for them to try and protect their children by fleeing with them.  What good parent would leave their children at the mercy of those gangs?  We are far too comfortable, seated in our overstuffed recliners, flipping the remote and passing judgement on people experiencing things that will never touch most of us. 

But but but Clinton....but but Obama....”this fiasco” is the responsibility of one person, Trump, who CHOSE to innact a NEW zero tolerance policy, with zero prep, zero coordination, zero plans to track kids, zero plans to reunite them and vastly insufficient places to warehouse kids.  

Agents have always separated kids when there is suspicion of trafficking, they aren’t stupid, they are trained to figure this out.  No one has a problem with that.  But you and I both know that this is not being done for that reason (direct from the mouths of Trump, Kelly and Sessions).

So forceably separating a child from his or her mother for months is now just an “inconvenience”....interesting take on the trauma it causes these children.

No...what is reprehensible is your cavelier attitude towards something you would never tolerate should it happen to your family.


----------



## WEATHER53

The function of a business is to provide income and potentially prosperity to the person who took the risk and poured in the time money and effort to open it.  It’s a huge roll of the dice.
The function of the employees is to assist in the operation of the business and be paid a wage.  That wage does not and should not guarantee success and prosperity. The employee took no risk of any forms, the owner did, and any windfall is rightly the owners.


----------



## Flopper

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who says it's going to stop, feeding the birds or feeding the people but I get your point.  The key is moderation.  You don't want to feed the birds so much that they stop hunting or people for that matter.
> 
> However, let me remind you of the differences between people and birds.  Birds have only 3 goals in life, eat, keep from being eaten, and reproduce.  Humans are far more complex and have goals more complex goals than birds such as building wealth, gaining the respect of others, and providing a better life for their children for starters.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You endlessly parrot that platitude.  First of all, I know of no study that has demonstrated that's a major factor for the criminals breaking our laws and coming here illegally.
> 
> Even if it is, that they chose to break the law and come here as criminals is a terrible example to set for their kids.  If they really cared about their kids, they would work to show they can support themselves and go to a US consulate in Mexico and find out what it takes to come here legally and ... wait their turn ...
> 
> Having children is not any justification to commit a crime even if your platitude is accepted as fact.
> 
> And remind me again how you're against illegal immigration while you fight tooth and nail to ensure we do nothing to stop them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let's end our alleged wars on drugs and terror to stop creating refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Ok.  So it's our fault then, eh?  In that case we need to take responsibility and fix it.  The first step is to approach all these countries diplomatically  and put the pressure on their governments to stop the drug trade which is supposedly generating the asylum seekers.  If that doesn't work with start applying economic pressure to let them know we're serious.  And if that doesn't work we execute a regime change and in the process wipe out their drug trading infrastructure since they're too incompetent or corrupt to do it themselves.  Then on our end we start applying stiff prison terms in the jails of the countries we conquered to any drug users or traffickers we catch in the USA.  And we force them into community service and reconstruction in the countries we've probably destroyed.  I'd say something along the lines of 25-30 years before we let them back into the country.   Would that do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The US is the biggest market for illegal drugs in the world.  Expecting countries with a small fraction of the wealth of the US to control the cartels is down right stupid.  We must stop the demand and that begins with curtailing American's insatiable demand for illegal drugs.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "We must stop demand."  That's leftist for do nothing.  You're not going to stop demand, that's another moronic platitude.  We need to legalize drugs.  And we need to build a wall so drug dealers can't walk across the line we erroneously refer to as a "border" because it isn't.
> 
> Tough choice, huh, Flopper?  We stop drugs from crossing the border so easily with a wall, and it keeps out Democrat voters too.  You pass on that deal, keeping the flow of Democrat voters is more important
Click to expand...

*I find myself ambivalent about legalizing drugs.  I live in a state where marijuana is legal and see both positive and negative results.

Legalizing drugs would put a serious dent in the cartels income however I think it would also increased the number of users in the US.

I see daily, the huge waste due to drug usage.  Kids with real talent and intelligence dropping out of school and eventually just dropping out of society as they head toward the social trash bin.  If America is going to compete in the world, we  have to reduce drug usage and I'm not sure  making it legal would do that.*


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> First let's make it crystal clear that if you are refused entry at the border or are deported, if you are found within U.S. Borders again it is a felony.
> 
> Now let's talk about parenting.
> I have always considered teaching right and wrong to a child is one of the main responsibilities of being a parent. If you are showing disdain for laws. Right or wrong only applies to others by your actions you are not much of a parent.
> Some of these parents are traveling many miles with small children in dangerous conditions. Then they get to the desert southwest and attempt a crossing that kills on average 400 people a year. Does not say much for compassion of the parent. There are better ways then putting a child in such dangers.
> 
> There are people who kidnap a child to be sold, I would rather hundreds be inconvenienced then allow one child to spend their life in abuse.
> 
> Where was your voice when the last administration was doing the same thing? Where was your voice when Clinton signed the law that made this fiasco?
> 
> In short your faux outrage and pretend caring is reprehensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many parents in this group of migrants are fleeing horrendous violence in Central America.  But you seem to consider it child abuse for them to try and protect their children by fleeing with them.  What good parent would leave their children at the mercy of those gangs?  We are far too comfortable, seated in our overstuffed recliners, flipping the remote and passing judgement on people experiencing things that will never touch most of us.
> 
> But but but Clinton....but but Obama....”this fiasco” is the responsibility of one person, Trump, who CHOSE to innact a NEW zero tolerance policy, with zero prep, zero coordination, zero plans to track kids, zero plans to reunite them and vastly insufficient places to warehouse kids.
> 
> Agents have always separated kids when there is suspicion of trafficking, they aren’t stupid, they are trained to figure this out.  No one has a problem with that.  But you and I both know that this is not being done for that reason (direct from the mouths of Trump, Kelly and Sessions).
> 
> So forceably separating a child from his or her mother for months is now just an “inconvenience”....interesting take on the trauma it causes these children.
> 
> No...what is reprehensible is your cavelier attitude towards something you would never tolerate should it happen to your family.
Click to expand...


You made all of that up.  You don't know that they came to the US for their "family" or for their "children."  They're poor because they live in the now.  There's no evidence they did it for anyone but themselves.

You do admit though you're a monster.  You believe they live in hell and you want to do nothing unless they benefit you by coming here and voting for Democrats.  Other than that, your view is fuck em


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You endlessly parrot that platitude.  First of all, I know of no study that has demonstrated that's a major factor for the criminals breaking our laws and coming here illegally.
> 
> Even if it is, that they chose to break the law and come here as criminals is a terrible example to set for their kids.  If they really cared about their kids, they would work to show they can support themselves and go to a US consulate in Mexico and find out what it takes to come here legally and ... wait their turn ...
> 
> Having children is not any justification to commit a crime even if your platitude is accepted as fact.
> 
> And remind me again how you're against illegal immigration while you fight tooth and nail to ensure we do nothing to stop them
> 
> 
> 
> let's end our alleged wars on drugs and terror to stop creating refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Ok.  So it's our fault then, eh?  In that case we need to take responsibility and fix it.  The first step is to approach all these countries diplomatically  and put the pressure on their governments to stop the drug trade which is supposedly generating the asylum seekers.  If that doesn't work with start applying economic pressure to let them know we're serious.  And if that doesn't work we execute a regime change and in the process wipe out their drug trading infrastructure since they're too incompetent or corrupt to do it themselves.  Then on our end we start applying stiff prison terms in the jails of the countries we conquered to any drug users or traffickers we catch in the USA.  And we force them into community service and reconstruction in the countries we've probably destroyed.  I'd say something along the lines of 25-30 years before we let them back into the country.   Would that do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The US is the biggest market for illegal drugs in the world.  Expecting countries with a small fraction of the wealth of the US to control the cartels is down right stupid.  We must stop the demand and that begins with curtailing American's insatiable demand for illegal drugs.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "We must stop demand."  That's leftist for do nothing.  You're not going to stop demand, that's another moronic platitude.  We need to legalize drugs.  And we need to build a wall so drug dealers can't walk across the line we erroneously refer to as a "border" because it isn't.
> 
> Tough choice, huh, Flopper?  We stop drugs from crossing the border so easily with a wall, and it keeps out Democrat voters too.  You pass on that deal, keeping the flow of Democrat voters is more important
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I find myself ambivalent about legalizing drugs.  I live in a state where marijuana is legal and see both positive and negative results.
> 
> Legalizing drugs would put a serious dent in the cartels income however I think it would also increased the number of users in the US.
> 
> I see daily, the huge waste due to drug usage.  Kids with real talent and intelligence dropping out of school and eventually just dropping out of society as they head toward the social trash bin.  If America is going to compete in the world, we  have to reduce drug usage and I'm not sure  making it legal would do that.*
Click to expand...


OK, so we're destroying central America, which you blame on the United States.  I actually agree with you on that.

You admit that legalizing it would hurt drug dealers, but you don't care about that because you believe some PSAs will fix the drug problem.

Oh, and taking drug dealers pushing drugs on the streets won't affect drug usage, actually you think legalizing it will drive drug usage up.

That while you want to open our borders because laws don't work and people don't follow them, but they do follow drug laws, er they don't, we need PSAs to fix that.

You're an imbecile


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the system isn't--the Democrats are.
> 
> It's Democrats who fight for illegals to be here.
> It's Democrats who fight to keep their sanctuary cities and now states.
> It's Democrats who are fighting against the wall.
> It's Democrats who allow them to have drivers licenses in their states so they can get to the jobs they're not supposed to have.
> 
> The system isn't the problem. Democrats are the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's republicans who gave us SImpson-Mazoli, the law that puts verification on the employer which is like letting the Foxes watch the henhouse.
> It's republicans who own the companies that hire them.
> It's Republicans who oppose a national ID system.
> It's Republicans who have blocked immigration reform for over a decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is immigration reform?  Making laws that benefit the foreigners and a disadvantage to Americans. Of course we're against that.  In other words, amnesty.  It didn't work in the past and it won't work today.
> 
> It's Republicans that own companies?  To my knowledge, there are just as many if not more Democrats that own companies as Republicans:  Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Cosco's, Starbucks, Martha Stewart just to name a few.
> 
> National ID?  We used to use drivers licenses as ID's, and then the Democrats started giving them to foreigners and we don't know who is a citizen and who is not.  National ID's............from the same group of people fighting against Voter-ID claiming it won't solve any problems and it won't work?????
> 
> You are a perfect example of the Party of Excuses.
Click to expand...

*We need immigration laws that are realistic based on what the nation needs and doesn't need.

First of all we need more people, not less.  As a result of improved health care, our country is getting older. Ten thousand Baby Boomers are turning 65 every day.  Many of them are retiring and leaving the workforce. 

There will be 35.3 million job openings by 2024 compared to 6.8 million today, mostly due to retirement. Combine that with an economy that’s expected to create 9.8 million additional job openings and a U.S. birthrate that is declining, it’s obvious that the U.S. economy will need more workers.  If we don't have them, those jobs along with the economic benefits they would bring will go overseas and the US will go into economic decline. 

The beliefs that more immigrants will mean more democrats, less jobs, and a shortage of workers is good for the economy is going to prevent any meaningful reform that would solve the worker shortage.  In essence, the US is very likely to follow the same disastrous path Japan is following.

What we don't need is more illegal immigrants. This is one thing both republicans and democrats will be able to agree on.  With less people attempting to cross the border and more security, illegal entry into the country will be a minor problem long before any wall gets build.*


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the system isn't--the Democrats are.
> 
> It's Democrats who fight for illegals to be here.
> It's Democrats who fight to keep their sanctuary cities and now states.
> It's Democrats who are fighting against the wall.
> It's Democrats who allow them to have drivers licenses in their states so they can get to the jobs they're not supposed to have.
> 
> The system isn't the problem. Democrats are the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's republicans who gave us SImpson-Mazoli, the law that puts verification on the employer which is like letting the Foxes watch the henhouse.
> It's republicans who own the companies that hire them.
> It's Republicans who oppose a national ID system.
> It's Republicans who have blocked immigration reform for over a decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is immigration reform?  Making laws that benefit the foreigners and a disadvantage to Americans. Of course we're against that.  In other words, amnesty.  It didn't work in the past and it won't work today.
> 
> It's Republicans that own companies?  To my knowledge, there are just as many if not more Democrats that own companies as Republicans:  Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Cosco's, Starbucks, Martha Stewart just to name a few.
> 
> National ID?  We used to use drivers licenses as ID's, and then the Democrats started giving them to foreigners and we don't know who is a citizen and who is not.  National ID's............from the same group of people fighting against Voter-ID claiming it won't solve any problems and it won't work?????
> 
> You are a perfect example of the Party of Excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *We need immigration laws that are realistic based on what the nation needs and doesn't need.
> 
> First of all we need more people, not less.  As a result of improved health care, our country is getting older. Ten thousand Baby Boomers are turning 65 every day.  Many of them are retiring and leaving the workforce.
> 
> There will be 35.3 million job openings by 2024 compared to 6.8 million today, mostly due to retirement. Combine that with an economy that’s expected to create 9.8 million additional job openings and a U.S. birthrate that is declining, it’s obvious that the U.S. economy will need more workers.  If we don't have them, those jobs along with the economic benefits they would bring will go overseas and the US will go into economic decline.
> 
> The beliefs that more immigrants will mean more democrats, less jobs, and a shortage of workers is good for the economy is going to prevent any meaningful reform that would solve the worker shortage.  In essence, the US is very likely to follow the same disastrous path Japan is following.
> 
> What we don't need is more illegal immigrants. This is one thing both republicans and democrats will be able to agree on.  With less people attempting to cross the border and more security, illegal entry into the country will be a minor problem long before any wall gets build.*
Click to expand...


We're talking about illegal aliens, not immigrants, you racist, race baiting dick head.  What don't you grasp about that?


----------



## Flopper

Maxdeath said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> First let's make it crystal clear that if you are refused entry at the border or are deported, if you are found within U.S. Borders again it is a felony.
> 
> Now let's talk about parenting.
> I have always considered teaching right and wrong to a child is one of the main responsibilities of being a parent. If you are showing disdain for laws. Right or wrong only applies to others by your actions you are not much of a parent.
> Some of these parents are traveling many miles with small children in dangerous conditions. Then they get to the desert southwest and attempt a crossing that kills on average 400 people a year. Does not say much for compassion of the parent. There are better ways then putting a child in such dangers.
> 
> There are people who kidnap a child to be sold, I would rather hundreds be inconvenienced then allow one child to spend their life in abuse.
> 
> Where was your voice when the last administration was doing the same thing? Where was your voice when Clinton signed the law that made this fiasco?
> 
> In short your faux outrage and pretend caring is reprehensible.
Click to expand...

*Families have been embarking on long dangerous journeys to America for hundreds of years.  Only if they understand the journey is hopeless will they stop coming. As long as there is a chance, most of them will continue to come because they have nothing to lose by trying.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the system isn't--the Democrats are.
> 
> It's Democrats who fight for illegals to be here.
> It's Democrats who fight to keep their sanctuary cities and now states.
> It's Democrats who are fighting against the wall.
> It's Democrats who allow them to have drivers licenses in their states so they can get to the jobs they're not supposed to have.
> 
> The system isn't the problem. Democrats are the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's republicans who gave us SImpson-Mazoli, the law that puts verification on the employer which is like letting the Foxes watch the henhouse.
> It's republicans who own the companies that hire them.
> It's Republicans who oppose a national ID system.
> It's Republicans who have blocked immigration reform for over a decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is immigration reform?  Making laws that benefit the foreigners and a disadvantage to Americans. Of course we're against that.  In other words, amnesty.  It didn't work in the past and it won't work today.
> 
> It's Republicans that own companies?  To my knowledge, there are just as many if not more Democrats that own companies as Republicans:  Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Cosco's, Starbucks, Martha Stewart just to name a few.
> 
> National ID?  We used to use drivers licenses as ID's, and then the Democrats started giving them to foreigners and we don't know who is a citizen and who is not.  National ID's............from the same group of people fighting against Voter-ID claiming it won't solve any problems and it won't work?????
> 
> You are a perfect example of the Party of Excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *We need immigration laws that are realistic based on what the nation needs and doesn't need.
> 
> First of all we need more people, not less.  As a result of improved health care, our country is getting older. Ten thousand Baby Boomers are turning 65 every day.  Many of them are retiring and leaving the workforce.
> 
> There will be 35.3 million job openings by 2024 compared to 6.8 million today, mostly due to retirement. Combine that with an economy that’s expected to create 9.8 million additional job openings and a U.S. birthrate that is declining, it’s obvious that the U.S. economy will need more workers.  If we don't have them, those jobs along with the economic benefits they would bring will go overseas and the US will go into economic decline.
> 
> The beliefs that more immigrants will mean more democrats, less jobs, and a shortage of workers is good for the economy is going to prevent any meaningful reform that would solve the worker shortage.  In essence, the US is very likely to follow the same disastrous path Japan is following.
> 
> What we don't need is more illegal immigrants. This is one thing both republicans and democrats will be able to agree on.  With less people attempting to cross the border and more security, illegal entry into the country will be a minor problem long before any wall gets build.*
Click to expand...


I simply can't follow your logic:  we need more people because we have too many jobs for Americans to do.  But if the jobs go somewhere else, we will go into economic decline????  Does anybody else here follow this logic because I can't. 

You mean there is no middle ground?  If some of the jobs go overseas, and then we have enough workers for the jobs available?  

So if we need more people, then we increase our population to 400 million.  Then after that, we will need more people so we increase it to 500 million, then 700 million.  When does it stop?  

It think 315 million people is too many already.  Ever drive on the highway during the day?  It's like rush hour half the time.  I would like to see our population down to around 250 at most.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> First let's make it crystal clear that if you are refused entry at the border or are deported, if you are found within U.S. Borders again it is a felony.
> 
> Now let's talk about parenting.
> I have always considered teaching right and wrong to a child is one of the main responsibilities of being a parent. If you are showing disdain for laws. Right or wrong only applies to others by your actions you are not much of a parent.
> Some of these parents are traveling many miles with small children in dangerous conditions. Then they get to the desert southwest and attempt a crossing that kills on average 400 people a year. Does not say much for compassion of the parent. There are better ways then putting a child in such dangers.
> 
> There are people who kidnap a child to be sold, I would rather hundreds be inconvenienced then allow one child to spend their life in abuse.
> 
> Where was your voice when the last administration was doing the same thing? Where was your voice when Clinton signed the law that made this fiasco?
> 
> In short your faux outrage and pretend caring is reprehensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Families have been embarking on long dangerous journeys to America for hundreds of years.  Only if they understand the journey is hopeless will they stop coming. As long as there is a chance, most of them will continue to come because they have nothing to lose by trying.*
Click to expand...


Sure they will, because if there is a big wall to stop them, it makes no sense in coming here in the first place.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> We are far too comfortable, seated in our overstuffed recliners, flipping the remote and passing judgement on people experiencing things that will never touch most of us.



That is correct, and it took us over 200 years to get it this way.  We want to keep it that way too.  Every generation of people worked hard and fought in wars to make it better for the next generation.  But if Americans had someplace to run to when things got tough, we would never be the country we are today.  We may be some third world crap hole like all the other countries. 

It's up to the people of these countries to change their government, their environment, their politics.  Your solution is to just let them keep breeding, and when they get sick of where they're at, come here claiming things are too crappy in their country.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> ng me greedy because you're stupid and know nothing about business. Wages are set by the market, not me. You don't grasp that if I don't pay market wages, I don't have employees. I don't even have a choice.



And if you overpay them, you won't be in business that long because your competitors will take all your customers due to higher prices you need for your products or services.


----------



## Flopper

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the system isn't--the Democrats are.
> 
> It's Democrats who fight for illegals to be here.
> It's Democrats who fight to keep their sanctuary cities and now states.
> It's Democrats who are fighting against the wall.
> It's Democrats who allow them to have drivers licenses in their states so they can get to the jobs they're not supposed to have.
> 
> The system isn't the problem. Democrats are the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's republicans who gave us SImpson-Mazoli, the law that puts verification on the employer which is like letting the Foxes watch the henhouse.
> It's republicans who own the companies that hire them.
> It's Republicans who oppose a national ID system.
> It's Republicans who have blocked immigration reform for over a decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is immigration reform?  Making laws that benefit the foreigners and a disadvantage to Americans. Of course we're against that.  In other words, amnesty.  It didn't work in the past and it won't work today.
> 
> It's Republicans that own companies?  To my knowledge, there are just as many if not more Democrats that own companies as Republicans:  Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Cosco's, Starbucks, Martha Stewart just to name a few.
> 
> National ID?  We used to use drivers licenses as ID's, and then the Democrats started giving them to foreigners and we don't know who is a citizen and who is not.  National ID's............from the same group of people fighting against Voter-ID claiming it won't solve any problems and it won't work?????
> 
> You are a perfect example of the Party of Excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *We need immigration laws that are realistic based on what the nation needs and doesn't need.
> 
> First of all we need more people, not less.  As a result of improved health care, our country is getting older. Ten thousand Baby Boomers are turning 65 every day.  Many of them are retiring and leaving the workforce.
> 
> There will be 35.3 million job openings by 2024 compared to 6.8 million today, mostly due to retirement. Combine that with an economy that’s expected to create 9.8 million additional job openings and a U.S. birthrate that is declining, it’s obvious that the U.S. economy will need more workers.  If we don't have them, those jobs along with the economic benefits they would bring will go overseas and the US will go into economic decline.
> 
> The beliefs that more immigrants will mean more democrats, less jobs, and a shortage of workers is good for the economy is going to prevent any meaningful reform that would solve the worker shortage.  In essence, the US is very likely to follow the same disastrous path Japan is following.
> 
> What we don't need is more illegal immigrants. This is one thing both republicans and democrats will be able to agree on.  With less people attempting to cross the border and more security, illegal entry into the country will be a minor problem long before any wall gets build.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal aliens, not immigrants, you racist, race baiting dick head.  What don't you grasp about that?
Click to expand...

*You seem to have a problem understanding that our laws that regulated legal immigration are a primary cause of illegal immigration.  Our immigration quotas push wait times to 10 years or more and for those that don't have a sponsor it's never.  When there is no hope of legal entry, there no reason not to try illegally.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> So rich white guys who break the law get commuted sentences and little kids crossing the border get throw into cages... yup, Welcome to Trump's America.



Trump's America?  The MSM used pictures of kids in cages during the DumBama era.  But we can't criticize a black guy, can we? 

This guy isn't white, he's Jewish. 



JoeB131 said:


> Everyone who died of a drug overdose took those drugs by their own choice. Can't get that worked up about it...



That wasn't the point.  You're trying to change the point.  DumBama let people who were selling drugs out of prison early, but for a guy that only hurt a bank, you want him in jail for over 25 years.  That makes sense.


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ng me greedy because you're stupid and know nothing about business. Wages are set by the market, not me. You don't grasp that if I don't pay market wages, I don't have employees. I don't even have a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you overpay them, you won't be in business that long because your competitors will take all your customers due to higher prices you need for your products or services.
Click to expand...


Yep.  The ideal for an employee is if I overpay them but I don't overpay the other employees so I stay in business


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the system isn't--the Democrats are.
> 
> It's Democrats who fight for illegals to be here.
> It's Democrats who fight to keep their sanctuary cities and now states.
> It's Democrats who are fighting against the wall.
> It's Democrats who allow them to have drivers licenses in their states so they can get to the jobs they're not supposed to have.
> 
> The system isn't the problem. Democrats are the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's republicans who gave us SImpson-Mazoli, the law that puts verification on the employer which is like letting the Foxes watch the henhouse.
> It's republicans who own the companies that hire them.
> It's Republicans who oppose a national ID system.
> It's Republicans who have blocked immigration reform for over a decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is immigration reform?  Making laws that benefit the foreigners and a disadvantage to Americans. Of course we're against that.  In other words, amnesty.  It didn't work in the past and it won't work today.
> 
> It's Republicans that own companies?  To my knowledge, there are just as many if not more Democrats that own companies as Republicans:  Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Cosco's, Starbucks, Martha Stewart just to name a few.
> 
> National ID?  We used to use drivers licenses as ID's, and then the Democrats started giving them to foreigners and we don't know who is a citizen and who is not.  National ID's............from the same group of people fighting against Voter-ID claiming it won't solve any problems and it won't work?????
> 
> You are a perfect example of the Party of Excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *We need immigration laws that are realistic based on what the nation needs and doesn't need.
> 
> First of all we need more people, not less.  As a result of improved health care, our country is getting older. Ten thousand Baby Boomers are turning 65 every day.  Many of them are retiring and leaving the workforce.
> 
> There will be 35.3 million job openings by 2024 compared to 6.8 million today, mostly due to retirement. Combine that with an economy that’s expected to create 9.8 million additional job openings and a U.S. birthrate that is declining, it’s obvious that the U.S. economy will need more workers.  If we don't have them, those jobs along with the economic benefits they would bring will go overseas and the US will go into economic decline.
> 
> The beliefs that more immigrants will mean more democrats, less jobs, and a shortage of workers is good for the economy is going to prevent any meaningful reform that would solve the worker shortage.  In essence, the US is very likely to follow the same disastrous path Japan is following.
> 
> What we don't need is more illegal immigrants. This is one thing both republicans and democrats will be able to agree on.  With less people attempting to cross the border and more security, illegal entry into the country will be a minor problem long before any wall gets build.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal aliens, not immigrants, you racist, race baiting dick head.  What don't you grasp about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You seem to have a problem understanding that our laws that regulated legal immigration are a primary cause of illegal immigration.  Our immigration quotas push wait times to 10 years or more and for those that don't have a sponsor it's never.  When there is no hope of legal entry, there no reason not to try illegally.*
Click to expand...


That's true, but not in the sense you mean it.  We can't increase legal immigration because you insist on keeping illegal immigration fully ramped up because you correctly assume that's the way to maximize Democrat votes.  We can't absorb more people because we're absorbing too many too fast already.  If we could get illegal aliens entering the country under control, we could increase legal immigration.

BTW, your ass is white and I think you're a piece of garbage.   I thought you kept saying my issue was race?


----------



## AZGAL

It doesn't take much brain power to realize that there is a tremendous financial strain that has been placed and continues to be placed on the average working class citizen of the United States by all this *illegal* immigration. It hits the nations working people in the pocketbook. That cost burden is placed on them/us without approval or consideration. What are we as a nation paying for in the amounts of millions and billions of dollars in order to *accommodate illegal aliens*?: WE in the USA are paying for: food, housing, utilities, transportation, workers at adult and child holding centers, teachers, lawyers, judges, border patrol, ICE, military and other airline flights to return people, border vehicles and gasoline, government agencies, communications with religious organizations that provide help and housing here, international efforts to help these people in their own countries, medical, etc, etc. There is a staggering cost to the Average citizen and the nation is recovering economically and has a debt. *Blame the drug trade and weak ineffective governments. THANK ourselves for the generosity* that kept millions of the world's children here through AMNESTY such as DACA, help for thousands of unaccompanied minors who came in gigantic waves surged here (spiked in 20140, all the volunteers from the United States from churches and social groups who give freely of their time and money to other countries in need. *Stupid people *are blaming a president now when the citizens of the USA have been* giving and giving for years and also now. The children are NOT IN CAGES. *What a lie. Some of the parents have abandoned their children here as in Venezuela because the refuse to keep them Sometimes it is a language barrier. Multi lingual citizens here should volunteer to be interpreters and help the parents who want to locate their children as soon as possible. The Democrats should *encourage volunteering* and stop tearing down our country and our president.


----------



## AZGAL

*Despite separations, very few young children handed to Department of Health and Human Services*



By Tal Kopan, CNN
Updated 3:43 PM ET, Fri June 22, 2018

Source: CNN
*Washington (CNN)*Though the potential separation of very young children from their parents as a result of the administration's "zero-tolerance" border policy has drawn concern across the country, new data released by the government show very few such children have been impacted.

As of this week, the Department of Health and Human Services had more than 11,600 migrant children in its care -- roughly 80% of whom are children who came to the US by themselves.
But of that total, a much smaller number were under the age of 13, or what is referred to as "tender age" children, and even fewer still were under five.
Since the initiative to prosecute all adults crossing the border illegally -- including those with children -- went into effect, only 36 children under age five have entered HHS care -- and not all of those were necessarily separated from adults with them because of the policy.

As a result of the zero-tolerance policy, parents were sent to the Department of Justice to face charges. As children can't follow their parents into jails, they were designated in the same way as unaccompanied migrant children, or those who come to the US by themselves, and thus turned over to the Department of Health and Human Services, which cares for such children.

Almost 80% of those children in the department's care were teenagers, according to the figures provided by a HHS spokesman. Out of the total population, 2,458 children under age 13 were in HHS custody, of which 482 were aged 5 years or younger.
But a much smaller number of those children would have come into HHS custody since May 6, when the prosecution policy was made public. While not all of these children may still be in HHS care, the agency received 1,045 children under the age of 13 years in that time frame. Of those, 36 were under the age of five and only three were under the age of 1 year old.
Customs and Border Protection has previously told CNN that it does not separate children under five from an adult except for a handful of circumstances, including concern for the child, an inability to verify guardianship or a criminal history of the parent.
There are also other circumstances that a young child may enter the country without an adult, such as a teenager bringing their younger sibling, or even their own child, that could account for some of the young children in HHS care.


----------



## AZGAL

Child Welfare Information Gateway 
 

*Permanency for Specific Populations*

Although many cases may share similar circumstances and practice issues, child welfare professionals should be aware of the unique issues they may encounter when working with specific populations. Understanding the cultures, life events, and issues that may affect these populations will assist professionals in better serving them and their families.


Permanency for youth
Permanency for children and youth from minority groups
Permanency for children with disabilities
Permanency for immigrant children and youth


----------



## AZGAL

Honduras: *Refugees and internally displaced persons:*
_IDPs: _190,000


----------



## Maxdeath

Bu


Coyote said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> First let's make it crystal clear that if you are refused entry at the border or are deported, if you are found within U.S. Borders again it is a felony.
> 
> Now let's talk about parenting.
> I have always considered teaching right and wrong to a child is one of the main responsibilities of being a parent. If you are showing disdain for laws. Right or wrong only applies to others by your actions you are not much of a parent.
> Some of these parents are traveling many miles with small children in dangerous conditions. Then they get to the desert southwest and attempt a crossing that kills on average 400 people a year. Does not say much for compassion of the parent. There are better ways then putting a child in such dangers.
> 
> There are people who kidnap a child to be sold, I would rather hundreds be inconvenienced then allow one child to spend their life in abuse.
> 
> Where was your voice when the last administration was doing the same thing? Where was your voice when Clinton signed the law that made this fiasco?
> 
> In short your faux outrage and pretend caring is reprehensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many parents in this group of migrants are fleeing horrendous violence in Central America.  But you seem to consider it child abuse for them to try and protect their children by fleeing with them.  What good parent would leave their children at the mercy of those gangs?  We are far too comfortable, seated in our overstuffed recliners, flipping the remote and passing judgement on people experiencing things that will never touch most of us.
> 
> But but but Clinton....but but Obama....”this fiasco” is the responsibility of one person, Trump, who CHOSE to innact a NEW zero tolerance policy, with zero prep, zero coordination, zero plans to track kids, zero plans to reunite them and vastly insufficient places to warehouse kids.
> 
> Agents have always separated kids when there is suspicion of trafficking, they aren’t stupid, they are trained to figure this out.  No one has a problem with that.  But you and I both know that this is not being done for that reason (direct from the mouths of Trump, Kelly and Sessions).
> 
> So forceably separating a child from his or her mother for months is now just an “inconvenience”....interesting take on the trauma it causes these children.
> 
> No...what is reprehensible is your cavelier attitude towards something you would never tolerate should it happen to your family.
Click to expand...

Bu but nothing. Yes they may be fleeing bad conditions but that does not excuse anyone from doing it legally. Are you trying to say that you would be perfectly alright if they came here and started murdering just because of where they came from? No that is just backwards.

Let me see which would be better for a child? To stop at the border crossing station and ask for asylum or drag them across a desert for hundreds of miles? I would say that dragging them across a desert would be along the lines of child abuse. Unless you think torturing a child with bad weather, no water, and little or no food is acceptable. I would not put that past you.

I have no doubt that you would not mind a child suffering a life of abuse and neglect if you got your way with open borders.

As far as what I would tolerate. I would try to make things better. If that did not work I would attempt to make plans with a consulate to immigrate legally. If I could not do that I would stop at a border crossing station and cross there. 
I fully believe that a country has a right to expect those entering their country to uphold their laws.

Put you don't want laws. Funny how people like you are confronted with facts they have no reply to always resort to but but to try and deflect.

Just once try using you mind instead of feelings.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> I vote, government doesn't give a shit about me.



That's because you don't vote for anyone who is realistically going to be trusted with the levers of power.  kind of like how we don't give 10 year olds the car keys... 



kaz said:


> Swish. No, we're the middle man. You want your salary in pay or benefits? I don't give a shit. I'm not the customer. I just pay market wages. If the workers want medical insurance rather than that amount of pay, that's fine. But it comes out of your wages. All of it, not just what you think you're paying for it. I pay market wages.



Well, actually, it all comes out of operating costs, but never mind. Bigger the company, less I have to pick up from my wages. I'm mean, I'm sure the shitball companies you ran into the ground before a mercy-buyout got the "If you lose an arm, we help you look for it" insurance.  But companies I worked for offered real insurance for real professionals. 



kaz said:


> You keep calling me greedy because you're stupid and know nothing about business. Wages are set by the market, not me. You don't grasp that if I don't pay market wages, I don't have employees. I don't even have a choice. That makes me neither greedy nor generous. I pay them market wages, my customers pay market prices. If I don't match those up, I fail.



sounds like you fail a lot, given you are between businesses again... but never mind.  The thing is, you pay people shitty wages and get shitty employees.  

But, hey, if it weren't for shitty bosses like you, I wouldn't have a steady stream of resume customers.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It think 315 million people is too many already. Ever drive on the highway during the day? It's like rush hour half the time. I would like to see our population down to around 250 at most.



Well, no one is stopping you from offing yourself.  

So your argument is we need to knock some people off because we didn't keep up the roads because we were too busy giving tax cuts to billionaires instead of investing in infrastructure like the rest of the world did.  

Got it.


----------



## Flopper

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It think 315 million people is too many already. Ever drive on the highway during the day? It's like rush hour half the time. I would like to see our population down to around 250 at most.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no one is stopping you from offing yourself.
> 
> So your argument is we need to knock some people off because we didn't keep up the roads because we were too busy giving tax cuts to billionaires instead of investing in infrastructure like the rest of the world did.
> 
> Got it.
Click to expand...

*Well, be prepared for a 20% drop in GDP. The last time that happen was in the Great the Depression.  Wouldn't be any need for that great beautiful wall, since nobody would be coming here.*


----------



## JoeB131

Flopper said:


> Well, be prepared for a 20% drop in GDP. The last time that happen was in the Great the Depression. Wouldn't be any need for that great beautiful wall, since nobody would be coming here.



I think there are bigger challenges than that.  when you have a large portion of the population that can't work due to age and require medical attention, you actually need to bring in more people.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It think 315 million people is too many already. Ever drive on the highway during the day? It's like rush hour half the time. I would like to see our population down to around 250 at most.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no one is stopping you from offing yourself.
> 
> So your argument is we need to knock some people off because we didn't keep up the roads because we were too busy giving tax cuts to billionaires instead of investing in infrastructure like the rest of the world did.
> 
> Got it.
Click to expand...


No, my point was that we have more than enough people in this country and there is no need to bring in more.  In fact shut the damn border down already.  We'll do just fine without people coming here, taking our jobs, ruining our neighborhoods, changing our language, and bringing their crime with them.  Somehow we will survive.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I vote, government doesn't give a shit about me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you don't vote for anyone who is realistically going to be trusted with the levers of power.  kind of like how we don't give 10 year olds the car keys...
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Swish. No, we're the middle man. You want your salary in pay or benefits? I don't give a shit. I'm not the customer. I just pay market wages. If the workers want medical insurance rather than that amount of pay, that's fine. But it comes out of your wages. All of it, not just what you think you're paying for it. I pay market wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, actually, it all comes out of operating costs, but never mind. Bigger the company, less I have to pick up from my wages. I'm mean, I'm sure the shitball companies you ran into the ground before a mercy-buyout got the "If you lose an arm, we help you look for it" insurance.  But companies I worked for offered real insurance for real professionals.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep calling me greedy because you're stupid and know nothing about business. Wages are set by the market, not me. You don't grasp that if I don't pay market wages, I don't have employees. I don't even have a choice. That makes me neither greedy nor generous. I pay them market wages, my customers pay market prices. If I don't match those up, I fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sounds like you fail a lot, given you are between businesses again... but never mind.  The thing is, you pay people shitty wages and get shitty employees.
> 
> But, hey, if it weren't for shitty bosses like you, I wouldn't have a steady stream of resume customers.
Click to expand...


Yes, you mentioned that.  I don't pay market wages, my employees work for me even though they could leave for more money.  And I'm a shitty boss who no one would want to work for.  But my employees won't leave for more money


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It think 315 million people is too many already. Ever drive on the highway during the day? It's like rush hour half the time. I would like to see our population down to around 250 at most.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no one is stopping you from offing yourself.
> 
> So your argument is we need to knock some people off because we didn't keep up the roads because we were too busy giving tax cuts to billionaires instead of investing in infrastructure like the rest of the world did.
> 
> Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my point was that we have more than enough people in this country and there is no need to bring in more.  In fact shut the damn border down already.  We'll do just fine without people coming here, taking our jobs, ruining our neighborhoods, changing our language, and bringing their crime with them.  Somehow we will survive.
Click to expand...


Well, I'm for shutting the border and cleaning up the mess we have.  Then having controlled immigration


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It think 315 million people is too many already. Ever drive on the highway during the day? It's like rush hour half the time. I would like to see our population down to around 250 at most.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no one is stopping you from offing yourself.
> 
> So your argument is we need to knock some people off because we didn't keep up the roads because we were too busy giving tax cuts to billionaires instead of investing in infrastructure like the rest of the world did.
> 
> Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my point was that we have more than enough people in this country and there is no need to bring in more.  In fact shut the damn border down already.  We'll do just fine without people coming here, taking our jobs, ruining our neighborhoods, changing our language, and bringing their crime with them.  Somehow we will survive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I'm for shutting the border and cleaning up the mess we have.  Then having controlled immigration
Click to expand...


I'll meet you half way on that one.  But our mess is so large that it will take many years to clean it up.  However if we keep letting people in while we're trying to do that is like bailing water out of the boat without fixing the hole.


----------



## Coyote

Maxdeath said:


> Bu
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> First let's make it crystal clear that if you are refused entry at the border or are deported, if you are found within U.S. Borders again it is a felony.
> 
> Now let's talk about parenting.
> I have always considered teaching right and wrong to a child is one of the main responsibilities of being a parent. If you are showing disdain for laws. Right or wrong only applies to others by your actions you are not much of a parent.
> Some of these parents are traveling many miles with small children in dangerous conditions. Then they get to the desert southwest and attempt a crossing that kills on average 400 people a year. Does not say much for compassion of the parent. There are better ways then putting a child in such dangers.
> 
> There are people who kidnap a child to be sold, I would rather hundreds be inconvenienced then allow one child to spend their life in abuse.
> 
> Where was your voice when the last administration was doing the same thing? Where was your voice when Clinton signed the law that made this fiasco?
> 
> In short your faux outrage and pretend caring is reprehensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many parents in this group of migrants are fleeing horrendous violence in Central America.  But you seem to consider it child abuse for them to try and protect their children by fleeing with them.  What good parent would leave their children at the mercy of those gangs?  We are far too comfortable, seated in our overstuffed recliners, flipping the remote and passing judgement on people experiencing things that will never touch most of us.
> 
> But but but Clinton....but but Obama....”this fiasco” is the responsibility of one person, Trump, who CHOSE to innact a NEW zero tolerance policy, with zero prep, zero coordination, zero plans to track kids, zero plans to reunite them and vastly insufficient places to warehouse kids.
> 
> Agents have always separated kids when there is suspicion of trafficking, they aren’t stupid, they are trained to figure this out.  No one has a problem with that.  But you and I both know that this is not being done for that reason (direct from the mouths of Trump, Kelly and Sessions).
> 
> So forceably separating a child from his or her mother for months is now just an “inconvenience”....interesting take on the trauma it causes these children.
> 
> No...what is reprehensible is your cavelier attitude towards something you would never tolerate should it happen to your family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bu but nothing. Yes they may be fleeing bad conditions but that does not excuse anyone from doing it legally. Are you trying to say that you would be perfectly alright if they came here and started murdering just because of where they came from? No that is just backwards.
> 
> Let me see which would be better for a child? To stop at the border crossing station and ask for asylum or drag them across a desert for hundreds of miles? I would say that dragging them across a desert would be along the lines of child abuse. Unless you think torturing a child with bad weather, no water, and little or no food is acceptable. I would not put that past you.
> 
> I have no doubt that you would not mind a child suffering a life of abuse and neglect if you got your way with open borders.
> 
> As far as what I would tolerate. I would try to make things better. If that did not work I would attempt to make plans with a consulate to immigrate legally. If I could not do that I would stop at a border crossing station and cross there.
> I fully believe that a country has a right to expect those entering their country to uphold their laws.
> 
> Put you don't want laws. Funny how people like you are confronted with facts they have no reply to always resort to but but to try and deflect.
> 
> Just once try using you mind instead of feelings.
Click to expand...

I have no desire for open borders.  Are you capable of engaging in a discussion without making stiff up about your opponent?

Has it occurred to you that those who are paid to smuggle them across the border don’t tend to drop them off at legal check points?


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> No, my point was that we have more than enough people in this country and there is no need to bring in more. In fact shut the damn border down already. We'll do just fine without people coming here, taking our jobs, ruining our neighborhoods, changing our language, and bringing their crime with them. Somehow we will survive.



But that's not what you just... oh, never mind.  

Kaz, can you add some stupid to this conversation? 



kaz said:


> Yes, you mentioned that. I don't pay market wages, my employees work for me even though they could leave for more money. And I'm a shitty boss who no one would want to work for. But my employees won't leave for more money



Again, I suspect your employees are bottom feeders who can't wait to get away from you...  

Nobody but a pathetic loser works without health insurance.


----------



## Maxdeath

Coyote said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bu
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> First let's make it crystal clear that if you are refused entry at the border or are deported, if you are found within U.S. Borders again it is a felony.
> 
> Now let's talk about parenting.
> I have always considered teaching right and wrong to a child is one of the main responsibilities of being a parent. If you are showing disdain for laws. Right or wrong only applies to others by your actions you are not much of a parent.
> Some of these parents are traveling many miles with small children in dangerous conditions. Then they get to the desert southwest and attempt a crossing that kills on average 400 people a year. Does not say much for compassion of the parent. There are better ways then putting a child in such dangers.
> 
> There are people who kidnap a child to be sold, I would rather hundreds be inconvenienced then allow one child to spend their life in abuse.
> 
> Where was your voice when the last administration was doing the same thing? Where was your voice when Clinton signed the law that made this fiasco?
> 
> In short your faux outrage and pretend caring is reprehensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many parents in this group of migrants are fleeing horrendous violence in Central America.  But you seem to consider it child abuse for them to try and protect their children by fleeing with them.  What good parent would leave their children at the mercy of those gangs?  We are far too comfortable, seated in our overstuffed recliners, flipping the remote and passing judgement on people experiencing things that will never touch most of us.
> 
> But but but Clinton....but but Obama....”this fiasco” is the responsibility of one person, Trump, who CHOSE to innact a NEW zero tolerance policy, with zero prep, zero coordination, zero plans to track kids, zero plans to reunite them and vastly insufficient places to warehouse kids.
> 
> Agents have always separated kids when there is suspicion of trafficking, they aren’t stupid, they are trained to figure this out.  No one has a problem with that.  But you and I both know that this is not being done for that reason (direct from the mouths of Trump, Kelly and Sessions).
> 
> So forceably separating a child from his or her mother for months is now just an “inconvenience”....interesting take on the trauma it causes these children.
> 
> No...what is reprehensible is your cavelier attitude towards something you would never tolerate should it happen to your family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bu but nothing. Yes they may be fleeing bad conditions but that does not excuse anyone from doing it legally. Are you trying to say that you would be perfectly alright if they came here and started murdering just because of where they came from? No that is just backwards.
> 
> Let me see which would be better for a child? To stop at the border crossing station and ask for asylum or drag them across a desert for hundreds of miles? I would say that dragging them across a desert would be along the lines of child abuse. Unless you think torturing a child with bad weather, no water, and little or no food is acceptable. I would not put that past you.
> 
> I have no doubt that you would not mind a child suffering a life of abuse and neglect if you got your way with open borders.
> 
> As far as what I would tolerate. I would try to make things better. If that did not work I would attempt to make plans with a consulate to immigrate legally. If I could not do that I would stop at a border crossing station and cross there.
> I fully believe that a country has a right to expect those entering their country to uphold their laws.
> 
> Put you don't want laws. Funny how people like you are confronted with facts they have no reply to always resort to but but to try and deflect.
> 
> Just once try using you mind instead of feelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no desire for open borders.  Are you capable of engaging in a discussion without making stiff up about your opponent?
> 
> Has it occurred to you that those who are paid to smuggle them across the border don’t tend to drop them off at legal check points?
Click to expand...

I made an assumption because first off you have an unhealthy hate of Trump and the things you post point to a feeling of open borders. If I was wrong I apologize.

Rotfl you are correct coyotes do not drop those that they smuggle across the border at check points. The reason you pay them is so that you can avoid the check points. Duh. If you want to enter illegally you pay them or you take your chances that you can find your way around border patrol. They have a very lucrative business not only leading parties but they have other ways. You can get them to give you a ride on a jet ski. For five dollars American you can rent an inner tube to float across the Rio Grand. They will even cram twenty or thirty into a tractor trailer and get you across the border. The trailer is then dropped off and at sometime someone comes along and opens the door. Hopefully those inside are still alive when the door opens. Otherwise they just kick the bodies out.


----------



## MaryL

At this point I say fuck illegals


Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​


Yeah, no but....Are you fucking kidding me?!?!  The current buzzword of the day is "Machiavellian", by hook or by crook, Mexicans will exploit their children in this like human shields. Or, those quislings traitors otherwise known as "liberals" will make this seem like a humanitarian matter. But, it isn't a humanitarian disaster at all. Kids are often  separated from their families every bloody day. Illegal aliens or not,  put into protective custody or foster homes (because  some  parents are totally unfit). That is bad enough, but why all of a sudden the focus on illegals as if it's the fault of the system? People make bad choices all the time , and they often don't care about their children or the consequences.


----------



## koshergrl

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the system isn't--the Democrats are.
> 
> It's Democrats who fight for illegals to be here.
> It's Democrats who fight to keep their sanctuary cities and now states.
> It's Democrats who are fighting against the wall.
> It's Democrats who allow them to have drivers licenses in their states so they can get to the jobs they're not supposed to have.
> 
> The system isn't the problem. Democrats are the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's republicans who gave us SImpson-Mazoli, the law that puts verification on the employer which is like letting the Foxes watch the henhouse.
> It's republicans who own the companies that hire them.
> It's Republicans who oppose a national ID system.
> It's Republicans who have blocked immigration reform for over a decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is immigration reform?  Making laws that benefit the foreigners and a disadvantage to Americans. Of course we're against that.  In other words, amnesty.  It didn't work in the past and it won't work today.
> 
> It's Republicans that own companies?  To my knowledge, there are just as many if not more Democrats that own companies as Republicans:  Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Cosco's, Starbucks, Martha Stewart just to name a few.
> 
> National ID?  We used to use drivers licenses as ID's, and then the Democrats started giving them to foreigners and we don't know who is a citizen and who is not.  National ID's............from the same group of people fighting against Voter-ID claiming it won't solve any problems and it won't work?????
> 
> You are a perfect example of the Party of Excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *We need immigration laws that are realistic based on what the nation needs and doesn't need.
> 
> First of all we need more people, not less.  As a result of improved health care, our country is getting older. Ten thousand Baby Boomers are turning 65 every day.  Many of them are retiring and leaving the workforce.
> 
> There will be 35.3 million job openings by 2024 compared to 6.8 million today, mostly due to retirement. Combine that with an economy that’s expected to create 9.8 million additional job openings and a U.S. birthrate that is declining, it’s obvious that the U.S. economy will need more workers.  If we don't have them, those jobs along with the economic benefits they would bring will go overseas and the US will go into economic decline.
> 
> The beliefs that more immigrants will mean more democrats, less jobs, and a shortage of workers is good for the economy is going to prevent any meaningful reform that would solve the worker shortage.  In essence, the US is very likely to follow the same disastrous path Japan is following.
> 
> What we don't need is more illegal immigrants. This is one thing both republicans and democrats will be able to agree on.  With less people attempting to cross the border and more security, illegal entry into the country will be a minor problem long before any wall gets build.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal aliens, not immigrants, you racist, race baiting dick head.  What don't you grasp about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You seem to have a problem understanding that our laws that regulated legal immigration are a primary cause of illegal immigration.  Our immigration quotas push wait times to 10 years or more and for those that don't have a sponsor it's never.  When there is no hope of legal entry, there no reason not to try illegally.*
Click to expand...


Unfortunately for you, that isn't the case in America. There's always legal entry options.

Unless you're a violent criminal, or a child sex trafficker. Or a terrorist.


----------



## Coyote

Maxdeath said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bu
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> First let's make it crystal clear that if you are refused entry at the border or are deported, if you are found within U.S. Borders again it is a felony.
> 
> Now let's talk about parenting.
> I have always considered teaching right and wrong to a child is one of the main responsibilities of being a parent. If you are showing disdain for laws. Right or wrong only applies to others by your actions you are not much of a parent.
> Some of these parents are traveling many miles with small children in dangerous conditions. Then they get to the desert southwest and attempt a crossing that kills on average 400 people a year. Does not say much for compassion of the parent. There are better ways then putting a child in such dangers.
> 
> There are people who kidnap a child to be sold, I would rather hundreds be inconvenienced then allow one child to spend their life in abuse.
> 
> Where was your voice when the last administration was doing the same thing? Where was your voice when Clinton signed the law that made this fiasco?
> 
> In short your faux outrage and pretend caring is reprehensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many parents in this group of migrants are fleeing horrendous violence in Central America.  But you seem to consider it child abuse for them to try and protect their children by fleeing with them.  What good parent would leave their children at the mercy of those gangs?  We are far too comfortable, seated in our overstuffed recliners, flipping the remote and passing judgement on people experiencing things that will never touch most of us.
> 
> But but but Clinton....but but Obama....”this fiasco” is the responsibility of one person, Trump, who CHOSE to innact a NEW zero tolerance policy, with zero prep, zero coordination, zero plans to track kids, zero plans to reunite them and vastly insufficient places to warehouse kids.
> 
> Agents have always separated kids when there is suspicion of trafficking, they aren’t stupid, they are trained to figure this out.  No one has a problem with that.  But you and I both know that this is not being done for that reason (direct from the mouths of Trump, Kelly and Sessions).
> 
> So forceably separating a child from his or her mother for months is now just an “inconvenience”....interesting take on the trauma it causes these children.
> 
> No...what is reprehensible is your cavelier attitude towards something you would never tolerate should it happen to your family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bu but nothing. Yes they may be fleeing bad conditions but that does not excuse anyone from doing it legally. Are you trying to say that you would be perfectly alright if they came here and started murdering just because of where they came from? No that is just backwards.
> 
> Let me see which would be better for a child? To stop at the border crossing station and ask for asylum or drag them across a desert for hundreds of miles? I would say that dragging them across a desert would be along the lines of child abuse. Unless you think torturing a child with bad weather, no water, and little or no food is acceptable. I would not put that past you.
> 
> I have no doubt that you would not mind a child suffering a life of abuse and neglect if you got your way with open borders.
> 
> As far as what I would tolerate. I would try to make things better. If that did not work I would attempt to make plans with a consulate to immigrate legally. If I could not do that I would stop at a border crossing station and cross there.
> I fully believe that a country has a right to expect those entering their country to uphold their laws.
> 
> Put you don't want laws. Funny how people like you are confronted with facts they have no reply to always resort to but but to try and deflect.
> 
> Just once try using you mind instead of feelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no desire for open borders.  Are you capable of engaging in a discussion without making stiff up about your opponent?
> 
> Has it occurred to you that those who are paid to smuggle them across the border don’t tend to drop them off at legal check points?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I made an assumption because first off you have an unhealthy hate of Trump and the things you post point to a feeling of open borders. If I was wrong I apologize.
> 
> Rotfl you are correct coyotes do not drop those that they smuggle across the border at check points. The reason you pay them is so that you can avoid the check points. Duh. If you want to enter illegally you pay them or you take your chances that you can find your way around border patrol. They have a very lucrative business not only leading parties but they have other ways. You can get them to give you a ride on a jet ski. For five dollars American you can rent an inner tube to float across the Rio Grand. They will even cram twenty or thirty into a tractor trailer and get you across the border. The trailer is then dropped off and at sometime someone comes along and opens the door. Hopefully those inside are still alive when the door opens. Otherwise they just kick the bodies out.
Click to expand...


Then you really haven’t read my posts.  I support good border control.  I support legal immigration and the right to seek asylum.  I support expedited de portion of those convicted of serious crimes as well as for traffickers.  There are many ways to get there without resorting to extreme and inhumane policies.  My feelings about Trump are irrelevant because I made this thread about a specific policy, newly innacted that in my view goes to far and is unnecessary to the goal of reducing illegal immigration.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bu
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> 
> First let's make it crystal clear that if you are refused entry at the border or are deported, if you are found within U.S. Borders again it is a felony.
> 
> Now let's talk about parenting.
> I have always considered teaching right and wrong to a child is one of the main responsibilities of being a parent. If you are showing disdain for laws. Right or wrong only applies to others by your actions you are not much of a parent.
> Some of these parents are traveling many miles with small children in dangerous conditions. Then they get to the desert southwest and attempt a crossing that kills on average 400 people a year. Does not say much for compassion of the parent. There are better ways then putting a child in such dangers.
> 
> There are people who kidnap a child to be sold, I would rather hundreds be inconvenienced then allow one child to spend their life in abuse.
> 
> Where was your voice when the last administration was doing the same thing? Where was your voice when Clinton signed the law that made this fiasco?
> 
> In short your faux outrage and pretend caring is reprehensible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many parents in this group of migrants are fleeing horrendous violence in Central America.  But you seem to consider it child abuse for them to try and protect their children by fleeing with them.  What good parent would leave their children at the mercy of those gangs?  We are far too comfortable, seated in our overstuffed recliners, flipping the remote and passing judgement on people experiencing things that will never touch most of us.
> 
> But but but Clinton....but but Obama....”this fiasco” is the responsibility of one person, Trump, who CHOSE to innact a NEW zero tolerance policy, with zero prep, zero coordination, zero plans to track kids, zero plans to reunite them and vastly insufficient places to warehouse kids.
> 
> Agents have always separated kids when there is suspicion of trafficking, they aren’t stupid, they are trained to figure this out.  No one has a problem with that.  But you and I both know that this is not being done for that reason (direct from the mouths of Trump, Kelly and Sessions).
> 
> So forceably separating a child from his or her mother for months is now just an “inconvenience”....interesting take on the trauma it causes these children.
> 
> No...what is reprehensible is your cavelier attitude towards something you would never tolerate should it happen to your family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bu but nothing. Yes they may be fleeing bad conditions but that does not excuse anyone from doing it legally. Are you trying to say that you would be perfectly alright if they came here and started murdering just because of where they came from? No that is just backwards.
> 
> Let me see which would be better for a child? To stop at the border crossing station and ask for asylum or drag them across a desert for hundreds of miles? I would say that dragging them across a desert would be along the lines of child abuse. Unless you think torturing a child with bad weather, no water, and little or no food is acceptable. I would not put that past you.
> 
> I have no doubt that you would not mind a child suffering a life of abuse and neglect if you got your way with open borders.
> 
> As far as what I would tolerate. I would try to make things better. If that did not work I would attempt to make plans with a consulate to immigrate legally. If I could not do that I would stop at a border crossing station and cross there.
> I fully believe that a country has a right to expect those entering their country to uphold their laws.
> 
> Put you don't want laws. Funny how people like you are confronted with facts they have no reply to always resort to but but to try and deflect.
> 
> Just once try using you mind instead of feelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no desire for open borders.  Are you capable of engaging in a discussion without making stiff up about your opponent?
> 
> Has it occurred to you that those who are paid to smuggle them across the border don’t tend to drop them off at legal check points?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I made an assumption because first off you have an unhealthy hate of Trump and the things you post point to a feeling of open borders. If I was wrong I apologize.
> 
> Rotfl you are correct coyotes do not drop those that they smuggle across the border at check points. The reason you pay them is so that you can avoid the check points. Duh. If you want to enter illegally you pay them or you take your chances that you can find your way around border patrol. They have a very lucrative business not only leading parties but they have other ways. You can get them to give you a ride on a jet ski. For five dollars American you can rent an inner tube to float across the Rio Grand. They will even cram twenty or thirty into a tractor trailer and get you across the border. The trailer is then dropped off and at sometime someone comes along and opens the door. Hopefully those inside are still alive when the door opens. Otherwise they just kick the bodies out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you really haven’t read my posts.  I support good border control.  I support legal immigration and the right to seek asylum.  I support expedited de portion of those convicted of serious crimes as well as for traffickers.  There are many ways to get there without resorting to extreme and inhumane policies.  My feelings about Trump are irrelevant because I made this thread about a specific policy, newly innacted that in my view goes to far and is unnecessary to the goal of reducing illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

It isn't extreme and inhumane to remove at risk children from abusers and sex traffickers. What about that do you not get? Do you object when child welfare lodges kids they separate from sex offenders or drunk drivers?

I'm sure you don't. Because you know it isn't inhumane. You just want child traffickers to continue unmolested.


----------



## Maxdeath

And my origanal post asking where was your voice when the law that made this necessary still stands. Where was your voice when the last administration was doing this. If you did not call out either of them, if you did not consider them to be inhuman, then you are letting your emotions about Trump cloud your judgement. You are using your hate to try and make a case.

So let us take a look at a family whose parents were drug dealers. Do you make claims that the family should be kept together if the parents are sent to prison for years? That would be not only stupid but inhuman.

Look at the so called family not so long ago from California that locked their children to beds, seldom allowed them to bath, kept them in the house except for small excursions. Did you believe that the parents should have been allowed to remain with their children? 

If someone kidnaps a child should the kidnapper and child be held together until after the kidknappers trial? Perhaps allow them to stay together for ever? These people that are sneaking into our country are not bringing paperwork that shows that these are their children, that if they are a single parent that they have the legal right to leave the country with the child. So you advocate just allow them to go on their merry way. The picture of the little girl that was photoshopped in front of Trump was not separated from her mother because they came in at a border checkpoint. Still the father said he had no idea where they were.

Now explain something to me if you will. Why do people that think that pay for jobs is so bad, think that allowing more people that are more then willing to work for lower wages into the U.S. is a good idea? If a person can pay less and get the same job done why would they not only choose to hire someone they have to pay more for but that same person will be after them for higher wages yet?


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> It isn't extreme and inhumane to remove at risk children from abusers and sex traffickers. What about that do you not get? Do you object when child welfare lodges kids they separate from sex offenders or drunk drivers?
> 
> I'm sure you don't. Because you know it isn't inhumane. You just want child traffickers to continue unmolested.



Except, of course, you guys didn't actually check to see if those kids belonged with those parents, you just threw them into concentration camps until people screamed, and now you can't find who they actually belong to.


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It think 315 million people is too many already. Ever drive on the highway during the day? It's like rush hour half the time. I would like to see our population down to around 250 at most.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no one is stopping you from offing yourself.
> 
> So your argument is we need to knock some people off because we didn't keep up the roads because we were too busy giving tax cuts to billionaires instead of investing in infrastructure like the rest of the world did.
> 
> Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my point was that we have more than enough people in this country and there is no need to bring in more.  In fact shut the damn border down already.  We'll do just fine without people coming here, taking our jobs, ruining our neighborhoods, changing our language, and bringing their crime with them.  Somehow we will survive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I'm for shutting the border and cleaning up the mess we have.  Then having controlled immigration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll meet you half way on that one.  But our mess is so large that it will take many years to clean it up.  However if we keep letting people in while we're trying to do that is like bailing water out of the boat without fixing the hole.
Click to expand...


I definitely agree with that.   The left keep offering us the deal of ramping up legal immigration to prove we would do that before doing a damned thing about illegal immigration.  As if after we do that they would do a damned thing about illegal immigration.

Racist race baiters like Flopper keep offering us that deal


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, my point was that we have more than enough people in this country and there is no need to bring in more. In fact shut the damn border down already. We'll do just fine without people coming here, taking our jobs, ruining our neighborhoods, changing our language, and bringing their crime with them. Somehow we will survive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not what you just... oh, never mind.
> 
> Kaz, can you add some stupid to this conversation?
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you mentioned that. I don't pay market wages, my employees work for me even though they could leave for more money. And I'm a shitty boss who no one would want to work for. But my employees won't leave for more money
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I suspect your employees are bottom feeders who can't wait to get away from you...
> 
> Nobody but a pathetic loser works without health insurance.
Click to expand...


Joe:  Your employees are bottom feeders.   You should pay your employees more.  

Why would I pay my employees more if they are as you called them "bottom feeders?"


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bu
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> 
> First let's make it crystal clear that if you are refused entry at the border or are deported, if you are found within U.S. Borders again it is a felony.
> 
> Now let's talk about parenting.
> I have always considered teaching right and wrong to a child is one of the main responsibilities of being a parent. If you are showing disdain for laws. Right or wrong only applies to others by your actions you are not much of a parent.
> Some of these parents are traveling many miles with small children in dangerous conditions. Then they get to the desert southwest and attempt a crossing that kills on average 400 people a year. Does not say much for compassion of the parent. There are better ways then putting a child in such dangers.
> 
> There are people who kidnap a child to be sold, I would rather hundreds be inconvenienced then allow one child to spend their life in abuse.
> 
> Where was your voice when the last administration was doing the same thing? Where was your voice when Clinton signed the law that made this fiasco?
> 
> In short your faux outrage and pretend caring is reprehensible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many parents in this group of migrants are fleeing horrendous violence in Central America.  But you seem to consider it child abuse for them to try and protect their children by fleeing with them.  What good parent would leave their children at the mercy of those gangs?  We are far too comfortable, seated in our overstuffed recliners, flipping the remote and passing judgement on people experiencing things that will never touch most of us.
> 
> But but but Clinton....but but Obama....”this fiasco” is the responsibility of one person, Trump, who CHOSE to innact a NEW zero tolerance policy, with zero prep, zero coordination, zero plans to track kids, zero plans to reunite them and vastly insufficient places to warehouse kids.
> 
> Agents have always separated kids when there is suspicion of trafficking, they aren’t stupid, they are trained to figure this out.  No one has a problem with that.  But you and I both know that this is not being done for that reason (direct from the mouths of Trump, Kelly and Sessions).
> 
> So forceably separating a child from his or her mother for months is now just an “inconvenience”....interesting take on the trauma it causes these children.
> 
> No...what is reprehensible is your cavelier attitude towards something you would never tolerate should it happen to your family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bu but nothing. Yes they may be fleeing bad conditions but that does not excuse anyone from doing it legally. Are you trying to say that you would be perfectly alright if they came here and started murdering just because of where they came from? No that is just backwards.
> 
> Let me see which would be better for a child? To stop at the border crossing station and ask for asylum or drag them across a desert for hundreds of miles? I would say that dragging them across a desert would be along the lines of child abuse. Unless you think torturing a child with bad weather, no water, and little or no food is acceptable. I would not put that past you.
> 
> I have no doubt that you would not mind a child suffering a life of abuse and neglect if you got your way with open borders.
> 
> As far as what I would tolerate. I would try to make things better. If that did not work I would attempt to make plans with a consulate to immigrate legally. If I could not do that I would stop at a border crossing station and cross there.
> I fully believe that a country has a right to expect those entering their country to uphold their laws.
> 
> Put you don't want laws. Funny how people like you are confronted with facts they have no reply to always resort to but but to try and deflect.
> 
> Just once try using you mind instead of feelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no desire for open borders.  Are you capable of engaging in a discussion without making stiff up about your opponent?
> 
> Has it occurred to you that those who are paid to smuggle them across the border don’t tend to drop them off at legal check points?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I made an assumption because first off you have an unhealthy hate of Trump and the things you post point to a feeling of open borders. If I was wrong I apologize.
> 
> Rotfl you are correct coyotes do not drop those that they smuggle across the border at check points. The reason you pay them is so that you can avoid the check points. Duh. If you want to enter illegally you pay them or you take your chances that you can find your way around border patrol. They have a very lucrative business not only leading parties but they have other ways. You can get them to give you a ride on a jet ski. For five dollars American you can rent an inner tube to float across the Rio Grand. They will even cram twenty or thirty into a tractor trailer and get you across the border. The trailer is then dropped off and at sometime someone comes along and opens the door. Hopefully those inside are still alive when the door opens. Otherwise they just kick the bodies out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you really haven’t read my posts.  I support good border control.  I support legal immigration and the right to seek asylum.  I support expedited de portion of those convicted of serious crimes as well as for traffickers.  There are many ways to get there without resorting to extreme and inhumane policies.  My feelings about Trump are irrelevant because I made this thread about a specific policy, newly innacted that in my view goes to far and is unnecessary to the goal of reducing illegal immigration.
Click to expand...


Gotcha.  You fight every effort to control our border because you support good border control.  You're a terrible liar


----------



## OODA_Loop

JoeB131 said:


> Except, of course, you guys didn't actually check to see if those kids belonged with those parents, you just threw them into concentration camps until people screamed, and now you can't find who they actually belong to.



Lacking certificates of live birth and state issued photo ID there is no practical way to check who they belong to.....at arrest or later,


----------



## pismoe

just a general comment but the talk about LEGAL or ILLEGAL is foolish .  Its government and special interests that makes and spins and twists and defines the difference between legal and illegal as they push for what they want .     As may have been mentioned, USA Census was 310 million persons in the USA in 2010 and that doesn't include illegals .    As perspective, USA census population in 1970 was about 210 million .  ------------------   i don't understand why there is a need or a wish for more people in the USA .   -------------  just a comment .


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It think 315 million people is too many already. Ever drive on the highway during the day? It's like rush hour half the time. I would like to see our population down to around 250 at most.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no one is stopping you from offing yourself.
> 
> So your argument is we need to knock some people off because we didn't keep up the roads because we were too busy giving tax cuts to billionaires instead of investing in infrastructure like the rest of the world did.
> 
> Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my point was that we have more than enough people in this country and there is no need to bring in more.  In fact shut the damn border down already.  We'll do just fine without people coming here, taking our jobs, ruining our neighborhoods, changing our language, and bringing their crime with them.  Somehow we will survive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I'm for shutting the border and cleaning up the mess we have.  Then having controlled immigration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll meet you half way on that one.  But our mess is so large that it will take many years to clean it up.  However if we keep letting people in while we're trying to do that is like bailing water out of the boat without fixing the hole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I definitely agree with that.   The left keep offering us the deal of ramping up legal immigration to prove we would do that before doing a damned thing about illegal immigration.  As if after we do that they would do a damned thing about illegal immigration.
> 
> Racist race baiters like Flopper keep offering us that deal
Click to expand...


Except if the deal includes a wall, because a wall scares the hell out of the left.  Hiding behind their own lie that a wall won't work (as if we tried it before) what they really fear is how good it will work.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't extreme and inhumane to remove at risk children from abusers and sex traffickers. What about that do you not get? Do you object when child welfare lodges kids they separate from sex offenders or drunk drivers?
> 
> I'm sure you don't. Because you know it isn't inhumane. You just want child traffickers to continue unmolested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except, of course, you guys didn't actually check to see if those kids belonged with those parents, you just threw them into concentration camps until people screamed, and now you can't find who they actually belong to.
Click to expand...


No, that's not what happened.  If they crossed illegally which many of them did, they were detained and of course children not allowed to live in their cell with them.  If they came through legal ports and found to be legit, the kids stayed with the parents.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> Joe: Your employees are bottom feeders. You should pay your employees more.
> 
> Why would I pay my employees more if they are as you called them "bottom feeders?"



Then you might get decent ones. 

Oh, yeah, and it's the decent thing to do, but I don't think you understand that concept.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> No, that's not what happened. If they crossed illegally which many of them did, they were detained and of course children not allowed to live in their cell with them. If they came through legal ports and found to be legit, the kids stayed with the parents.



Again, you can twist it all day, but it's still putting kids in concentration camps...  unnecessary and dumb.


----------



## koshergrl

JoeB131 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't extreme and inhumane to remove at risk children from abusers and sex traffickers. What about that do you not get? Do you object when child welfare lodges kids they separate from sex offenders or drunk drivers?
> 
> I'm sure you don't. Because you know it isn't inhumane. You just want child traffickers to continue unmolested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except, of course, you guys didn't actually check to see if those kids belonged with those parents, you just threw them into concentration camps until people screamed, and now you can't find who they actually belong to.
Click to expand...


No, and please stop pretending you care, it just makes you look even more like a subhuman worm.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what happened. If they crossed illegally which many of them did, they were detained and of course children not allowed to live in their cell with them. If they came through legal ports and found to be legit, the kids stayed with the parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you can twist it all day, but it's still putting kids in concentration camps...  unnecessary and dumb.
Click to expand...


_*People who present themselves at U.S. borders are allowed to claim asylum. The administration is taking a stronger stance on this, as part of President Trump's attempts to limit immigration to the USA. 

Sessions has railed against the asylum system. He said the system is abused by immigrants and "dirty immigration lawyers."

In many cases, the government denies asylum claims and treats those cases as criminal. This leads to more children being separated from their families.

The policies about placing unaccompanied minors with sponsors and separating children from their families were in place during the Obama administration. They go back to the administration of President George W. Bush.

In 2014, Obama faced a dramatic influx of immigration from Central America. DHS officials announced at the time that they would deport anyone who entered the U.S. illegally. And they expanded access to immigration detention centers, where families were held with their children while they were awaiting immigration hearings.

The key difference: They did not prosecute those migrants criminally. And court rulings eventually required the administration to end some of the extended detentions of parents and children.
*_
Immigrant children: Here's what's happening with kids at the border, policywise


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe: Your employees are bottom feeders. You should pay your employees more.
> 
> Why would I pay my employees more if they are as you called them "bottom feeders?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you might get decent ones.
> 
> Oh, yeah, and it's the decent thing to do, but I don't think you understand that concept.
Click to expand...


So if bottom feeders are doing the job and I can pay them as bottom feeders, then why would I want better ones if I just need to pay them more? 

You really don't think through your crap


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> No, and please stop pretending you care, it just makes you look even more like a subhuman worm.



Oh, Koshie, the thing is, you guys screwed up.  You thought you could get away with this shit and you didn't.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> So if bottom feeders are doing the job and I can pay them as bottom feeders, then why would I want better ones if I just need to pay them more?
> 
> You really don't think through your crap



Oh, wow, could think of a dozen reason why you don't hire the bottom feeders... like low quality.  Can't tell you how many vendors I had to fire because they couldn't do even the simple stuff.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what happened. If they crossed illegally which many of them did, they were detained and of course children not allowed to live in their cell with them. If they came through legal ports and found to be legit, the kids stayed with the parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you can twist it all day, but it's still putting kids in concentration camps...  unnecessary and dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*People who present themselves at U.S. borders are allowed to claim asylum. The administration is taking a stronger stance on this, as part of President Trump's attempts to limit immigration to the USA.
> 
> Sessions has railed against the asylum system. He said the system is abused by immigrants and "dirty immigration lawyers."
> 
> In many cases, the government denies asylum claims and treats those cases as criminal. This leads to more children being separated from their families.
> 
> The policies about placing unaccompanied minors with sponsors and separating children from their families were in place during the Obama administration. They go back to the administration of President George W. Bush.
> 
> In 2014, Obama faced a dramatic influx of immigration from Central America. DHS officials announced at the time that they would deport anyone who entered the U.S. illegally. And they expanded access to immigration detention centers, where families were held with their children while they were awaiting immigration hearings.
> 
> The key difference: They did not prosecute those migrants criminally. And court rulings eventually required the administration to end some of the extended detentions of parents and children.
> *_
> Immigrant children: Here's what's happening with kids at the border, policywise
Click to expand...


You can post whatever rationalizations you like..  But kids in concentration camps.  It's just ugly and stupid.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what happened. If they crossed illegally which many of them did, they were detained and of course children not allowed to live in their cell with them. If they came through legal ports and found to be legit, the kids stayed with the parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you can twist it all day, but it's still putting kids in concentration camps...  unnecessary and dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*People who present themselves at U.S. borders are allowed to claim asylum. The administration is taking a stronger stance on this, as part of President Trump's attempts to limit immigration to the USA.
> 
> Sessions has railed against the asylum system. He said the system is abused by immigrants and "dirty immigration lawyers."
> 
> In many cases, the government denies asylum claims and treats those cases as criminal. This leads to more children being separated from their families.
> 
> The policies about placing unaccompanied minors with sponsors and separating children from their families were in place during the Obama administration. They go back to the administration of President George W. Bush.
> 
> In 2014, Obama faced a dramatic influx of immigration from Central America. DHS officials announced at the time that they would deport anyone who entered the U.S. illegally. And they expanded access to immigration detention centers, where families were held with their children while they were awaiting immigration hearings.
> 
> The key difference: They did not prosecute those migrants criminally. And court rulings eventually required the administration to end some of the extended detentions of parents and children.
> *_
> Immigrant children: Here's what's happening with kids at the border, policywise
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can post whatever rationalizations you like..  But kids in concentration camps.  It's just ugly and stupid.
Click to expand...


Well if you read the article you would realize what you're spewing is left-wing propaganda.


----------



## Flopper

koshergrl said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's republicans who gave us SImpson-Mazoli, the law that puts verification on the employer which is like letting the Foxes watch the henhouse.
> It's republicans who own the companies that hire them.
> It's Republicans who oppose a national ID system.
> It's Republicans who have blocked immigration reform for over a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what is immigration reform?  Making laws that benefit the foreigners and a disadvantage to Americans. Of course we're against that.  In other words, amnesty.  It didn't work in the past and it won't work today.
> 
> It's Republicans that own companies?  To my knowledge, there are just as many if not more Democrats that own companies as Republicans:  Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Cosco's, Starbucks, Martha Stewart just to name a few.
> 
> National ID?  We used to use drivers licenses as ID's, and then the Democrats started giving them to foreigners and we don't know who is a citizen and who is not.  National ID's............from the same group of people fighting against Voter-ID claiming it won't solve any problems and it won't work?????
> 
> You are a perfect example of the Party of Excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *We need immigration laws that are realistic based on what the nation needs and doesn't need.
> 
> First of all we need more people, not less.  As a result of improved health care, our country is getting older. Ten thousand Baby Boomers are turning 65 every day.  Many of them are retiring and leaving the workforce.
> 
> There will be 35.3 million job openings by 2024 compared to 6.8 million today, mostly due to retirement. Combine that with an economy that’s expected to create 9.8 million additional job openings and a U.S. birthrate that is declining, it’s obvious that the U.S. economy will need more workers.  If we don't have them, those jobs along with the economic benefits they would bring will go overseas and the US will go into economic decline.
> 
> The beliefs that more immigrants will mean more democrats, less jobs, and a shortage of workers is good for the economy is going to prevent any meaningful reform that would solve the worker shortage.  In essence, the US is very likely to follow the same disastrous path Japan is following.
> 
> What we don't need is more illegal immigrants. This is one thing both republicans and democrats will be able to agree on.  With less people attempting to cross the border and more security, illegal entry into the country will be a minor problem long before any wall gets build.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about illegal aliens, not immigrants, you racist, race baiting dick head.  What don't you grasp about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You seem to have a problem understanding that our laws that regulated legal immigration are a primary cause of illegal immigration.  Our immigration quotas push wait times to 10 years or more and for those that don't have a sponsor it's never.  When there is no hope of legal entry, there no reason not to try illegally.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, that isn't the case in America. There's always legal entry options.
> 
> Unless you're a violent criminal, or a child sex trafficker. Or a terrorist.
Click to expand...

*Depends how long you have to live. 

For most of the people in most of the world, South America, Central American, Africa, and part of Asia, unless you have family in the US or have special skills, you want be able to immigrate and become a permanent resident for many years to never.*


----------



## AZGAL

And now the ever hysterical media has made a recent firestorm of a "news"/'new" story about how "the Trump administration" wants to separate breastfeeding mothers from children and bullied countries in the WHO in order to keep up the profits for baby formula. The problem is that the struggle over the resolution at the WHO/ world health org HAPPENED in MAY 2018 and it is OLD NEWS regurgitated as a part of their never ending smear against the president and the United States. GRANTED the USA should have been represented by a WOMAN not a man in this endeavor, and the promotion of breastfeeding as healthy prevailed in the WHO conference. The media has hit rock bottom in this country and the citizens of the USA are not dumb and willing to just lap up all their sour milk.


----------



## AZGAL

*THESE 19 DEPORTED PARENTS should have their charges dropped, should get all the help necessary to be reuinited with their children, etc., because this is our screw up in the USA, and these illegals deserve some amnesty:*

POLITICS 
07/06/2018 12:25 pm ET *Updated* 1 day ago
*Trump Administration Deported 19 Parents Whose Young Kids Are Still In Custody*
The judge said the government has to reunify families even if the parent has been removed from the country.



By Elise Foley

The Trump administration revealed on Friday that it has deported 19 migrant parents whose children under the age of 5 remain in U.S. custody in recent weeks ― and argued it shouldn’t be required to reunite them.The government appeared in court to provide an update on its progress reuniting as many as 3,000 children with their parents after the families were separated under a Trump administration crackdown on illegal border crossings. The administration asked Judge Dana Sabraw to give them more time to bring those families back together. A previous court deadline stipulates about 100 children under the age of 5 should be reunited with their parents by July 10.Sabraw, who also issued the order last week requiring the government to reunify families, hasn’t made a decision on the extension yet. But he did confirm the government is obligated to unite parents who were already deported.


----------



## Flopper

AZGAL said:


> *THESE 19 DEPORTED PARENTS should have their charges dropped, should get all the help necessary to be reuinited with their children, etc., because this is our screw up in the USA, and these illegals deserve some amnesty:*
> 
> POLITICS
> 07/06/2018 12:25 pm ET *Updated* 1 day ago
> *Trump Administration Deported 19 Parents Whose Young Kids Are Still In Custody*
> The judge said the government has to reunify families even if the parent has been removed from the country.
> 
> 
> 
> By Elise Foley
> 
> The Trump administration revealed on Friday that it has deported 19 migrant parents whose children under the age of 5 remain in U.S. custody in recent weeks ― and argued it shouldn’t be required to reunite them.The government appeared in court to provide an update on its progress reuniting as many as 3,000 children with their parents after the families were separated under a Trump administration crackdown on illegal border crossings. The administration asked Judge Dana Sabraw to give them more time to bring those families back together. A previous court deadline stipulates about 100 children under the age of 5 should be reunited with their parents by July 10.Sabraw, who also issued the order last week requiring the government to reunify families, hasn’t made a decision on the extension yet. But he did confirm the government is obligated to unite parents who were already deported.


*This seems to be the result of most Trump initiates, a big screw up.  He decides it's time to do something immediately without a lot of people in his administration and his party in congress having any warning.  In this case they started putting kids and  parents together then tearing  them apart. ICE gives them to DHS, human services, and then contracted facilities, all without clear identification of the parents or the children.  So they ended up with 5 year olds being question by foster care facilities only to learn the mother's name is Mama.    *


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Well if you read the article you would realize what you're spewing is left-wing propaganda.



Yawn, guy, don't need to read an article to realize THIS is a disgrace.


----------



## AZGAL

Joe, you are so correct to point out that the pictures of all the unaccompanied minors who surged the borders in 2014 and overwhelmed the system are a disgrace. Most of the pictures being circulated by the phony media are from 2014. You may have posted a 2014 picture along with all the other incompetent media who are using Obama era pictures to unwittingly blame the present administration. Such fools!


----------



## AZGAL

*A Refugee Caravan is Hoping for Asylum in the U.S. How Are These Cases Decided?*

by *Miriam Jordan*
*April 30, 2018
                                         ...Over the past five years, though, the number of asylum applications has skyrocketed. Civil wars in Africa, gang violence in Central America and government crackdowns in China have contributed to a backlog of hundreds of thousands of cases and processing times of up to six years. This presents a range of challenges to U.S. authorities, who are required under international law to give all of the cases careful consideration.*
But President Trump has urged his administration to redouble its efforts to enforce border laws, referring to the caravan over the weekend as “that mess,” and declaring, “We have the worst laws anywhere in the world, we don’t have borders.”


----------



## AZGAL

It doesn't take much brain power to realize that there is a tremendous financial strain that has been placed and continues to be placed on the average working class citizen of the United States by all this *illegal* immigration. It hits the nations working people in the pocketbook. That cost burden is placed on them/us without approval or consideration. What are we as a nation paying for in the amounts of millions and billions of dollars in order to *accommodate illegal aliens*?: WE in the USA are paying for: food, housing, utilities, transportation, workers at adult and child holding centers, teachers, lawyers, judges, border patrol, ICE, military and other airline flights to return people, border vehicles and gasoline, government agencies, communications with religious organizations that provide help and housing here, international efforts to help these people in their own countries, medical, etc, etc. There is a staggering cost to the Average citizen and the nation is recovering economically and has a debt. *Blame the drug trade and weak ineffective governments. *


----------



## AZGAL

*$$$* If you want to help, shut up and write a check to: 

 pray for the people of Guatemala and* HELP OUT*

*Samaritan's Purse*
www.samaritanspurse.org

Our emergency relief programs provide desperately needed assistance to victims of natural disaster, war, disease, and famine. As we offer food, water, and temporary shelter, we meet critical needs and give people a chance to rebuild their lives. Our community development and vocational programs in impoverished villages and neighborhoods help people break the cycle of poverty and give them hope for a better tomorrow. We impact the lives of vulnerable children through educational, feeding, clothing, and shelter programs that let them know they are not forgotten. We provide first-class treatment in the Name of the Great Physician through our medical projects, as well as supplying mission hospitals with much needed equipment and supplies.

*Convoy of Hope*
www.convoyofhope.org/blog/features/disaster-response/guatemala-volcano/

*Food For The Poor*
bit.ly/2LrRE0q

*Operation Blessing International*
www.ob.org/fuego-volcano-relief-efforts/

*Samaritan's Purse*
Samaritan’s Purse Helping Guatemala Volcano Victims

*World Vision*
2018 Guatemala volcano eruption: Facts, FAQs, and how to help | World Vision


----------



## AZGAL

SAVE THE CHILDREN
www.savethechildren.org
Help Children in Honduras
*How Save the Children is Helping*
*Our teams in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico are providing education, protection and peace-building programs. What’s more, we’re empowering vulnerable families and communities to build resilience, improve food security and so much more to ensure that no child goes hungry.*
GLOBAL BRIGADES *Honduras*
In 2004, Global Brigades started its work in the country of Honduras as a medical relief organization. Through the collaboration of community partners and local leaders, we eventually evolved our programming to tackle the underlying issues causing and relating to the health challenges we initially observed during medical clinics. No longer focusing on short-term medical relief, Global Brigades works to empower communities through economic development, sustainable healthcare and water and sanitation projects.
*Can a New Prosecutor Add Bite to Honduras’ Anti-Corruption Mission? *
The Editors Monday, July 9, 2018
On Friday, Luiz Antonio Guimaraes, a Brazilian prosecutor who was Sao Paolo’s attorney general from 1996 to 2004, was sworn in as the head of the Mission Against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras, known as MACCIH. Guimaraes’ predecessor, the Peruvian Juan Jimenez, resigned in February, citing obstruction by Honduran officials and a lack of support by the Organization of American States, which sponsors the mission.
*Food For The Poor*
bit.ly/2LrRE0q


----------



## AZGAL

*fyi*...someone from Venezuela gets asylum first!


----------



## JoeB131

AZGAL said:


> Joe, you are so correct to point out that the pictures of all the unaccompanied minors who surged the borders in 2014 and overwhelmed the system are a disgrace. Most of the pictures being circulated by the phony media are from 2014. You may have posted a 2014 picture along with all the other incompetent media who are using Obama era pictures to unwittingly blame the present administration. Such fools!



Okay, keep telling that story, bud.


----------



## JoeB131

AZGAL said:


> It doesn't take much brain power to realize that there is a tremendous financial strain that has been placed and continues to be placed on the average working class citizen of the United States by all this *illegal* immigration. It hits the nations working people in the pocketbook. That cost burden is placed on them/us without approval or consideration. What are we as a nation paying for in the amounts of millions and billions of dollars in order to *accommodate illegal aliens*?: WE in the USA are paying for: food, housing, utilities, transportation, workers at adult and child holding centers, teachers, lawyers, judges, border patrol, ICE, military and other airline flights to return people, border vehicles and gasoline, government agencies, communications with religious organizations that provide help and housing here, international efforts to help these people in their own countries, medical, etc, etc. There is a staggering cost to the Average citizen and the nation is recovering economically and has a debt. *Blame the drug trade and weak ineffective governments. *



Actually, we get more of a benefit out of undocumented immigrants than costs...  We get the value of their labor.


----------



## AZGAL

Accepted for asylum from Singapore for pertinent issues...


----------



## AZGAL

The Refugee Act of 1980 created The Federal Refugee Resettlement Program to provide for the effective resettlement of refugees and to assist them to achieve economic self-sufficiency as quickly as possible after arrival in the United States.


----------



## AZGAL

Ellas ven, oyen y callan Ellas ven, oyen y callan vía @Planeta_Futuro


----------



## AZGAL

*fyi*...someone from Venezuela gets asylum first!


----------



## AZGAL

Numbers of people who have had protected status to reside temporarily in the USA...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't take much brain power to realize that there is a tremendous financial strain that has been placed and continues to be placed on the average working class citizen of the United States by all this *illegal* immigration. It hits the nations working people in the pocketbook. That cost burden is placed on them/us without approval or consideration. What are we as a nation paying for in the amounts of millions and billions of dollars in order to *accommodate illegal aliens*?: WE in the USA are paying for: food, housing, utilities, transportation, workers at adult and child holding centers, teachers, lawyers, judges, border patrol, ICE, military and other airline flights to return people, border vehicles and gasoline, government agencies, communications with religious organizations that provide help and housing here, international efforts to help these people in their own countries, medical, etc, etc. There is a staggering cost to the Average citizen and the nation is recovering economically and has a debt. *Blame the drug trade and weak ineffective governments. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we get more of a benefit out of undocumented immigrants than costs...  We get the value of their labor.
Click to expand...


You can get labor value from any American.  More straw men.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you read the article you would realize what you're spewing is left-wing propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn, guy, don't need to read an article to realize THIS is a disgrace.
> 
> View attachment 203750
Click to expand...


Exhausted people sleeping in a room is a disgrace?  What were you expecting, hotel rooms with waterbeds?


----------



## WEATHER53

A top 5 myth is that Americans won’t do the work. Who did the work before the illegal flood began?
Lots of 12 year olds cutting grass and shoveling snow again. Good for America and good for them and those of you who say”they won’t do it”-it’s Your lazy government dependent America hating ass that won’t do it.


----------



## WEATHER53

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you read the article you would realize what you're spewing is left-wing propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn, guy, don't need to read an article to realize THIS is a disgrace.
> 
> View attachment 203750
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exhausted people sleeping in a room is a disgrace?  What were you expecting, hotel rooms with waterbeds?
Click to expand...

The horrors of hotels. The desert is better/safer..


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

WEATHER53 said:


> A top 5 myth is that Americans won’t do the work. Who did the work before the illegal flood began?
> Lots of 12 year olds cutting grass and shoveling snow again. Good for America and good for them and those of you who say”they won’t do it”-it’s Your lazy government dependent America hating ass that won’t do it.



In the US, you can find Americans to do any job provided the pay is rewarding enough for the work.  If you own a company and need clean toilets, and offer $20.00 an hour to clean them, you will have the cleanest toilets in the city.  

When I see Iron workers walking on beams 20 stories in the air, I ask myself WTF would make people want that job?  Or in the middle of a snowstorm up north where the winds are gusting 40 mph and some electric company worker is on a ladder 20 feet on a pole trying to restore electric power.  Or Ice Truckers who risk death to drive across ice that is breaking under their tires as they drive to make a delivery.  WTF would want that kind of work? 

Money is the answer to all of them. 

I knew a fellow driver who was offered 120K a year to drive in Iraq after the war.  He didn't accept the offer even though the 120K was tax free.  But he got the offer from his cousin who was in Iraq, who said he's dedicating five years to the project and coming home with over a half mil.  

Money can get an American to do any job.  We don't need foreigners.


----------



## Flopper

AZGAL said:


> It doesn't take much brain power to realize that there is a tremendous financial strain that has been placed and continues to be placed on the average working class citizen of the United States by all this *illegal* immigration. It hits the nations working people in the pocketbook. That cost burden is placed on them/us without approval or consideration. What are we as a nation paying for in the amounts of millions and billions of dollars in order to *accommodate illegal aliens*?: WE in the USA are paying for: food, housing, utilities, transportation, workers at adult and child holding centers, teachers, lawyers, judges, border patrol, ICE, military and other airline flights to return people, border vehicles and gasoline, government agencies, communications with religious organizations that provide help and housing here, international efforts to help these people in their own countries, medical, etc, etc. There is a staggering cost to the Average citizen and the nation is recovering economically and has a debt. *Blame the drug trade and weak ineffective governments. *


*You presented an excellent argument for immigration reform with realistic quotas, reasonable requirements for work permits, real punishment for hiring undocumented immigrants, and a system to monitor visa holders in the US to eliminate visa overstays.*


----------



## Flopper

AZGAL said:


> The Refugee Act of 1980 created The Federal Refugee Resettlement Program to provide for the effective resettlement of refugees and to assist them to achieve economic self-sufficiency as quickly as possible after arrival in the United States.


*There are a lot of difference between applying as a refugee and seeking asylum.  You can apply as a refugee without leaving your home country.  Asylum seekers must come to the US to submit their petition.

If you granted asylum, you are allowed to enter the refugee programs.

Another difference is most refugees return to their home country eventually.  Asylum seekers don't.*


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A top 5 myth is that Americans won’t do the work. Who did the work before the illegal flood began?
> Lots of 12 year olds cutting grass and shoveling snow again. Good for America and good for them and those of you who say”they won’t do it”-it’s Your lazy government dependent America hating ass that won’t do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the US, you can find Americans to do any job provided the pay is rewarding enough for the work.  If you own a company and need clean toilets, and offer $20.00 an hour to clean them, you will have the cleanest toilets in the city.
> 
> When I see Iron workers walking on beams 20 stories in the air, I ask myself WTF would make people want that job?  Or in the middle of a snowstorm up north where the winds are gusting 40 mph and some electric company worker is on a ladder 20 feet on a pole trying to restore electric power.  Or Ice Truckers who risk death to drive across ice that is breaking under their tires as they drive to make a delivery.  WTF would want that kind of work?
> 
> Money is the answer to all of them.
> 
> I knew a fellow driver who was offered 120K a year to drive in Iraq after the war.  He didn't accept the offer even though the 120K was tax free.  But he got the offer from his cousin who was in Iraq, who said he's dedicating five years to the project and coming home with over a half mil.
> 
> Money can get an American to do any job.  We don't need foreigners.
Click to expand...

*Money is a huge incentive except when it isn't.  

I wouldn't pick fruits in summer in the southwest for $100/hr because I would probably drop dead before I finished the first day.  When you get to an unemployment rate as low as it is now, you are exhausting the pool of job seekers and dealing with the structural employed, people physically or mentally unsuitable for any type of work, and people who just don't need to work.

Most people who think they would pick to earn a living have no idea how difficult it is.  In fact most farmers won't hire you unless you have experience picking because they don't want to deal with heat stroke or worse.  

Most migrant workers are signed up by recruiters that contract with farms.  They provide transportation and usually some type of logging if farmer doesn't provide it.  They take about half the pay and living conditions are about what you expect for labor quarters in a 3rd world country. 

Considering most of the work is temp work out in the middle of nowhere in horrible weather, it's surprising the farmers can get their fields picked at all. *


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You can get labor value from any American. More straw men.



Except Americans don't really want to do those jobs... that's the point. 

Again, told you the wonderful story about how we used to have undocumented day laborers at a previous company. Then they insisted that they stop using them, and they could only find white trash methheads that got high and left after they got their first and only paychecks.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can get labor value from any American. More straw men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except Americans don't really want to do those jobs... that's the point.
> 
> Again, told you the wonderful story about how we used to have undocumented day laborers at a previous company. Then they insisted that they stop using them, and they could only find white trash methheads that got high and left after they got their first and only paychecks.
Click to expand...


Correct, because they don't want to pay anything.  But the solution is not to bring in foreigners, the solution is to starve the market until businesses increase their offers.  We are blowing a perfect opportunity with that given our booming economy.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A top 5 myth is that Americans won’t do the work. Who did the work before the illegal flood began?
> Lots of 12 year olds cutting grass and shoveling snow again. Good for America and good for them and those of you who say”they won’t do it”-it’s Your lazy government dependent America hating ass that won’t do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the US, you can find Americans to do any job provided the pay is rewarding enough for the work.  If you own a company and need clean toilets, and offer $20.00 an hour to clean them, you will have the cleanest toilets in the city.
> 
> When I see Iron workers walking on beams 20 stories in the air, I ask myself WTF would make people want that job?  Or in the middle of a snowstorm up north where the winds are gusting 40 mph and some electric company worker is on a ladder 20 feet on a pole trying to restore electric power.  Or Ice Truckers who risk death to drive across ice that is breaking under their tires as they drive to make a delivery.  WTF would want that kind of work?
> 
> Money is the answer to all of them.
> 
> I knew a fellow driver who was offered 120K a year to drive in Iraq after the war.  He didn't accept the offer even though the 120K was tax free.  But he got the offer from his cousin who was in Iraq, who said he's dedicating five years to the project and coming home with over a half mil.
> 
> Money can get an American to do any job.  We don't need foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Money is a huge incentive except when it isn't.
> 
> I wouldn't pick fruits in summer in the southwest for $100/hr because I would probably drop dead before I finished the first day.  When you get to an unemployment rate as low as it is now, you are exhausting the pool of job seekers and dealing with the structural employed, people physically or mentally unsuitable for any type of work, and people who just don't need to work.
> 
> Most people who think they would pick to earn a living have no idea how difficult it is.  In fact most farmers won't hire you unless you have experience picking because they don't want to deal with heat stroke or worse.
> 
> Most migrant workers are signed up by recruiters that contract with farms.  They provide transportation and usually some type of logging if farmer doesn't provide it.  They take about half the pay and living conditions are about what you expect for labor quarters in a 3rd world country.
> 
> Considering most of the work is temp work out in the middle of nowhere in horrible weather, it's surprising the farmers can get their fields picked at all. *
Click to expand...


So what are you saying, Americans are more prone to illness due to the weather than foreigners?  Let me tell you when I was younger I worked with my father, and there was no worse boss to have.  The heat is one thing here in the summer, but the humidity is another.  I would have to carry clamps of bricks to the area my father was working in, mix cement by hand, carry 8" block, and the bags of cement weigh 75 lbs.  I would have to set up scaffolding and level it off.  There isn't much harder work than that let me assure you. 

Nobody died, and you poured sweat all day long.  Pop never got his AC fixed so even during lunch, you sat outside under a tree if the job site had one.  Trust me, back then I would have jumped on a job picking grapes compared to that.  Ever load a wheelbarrow full of cement and push that thing 100 feet and then unload it by hand?


----------



## JoeB131

WEATHER53 said:


> A top 5 myth is that Americans won’t do the work. Who did the work before the illegal flood began?
> Lots of 12 year olds cutting grass and shoveling snow again. Good for America and good for them and those of you who say”they won’t do it”-it’s Your lazy government dependent America hating ass that won’t do it.



Are those 12 year olds cutting grass 40 hours a week? 

are they doing it for slave wages, or are they doing it for an hour, getting paid $10.00 for an hour's work and given a pat on the head like that's adorable?  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Correct, because they don't want to pay anything. But the solution is not to bring in foreigners, the solution is to starve the market until businesses increase their offers. We are blowing a perfect opportunity with that given our booming economy.



Obviously, you forgot what hyperinflation looks like.  




He didn't.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So what are you saying, Americans are more prone to illness due to the weather than foreigners? Let me tell you when I was younger I worked with my father, and there was no worse boss to have. The heat is one thing here in the summer, but the humidity is another. I would have to carry clamps of bricks to the area my father was working in, mix cement by hand, carry 8" block, and the bags of cement weigh 75 lbs. I would have to set up scaffolding and level it off. There isn't much harder work than that let me assure you.
> 
> Nobody died, and you poured sweat all day long. Pop never got his AC fixed so even during lunch, you sat outside under a tree if the job site had one.



And white kids today don't want to work like that. They want to go to college so they don't have to do those kinds of jobs.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can get labor value from any American. More straw men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except Americans don't really want to do those jobs... that's the point.
> 
> Again, told you the wonderful story about how we used to have undocumented day laborers at a previous company. Then they insisted that they stop using them, and they could only find white trash methheads that got high and left after they got their first and only paychecks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, because they don't want to pay anything.  But the solution is not to bring in foreigners, the solution is to starve the market until businesses increase their offers.  We are blowing a perfect opportunity with that given our booming economy.
Click to expand...

*A farmer can not just increase wages without being able to get more for his crop and getting more depends on the market.  

It might seem like the farmer raising blackberries has a unique crop but the fact is if the cost of blackberries rise significantly, many consumers will switch to blueberries, raspberries, strawberries, or other fruits.  

Also the market is not local or even national. It is global.  The blackberry farm in Oregon is competing with farms all over the country, Mexico, Canada, Central America, and the Caribbean.  So if the Oregon blackberry farmer raises his pay from $16/hr to $23/hr, he will have a crop he can't sell and still make a profit.*


----------



## WEATHER53

JoeB131 said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A top 5 myth is that Americans won’t do the work. Who did the work before the illegal flood began?
> Lots of 12 year olds cutting grass and shoveling snow again. Good for America and good for them and those of you who say”they won’t do it”-it’s Your lazy government dependent America hating ass that won’t do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are those 12 year olds cutting grass 40 hours a week?
> 
> are they doing it for slave wages, or are they doing it for an hour, getting paid $10.00 for an hour's work and given a pat on the head like that's adorable?
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, because they don't want to pay anything. But the solution is not to bring in foreigners, the solution is to starve the market until businesses increase their offers. We are blowing a perfect opportunity with that given our booming economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, you forgot what hyperinflation looks like.
> 
> View attachment 203923
> He didn't.
Click to expand...

No they would do 5 or 6 lawns per week just like we all did growing up
Maybe you never grew up
Plenty of kids from all neighborhoods cutting grass and willing to do it again even with detractors like you spilling your crap


----------



## WEATHER53

There are plenty of important and skilled positions paying $25ph. It’s dumb to maintain that grass cutters and burger flippers should be getting $15+ph. No job is guaranteed nor even oriented to give you a swell 2br apartment on your own. That’s not the function of employment. Just have to share living quarters  until you can make it bigger time, if you ever do.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can get labor value from any American. More straw men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except Americans don't really want to do those jobs... that's the point.
> 
> Again, told you the wonderful story about how we used to have undocumented day laborers at a previous company. Then they insisted that they stop using them, and they could only find white trash methheads that got high and left after they got their first and only paychecks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, because they don't want to pay anything.  But the solution is not to bring in foreigners, the solution is to starve the market until businesses increase their offers.  We are blowing a perfect opportunity with that given our booming economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A farmer can not just increase wages without being able to get more for his crop and getting more depends on the market.
> 
> It might seem like the farmer raising blackberries has a unique crop but the fact is if the cost of blackberries rise significantly, many consumers will switch to blueberries, raspberries, strawberries, or other fruits.
> 
> Also the market is not local or even national. It is global.  The blackberry farm in Oregon is competing with farms all over the country, Mexico, Canada, Central America, and the Caribbean.  So if the Oregon blackberry farmer raises his pay from $16/hr to $23/hr, he will have a crop he can't sell and still make a profit.*
Click to expand...


American companies of all kinds compete with the global market.  Most of them do not hire illegals.  American companies are doing fine competing with places like China who's workers labor for a few bucks a day. 

If you're going to tell me this country would collapse tomorrow without foreigners, I have a bridge to sell you.  You people on the left have more excuses for bringing in foreigners than you have for guys in dresses being allowed in girls restrooms in public school.  

The market will take care of itself as it always does without cheating.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what are you saying, Americans are more prone to illness due to the weather than foreigners? Let me tell you when I was younger I worked with my father, and there was no worse boss to have. The heat is one thing here in the summer, but the humidity is another. I would have to carry clamps of bricks to the area my father was working in, mix cement by hand, carry 8" block, and the bags of cement weigh 75 lbs. I would have to set up scaffolding and level it off. There isn't much harder work than that let me assure you.
> 
> Nobody died, and you poured sweat all day long. Pop never got his AC fixed so even during lunch, you sat outside under a tree if the job site had one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And white kids today don't want to work like that. They want to go to college so they don't have to do those kinds of jobs.
Click to expand...


Many can't afford college, and the construction industry is still fine today with the hard work involved.  What's the difference?  They get paid well for doing hard work.  My father is a retired bricklayer, and he has a hell of a pension and is doing just fine for his age.  He's been retired now for 25 years.


----------



## WEATHER53

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can get labor value from any American. More straw men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except Americans don't really want to do those jobs... that's the point.
> 
> Again, told you the wonderful story about how we used to have undocumented day laborers at a previous company. Then they insisted that they stop using them, and they could only find white trash methheads that got high and left after they got their first and only paychecks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, because they don't want to pay anything.  But the solution is not to bring in foreigners, the solution is to starve the market until businesses increase their offers.  We are blowing a perfect opportunity with that given our booming economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A farmer can not just increase wages without being able to get more for his crop and getting more depends on the market.
> 
> It might seem like the farmer raising blackberries has a unique crop but the fact is if the cost of blackberries rise significantly, many consumers will switch to blueberries, raspberries, strawberries, or other fruits.
> 
> Also the market is not local or even national. It is global.  The blackberry farm in Oregon is competing with farms all over the country, Mexico, Canada, Central America, and the Caribbean.  So if the Oregon blackberry farmer raises his pay from $16/hr to $23/hr, he will have a crop he can't sell and still make a profit.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American companies of all kinds compete with the global market.  Most of them do not hire illegals.  American companies are doing fine competing with places like China who's workers labor for a few bucks a day.
> 
> If you're going to tell me this country would collapse tomorrow without foreigners, I have a bridge to sell you.  You people on the left have more excuses for bringing in foreigners than you have for guys in dresses being allowed in girls restrooms in public school.
> 
> The market will take care of itself as it always does without cheating.
Click to expand...

Anything that undermines America operating effectively is what liberals are about . Effectiveness and success just are not fair because so many can’t do it and the social justice horseshitters must intervene


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

WEATHER53 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can get labor value from any American. More straw men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except Americans don't really want to do those jobs... that's the point.
> 
> Again, told you the wonderful story about how we used to have undocumented day laborers at a previous company. Then they insisted that they stop using them, and they could only find white trash methheads that got high and left after they got their first and only paychecks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, because they don't want to pay anything.  But the solution is not to bring in foreigners, the solution is to starve the market until businesses increase their offers.  We are blowing a perfect opportunity with that given our booming economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A farmer can not just increase wages without being able to get more for his crop and getting more depends on the market.
> 
> It might seem like the farmer raising blackberries has a unique crop but the fact is if the cost of blackberries rise significantly, many consumers will switch to blueberries, raspberries, strawberries, or other fruits.
> 
> Also the market is not local or even national. It is global.  The blackberry farm in Oregon is competing with farms all over the country, Mexico, Canada, Central America, and the Caribbean.  So if the Oregon blackberry farmer raises his pay from $16/hr to $23/hr, he will have a crop he can't sell and still make a profit.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American companies of all kinds compete with the global market.  Most of them do not hire illegals.  American companies are doing fine competing with places like China who's workers labor for a few bucks a day.
> 
> If you're going to tell me this country would collapse tomorrow without foreigners, I have a bridge to sell you.  You people on the left have more excuses for bringing in foreigners than you have for guys in dresses being allowed in girls restrooms in public school.
> 
> The market will take care of itself as it always does without cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything that undermines America operating effectively is what liberals are about . Effectiveness and success just are not fair because so many can’t do it and the social justice horseshitters must intervene
Click to expand...


When it comes to employment, the supply and demand process is the most perfect.  It may not favor you all of the time, but what definitely does not favor us is throwing monkey wrenches into the system like unions or foreign labor.  

The S and D system will work itself out as it always has before the foreign invasion.


----------



## WEATHER53

A human cost that is not acceptable is where a guyi gets in at 45-50 and collects social security at 66 even if he paid a very limited amount compared to average Joe paying in for 50 years


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

WEATHER53 said:


> A human cost that is not acceptable is where a guyi gets in at 45-50 and collects social security at 66 even if he paid a very limited amount compared to average Joe paying in for 50 years



I understand what you're saying, but SS payouts are in proportion to contributions.  Now if you are fortunate enough to max out every working year, then yes, that person will get the same amount as another who didn't come close to maxing out.  Democrats say we should lift the ceiling, but they never say we should also increase the payouts of those who are currently past the ceiling.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can get labor value from any American. More straw men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except Americans don't really want to do those jobs... that's the point.
> 
> Again, told you the wonderful story about how we used to have undocumented day laborers at a previous company. Then they insisted that they stop using them, and they could only find white trash methheads that got high and left after they got their first and only paychecks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, because they don't want to pay anything.  But the solution is not to bring in foreigners, the solution is to starve the market until businesses increase their offers.  We are blowing a perfect opportunity with that given our booming economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A farmer can not just increase wages without being able to get more for his crop and getting more depends on the market.
> 
> It might seem like the farmer raising blackberries has a unique crop but the fact is if the cost of blackberries rise significantly, many consumers will switch to blueberries, raspberries, strawberries, or other fruits.
> 
> Also the market is not local or even national. It is global.  The blackberry farm in Oregon is competing with farms all over the country, Mexico, Canada, Central America, and the Caribbean.  So if the Oregon blackberry farmer raises his pay from $16/hr to $23/hr, he will have a crop he can't sell and still make a profit.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American companies of all kinds compete with the global market.  Most of them do not hire illegals.  American companies are doing fine competing with places like China who's workers labor for a few bucks a day.
> 
> If you're going to tell me this country would collapse tomorrow without foreigners, I have a bridge to sell you.  You people on the left have more excuses for bringing in foreigners than you have for guys in dresses being allowed in girls restrooms in public school.
> 
> The market will take care of itself as it always does without cheating.
Click to expand...

*I didn't say the country would collapse without foreign labor.  I am saying we would be worst off without it.

Without foreign labor, farms would be forced to spend a lot on automation pushing food prices up in the US.  Domestic production of fruits that had to be picked by hand would be replaced by foreign imports.

We would lose 42% of our STEM workforce (science, technology, engineering, and math) as they are immigrants.

Yes, the US would survive but our economy would shrink, as the government would attempt to protect more and more industries that would not be able to compete against foreign producers who can hire the best regardless of nationality.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can get labor value from any American. More straw men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except Americans don't really want to do those jobs... that's the point.
> 
> Again, told you the wonderful story about how we used to have undocumented day laborers at a previous company. Then they insisted that they stop using them, and they could only find white trash methheads that got high and left after they got their first and only paychecks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, because they don't want to pay anything.  But the solution is not to bring in foreigners, the solution is to starve the market until businesses increase their offers.  We are blowing a perfect opportunity with that given our booming economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A farmer can not just increase wages without being able to get more for his crop and getting more depends on the market.
> 
> It might seem like the farmer raising blackberries has a unique crop but the fact is if the cost of blackberries rise significantly, many consumers will switch to blueberries, raspberries, strawberries, or other fruits.
> 
> Also the market is not local or even national. It is global.  The blackberry farm in Oregon is competing with farms all over the country, Mexico, Canada, Central America, and the Caribbean.  So if the Oregon blackberry farmer raises his pay from $16/hr to $23/hr, he will have a crop he can't sell and still make a profit.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American companies of all kinds compete with the global market.  Most of them do not hire illegals.  American companies are doing fine competing with places like China who's workers labor for a few bucks a day.
> 
> If you're going to tell me this country would collapse tomorrow without foreigners, I have a bridge to sell you.  You people on the left have more excuses for bringing in foreigners than you have for guys in dresses being allowed in girls restrooms in public school.
> 
> The market will take care of itself as it always does without cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I didn't say the country would collapse without foreign labor.  I am saying we would be worst off without it.
> 
> Without foreign labor, farms would be forced to spend a lot on automation pushing food prices up in the US.  Domestic production of fruits that had to be picked by hand would be replaced by foreign imports.
> 
> We would lose 42% of our STEM workforce (science, technology, engineering, and math) as they are immigrants.
> 
> Yes, the US would survive but our economy would shrink, as the government would attempt to protect more and more industries that would not be able to compete against foreign producers who can hire the best regardless of nationality.*
Click to expand...


Riddle me this: the left has no problem increasing costs to American companies when it comes to increases in minimum wage, Obama Care, environmental costs, taxes, regulations, but now worried if we get rid of foreigners, it would have such negative effects. 

If farmers had to automate or otherwise pay fair wages for labor, I think I could tolerate paying 10 bucks for a watermelon instead of $6.50.  I think I could pay $3.00 for a pack of carrots instead of $1.85.  In fact I wouldn't even notice. 

You do realize that not that long ago, we started to burn up our food supply to create ethanol.  But that was okay, because supposedly, it was to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.  It's still happening today and we are still paying 20% more for groceries than we did before.  But again, that had Democrat stamp of approval, even though ethanol forced distributors of fuel to revamp their equipment and still known for it's destructive properties to engines.  

But now the tragedy is getting rid of people that should't be here in the first place.  Just one more excuse to keep foreigners coming to this country.  It has nothing to do with cost, because if it did, Democrats would have addressed that when ethanol, taxes, and environmental regulations increased our costs as well.


----------



## AZGAL

*What we don't need is more illegal immigrants that live in the shadows.  They can not assimilate and contribute to economy in the way legal immigrants can.----------It doesn't take much brain power to realize that there is a tremendous financial strain that has been placed and continues to be placed on the average working class citizen of the United States by all this illegal immigration. It hits the nations working people in the pocketbook. That cost burden is placed on them/us without approval or consideration. What are we as a nation paying for in the amounts of millions and billions of dollars in order to accommodate illegal aliens?: WE in the USA are paying for: food, housing, utilities, transportation, workers at adult and child holding centers, teachers, lawyers, judges, border patrol, ICE, military and other airline flights to return people, border vehicles and gasoline, government agencies, communications with religious organizations that provide help and housing here, international efforts to help these people in their own countries, medical, etc, etc. There is a staggering cost to the Average citizen and the nation is recovering economically and has a debt. Blame the drug trade and weak ineffective governments. --


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*


----------



## JoeB131

WEATHER53 said:


> No they would do 5 or 6 lawns per week just like we all did growing up
> Maybe you never grew up
> Plenty of kids from all neighborhoods cutting grass and willing to do it again even with detractors like you spilling your crap



I would hire a professional lawn service that knew what it was doing, and not some kid who'd miss half the spots and then I'd have to go out and do it myself the right way.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Many can't afford college, and the construction industry is still fine today with the hard work involved. What's the difference? They get paid well for doing hard work. My father is a retired bricklayer, and he has a hell of a pension and is doing just fine for his age. He's been retired now for 25 years.



Hmmm... A Pension.  And how did he get a pension?  Oh, that's right, he belonged to a UNION that you guys want to get rid of now. 

In fact, the reason why there are so many undocumented workers in the trades is because the One  Percenters- including Trump- don't want to pay union wages.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many can't afford college, and the construction industry is still fine today with the hard work involved. What's the difference? They get paid well for doing hard work. My father is a retired bricklayer, and he has a hell of a pension and is doing just fine for his age. He's been retired now for 25 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... A Pension.  And how did he get a pension?  Oh, that's right, he belonged to a UNION that you guys want to get rid of now.
> 
> In fact, the reason why there are so many undocumented workers in the trades is because the One  Percenters- including Trump- don't want to pay union wages.
Click to expand...


Yes, unions were a big thing decades ago until the public figured out why jobs were leaving the US.  But pensions are one of the reasons people are willing to join construction and do those kinds of jobs.  With everything added in, a bricklayer makes about $50.00 an hour when working.  

Yep, those evil one percenters again.  But it's Democrats who are ushering in these foreigners for the one percent to take advantage of.  Trump and we Republicans are trying to slow that down, and the Democrats are fighting us tooth and nail even to the point of threatening to shut down the government.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes, unions were a big thing decades ago until the public figured out why jobs were leaving the US. But pensions are one of the reasons people are willing to join construction and do those kinds of jobs. With everything added in, a bricklayer makes about $50.00 an hour when working.



And clearly, the market forces can't support that... not when you have a rich guy like Trump who needs a new dressage horse. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yep, those evil one percenters again. But it's Democrats who are ushering in these foreigners for the one percent to take advantage of. Trump and we Republicans are trying to slow that down, and the Democrats are fighting us tooth and nail even to the point of threatening to shut down the government.



Again, Trump wants to build a wall that won't work while not addressing the issues like the 11 million who are already here and part of this society.


----------



## AZGAL

Joe you talk nonsense. At least Flop tries to present a thoughtful response. You are silly Joe, sorry.


----------



## danielpalos

An Oasis on every Continent!


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except Americans don't really want to do those jobs... that's the point.
> 
> Again, told you the wonderful story about how we used to have undocumented day laborers at a previous company. Then they insisted that they stop using them, and they could only find white trash methheads that got high and left after they got their first and only paychecks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, because they don't want to pay anything.  But the solution is not to bring in foreigners, the solution is to starve the market until businesses increase their offers.  We are blowing a perfect opportunity with that given our booming economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A farmer can not just increase wages without being able to get more for his crop and getting more depends on the market.
> 
> It might seem like the farmer raising blackberries has a unique crop but the fact is if the cost of blackberries rise significantly, many consumers will switch to blueberries, raspberries, strawberries, or other fruits.
> 
> Also the market is not local or even national. It is global.  The blackberry farm in Oregon is competing with farms all over the country, Mexico, Canada, Central America, and the Caribbean.  So if the Oregon blackberry farmer raises his pay from $16/hr to $23/hr, he will have a crop he can't sell and still make a profit.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American companies of all kinds compete with the global market.  Most of them do not hire illegals.  American companies are doing fine competing with places like China who's workers labor for a few bucks a day.
> 
> If you're going to tell me this country would collapse tomorrow without foreigners, I have a bridge to sell you.  You people on the left have more excuses for bringing in foreigners than you have for guys in dresses being allowed in girls restrooms in public school.
> 
> The market will take care of itself as it always does without cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I didn't say the country would collapse without foreign labor.  I am saying we would be worst off without it.
> 
> Without foreign labor, farms would be forced to spend a lot on automation pushing food prices up in the US.  Domestic production of fruits that had to be picked by hand would be replaced by foreign imports.
> 
> We would lose 42% of our STEM workforce (science, technology, engineering, and math) as they are immigrants.
> 
> Yes, the US would survive but our economy would shrink, as the government would attempt to protect more and more industries that would not be able to compete against foreign producers who can hire the best regardless of nationality.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riddle me this: the left has no problem increasing costs to American companies when it comes to increases in minimum wage, Obama Care, environmental costs, taxes, regulations, but now worried if we get rid of foreigners, it would have such negative effects.
> 
> If farmers had to automate or otherwise pay fair wages for labor, I think I could tolerate paying 10 bucks for a watermelon instead of $6.50.  I think I could pay $3.00 for a pack of carrots instead of $1.85.  In fact I wouldn't even notice.
> 
> You do realize that not that long ago, we started to burn up our food supply to create ethanol.  But that was okay, because supposedly, it was to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.  It's still happening today and we are still paying 20% more for groceries than we did before.  But again, that had Democrat stamp of approval, even though ethanol forced distributors of fuel to revamp their equipment and still known for it's destructive properties to engines.
> 
> But now the tragedy is getting rid of people that should't be here in the first place.  Just one more excuse to keep foreigners coming to this country.  It has nothing to do with cost, because if it did, Democrats would have addressed that when ethanol, taxes, and environmental regulations increased our costs as well.
Click to expand...

*You might be willing to pay $10 for a $6 watermelon, but most Americans would buy Mexican, Central American, or Caribbean melons.  Those kind of increases in cost would cost America tens of billions of dollars in agricultural exports.   

However, that would be a minor problem if the America for Americans crowd get their way.  The loss of 42% of our high tech people who are immigrants would devastate our high tech industries.   It would hit America where it's most productive, high tech innovations and scientific and engineering research.  Without their top high tech people, you would see tech giants in the US such as Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Intel... etc moving their operations to the EU and Asia.*


----------



## WEATHER53

JoeB131 said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they would do 5 or 6 lawns per week just like we all did growing up
> Maybe you never grew up
> Plenty of kids from all neighborhoods cutting grass and willing to do it again even with detractors like you spilling your crap
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would hire a professional lawn service that knew what it was doing, and not some kid who'd miss half the spots and then I'd have to go out and do it myself the right way.
Click to expand...

You have never mowed a lawn. It’s the easiest thing on earth to do. You are a typical liberal who has no experience with what they are taking about yet are willing and eager to criticize it or say it can’t be done.


----------



## Flopper

AZGAL said:


> *What we don't need is more illegal immigrants that live in the shadows.  They can not assimilate and contribute to economy in the way legal immigrants can.----------It doesn't take much brain power to realize that there is a tremendous financial strain that has been placed and continues to be placed on the average working class citizen of the United States by all this illegal immigration. It hits the nations working people in the pocketbook. That cost burden is placed on them/us without approval or consideration. What are we as a nation paying for in the amounts of millions and billions of dollars in order to accommodate illegal aliens?: WE in the USA are paying for: food, housing, utilities, transportation, workers at adult and child holding centers, teachers, lawyers, judges, border patrol, ICE, military and other airline flights to return people, border vehicles and gasoline, government agencies, communications with religious organizations that provide help and housing here, international efforts to help these people in their own countries, medical, etc, etc. There is a staggering cost to the Average citizen and the nation is recovering economically and has a debt. Blame the drug trade and weak ineffective governments. --View attachment 204088 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*


*I agree, we need to stop illegal immigration.  Building walls and apprehensions at the border are not going to do it because the number attempting to cross our boarders are decreasing while Visa overstays are increasing.  Last year set a 17 year record low in illegal entries.  As economies in Mexico, Central, and South America continue to improve and demand for low cost labor increases, the number of illegal crossing will continue falling.  However the number of Visa overstays are increasing and we have no effective means of controlling it.

Here is what we should do to solve our illegal immigration problem.*

*First, and most important develop a system for determining who is overstaying there Visa.  Currently, ICE has no way of knowing who is in the country with an expired visa.*
*Second, ICE needs to know where Visa holders reside.*
*H1-B, and H2B visas need to be increased dramatically.  We need more STEM workers and we need more temporary seasonal workers.*
*We need to increase quotas and at same time become much more selective.*
*We need to encourage immigration from countries that aren't filling their current quotas such in Northern Europe through advertising and incentive programs.*
*We need to clean up our student visa program.  We need to make it easier for STEM graduates to work in the US.  However, we also need to limit the amount of time a student is allowed stay in the US pursuing a degree.  Under the current law students can stay in US as long as it takes to complete their course of study.  That allows students to remain in the US indefinitely by changing majors reducing course loads etc.*
*We need to crack down hard on employers hiring undocumented immigrants.  All employers should be required to use E-Verify and the system needs to be updated so it shows recent activity.*
*We need to create a path to Citizenship for selected undocumented immigrants.  *


----------



## AZGAL




----------



## AZGAL

Flopper said:


> *H1-B, and H2B visas need to be increased dramatically. We need more STEM workers and we need more temporary workers.We need to increase quotas and at same time become much more selective.*


The only thing that I disagree with these findings (in yellow) and with your arguments Flop is that to me the right to immigrate to the United States should not be based on someone's IQ or type of skills or higher levels of formal education. I am for Latin American migrants and other migrants to have a pathways to legal citizenship based on the unique qualities that they already have such as hard physical work, special outlooks on culture, society, and spirituality. etc. I do not think we need to mold our legal immigration allowanced into a funnel for corporate achievement. I admire the Latino efforts in the arts (music, dance, film, writing,etc.), church, agriculture, hospitality industry, construction and landscaping industries, native indigenous earth wisdom, etc. It is a narrow idea of life to expect all our immigrants to be engineers, doctors and lawyers, etc. We do not need to expect that any immigrant falls into a stereotype of what we think of their cultures- Asians can be housekeepers and Latinos can be doctors for instance...IT NEEDS TO ALL BE LEGAL except for real serious border crossing Asylum seekers. I do think that renewing an effort to combat the cartels and terrorists in the world will help more immigration become legal in the future as well.


----------



## AZGAL

Flopper said:


> We need to create a path to Citizenship for selected undocumented immigrants.


That is what the temporary protected status was for many of these Central Americans for many years. This is ending as the offer of TPS is going to other groups now so that they can have their turn such as people from China, Africa, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.


----------



## AZGAL

Here in AZ we use e-verify a lot unless it is a shady business catering to illegals. Arizona went to the Supreme court on immigration and profiling issues and it was a win some (E-verify) and lose some (profiling) decision. (We need to crack down hard on employers hiring undocumented immigrants. All employers should be required to use E-Verify and the system needs to updated so it shows recent activity.-QUOTE)


----------



## PredFan

*What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?*

Any and all.


----------



## Flopper

AZGAL said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *H1-B, and H2B visas need to be increased dramatically. We need more STEM workers and we need more temporary workers.We need to increase quotas and at same time become much more selective.*
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that I disagree with these findings (in yellow) and with your arguments Flop is that to me the right to immigrate to the United States should not be based on someone's IQ or type of skills or higher levels of formal education. I am for Latin American migrants and other migrants to have a pathways to legal citizenship based on the unique qualities that they already have such as hard physical work, special outlooks on culture, society, and spirituality. etc. I do not think we need to mold our legal immigration allowanced into a funnel for corporate achievement. I admire the Latino efforts in the arts (music, dance, film, writing,etc.), church, agriculture, hospitality industry, construction and landscaping industries, native indigenous earth wisdom, etc. It is a narrow idea of life to expect all our immigrants to be engineers, doctors and lawyers, etc. We do not need to expect that any immigrant falls into a stereotype of what we think of their cultures- Asians can be housekeepers and Latinos can be doctors for instance...IT NEEDS TO ALL BE LEGAL except for real serious border crossing Asylum seekers. I do think that renewing an effort to combat the cartels and terrorists in the world will help more immigration become legal in the future as well.
Click to expand...

*On this point, I think we may disagree.  What I purpose is we spend far more effort examining and investigating the person applying for a visa for permanent residence and that would include change of status in the US.  The goal being to select exceptional people and I don't mean just having a college degree, being a lawyer, or owning a chain of stores but people who have real  accomplishments in their life and have overcome real obstacles, a boy who sells post cards on the street, learns English and sells his service as guide, and turns it into small business with half dozen employees, the mother that raises 3 kids on her own while working two jobs, the father who works days attends college at night for 6 years and makes top grades, etc.

Currently, being accepted is determined primarily by your country of origin, family members in the US, whether you are a college graduate, your financial situation, a cursory security check, and passing the immigration interview.

At the interview, the visa officer has just a minute or two to greet you, ask you a few questions, flip through your passport, and write down 50 or so words to describe why your visa is issued or refused.  There is no investigation and no one has any interest at all in what you have accomplish in your life.

What I'm suggesting would require a lot more people but I think it would be well worth the effort.  I don't think there should be any arbitrary limit on the number of really good people that can make America a better place.

The image of American immigration is we don't really need you or want you. I think that image needs to change to we need and want people that can make America a better place but you're going have to prove it because we are looking for the best we can get.          *


----------



## hazlnut

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
Click to expand...



Go look up American laws on seeking asylum.

"Under *U.S.* law, the term refugee refers to a person who is located outside of the *United States*, is of “special humanitarian concern to the *United States*” and has demonstrated that they were persecuted or have a well-founded fear of persecution because of race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion ."


----------



## AZGAL

The fact is this country is all about immigrants. I will not get into the controversy over whether Native Americans originated here and/or came over an ice bridge to here at this time. The fact is that the United States IS a nation made mostly of immigrants. The citizens have been most GENEROUS even in the last 25 years with allowing immigrants. Many Central Americans have been on TPS-temporary protected status and many unaccompanied minors were granted permanent residence. Immigration is the melting pot of this nation. The Latin Americans have now maxed out from Central America and Mexico and their TPS is scheduled to end. this opens up room for the new groups- Chinese, Africans, Cubans, Venezuelans, etc. YES there should be some European immigration ESPECIALLY Jews from France and the middle east. We may be able to help some people from Turkey and Burma as well. There is a ROTATION. The far left doesn't GET all the FACTS and math straight. These last caravan peoples just have bad timing as the USA has allowed LOTS and lots of people already from Central America. It is too bad for them. They are being upended by the crisis in Venezuela, with the ROHINGYA,  (genocide), etc. THERE IS ALSO an uptick to increase the quotas of the most educated and successful from the world in our visa competitions as well. The USA will always need to have foreign agricultural workers and we must respect them very much and give them the citizenship they and military types have earned.
*US accepts Rohingya refugees from Indonesia - National - The ...*
www.thejakartapost.com/news/.../us-accepts-rohingya-refugees-from-indonesia.html
Feb 13, 2017 - “They drove _us_ out of our houses, men and women in separate lines, ordering … According to a _Rohingya refugee_ who was not included in the …………………………………………………………………………………………………...  ……………………………..(Reuters)
trial stage on July 9-​A court in Myanmar charged two Reuters journalists with obtaining secret state documents, moving the landmark press freedom case.


----------



## AZGAL

This is real asylum and also achievement...in the USA!
 
*May 2, 2018 *
*Yazidi advocate takes unlikely path to Husker master's degree *
*Yazidi advocate takes unlikely path to Husker master's degree*
​


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

hazlnut said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Go look up American laws on seeking asylum.
> 
> "Under *U.S.* law, the term refugee refers to a person who is located outside of the *United States*, is of “special humanitarian concern to the *United States*” and has demonstrated that they were persecuted or have a well-founded fear of persecution because of race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion ."
Click to expand...


Which most people in Central America are not.


----------



## Flopper

hazlnut said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Go look up American laws on seeking asylum.
> 
> "Under *U.S.* law, the term refugee refers to a person who is located outside of the *United States*, is of “special humanitarian concern to the *United States*” and has demonstrated that they were persecuted or have a well-founded fear of persecution because of race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion ."
Click to expand...

*That creates an interesting dilemma for asylum and immigration officers.

A mother with 3 kids approaches an immigration agent at the border and says, "I fear for my life if I return home because my husband is a homicidal maniac who murdered my two children and vows to murder me and the whole family if I return."
Denied.

The mother speaks to a lawyer and makes one small addition, "I have demonstrated against the government and the police force and because of my political involvement they refuse to arrest him"
Accepted.

A person approaching an immigration officer with an asylum petition has a poor chance of success because his job is to stop anyone that does not have proper credentials.  If the immigration agent turns the person away because for lack of cause, there can be no appeal.  If agent believes the person is lying, he or she will be detained for deportation and possible bared legally entry for 3 years.

The way to get asylum is to get a tourist visa and enter the US legally, get an immigration lawyer to prepare the petition and instruct you on what to tell the asylum officer.  Then make an appointment with the asylum officer. If the asylum officer denies your petition, you request a review by another officer.  If it's approved your petition will be schedule for a hearing by an asylum judge.  At the hearing, the lawyer can present the case.  If you're turned down, you can request a review by another asylum judge.  The chance of getting asylum is far better than just showing up at the border.  Also, if immigration wants the case presented in English, the person must be able to do that or provide an interpreter at their own cost. *


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Again, Trump wants to build a wall that won't work while not addressing the issues like the 11 million who are already here and part of this society.



He is addressing those issues, and once again, you leftists are crying about it.  ICE is working night and day to target businesses and illegals and boot them out of here.  Trump has opened up many more deportation courts to speed up the process. 

The problem with you people is that Democrat politicians tell you what to think--not why you should think it.  A wall will work because it's provided results everywhere it's tried.  If Democrats really believed the crap they tell you, they would welcome the Republicans blowing 28 billion on a wall just to use it against them for many elections to come.  But the REAL reason they don't want the wall is because it will work.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Trump wants to build a wall that won't work while not addressing the issues like the 11 million who are already here and part of this society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is addressing those issues, and once again, you leftists are crying about it.  ICE is working night and day to target businesses and illegals and boot them out of here.  Trump has opened up many more deportation courts to speed up the process.
> 
> The problem with you people is that Democrat politicians tell you what to think--not why you should think it.  A wall will work because it's provided results everywhere it's tried.  If Democrats really believed the crap they tell you, they would welcome the Republicans blowing 28 billion on a wall just to use it against them for many elections to come.  But the REAL reason they don't want the wall is because it will work.
Click to expand...

*A reinforce fence is just as effective and a hell of lot cheaper.*


----------



## AZGAL

Flopper said:


> The way to get asylum is to get a tourist visa and enter the US legally, get an immigration lawyer to prepare the petition and instruct you on what to tell the asylum officer. Then make an appointment with the asylum officer. If the asylum officer denies your petition, you request a review by another officer. If it's approved your petition will be schedule for a hearing by an asylum judge. At the hearing, the lawyer can present the case. If you're turned down, you can request a review by another asylum judge. The chance of getting asylum is far better than just showing up at the border. Also, if immigration wants the case presented in English, the person must be able to do that or provide an interpreter at their own cost.


*...and this is why the Venezuelans were granted the most orders of Temporary Protected Status in 2017...they come in legally. They have a government ruining their lives back home.*


----------



## danielpalos

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Trump wants to build a wall that won't work while not addressing the issues like the 11 million who are already here and part of this society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is addressing those issues, and once again, you leftists are crying about it.  ICE is working night and day to target businesses and illegals and boot them out of here.  Trump has opened up many more deportation courts to speed up the process.
> 
> The problem with you people is that Democrat politicians tell you what to think--not why you should think it.  A wall will work because it's provided results everywhere it's tried.  If Democrats really believed the crap they tell you, they would welcome the Republicans blowing 28 billion on a wall just to use it against them for many elections to come.  But the REAL reason they don't want the wall is because it will work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A reinforce fence is just as effective and a hell of lot cheaper.*
Click to expand...

Manufacturing is cheaper in Mexico; some people are thinking of investing in options on drone and wingsuit technologies.


----------



## AZGAL

Some highly educated Chinese are getting asylum here and abroad too...

Liu Xia, widow of Chinese dissident poet, is freed from house arrest and leaves China
Danielle Paquette
 and Emily Rauhala
 Liu Xiaobo was on her way to Germany. ​“My sister has left Beijing to fly to Europe. She will start a new life and is grateful for all the people who have cared for her and helped her,” her brother Liu Hui posted on WeChat on Tuesday morning.

News RSF
*Beijing pursues relentless crackdown on free speech*
March 29, 2016


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Trump wants to build a wall that won't work while not addressing the issues like the 11 million who are already here and part of this society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is addressing those issues, and once again, you leftists are crying about it.  ICE is working night and day to target businesses and illegals and boot them out of here.  Trump has opened up many more deportation courts to speed up the process.
> 
> The problem with you people is that Democrat politicians tell you what to think--not why you should think it.  A wall will work because it's provided results everywhere it's tried.  If Democrats really believed the crap they tell you, they would welcome the Republicans blowing 28 billion on a wall just to use it against them for many elections to come.  But the REAL reason they don't want the wall is because it will work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A reinforce fence is just as effective and a hell of lot cheaper.*
Click to expand...


Fine.  Whatever works as far as I'm concerned.  But I'll leave what kind of structure is needed to the experts instead of my opinion.  However, since USMB is a place for opinion, mine is the wall is for more than just illegals, it's to keep drugs out as well.  A fence is something you can sneak drugs through in small amounts.


----------



## AZGAL

Another org to write a check to or volunteer with  -


----------



## AZGAL

Overall, costs associated with illegal immigrants is much higher for state and local governments than the federal government. States pay $89 billion, Uncle Sam $46 billion.

The states paying the most to care for illegals:

1. California - $23,038,125,353

2. Texas - $10,994,614,550

3. New York - $7,489,141,357

4. Florida - $6,290,429,108

5. New Jersey - $4,466,838,574

6. Illinois - $3,220,767,517

7. Georgia - $2,487,719,503

8. North Carolina - $2,437,965,113

9. Maryland - $2,378,996,947


----------



## AZGAL

California screwed: average gas prices there 50 cents to a dollar more than the rest of the country! 
AVG
as of PM 07/11

$*3.658* /gal
California


----------



## AZGAL

Kate Steinle criminal:


----------



## danielpalos

AZGAL said:


> Overall, costs associated with illegal immigrants is much higher for state and local governments than the federal government. States pay $89 billion, Uncle Sam $46 billion.
> 
> The states paying the most to care for illegals:
> 
> 1. California - $23,038,125,353
> 
> 2. Texas - $10,994,614,550
> 
> 3. New York - $7,489,141,357
> 
> 4. Florida - $6,290,429,108
> 
> 5. New Jersey - $4,466,838,574
> 
> 6. Illinois - $3,220,767,517
> 
> 7. Georgia - $2,487,719,503
> 
> 8. North Carolina - $2,437,965,113
> 
> 9. Maryland - $2,378,996,947


We need Labor to pay more in Taxes and create more in Demand; a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage!


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Trump wants to build a wall that won't work while not addressing the issues like the 11 million who are already here and part of this society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is addressing those issues, and once again, you leftists are crying about it.  ICE is working night and day to target businesses and illegals and boot them out of here.  Trump has opened up many more deportation courts to speed up the process.
> 
> The problem with you people is that Democrat politicians tell you what to think--not why you should think it.  A wall will work because it's provided results everywhere it's tried.  If Democrats really believed the crap they tell you, they would welcome the Republicans blowing 28 billion on a wall just to use it against them for many elections to come.  But the REAL reason they don't want the wall is because it will work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A reinforce fence is just as effective and a hell of lot cheaper.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine.  Whatever works as far as I'm concerned.  But I'll leave what kind of structure is needed to the experts instead of my opinion.  However, since USMB is a place for opinion, mine is the wall is for more than just illegals, it's to keep drugs out as well.  A fence is something you can sneak drugs through in small amounts.
Click to expand...

*Proponents of a border wall often claim that it would help the United States solve its opioid addiction problem by blocking heroin smugglers from Mexico. This reveals a misunderstanding of how cross-border smuggling works.

The vast majority of the drugs that enters from Mexico goes through ports of entry through which millions of people, vehicles, and cargo pass every day.  

However, half of our drug problem is prescription drugs which comes from your local pharmacy.

It's been estimated that less than 2% of illicit drugs would be stopped by either fencing are a wall across our southern border simple because it is not a primary route for bringing drugs into the country.*
*Four Common Misconceptions about U.S.-bound Drug Flows through Mexico and Central America - WOLA*


----------



## JoeB131

AZGAL said:


> Joe you talk nonsense. At least Flop tries to present a thoughtful response. You are silly Joe, sorry.



I give Flop credit for trying to reason with you people... 

But you really can't reason with angry white bigots who blame brown people for their failures in a racist society that already favors them.


----------



## JoeB131

WEATHER53 said:


> You have never mowed a lawn. It’s the easiest thing on earth to do. You are a typical liberal who has no experience with what they are taking about yet are willing and eager to criticize it or say it can’t be done.



I've mowed lots of lawns.. and I've seen kids do half-ass jobs of it. which is why I never let little Timmy do it.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> He is addressing those issues, and once again, you leftists are crying about it. ICE is working night and day to target businesses and illegals and boot them out of here. Trump has opened up many more deportation courts to speed up the process.



actually, your Fuhrer isn't targeting businesses at all. In fact, he gave a pardon to that Jew who was hiring illegals at his Kosher packing plant.  

Harrassing people for being brown isn't "dealing with it".  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> The problem with you people is that Democrat politicians tell you what to think--not why you should think it. A wall will work because it's provided results everywhere it's tried. If Democrats really believed the crap they tell you, they would welcome the Republicans blowing 28 billion on a wall just to use it against them for many elections to come. But the REAL reason they don't want the wall is because it will work.



No, the reason we don't want a wall because it's mean, it's stupid and it's a waste of money.  

They'll just find other ways around it. 

No one has ever built a 2000 mile wall..  The only "example' you guys give is of the Zionists building walls to keep Palestinians out of their own country. Frankly, I don't want to live in a religious police state like that.  Maybe you do.


----------



## JoeB131

AZGAL said:


> Kate Steinle criminal:View attachment 204261



You mean the guy who was involved in an accident because an American left his defective gun in his unlocked car?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> AZGAL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kate Steinle criminal:View attachment 204261
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the guy who was involved in an accident because an American left his defective gun in his unlocked car?
Click to expand...


No, the illegal who was deported several times and just kept coming back because we didn't have a wall to stop him.  He was let off the hook even though most American felons who used a gun (for any reason) would have faced at least a couple years in prison.  Burt you know how CommieFornia is.  Keep them illegals and criminals coming in.  They will vote Democrat someday.


----------



## blastoff

What human cost?  Depends how many it takes until the invaders realize those huge signs we erected mean business. 
 STOP!  ANYONE ILLEGALLY CROSSING THE U.S. BORDER WILL BE SHOT! (Various languages of course) 

I’d imagine they’d get the message inside a couple of dozen or so.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> actually, your Fuhrer isn't targeting businesses at all. In fact, he gave a pardon to that Jew who was hiring illegals at his Kosher packing plant.
> 
> Harrassing people for being brown isn't "dealing with it".



ICE busted two businesses here in a two month period nabbing hundreds of illegals.  But of course over here, we don't have any liberal Mayors warning the illegals they are coming.  

Nobody is harassing anybody because of race.  That's your weird obsession.  ICE is going after ILLEGALS who are in the country which is what you were just complaining about. 



JoeB131 said:


> No, the reason we don't want a wall because it's mean, it's stupid and it's a waste of money.
> 
> They'll just find other ways around it.
> 
> No one has ever built a 2000 mile wall.. The only "example' you guys give is of the Zionists building walls to keep Palestinians out of their own country. Frankly, I don't want to live in a religious police state like that. Maybe you do.



Well you see Joe, maybe if you read the links we provide to prove you are wrong, you would remember that I posted one here.  But as always, you refused to read it and you have a very bad memory to begin with.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> No, the illegal who was deported several times and just kept coming back because we didn't have a wall to stop him. He was let off the hook even though most American felons who used a gun (for any reason) would have faced at least a couple years in prison. Burt you know how CommieFornia is. Keep them illegals and criminals coming in. They will vote Democrat someday.



He was let off because the charges against him were kind of ridiculous... He picked up a gun that discharged.   Just like most racists in the trailer park who shoot their cousins accidently are let off.


----------



## JoeB131

blastoff said:


> What human cost?  Depends how many it takes until the invaders realize those huge signs we erected mean business.
> STOP!  ANYONE ILLEGALLY CROSSING THE U.S. BORDER WILL BE SHOT! (Various languages of course)
> 
> I’d imagine they’d get the message inside a couple of dozen or so.



I'd imagine that shit would stop the first time a Border Patrol Jackboot accidentally shot a kid.  

Here's the problem. These people are running away from gun violence every day because the Gun Industry floods their country with guns.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> ICE busted two businesses here in a two month period nabbing hundreds of illegals. But of course over here, we don't have any liberal Mayors warning the illegals they are coming.



1) Link? oh, wait, no never mind, I don't read your links. You only provide links to racist websites. 

2) The "Warning" that the Oakland Mayor gave had no effect. ICE rounded up more people than they expected to catch. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Nobody is harassing anybody because of race. That's your weird obsession. ICE is going after ILLEGALS who are in the country which is what you were just complaining about.



Funny, they never seem to want to chase down the white illegals from Europe, though. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Well you see Joe, maybe if you read the links we provide to prove you are wrong, you would remember that I posted one here. But as always, you refused to read it and you have a very bad memory to begin with.



Meh, no, you posted some racist shit or the other that I ignored.  I think about how some Eastern European Hellhole no one wanted to go to start with put put up a fence to keep people out that wanted to actually go to Germany.


----------



## Flopper

blastoff said:


> What human cost?  Depends how many it takes until the invaders realize those huge signs we erected mean business.
> STOP!  ANYONE ILLEGALLY CROSSING THE U.S. BORDER WILL BE SHOT! (Various languages of course)
> 
> I’d imagine they’d get the message inside a couple of dozen or so.


*Yeah, that will really help your cause if it happens to be open borders.  Nothing seems to alarm people of various races and both sides of the political divide than law enforcement shooting down unarmed women and children.*


----------



## AZGAL

At this point many of the separated children have been reunited with their parents. Sometimes someone claims to be the parent but they are not. The judge has allowed more time in some of the reunification processes. None of these children were abused.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> I'd imagine that shit would stop the first time a Border Patrol Jackboot accidentally shot a kid.
> 
> Here's the problem. These people are running away from gun violence every day because the Gun Industry floods their country with guns.



Correct, what person is stupid enough to think it was the people there?  



JoeB131 said:


> 1) Link? oh, wait, no never mind, I don't read your links. You only provide links to racist websites.
> 
> 2) The "Warning" that the Oakland Mayor gave had no effect. ICE rounded up more people than they expected to catch.



Bull.  They would have caught a lot more if she kept her yap shut.  She should be in prison today.  



JoeB131 said:


> Funny, they never seem to want to chase down the white illegals from Europe, though.



That's because most of them are from Central America.  If there is any place a large group of Europeans are working, they will be next.  



JoeB131 said:


> Meh, no, you posted some racist shit or the other that I ignored. I think about how some Eastern European Hellhole no one wanted to go to start with put put up a fence to keep people out that wanted to actually go to Germany.



That's because anything you disagree with is racist in your mind.  Like I said, only therapy can help.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the illegal who was deported several times and just kept coming back because we didn't have a wall to stop him. He was let off the hook even though most American felons who used a gun (for any reason) would have faced at least a couple years in prison. Burt you know how CommieFornia is. Keep them illegals and criminals coming in. They will vote Democrat someday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was let off because the charges against him were kind of ridiculous... He picked up a gun that discharged.   Just like most racists in the trailer park who shoot their cousins accidently are let off.
Click to expand...


Yeah, like the robbery victim ran into the bat that beat him and his wallet fell out.

I guess it wasn't his fault he kept returning after deportation.......he didn't have a map to know he was in the US.
I guess it wasn't his fault he was illegally handling a firearm as a felon.  He thought it was a baby bird.
I guess it wasn't the cities fault for not holding him until ICE got there........phone problems I'm assuming.
I guess it wasn't his fault for shooting the gun since there is only one way to discharge a weapon in hand.

Now an innocent person is dead, and the commies let the criminal off the hook, and what's worse than that is you and your ilk protect him.



 


Talk about blaming the woman who got raped.........


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

blastoff said:


> What human cost?  Depends how many it takes until the invaders realize those huge signs we erected mean business.
> STOP!  ANYONE ILLEGALLY CROSSING THE U.S. BORDER WILL BE SHOT! (Various languages of course)
> 
> I’d imagine they’d get the message inside a couple of dozen or so.



I don't know if we have to go that far, but we should have a law that anybody caught here illegally will face a minimum of five years in prison.  Not only would that keep most of the intruders out, the intruders that are here will head for the border so fast it would make your head spin.  Problem solved.


----------



## AZGAL




----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> What human cost?  Depends how many it takes until the invaders realize those huge signs we erected mean business.
> STOP!  ANYONE ILLEGALLY CROSSING THE U.S. BORDER WILL BE SHOT! (Various languages of course)
> 
> I’d imagine they’d get the message inside a couple of dozen or so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if we have to go that far, but we should have a law that anybody caught here illegally will face a minimum of five years in prison.  Not only would that keep most of the intruders out, the intruders that are here will head for the border so fast it would make your head spin.  Problem solved.
Click to expand...

5 years in a US prison would be cakewalk compared to a Central American prison.

Currently the average cost of deportation is about $10,000.  Add 5 years in a federal prison and you add $160,000 plus you have to build more prisons and provide childcare for the kids.  I think you need to rethink this idea.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I guess it wasn't the cities[sic] fault for not holding him until ICE got there........phone problems I'm assuming.



No. The city has a clear policy of only holding violent felons for ICE. Otherwise ICE would leave people in local jails for years and the local jails just don't have the room. 

You see, ugly secret, and why ICE is so upset about santuary cities. ICE doesn't have facilities to hold all these people, they expect local people to do it on the local dime. More and more cities are just saying, "no".  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> I guess it wasn't his fault for shooting the gun since there is only one way to discharge a weapon in hand.



Actually, the weapon in question had been recalled due to a high percentage of misfires.. this is part of why he was acquitted by a jury of his peers. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Now an innocent person is dead, and the commies let the criminal off the hook, and what's worse than that is you and your ilk protect him.



33,000 Americans die every year because of gun violence, and you clowns oppose even the most common sense gun laws. 

Yes, it's sad this lady died in an accident, but we have 800 accidental gun deaths every year, and most of them aren't criminally prosecuted.


----------



## blastoff

Flopper said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> What human cost?  Depends how many it takes until the invaders realize those huge signs we erected mean business.
> STOP!  ANYONE ILLEGALLY CROSSING THE U.S. BORDER WILL BE SHOT! (Various languages of course)
> 
> I’d imagine they’d get the message inside a couple of dozen or so.
> 
> 
> 
> *Yeah, that will really help your cause if it happens to be open borders.  Nothing seems to alarm people of various races and both sides of the political divide than law enforcement shooting down unarmed women and children.*
Click to expand...

Okay, if you say so.


----------



## Meister

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it wasn't the cities[sic] fault for not holding him until ICE got there........phone problems I'm assuming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The city has a clear policy of only holding violent felons for ICE. Otherwise ICE would leave people in local jails for years and the local jails just don't have the room.
> 
> You see, ugly secret, and why ICE is so upset about santuary cities. ICE doesn't have facilities to hold all these people, they expect local people to do it on the local dime. More and more cities are just saying, "no".
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it wasn't his fault for shooting the gun since there is only one way to discharge a weapon in hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the weapon in question had been recalled due to a high percentage of misfires.. this is part of why he was acquitted by a jury of his peers.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now an innocent person is dead, and the commies let the criminal off the hook, and what's worse than that is you and your ilk protect him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 33,000 Americans die every year because of gun violence, and you clowns oppose even the most common sense gun laws.
> 
> Yes, it's sad this lady died in an accident, but we have 800 accidental gun deaths every year, and most of them aren't criminally prosecuted.
Click to expand...

Of those 33,000, 21,000 was suicides, let's make that perfectly clear for all.

Why not put a little perspective to this,
approximately 893,000 abortions took place in the United States in 2016—down from approximately 914,000 abortions in 2015.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the illegal who was deported several times and just kept coming back because we didn't have a wall to stop him. He was let off the hook even though most American felons who used a gun (for any reason) would have faced at least a couple years in prison. Burt you know how CommieFornia is. Keep them illegals and criminals coming in. They will vote Democrat someday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was let off because the charges against him were kind of ridiculous... He picked up a gun that discharged.   Just like most racists in the trailer park who shoot their cousins accidently are let off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, like the robbery victim ran into the bat that beat him and his wallet fell out.
> 
> I guess it wasn't his fault he kept returning after deportation.......he didn't have a map to know he was in the US.
> I guess it wasn't his fault he was illegally handling a firearm as a felon.  He thought it was a baby bird.
> I guess it wasn't the cities fault for not holding him until ICE got there........phone problems I'm assuming.
> I guess it wasn't his fault for shooting the gun since there is only one way to discharge a weapon in hand.
> 
> Now an innocent person is dead, and the commies let the criminal off the hook, and what's worse than that is you and your ilk protect him.
> 
> View attachment 204410
> 
> 
> Talk about blaming the woman who got raped.........
Click to expand...

Stop creating problems with our useless and alleged, wars on crime, drugs, and terror.  The right wing doesn't have enough Faith, to pay War Time Tax Rates for them.


----------



## danielpalos

Meister said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it wasn't the cities[sic] fault for not holding him until ICE got there........phone problems I'm assuming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The city has a clear policy of only holding violent felons for ICE. Otherwise ICE would leave people in local jails for years and the local jails just don't have the room.
> 
> You see, ugly secret, and why ICE is so upset about santuary cities. ICE doesn't have facilities to hold all these people, they expect local people to do it on the local dime. More and more cities are just saying, "no".
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it wasn't his fault for shooting the gun since there is only one way to discharge a weapon in hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the weapon in question had been recalled due to a high percentage of misfires.. this is part of why he was acquitted by a jury of his peers.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now an innocent person is dead, and the commies let the criminal off the hook, and what's worse than that is you and your ilk protect him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 33,000 Americans die every year because of gun violence, and you clowns oppose even the most common sense gun laws.
> 
> Yes, it's sad this lady died in an accident, but we have 800 accidental gun deaths every year, and most of them aren't criminally prosecuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of those 33,000, 21,000 was suicides, let's make that perfectly clear for all.
> Nearly 1,000 were police related shootings
> 
> Why not put a little perspective to this,
> approximately 893,000 abortions took place in the United States in 2016—down from approximately 914,000 abortions in 2015.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

An ounce of prevention is Worth a pound of cure.  The right wing likes to complain about Both.


----------



## Meister

danielpalos said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it wasn't the cities[sic] fault for not holding him until ICE got there........phone problems I'm assuming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The city has a clear policy of only holding violent felons for ICE. Otherwise ICE would leave people in local jails for years and the local jails just don't have the room.
> 
> You see, ugly secret, and why ICE is so upset about santuary cities. ICE doesn't have facilities to hold all these people, they expect local people to do it on the local dime. More and more cities are just saying, "no".
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it wasn't his fault for shooting the gun since there is only one way to discharge a weapon in hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the weapon in question had been recalled due to a high percentage of misfires.. this is part of why he was acquitted by a jury of his peers.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now an innocent person is dead, and the commies let the criminal off the hook, and what's worse than that is you and your ilk protect him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 33,000 Americans die every year because of gun violence, and you clowns oppose even the most common sense gun laws.
> 
> Yes, it's sad this lady died in an accident, but we have 800 accidental gun deaths every year, and most of them aren't criminally prosecuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of those 33,000, 21,000 was suicides, let's make that perfectly clear for all.
> Nearly 1,000 were police related shootings
> 
> Why not put a little perspective to this,
> approximately 893,000 abortions took place in the United States in 2016—down from approximately 914,000 abortions in 2015.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An ounce of prevention is Worth a pound of cure.  The right wing likes to complain about Both.
Click to expand...

?


----------



## Meister

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it wasn't the cities[sic] fault for not holding him until ICE got there........phone problems I'm assuming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The city has a clear policy of only holding violent felons for ICE. Otherwise ICE would leave people in local jails for years and the local jails just don't have the room.
> 
> You see, ugly secret, and why ICE is so upset about santuary cities. ICE doesn't have facilities to hold all these people, they expect local people to do it on the local dime. More and more cities are just saying, "no".
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it wasn't his fault for shooting the gun since there is only one way to discharge a weapon in hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Actually, the weapon in question had been recalled due to a high percentage of misfires.. this is part of why he was acquitted by a jury of his peers*.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now an innocent person is dead, and the commies let the criminal off the hook, and what's worse than that is you and your ilk protect him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 33,000 Americans die every year because of gun violence, and you clowns oppose even the most common sense gun laws.
> 
> Yes, it's sad this lady died in an accident, but we have 800 accidental gun deaths every year, and most of them aren't criminally prosecuted.
Click to expand...

Actually, the man didn't have the gun legally in the first place and probably would have been convicted in any other state other than Ca.


----------



## danielpalos

I think right wingers are simply, Lousy Capitalists.  

We should be implementing laws that help us make money, not just sink costs.

Junk Bonds not Junk Laws!


----------



## danielpalos

Meister said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it wasn't the cities[sic] fault for not holding him until ICE got there........phone problems I'm assuming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The city has a clear policy of only holding violent felons for ICE. Otherwise ICE would leave people in local jails for years and the local jails just don't have the room.
> 
> You see, ugly secret, and why ICE is so upset about santuary cities. ICE doesn't have facilities to hold all these people, they expect local people to do it on the local dime. More and more cities are just saying, "no".
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it wasn't his fault for shooting the gun since there is only one way to discharge a weapon in hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Actually, the weapon in question had been recalled due to a high percentage of misfires.. this is part of why he was acquitted by a jury of his peers*.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now an innocent person is dead, and the commies let the criminal off the hook, and what's worse than that is you and your ilk protect him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 33,000 Americans die every year because of gun violence, and you clowns oppose even the most common sense gun laws.
> 
> Yes, it's sad this lady died in an accident, but we have 800 accidental gun deaths every year, and most of them aren't criminally prosecuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the man should have never had the gun in the first place and probably would have been convicted in any other state other than Ca.
Click to expand...

First degrees should go First!


----------



## Meister

danielpalos said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it wasn't the cities[sic] fault for not holding him until ICE got there........phone problems I'm assuming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The city has a clear policy of only holding violent felons for ICE. Otherwise ICE would leave people in local jails for years and the local jails just don't have the room.
> 
> You see, ugly secret, and why ICE is so upset about santuary cities. ICE doesn't have facilities to hold all these people, they expect local people to do it on the local dime. More and more cities are just saying, "no".
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it wasn't his fault for shooting the gun since there is only one way to discharge a weapon in hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Actually, the weapon in question had been recalled due to a high percentage of misfires.. this is part of why he was acquitted by a jury of his peers*.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now an innocent person is dead, and the commies let the criminal off the hook, and what's worse than that is you and your ilk protect him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 33,000 Americans die every year because of gun violence, and you clowns oppose even the most common sense gun laws.
> 
> Yes, it's sad this lady died in an accident, but we have 800 accidental gun deaths every year, and most of them aren't criminally prosecuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the man should have never had the gun in the first place and probably would have been convicted in any other state other than Ca.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First degrees should go First!
Click to expand...

Just what are you talking about?  You're not being very clear in what your posting.


----------



## Meister

danielpalos said:


> I think right wingers are simply, Lousy Capitalists.
> 
> We should be implementing laws that help us make money, not just sink costs.
> 
> Junk Bonds not Junk Laws!


What?


----------



## danielpalos

are you on the right wing?


----------



## Meister

danielpalos said:


> are you on the right wing?


So you're not going to clarify what you're posting?


----------



## danielpalos

Meister said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you on the right wing?
> 
> 
> 
> So you're not going to clarify what you're posting?
Click to expand...

everybody else gets it, why should i care if You don't.  

appealing to ignorance means you only have right wing propaganda at your disposal.

why not care enough for free, to have some clue and some Cause.


----------



## Meister

danielpalos said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you on the right wing?
> 
> 
> 
> So you're not going to clarify what you're posting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> everybody else gets it, why should i care if You don't.
> 
> appealing to ignorance means you only have right wing propaganda at your disposal.
> 
> *why not care enough for free, to have some clue and some Cause*.
Click to expand...

If everyone else gets it, why is it just you and me on this thread?
Keeping smoking that whacky tabacky, dude.


----------



## danielpalos

Meister said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you on the right wing?
> 
> 
> 
> So you're not going to clarify what you're posting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> everybody else gets it, why should i care if You don't.
> 
> appealing to ignorance means you only have right wing propaganda at your disposal.
> 
> *why not care enough for free, to have some clue and some Cause*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If everyone else gets it, why is it just you and me on this thread?
> Keeping smoking that whacky tabacky, dude.
Click to expand...

I am the only one not resorting to fallacy.  Why are you.


----------



## WEATHER53

Democrats don’t believe in lawfulness so no surprise they dislike ICE
The separating kids thing was a Great Idea as suddenly adults appearing at the border with kids is Way down.


----------



## danielpalos

WEATHER53 said:


> Democrats don’t believe in lawfulness so no surprise they dislike ICE
> The separating kids thing was a Great Idea as suddenly adults appearing at the border with kids is Way down.


The right wing isn't moral enough to care about the law.  It isn't about Profit, so why should the left, take y'all seriously.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Meister said:


> Of those 33,000, 21,000 was suicides, let's make that perfectly clear for all.



It's been explained to him dozens of times, but you know how liberals are, they don't care if what they say is truth, as long as it makes their argument look better to them.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> No. The city has a clear policy of only holding violent felons for ICE. Otherwise ICE would leave people in local jails for years and the local jails just don't have the room.
> 
> You see, ugly secret, and why ICE is so upset about santuary cities. ICE doesn't have facilities to hold all these people, they expect local people to do it on the local dime. More and more cities are just saying, "no".



What a bunch of bull.  ICE picks them up in a couple days every time they are called.  The real problem is CommieFornia wants all those illegals in their state criminal or not.  





JoeB131 said:


> Actually, the weapon in question had been recalled due to a high percentage of misfires.. this is part of why he was acquitted by a jury of his peers.



There is only one reason he isn't in prison today.  



JoeB131 said:


> 33,000 Americans die every year because of gun violence, and you clowns oppose even the most common sense gun laws.
> 
> Yes, it's sad this lady died in an accident, but we have 800 accidental gun deaths every year, and most of them aren't criminally prosecuted.



Accident my ass.  If you are stupid enough to believe it was any kind of accident, you must also think the moon is made of green cheese.  The lowlife stole a gun and used it to kill an American.  He was here because there was no wall to keep him out.  You embellish his freedom and the idea that the Democrats are fighting to stop the wall so more like him can come into this country.


----------



## WEATHER53

Libs have more interest in propping up the illegal who killed her than sentiment for her.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> What human cost?  Depends how many it takes until the invaders realize those huge signs we erected mean business.
> STOP!  ANYONE ILLEGALLY CROSSING THE U.S. BORDER WILL BE SHOT! (Various languages of course)
> 
> I’d imagine they’d get the message inside a couple of dozen or so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if we have to go that far, but we should have a law that anybody caught here illegally will face a minimum of five years in prison.  Not only would that keep most of the intruders out, the intruders that are here will head for the border so fast it would make your head spin.  Problem solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 5 years in a US prison would be cakewalk compared to a Central American prison.
> 
> Currently the average cost of deportation is about $10,000.  Add 5 years in a federal prison and you add $160,000 plus you have to build more prisons and provide childcare for the kids.  I think you need to rethink this idea.
Click to expand...


Nope.  Kids get sent back, and very few would risk freedom (no matter where that was at) to be locked up in prison in the USA.  When Arizona created their own immigration laws, they scattered like rats.  Schools reporting only 2/3 of the class showing up.  Construction sites saying half their crew was gone.  A good enough deterrent works every time it's tried.  

Plus if we had such a law you wouldn't have to worry about a 38 billion dollar wall.  People would be afraid to come here.


----------



## WEATHER53

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> What human cost?  Depends how many it takes until the invaders realize those huge signs we erected mean business.
> STOP!  ANYONE ILLEGALLY CROSSING THE U.S. BORDER WILL BE SHOT! (Various languages of course)
> 
> I’d imagine they’d get the message inside a couple of dozen or so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if we have to go that far, but we should have a law that anybody caught here illegally will face a minimum of five years in prison.  Not only would that keep most of the intruders out, the intruders that are here will head for the border so fast it would make your head spin.  Problem solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 5 years in a US prison would be cakewalk compared to a Central American prison.
> 
> Currently the average cost of deportation is about $10,000.  Add 5 years in a federal prison and you add $160,000 plus you have to build more prisons and provide childcare for the kids.  I think you need to rethink this idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Kids get sent back, and very few would risk freedom (no matter where that was at) to be locked up in prison in the USA.  When Arizona created their own immigration laws, they scattered like rats.  Schools reporting only 2/3 of the class showing up.  Construction sites saying half their crew was gone.  A good enough deterrent works every time it's tried.
> 
> Plus if we had such a law you wouldn't have to worry about a 38 billion dollar wall.  People would be afraid to come here.
Click to expand...

They are not allowed to be made afraid. That is emotionally unacceptable


----------



## AZGAL

Another idiot piece of silly propaganda "writing" from the illiterate far left! Feds Force Immigrants Into Parking Garage for ‘Assembly-Line Justice’


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> What human cost?  Depends how many it takes until the invaders realize those huge signs we erected mean business.
> STOP!  ANYONE ILLEGALLY CROSSING THE U.S. BORDER WILL BE SHOT! (Various languages of course)
> 
> I’d imagine they’d get the message inside a couple of dozen or so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if we have to go that far, but we should have a law that anybody caught here illegally will face a minimum of five years in prison.  Not only would that keep most of the intruders out, the intruders that are here will head for the border so fast it would make your head spin.  Problem solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 5 years in a US prison would be cakewalk compared to a Central American prison.
> 
> Currently the average cost of deportation is about $10,000.  Add 5 years in a federal prison and you add $160,000 plus you have to build more prisons and provide childcare for the kids.  I think you need to rethink this idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Kids get sent back, and very few would risk freedom (no matter where that was at) to be locked up in prison in the USA.  When Arizona created their own immigration laws, they scattered like rats.  Schools reporting only 2/3 of the class showing up.  Construction sites saying half their crew was gone.  A good enough deterrent works every time it's tried.
> 
> Plus if we had such a law you wouldn't have to worry about a 38 billion dollar wall.  People would be afraid to come here.
Click to expand...

*I don't worry about a 38 billion dollar wall, because it will never be built.  Trump will probably complete a piece of wall and put the Trump logo on and claim a great victory like he did with NATO and North Korean.

However, spending an addition $160,000 to incarcerate people crossing the border is just nuts.  Assuming Trump matches Obama deportations, we would be spending about 32 billion dollars incarcerating people who would go back home telling every body how well you get treated in American prisons.  And you think this will stem the tide?  Fat chance.

No, you can't send kids back home without parents.  The receiving country will not accept them.  On the deportation order, there is line where the receiving country accepts the deportees. No country is going to accept deported minors when their parents are in US prisons.  If you imprison the parents, you got to take care of the kids.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> What human cost?  Depends how many it takes until the invaders realize those huge signs we erected mean business.
> STOP!  ANYONE ILLEGALLY CROSSING THE U.S. BORDER WILL BE SHOT! (Various languages of course)
> 
> I’d imagine they’d get the message inside a couple of dozen or so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if we have to go that far, but we should have a law that anybody caught here illegally will face a minimum of five years in prison.  Not only would that keep most of the intruders out, the intruders that are here will head for the border so fast it would make your head spin.  Problem solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 5 years in a US prison would be cakewalk compared to a Central American prison.
> 
> Currently the average cost of deportation is about $10,000.  Add 5 years in a federal prison and you add $160,000 plus you have to build more prisons and provide childcare for the kids.  I think you need to rethink this idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Kids get sent back, and very few would risk freedom (no matter where that was at) to be locked up in prison in the USA.  When Arizona created their own immigration laws, they scattered like rats.  Schools reporting only 2/3 of the class showing up.  Construction sites saying half their crew was gone.  A good enough deterrent works every time it's tried.
> 
> Plus if we had such a law you wouldn't have to worry about a 38 billion dollar wall.  People would be afraid to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I don't worry about a 38 billion dollar wall, because it will never be built.  Trump will probably complete a piece of wall and put the Trump logo on and claim a great victory like he did with NATO and North Korean.
> 
> However, spending an addition $160,000 to incarcerate people crossing the border is just nuts.  Assuming Trump matches Obama deportations, we would be spending about 32 billion dollars incarcerating people who would go back home telling every body how well you get treated in American prisons.  And you think this will stem the tide?  Fat chance.
> 
> No, you can't send kids back home without parents.  The receiving country will not accept them.*
Click to expand...


Then we hold the kids until the adult gets out and kick them out altogether.  But then again, the left would be crying we are separating kids from their parents because as far as the left is concerned, it's never the parents fault. 

But hey, I would be willing to try it out for a couple of years to see the results, would you?  Of course not, because like the wall, you know it would work.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> What human cost?  Depends how many it takes until the invaders realize those huge signs we erected mean business.
> STOP!  ANYONE ILLEGALLY CROSSING THE U.S. BORDER WILL BE SHOT! (Various languages of course)
> 
> I’d imagine they’d get the message inside a couple of dozen or so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if we have to go that far, but we should have a law that anybody caught here illegally will face a minimum of five years in prison.  Not only would that keep most of the intruders out, the intruders that are here will head for the border so fast it would make your head spin.  Problem solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 5 years in a US prison would be cakewalk compared to a Central American prison.
> 
> Currently the average cost of deportation is about $10,000.  Add 5 years in a federal prison and you add $160,000 plus you have to build more prisons and provide childcare for the kids.  I think you need to rethink this idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Kids get sent back, and very few would risk freedom (no matter where that was at) to be locked up in prison in the USA.  When Arizona created their own immigration laws, they scattered like rats.  Schools reporting only 2/3 of the class showing up.  Construction sites saying half their crew was gone.  A good enough deterrent works every time it's tried.
> 
> Plus if we had such a law you wouldn't have to worry about a 38 billion dollar wall.  People would be afraid to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I don't worry about a 38 billion dollar wall, because it will never be built.  Trump will probably complete a piece of wall and put the Trump logo on and claim a great victory like he did with NATO and North Korean.
> 
> However, spending an addition $160,000 to incarcerate people crossing the border is just nuts.  Assuming Trump matches Obama deportations, we would be spending about 32 billion dollars incarcerating people who would go back home telling every body how well you get treated in American prisons.  And you think this will stem the tide?  Fat chance.
> 
> No, you can't send kids back home without parents.  The receiving country will not accept them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we hold the kids until the adult gets out and kick them out altogether.  But then again, the left would be crying we are separating kids from their parents because as far as the left is concerned, it's never the parents fault.
> 
> But hey, I would be willing to try it out for a couple of years to see the results, would you?  Of course not, because like the wall, you know it would work.
Click to expand...

*If you say so.  We imprison about 200,000 adults for 5 years for a total 32 billion and we put the kids in foster care for millions or billions more; no need to ask for asylum just cross the boarder illegally and the family gets free room and board and an a free education for the kids, what a deal.*


----------



## JoeB131

Meister said:


> Of those 33,000, 21,000 was suicides, let's make that perfectly clear for all.



So what?  Those 21,000 suicides still had people who cared about them and are going to miss them. Just like Jill Steinele's family.  It's just that if they complain about it, the NRA shouts them down, unlike Steinele's family, who are put on a pedastal because their daughter was caught in an unfortunate accident. 



Meister said:


> Why not put a little perspective to this,
> approximately 893,000 abortions took place in the United States in 2016—down from approximately 914,000 abortions in 2015.



Fetuses aren't people... Next lame argument. 



Meister said:


> Actually, the man didn't have the gun legally in the first place and probably would have been convicted in any other state other than Ca.



He was convicted of illegal gun possession, which is the only crime he was guilty of. 

Here's the thing. The guy had a public defender, and a jury still wouldn't nail him on murder.  Now maybe that Jury was sending a message. But more than likely, they found that it was an accident, that he found this gun and it just went off, and a bullet ricocheted and hit Steinele.  

Here is what an alternate juror said. 

I Saw the Kate Steinle Murder Trial Up Close. The Jury Didn’t Botch It.

_Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, the undocumented immigrant who was accused of killing Steinle, was charged with first degree murder and the lesser included offenses of second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. *When the prosecution rested its case, it seemed clear to me that the evidence didn’t support the requirements of premeditation or malice aforethought (intentional recklessness or killing) for the murder charges*. After having heard the evidence, I agreed with the defense’s opinion that the murder charges should not have been brought. The evidence didn't show that Garcia Zarate intended to kill anyone.

*These are some of the facts that were laid out to us: Zarate had no motive and no recorded history of violence. The shot he fired from his chair hit the ground 12 feet in front of him before ricocheting a further 78 feet to hit Steinle.* The damage to the bullet indicated a glancing impact during the ricochet, so it seems to have been shot from a low height. *The gun, a Sig Sauer P239 pistol, is a backup emergency weapon used by law enforcement that has a light trigger mode and no safety.* (The jury members asked to feel the trigger pull of the gun during deliberation, but the judge wouldn’t allow it, for reasons that aren’t clear to us.) The pixelated video footage of the incident that we were shown, taken from the adjacent pier, shows a group of six people spending half an hour at that same chair setting down and picking up objects a mere 30 minutes before Garcia Zarate arrived there._


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> What a bunch of bull. ICE picks them up in a couple days every time they are called. The real problem is CommieFornia wants all those illegals in their state criminal or not.



No, they don't. In fact, the biggest problem ICE has is that they keep their inmates in local prisons for months, and they have to be segregated from the real crooks... this is a huge expense for a lot of local jurisdictions.


----------



## Meister

JoeB131 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of those 33,000, 21,000 was suicides, let's make that perfectly clear for all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  Those 21,000 suicides still had people who cared about them and are going to miss them. Just like Jill Steinele's family.  It's just that if they complain about it, the NRA shouts them down, unlike Steinele's family, who are put on a pedastal because their daughter was caught in an unfortunate accident.
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not put a little perspective to this,
> approximately 893,000 abortions took place in the United States in 2016—down from approximately 914,000 abortions in 2015.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fetuses aren't people... Next lame argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the man didn't have the gun legally in the first place and probably would have been convicted in any other state other than Ca.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was convicted of illegal gun possession, which is the only crime he was guilty of.
> 
> Here's the thing. The guy had a public defender, and a jury still wouldn't nail him on murder.  Now maybe that Jury was sending a message. But more than likely, they found that it was an accident, that he found this gun and it just went off, and a bullet ricocheted and hit Steinele.
> 
> Here is what an alternate juror said.
> 
> I Saw the Kate Steinle Murder Trial Up Close. The Jury Didn’t Botch It.
> 
> _Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, the undocumented immigrant who was accused of killing Steinle, was charged with first degree murder and the lesser included offenses of second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. *When the prosecution rested its case, it seemed clear to me that the evidence didn’t support the requirements of premeditation or malice aforethought (intentional recklessness or killing) for the murder charges*. After having heard the evidence, I agreed with the defense’s opinion that the murder charges should not have been brought. The evidence didn't show that Garcia Zarate intended to kill anyone.
> 
> *These are some of the facts that were laid out to us: Zarate had no motive and no recorded history of violence. The shot he fired from his chair hit the ground 12 feet in front of him before ricocheting a further 78 feet to hit Steinle.* The damage to the bullet indicated a glancing impact during the ricochet, so it seems to have been shot from a low height. *The gun, a Sig Sauer P239 pistol, is a backup emergency weapon used by law enforcement that has a light trigger mode and no safety.* (The jury members asked to feel the trigger pull of the gun during deliberation, but the judge wouldn’t allow it, for reasons that aren’t clear to us.) The pixelated video footage of the incident that we were shown, taken from the adjacent pier, shows a group of six people spending half an hour at that same chair setting down and picking up objects a mere 30 minutes before Garcia Zarate arrived there._
Click to expand...

Suicide is a suicide, they end up dead regardless of the method, but, you spin the facts of the matter.  I get that.
The illegal with the gun had been busted several times....a felon. Guns just don't go off. FYI  And, in nearly every other state he would
have been found guilty.....if nothing else manslaughter.  He can thank Ca. for such lenient sentence. He should be doing hard time.
Your disregard to an unborn child is just appalling.  They have all the genetic make-up as a human being.  So go pound some sand.


----------



## JoeB131

Meister said:


> The illegal with the gun had been busted several times....a felon.



For non-violent offenses, most of them being "not being here legally". 



Meister said:


> Guns just don't go off.



We have 800 accidental gun deaths a year.. um, yeah, they do. 



Meister said:


> FYI And, in nearly every other state he would
> have been found guilty.....if nothing else manslaughter.



Not sure if that would be the case in every other state.  Every other state would have tried the same facts.  

Here's the thing, every other state we still have persumption of innocence.  His story he picked up a gun wrapped in a bundle of rags that went off  is supported by the fact they found minimal GSR on his hands. 



Meister said:


> He can thank Ca. for such lenient sentence. He should be doing hard time.



Um, no, California locks up 331 people out of every 100,000, ranking 18th in the number of people incarcerated.  



Meister said:


> Your disregard to an unborn child is just appalling. They have all the genetic make-up as a human being. So go pound some sand.



So does my toenail, and I'm not about to grant it civil rights before I clip it.


----------



## Meister

JoeB131 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> The illegal with the gun had been busted several times....a felon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For non-violent offenses, most of them being "not being here legally".
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns just don't go off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have 800 accidental gun deaths a year.. um, yeah, they do.
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> FYI And, in nearly every other state he would
> have been found guilty.....if nothing else manslaughter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure if that would be the case in every other state.  Every other state would have tried the same facts.
> 
> Here's the thing, every other state we still have persumption of innocence.  His story he picked up a gun wrapped in a bundle of rags that went off  is supported by the fact they found minimal GSR on his hands.
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> He can thank Ca. for such lenient sentence. He should be doing hard time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no, California locks up 331 people out of every 100,000, ranking 18th in the number of people incarcerated.
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your disregard to an unborn child is just appalling. They have all the genetic make-up as a human being. So go pound some sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So does my toenail, and I'm not about to grant it civil rights before I clip it.
Click to expand...

How silly can you be.  He's a felon, dude.  I like how you danced with MOST OF THEM, he's here illegally.  What about the others.? Lol

Gun just don't just go off.  Someone has placed their finger on the trigger with the safety off.  Maybe dropped with the safety off. But,
the gun just didn't go off.

I didn't say he would have been convicted in every other state.  I said in nearly every other state.  A person died as a result of this illegal
with a gun.  The man shouldn't have even been in the US.  Nice to see that you think more about his welfare than the woman who HE killed.
Someone should have to pay for that.

Your toenail?  That is one of the lamest arguments I've heard.  Good one.  You should have used the standby that the unborn child is a parasite.


----------



## JoeB131

Meister said:


> How silly can you be. He's a felon, dude. I like how you danced with MOST OF THEM, he's here illegally. What about the others.? Lol



What about them?  Most of the others were drug charges. Since I think the "War on Drugs" is the height of human stupidity, I just can't get worked up he was selling drugs.  



Meister said:


> Gun just don't just go off. Someone has placed their finger on the trigger with the safety off. Maybe dropped with the safety off. But,
> the gun just didn't go off.



Except in this case, it did...  

Experts question decision that kept Steinle jurors from handling gun





Meister said:


> I didn't say he would have been convicted in every other state. I said in nearly every other state. A person died as a result of this illegal
> with a gun. The man shouldn't have even been in the US. Nice to see that you think more about his welfare than the woman who HE killed.
> Someone should have to pay for that.



We have 33,000 gun deaths in this country every year... an no one gets all that upset about it or even tries to enact common sense gun control.  I just can't get that worked up about an accident. 

I guess I'm about as sad as I can be about a person that I don't know, never heard of when she was alive and frankly don't care about. 

But I do care about rights.  Because if they can take away the rights of Mr. Zarate, they can take away mine.  



Meister said:


> Your toenail? That is one of the lamest arguments I've heard. Good one. You should have used the standby that the unborn child is a parasite.



You are the one arguing genetics as a reason why spooge should have rights...


----------



## Natural Citizen

This gosh darned thread is still going on? What the heck.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> We have 33,000 gun deaths in this country every year... an no one gets all that upset about it or even tries to enact common sense gun control. I just can't get that worked up about an accident.



So because we have people getting killed in DUI accidents, illegals should be allowed to have them too?  You people on the left have such a warped sense of thinking.  No wonder the country is turning against you. 



JoeB131 said:


> I guess I'm about as sad as I can be about a person that I don't know, never heard of when she was alive and frankly don't care about.



Is that how it works?  How well did you know the shooter since you seem to care about him so much?  



JoeB131 said:


> But I do care about rights. Because if they can take away the rights of Mr. Zarate, they can take away mine.



Yes, I'm sure that's your concern.........your rights, and yet you vote Democrat.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Meister said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of those 33,000, 21,000 was suicides, let's make that perfectly clear for all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  Those 21,000 suicides still had people who cared about them and are going to miss them. Just like Jill Steinele's family.  It's just that if they complain about it, the NRA shouts them down, unlike Steinele's family, who are put on a pedastal because their daughter was caught in an unfortunate accident.
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not put a little perspective to this,
> approximately 893,000 abortions took place in the United States in 2016—down from approximately 914,000 abortions in 2015.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fetuses aren't people... Next lame argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the man didn't have the gun legally in the first place and probably would have been convicted in any other state other than Ca.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was convicted of illegal gun possession, which is the only crime he was guilty of.
> 
> Here's the thing. The guy had a public defender, and a jury still wouldn't nail him on murder.  Now maybe that Jury was sending a message. But more than likely, they found that it was an accident, that he found this gun and it just went off, and a bullet ricocheted and hit Steinele.
> 
> Here is what an alternate juror said.
> 
> I Saw the Kate Steinle Murder Trial Up Close. The Jury Didn’t Botch It.
> 
> _Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, the undocumented immigrant who was accused of killing Steinle, was charged with first degree murder and the lesser included offenses of second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. *When the prosecution rested its case, it seemed clear to me that the evidence didn’t support the requirements of premeditation or malice aforethought (intentional recklessness or killing) for the murder charges*. After having heard the evidence, I agreed with the defense’s opinion that the murder charges should not have been brought. The evidence didn't show that Garcia Zarate intended to kill anyone.
> 
> *These are some of the facts that were laid out to us: Zarate had no motive and no recorded history of violence. The shot he fired from his chair hit the ground 12 feet in front of him before ricocheting a further 78 feet to hit Steinle.* The damage to the bullet indicated a glancing impact during the ricochet, so it seems to have been shot from a low height. *The gun, a Sig Sauer P239 pistol, is a backup emergency weapon used by law enforcement that has a light trigger mode and no safety.* (The jury members asked to feel the trigger pull of the gun during deliberation, but the judge wouldn’t allow it, for reasons that aren’t clear to us.) The pixelated video footage of the incident that we were shown, taken from the adjacent pier, shows a group of six people spending half an hour at that same chair setting down and picking up objects a mere 30 minutes before Garcia Zarate arrived there._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Suicide is a suicide, they end up dead regardless of the method, but, you spin the facts of the matter.  I get that.
> The illegal with the gun had been busted several times....a felon. Guns just don't go off. FYI  And, in nearly every other state he would
> have been found guilty.....if nothing else manslaughter.  He can thank Ca. for such lenient sentence. He should be doing hard time.
> Your disregard to an unborn child is just appalling.  They have all the genetic make-up as a human being.  So go pound some sand.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  If you were found in a car that was reported stolen and were driving it, you would have been arrested and prosecuted for receiving stolen property, that's on top of being a convicted felon under disability, in the US illegally and in possession of a firearm.   A real American would be spending at least five years in prison even if found not guilty of murder.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Now maybe that Jury was sending a message. But more than likely, they found that it was an accident, that he found this gun and it just went off, and a bullet ricocheted and hit Steinele.



That's exactly what happened. We have people that do that all the time in this country; find a stolen gun, and have it accidentally go off just happening to be aimed at somebody.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if we have to go that far, but we should have a law that anybody caught here illegally will face a minimum of five years in prison.  Not only would that keep most of the intruders out, the intruders that are here will head for the border so fast it would make your head spin.  Problem solved.
> 
> 
> 
> 5 years in a US prison would be cakewalk compared to a Central American prison.
> 
> Currently the average cost of deportation is about $10,000.  Add 5 years in a federal prison and you add $160,000 plus you have to build more prisons and provide childcare for the kids.  I think you need to rethink this idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Kids get sent back, and very few would risk freedom (no matter where that was at) to be locked up in prison in the USA.  When Arizona created their own immigration laws, they scattered like rats.  Schools reporting only 2/3 of the class showing up.  Construction sites saying half their crew was gone.  A good enough deterrent works every time it's tried.
> 
> Plus if we had such a law you wouldn't have to worry about a 38 billion dollar wall.  People would be afraid to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I don't worry about a 38 billion dollar wall, because it will never be built.  Trump will probably complete a piece of wall and put the Trump logo on and claim a great victory like he did with NATO and North Korean.
> 
> However, spending an addition $160,000 to incarcerate people crossing the border is just nuts.  Assuming Trump matches Obama deportations, we would be spending about 32 billion dollars incarcerating people who would go back home telling every body how well you get treated in American prisons.  And you think this will stem the tide?  Fat chance.
> 
> No, you can't send kids back home without parents.  The receiving country will not accept them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we hold the kids until the adult gets out and kick them out altogether.  But then again, the left would be crying we are separating kids from their parents because as far as the left is concerned, it's never the parents fault.
> 
> But hey, I would be willing to try it out for a couple of years to see the results, would you?  Of course not, because like the wall, you know it would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you say so.  We imprison about 200,000 adults for 5 years for a total 32 billion and we put the kids in foster care for millions or billions more; no need to ask for asylum just cross the boarder illegally and the family gets free room and board and an a free education for the kids, what a deal.*
Click to expand...


Like I said, let's try it out for five years and examine the results.  I'm game, the question is are you???


----------



## GWV5903

JoeB131 said:


> Except Americans don't really want to do those jobs... that's the point.
> 
> Again, told you the wonderful story about how we used to have undocumented day laborers at a previous company. Then they insisted that they stop using them, and they could only find white trash methheads that got high and left after they got their first and only paychecks.



There is a real easy answer to this that seems to evade the minute Liberal minds, enter our country legally...


----------



## danielpalos

GWV5903 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except Americans don't really want to do those jobs... that's the point.
> 
> Again, told you the wonderful story about how we used to have undocumented day laborers at a previous company. Then they insisted that they stop using them, and they could only find white trash methheads that got high and left after they got their first and only paychecks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a real easy answer to this that seems to evade the minute Liberal minds, enter our country legally...
Click to expand...

Just like obeying Ten simple Commandments from a God, seems to evade the right wing, to lower the cost of Government.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So because we have people getting killed in DUI accidents, illegals should be allowed to have them too? You people on the left have such a warped sense of thinking. No wonder the country is turning against you.



Nope.. illegals should get the same punishment citizens get for DUI. 

That seems fair and reasonable. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> That's exactly what happened. We have people that do that all the time in this country; find a stolen gun, and have it accidentally go off just happening to be aimed at somebody.



Except he didn't aim it at her.. It hit the ground and ricocheted.  This was born out by the forensic evidence, which is why the jury acquitted.


----------



## Flopper

GWV5903 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except Americans don't really want to do those jobs... that's the point.
> 
> Again, told you the wonderful story about how we used to have undocumented day laborers at a previous company. Then they insisted that they stop using them, and they could only find white trash methheads that got high and left after they got their first and only paychecks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a real easy answer to this that seems to evade the minute Liberal minds, enter our country legally...
Click to expand...

*That has been suggest over and over.  Why don't they just apply and get in line?  And the answer is there is no line for most unauthorized immigrants.

Immigration to the United States on a temporary or permanent basis is generally limited to three different routes: employment, family reunification, or humanitarian protection. Most unauthorized immigrants do not have the necessary family or employment relationships and often cannot access humanitarian protection, such as refugee or asylum status.*


----------



## Cecilie1200

AZGAL said:


> Another idiot piece of silly propaganda "writing" from the illiterate far left! Feds Force Immigrants Into Parking Garage for ‘Assembly-Line Justice’



Apparently, that's as opposed to the nurturing, individualized justice provided, complete with teddy bears and hugs, by the courts on a daily basis.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if we have to go that far, but we should have a law that anybody caught here illegally will face a minimum of five years in prison.  Not only would that keep most of the intruders out, the intruders that are here will head for the border so fast it would make your head spin.  Problem solved.
> 
> 
> 
> 5 years in a US prison would be cakewalk compared to a Central American prison.
> 
> Currently the average cost of deportation is about $10,000.  Add 5 years in a federal prison and you add $160,000 plus you have to build more prisons and provide childcare for the kids.  I think you need to rethink this idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Kids get sent back, and very few would risk freedom (no matter where that was at) to be locked up in prison in the USA.  When Arizona created their own immigration laws, they scattered like rats.  Schools reporting only 2/3 of the class showing up.  Construction sites saying half their crew was gone.  A good enough deterrent works every time it's tried.
> 
> Plus if we had such a law you wouldn't have to worry about a 38 billion dollar wall.  People would be afraid to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I don't worry about a 38 billion dollar wall, because it will never be built.  Trump will probably complete a piece of wall and put the Trump logo on and claim a great victory like he did with NATO and North Korean.
> 
> However, spending an addition $160,000 to incarcerate people crossing the border is just nuts.  Assuming Trump matches Obama deportations, we would be spending about 32 billion dollars incarcerating people who would go back home telling every body how well you get treated in American prisons.  And you think this will stem the tide?  Fat chance.
> 
> No, you can't send kids back home without parents.  The receiving country will not accept them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we hold the kids until the adult gets out and kick them out altogether.  But then again, the left would be crying we are separating kids from their parents because as far as the left is concerned, it's never the parents fault.
> 
> But hey, I would be willing to try it out for a couple of years to see the results, would you?  Of course not, because like the wall, you know it would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you say so.  We imprison about 200,000 adults for 5 years for a total 32 billion and we put the kids in foster care for millions or billions more; no need to ask for asylum just cross the boarder illegally and the family gets free room and board and an a free education for the kids, what a deal.*
Click to expand...


Amazing how nothing on Earth can make a leftist frugal or penurious . . . except for the possibility that US interests MIGHT actually be served.


----------



## danielpalos

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5 years in a US prison would be cakewalk compared to a Central American prison.
> 
> Currently the average cost of deportation is about $10,000.  Add 5 years in a federal prison and you add $160,000 plus you have to build more prisons and provide childcare for the kids.  I think you need to rethink this idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Kids get sent back, and very few would risk freedom (no matter where that was at) to be locked up in prison in the USA.  When Arizona created their own immigration laws, they scattered like rats.  Schools reporting only 2/3 of the class showing up.  Construction sites saying half their crew was gone.  A good enough deterrent works every time it's tried.
> 
> Plus if we had such a law you wouldn't have to worry about a 38 billion dollar wall.  People would be afraid to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I don't worry about a 38 billion dollar wall, because it will never be built.  Trump will probably complete a piece of wall and put the Trump logo on and claim a great victory like he did with NATO and North Korean.
> 
> However, spending an addition $160,000 to incarcerate people crossing the border is just nuts.  Assuming Trump matches Obama deportations, we would be spending about 32 billion dollars incarcerating people who would go back home telling every body how well you get treated in American prisons.  And you think this will stem the tide?  Fat chance.
> 
> No, you can't send kids back home without parents.  The receiving country will not accept them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we hold the kids until the adult gets out and kick them out altogether.  But then again, the left would be crying we are separating kids from their parents because as far as the left is concerned, it's never the parents fault.
> 
> But hey, I would be willing to try it out for a couple of years to see the results, would you?  Of course not, because like the wall, you know it would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you say so.  We imprison about 200,000 adults for 5 years for a total 32 billion and we put the kids in foster care for millions or billions more; no need to ask for asylum just cross the boarder illegally and the family gets free room and board and an a free education for the kids, what a deal.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing how nothing on Earth can make a leftist frugal or penurious . . . except for the possibility that US interests MIGHT actually be served.
Click to expand...

How are US interests being served?  are we making a profit?  if not, why do You, claim to capitally care, right winger.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Nope.. illegals should get the same punishment citizens get for DUI.
> 
> That seems fair and reasonable.



Is that what you think?  Okay. 

This guy was a seven time felon in the US, and God knows what criminal activity he had in Mexico. 

He was deported five times and at one time spent five years in prison in which he once again came back after deportation. 

He fled the scene of a crime. 

He threw the gun in the water, and divers had to retrieve it. Destroying evidence. 

The gun was stolen from a federal agent where the car window was shattered.  This seven time drug offender also claimed he took sleeping pills (which of course he found) before the shooting.  

Now you tell me any American would have gotten away with what he did.  



JoeB131 said:


> Except he didn't aim it at her.. It hit the ground and ricocheted. This was born out by the forensic evidence, which is why the jury acquitted.



After being arrested, he claimed he was aiming at sea lions when he shot the gun--later changing his story that it accidentally went off, of course after talking to his Hispanic lawyer.


----------



## WEATHER53

One bullet does not bounce up off dirt and still deliver a lethal blow
He was not judged by a jury of his peers but rather a hand picked lot inclined to let him go


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

WEATHER53 said:


> One bullet does not bounce up off dirt and still deliver a lethal blow
> He was not judged by a jury of his peers but rather a hand picked lot inclined to let him go



It's CommieFornia.  Anyplace else would have had this guy in prison for the rest of his life where he belongs.  But the people in CommieFornia want as many illegals as they can pack into the state criminal or not.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One bullet does not bounce up off dirt and still deliver a lethal blow
> He was not judged by a jury of his peers but rather a hand picked lot inclined to let him go
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's CommieFornia.  Anyplace else would have had this guy in prison for the rest of his life where he belongs.  But the people in CommieFornia want as many illegals as they can pack into the state criminal or not.
Click to expand...

no need to believe right wingers, or their right wing "intelligence".


----------



## WEATHER53

Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime


----------



## danielpalos

WEATHER53 said:


> Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
> It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
> It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime


Only lousy Capitalists Lose money on public policies instead of Make money, like Good capitalists.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Is that what you think? Okay.
> 
> This guy was a seven time felon in the US, and God knows what criminal activity he had in Mexico.
> 
> He was deported five times and at one time spent five years in prison in which he once again came back after deportation.



Okay, so he served his time for those crimes... 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> He threw the gun in the water, and divers had to retrieve it. Destroying evidence.
> 
> The gun was stolen from a federal agent where the car window was shattered. This seven time drug offender also claimed he took sleeping pills (which of course he found) before the shooting.
> 
> Now you tell me any American would have gotten away with what he did.



There was no evidence he was the one who broke into the car... no evidence the sleeping pills he took were illegal.  Hey, maybe you can charge his with jaywalking why you are at it.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> After being arrested, he claimed he was aiming at sea lions when he shot the gun--later changing his story that it accidentally went off, of course after talking to his Hispanic lawyer.



Were the officers who questioned him without reading him his rights fluent in Spanish? 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> It's CommieFornia. Anyplace else would have had this guy in prison for the rest of his life where he belongs. But the people in CommieFornia want as many illegals as they can pack into the state criminal or not.



or they just weren't going to find a guy guilty of a crime he didn't commit because the Orange Buffoon said so.


----------



## JoeB131

WEATHER53 said:


> Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
> It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
> It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime



You mean crossing land we stole from them?  Um, yeah, okay, whatever.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> There was no evidence he was the one who broke into the car... no evidence the sleeping pills he took were illegal. Hey, maybe you can charge his with jaywalking why you are at it.



If you are pulled over driving a stolen car, the cops can't prove you stole it either.  That's why they charge you with receiving stolen property, because it carries the same kind of penalty.  



JoeB131 said:


> Were the officers who questioned him without reading him his rights fluent in Spanish?



That had nothing to do with it.  The guy just changed his lie. 



JoeB131 said:


> or they just weren't going to find a guy guilty of a crime he didn't commit because the Orange Buffoon said so.



He admitted to the shooting.  He admitted he was taking drugs before handling the weapon. Yes, he did commit the crime. Nobody else could of.  Witnesses pointed him out in court.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> If you are pulled over driving a stolen car, the cops can't prove you stole it either. That's why they charge you with receiving stolen property, because it carries the same kind of penalty.



and he was found guilty of having a firearm... so what's your point? What has you guys upset is a jury wouldn't call an accident a murder because your Cheetoh Jesus said so. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> He admitted to the shooting. He admitted he was taking drugs before handling the weapon. Yes, he did commit the crime. Nobody else could of. Witnesses pointed him out in court.



The shooting wasn't a crime, it's an accident.  Just like we don't charge the NRA gun nuts who shoot their friends accidently after having a beer or two.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> and he was found guilty of having a firearm... so what's your point? What has you guys upset is a jury wouldn't call an accident a murder because your Cheetoh Jesus said so.



He was a felon who had a gun and used it.  He was under disability.  He had a weapon stolen from an officer.  And that's all he got?  You have to be kidding me.  



JoeB131 said:


> The shooting wasn't a crime, it's an accident. Just like we don't charge the NRA gun nuts who shoot their friends accidently after having a beer or two.



The shooting was a crime because he was not allowed near a firearm under OUR LAWS!  He tried to destroy evidence.  He ran away from the scene of a crime. 

Your head is too blocked up, so let me give you a scenario that will strike a nerve with people like you:  Let's say that this was a white guy from Europe and he shot a black college educated girl.  Bet you would be screaming to the high heavens how he got away with it because he was white.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> He was a felon who had a gun and used it. He was under disability. He had a weapon stolen from an officer. And that's all he got? You have to be kidding me.



That's all he was guilty of.. that's why that's all he got.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> The shooting was a crime because he was not allowed near a firearm under OUR LAWS! He tried to destroy evidence. He ran away from the scene of a crime.



Yawn, guy, you can try all day, but this was still an accident. He didn't do what the prosecutors said he did.  The prosecutors couldn't even make their case against a public defender!  Do you know how inept public defenders are? 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Your head is too blocked up, so let me give you a scenario that will strike a nerve with people like you: Let's say that this was a white guy from Europe and he shot a black college educated girl. Bet you would be screaming to the high heavens how he got away with it because he was white.



Um, no, if the evidence showed the gun went off accidentally and the bullet ricocheted, I'd have the same opinion...  whoops, tragic accident.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> That's all he was guilty of.. that's why that's all he got.



Bullshit.  A person returning to the US after deportation can get five years in prison just for that.  In fact he already served five years in prison for returning years before the shooting.



JoeB131 said:


> Yawn, guy, you can try all day, but this was still an accident. He didn't do what the prosecutors said he did. The prosecutors couldn't even make their case against a public defender! Do you know how inept public defenders are?



But the jury had the option to find him guilty of a lesser charge like manslaughter.  They didn't.  It's CommieFornia where liberals welcome intruders with open arms. 



JoeB131 said:


> Um, no, if the evidence showed the gun went off accidentally and the bullet ricocheted, I'd have the same opinion... whoops, tragic accident.



Yes, an accident if it was his own gun and he was legally allowed to have it.  Not an accident when you take a stolen gun, aim at the direction of a victim and shoot it.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Bullshit. A person returning to the US after deportation can get five years in prison just for that. In fact he already served five years in prison for returning years before the shooting.



and if he's found guilty of that again, I have no problem locking him up for five years... 

But he didn't murder that woman, that was the point, it was an accident. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> But the jury had the option to find him guilty of a lesser charge like manslaughter. They didn't. It's CommieFornia where liberals welcome intruders with open arms.



They had that option, they chose not to because the facts didn't support it. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes, an accident if it was his own gun and he was legally allowed to have it. Not an accident when you take a stolen gun, aim at the direction of a victim and shoot it.



Wait a minute, you gun nuts claim guns are a God Given Right! 

Try to keep your story straight.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> and if he's found guilty of that again, I have no problem locking him up for five years...
> 
> But he didn't murder that woman, that was the point, it was an accident.



They didn't charge him with half the stuff they should have, and that's my point.  Even if he got away with the MURDER, they should have already charged him with illegal entry, tampering with evidence, receiving stolen property.  They should have thrown the book at him and at least have him serve ten years for the other charges to give the family some comfort. 



JoeB131 said:


> They had that option, they chose not to because the facts didn't support it.



No, it's because California is loaded with commies and minorities. 



JoeB131 said:


> Wait a minute, you gun nuts claim guns are a God Given Right!
> 
> Try to keep your story straight.



No, we said it was a Constitutional right.  Keep your story straight.


----------



## danielpalos

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.


----------



## Flopper

WEATHER53 said:


> Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
> It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
> It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime


*When the statue of liberty was erected, there wasn’t any such thing as “illegal” or “legal” immigration to the United States. That’s because before you can immigrate somewhere illegally, there has to be a law for you to break.  

In the 19th century, immigration was limited by a person's ability to pay for passage to America. There were no visas and passports were not required.  If you came 1st class, or 2nd class, immigration was just a formality.  You filled out an immigration document stating that you weren't an anarchist, had the means of supporting yourself, were in good health, signed the document and you were admired.  If you couldn't afford 1st or 2nd class passage, you went to Ellis Island where you were asked a number of questions to determine if you should be allowed in the country.  Then you were giving a physical.  If you passed you were admitted.

Prior to 1924, there was no border patrol, so people just wandered back forth across our southern boarder at will.  After 1924, border crossings were created and Mexicans were required to have a visa or other such documents.  However, that was just a method of keeping track of who entered the country.  As long you crossed through a boarder crossing and weren't bringing in contraband, you were admitted.  You could apply for citizenship or you could just live in the country as long as you liked.  That all changed with the 1965 immigration legislation.

So what we think of as illegal immigration started less than a hundred years.  For most the history of the nation, we have had open boarders in regard to immigration.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
> It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
> It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime
> 
> 
> 
> *When the statue of liberty was erected, there wasn’t any such thing as “illegal” or “legal” immigration to the United States. That’s because before you can immigrate somewhere illegally, there has to be a law for you to break.
> 
> In the 19th century, immigration was limited by a person's ability to pay for passage to America. There were no visas and passports were not required.  If you came 1st class, or 2nd class, immigration was just a formality.  You filled out an immigration document stating that you weren't an anarchist, had the means of supporting yourself, were in good health, signed the document and you were admired.  If you couldn't afford 1st or 2nd class passage, you went to Ellis Island where you were asked a number of questions to determine if you should be allowed in the country.  Then you were giving a physical.  If you passed you were admitted.
> 
> Prior to 1924, there was no border patrol, so people just wandered back forth across our southern boarder at will.  After 1924, border crossings were created and Mexicans were required to have a visa or other such documents.  However, that was just a method of keeping track of who entered the country.  As long you crossed through a boarder crossing and weren't bringing in contraband, you were admitted.  You could apply for citizenship or you could just live in the country as long as you liked.  That all changed with the 1965 immigration legislation.
> 
> So what we think of as illegal immigration started less than a hundred years.  For most the history of the nation, we have had open boarders in regard to immigration.*
Click to expand...


Correct, but that was not a time when we had 315 million people and growing.  Nor was it a time when we had millions instead of thousands coming here. 

At one time, cocaine was legal, but as time went on, we made it illegal because when consumed by large amounts of people, it became a problem 

And now we are having problems with too many foreigners in this country.  They ruin neighborhoods, bring in crime and drugs, keep our pay scales down, and are turning us into a bilingual country against our wishes.


----------



## Coyote

WEATHER53 said:


> Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
> It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
> It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime


The Statue of Liberty is for everyone.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
> It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
> It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime
> 
> 
> 
> The Statue of Liberty is for everyone.
Click to expand...


If that's the case, move it back to Europe.


----------



## WEATHER53

It’s a great symbol to the peoples following the path of legal entrance Into this country.
Its not in a desert with an “EveryonevWelcome” sign on it
Obeying the law is easy. Why do liberals find it hard?


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
> It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
> It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime
> 
> 
> 
> The Statue of Liberty is for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's the case, move it back to Europe.
Click to expand...

No. It is a symbol of our country, even if some don’t see it.


----------



## Coyote

WEATHER53 said:


> It’s a great symbol to the peoples following the path of legal entrance to this country.
> Its not in a desert with an “Everyobe Welcome” sign on it
> Obeying the law is easy. Why do liberals find it hard?


She has nothing to do with laws that were innacted long after she came here.

She has not changed.

You have.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
> It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
> It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime
> 
> 
> 
> The Statue of Liberty is for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's the case, move it back to Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It is a symbol of our country, even if some don’t see it.
Click to expand...


If you think it's a symbol of anybody who wants to come here can, then it's useless to us and not a real symbol of our country. 

Ours is a country of law and order.  That's the way it was founded and that's the way it should remain.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
> It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
> It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime
> 
> 
> 
> *When the statue of liberty was erected, there wasn’t any such thing as “illegal” or “legal” immigration to the United States. That’s because before you can immigrate somewhere illegally, there has to be a law for you to break.
> 
> In the 19th century, immigration was limited by a person's ability to pay for passage to America. There were no visas and passports were not required.  If you came 1st class, or 2nd class, immigration was just a formality.  You filled out an immigration document stating that you weren't an anarchist, had the means of supporting yourself, were in good health, signed the document and you were admired.  If you couldn't afford 1st or 2nd class passage, you went to Ellis Island where you were asked a number of questions to determine if you should be allowed in the country.  Then you were giving a physical.  If you passed you were admitted.
> 
> Prior to 1924, there was no border patrol, so people just wandered back forth across our southern boarder at will.  After 1924, border crossings were created and Mexicans were required to have a visa or other such documents.  However, that was just a method of keeping track of who entered the country.  As long you crossed through a boarder crossing and weren't bringing in contraband, you were admitted.  You could apply for citizenship or you could just live in the country as long as you liked.  That all changed with the 1965 immigration legislation.
> 
> So what we think of as illegal immigration started less than a hundred years.  For most the history of the nation, we have had open boarders in regard to immigration.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, but that was not a time when we had 315 million people and growing.  Nor was it a time when we had millions instead of thousands coming here.
> 
> At one time, cocaine was legal, but as time went on, we made it illegal because when consumed by large amounts of people, it became a problem
> 
> And now we are having problems with too many foreigners in this country.  They ruin neighborhoods, bring in crime and drugs, keep our pay scales down, and are turning us into a bilingual country against our wishes.
Click to expand...

*A large segment of America, which you seem to be one of refuses to accept that legal immigrants, naturalized citizens and other lawfully present people from other countries — 76 percent of all immigrants in the U.S., according to the Pew Research Center — simply work or go to school and lead totally ordinary lives. These immigrants contribute to the economy, fund the Social Security program, etc., etc., etc., and otherwise just mind their own business.  

They have lower crime rates in most categories than native born Americans, 51% speak English effectively, and compared to illegal immigrants, they assimilate rapidly into our culture.  80% of their children born in the US will not only speak English but speak it fluently.  40% of their children will marry outside of their ethnicity and their children will be as American as apple pie. 

The question is why do so many Americans hate foreigners and come up with all these stereotypes that go against facts when most Americans are only 3 or 4 generations away from being immigrants?  

I think there are two reason. First,  Americans travel far less than most industrialized countries and are not exposed to other cultures.  According to a Victorinox Survey.  11% of Americans have never left their home state. 34% have visited less than 10 states and 40% have never left the country and an amazing 73% have never visited more than 2 foreign countries.  Secondly, they confuse cultures.  They don't know the difference between Indians and Arabs.  They confuse Mexicans with Native Americans. And don't see any difference between illegal and legal Hispanics.  I guess it's a combination of racism and xenophobia.

Face facts: Immigrants commit fewer crimes than U.S.-born peers
https://nypost.com/2018/01/11/a-shocking-number-of-americans-never-leave-home/*


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> They didn't charge him with half the stuff they should have, and that's my point. Even if he got away with the MURDER, they should have already charged him with illegal entry, tampering with evidence, receiving stolen property. They should have thrown the book at him and at least have him serve ten years for the other charges to give the family some comfort.



It isn't about "giving the family some comfort", it's about whether he did what he was charged with... which he wasn't. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> No, it's because California is loaded with commies and minorities.



You can fume all day, but the point was, the jury came up with a decision based on the facts presented, not whatever angry shit you heard on Hate Radio. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Correct, but that was not a time when we had 315 million people and growing. Nor was it a time when we had millions instead of thousands coming here.



The thing is, we need immigration because white people aren't producing enough babies to support the old angry white people who are retiring. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> At one time, cocaine was legal, but as time went on, we made it illegal because when consumed by large amounts of people, it became a problem



Right. Because after white people introduced it to minorities to get them to work harder, some of them started using it recreationally.  

Of course, we could show a lick of sense and treat drug addiction as a medical problem instead of a criminal one.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
> It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
> It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime
> 
> 
> 
> The Statue of Liberty is for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's the case, move it back to Europe.
Click to expand...

The French gave it to us.  Coincidence or conspiracy?


----------



## danielpalos

WEATHER53 said:


> It’s a great symbol to the peoples following the path of legal entrance Into this country.
> Its not in a desert with an “EveryonevWelcome” sign on it
> Obeying the law is easy. Why do liberals find it hard?


y'all have nothing but fake news and can't even obey Ten simple Commandments to reduce the cost of Government.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
> It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
> It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime
> 
> 
> 
> The Statue of Liberty is for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's the case, move it back to Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It is a symbol of our country, even if some don’t see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think it's a symbol of anybody who wants to come here can, then it's useless to us and not a real symbol of our country.
> 
> Ours is a country of law and order.  That's the way it was founded and that's the way it should remain.
Click to expand...

lol.  how do you think most of y'all, got here.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
> It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
> It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime
> 
> 
> 
> *When the statue of liberty was erected, there wasn’t any such thing as “illegal” or “legal” immigration to the United States. That’s because before you can immigrate somewhere illegally, there has to be a law for you to break.
> 
> In the 19th century, immigration was limited by a person's ability to pay for passage to America. There were no visas and passports were not required.  If you came 1st class, or 2nd class, immigration was just a formality.  You filled out an immigration document stating that you weren't an anarchist, had the means of supporting yourself, were in good health, signed the document and you were admired.  If you couldn't afford 1st or 2nd class passage, you went to Ellis Island where you were asked a number of questions to determine if you should be allowed in the country.  Then you were giving a physical.  If you passed you were admitted.
> 
> Prior to 1924, there was no border patrol, so people just wandered back forth across our southern boarder at will.  After 1924, border crossings were created and Mexicans were required to have a visa or other such documents.  However, that was just a method of keeping track of who entered the country.  As long you crossed through a boarder crossing and weren't bringing in contraband, you were admitted.  You could apply for citizenship or you could just live in the country as long as you liked.  That all changed with the 1965 immigration legislation.
> 
> So what we think of as illegal immigration started less than a hundred years.  For most the history of the nation, we have had open boarders in regard to immigration.*
Click to expand...


Not exactly true.  The United States, and before it the Colonies, have always had laws of varying sorts regarding who could come in and live.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
> It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
> It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime
> 
> 
> 
> The Statue of Liberty is for everyone.
Click to expand...


Nope.  It belongs to the United States, not to "everyone".

And I am immensely tired of hearing endlessly about a poem as though it not only has the force of law, but actually overrules the REAL laws.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
> It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
> It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime
> 
> 
> 
> The Statue of Liberty is for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's the case, move it back to Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It is a symbol of our country, even if some don’t see it.
Click to expand...


Yes, and since the country it symbolizes has LAWS, it's rather disrespectful to the pretty statue you seem to think is THE last and only word on immigration to ignore the law, isn't it?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a great symbol to the peoples following the path of legal entrance to this country.
> Its not in a desert with an “Everyobe Welcome” sign on it
> Obeying the law is easy. Why do liberals find it hard?
> 
> 
> 
> She has nothing to do with laws that were innacted long after she came here.
> 
> She has not changed.
> 
> You have.
Click to expand...


She's.  A.  Statue.  We could have ten fancy statues in the damned harbor, and they STILL would have fuck and all to do with the law.

I realize it fits in with your airy-fairy, "no logic, FEELZ!" worldview to act like laws should be based on poems and sightseeing landmarks, but I do hope you'll excuse the rest of us if we think running our nation ought to involve boring stuff like facts and realities and rule of law.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a great symbol to the peoples following the path of legal entrance to this country.
> Its not in a desert with an “Everyobe Welcome” sign on it
> Obeying the law is easy. Why do liberals find it hard?
> 
> 
> 
> She has nothing to do with laws that were innacted long after she came here.
> 
> She has not changed.
> 
> You have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She's.  A.  Statue.  We could have ten fancy statues in the damned harbor, and they STILL would have fuck and all to do with the law.
> 
> I realize it fits in with your airy-fairy, "no logic, FEELZ!" worldview to act like laws should be based on poems and sightseeing landmarks, but I do hope you'll excuse the rest of us if we think running our nation ought to involve boring stuff like facts and realities and rule of law.
Click to expand...


Tell that to Weather, he brought her up.  In the mean time take your irrational rant and stuff it


----------



## Flopper

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
> It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
> It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime
> 
> 
> 
> *When the statue of liberty was erected, there wasn’t any such thing as “illegal” or “legal” immigration to the United States. That’s because before you can immigrate somewhere illegally, there has to be a law for you to break.
> 
> In the 19th century, immigration was limited by a person's ability to pay for passage to America. There were no visas and passports were not required.  If you came 1st class, or 2nd class, immigration was just a formality.  You filled out an immigration document stating that you weren't an anarchist, had the means of supporting yourself, were in good health, signed the document and you were admired.  If you couldn't afford 1st or 2nd class passage, you went to Ellis Island where you were asked a number of questions to determine if you should be allowed in the country.  Then you were giving a physical.  If you passed you were admitted.
> 
> Prior to 1924, there was no border patrol, so people just wandered back forth across our southern boarder at will.  After 1924, border crossings were created and Mexicans were required to have a visa or other such documents.  However, that was just a method of keeping track of who entered the country.  As long you crossed through a boarder crossing and weren't bringing in contraband, you were admitted.  You could apply for citizenship or you could just live in the country as long as you liked.  That all changed with the 1965 immigration legislation.
> 
> So what we think of as illegal immigration started less than a hundred years.  For most the history of the nation, we have had open boarders in regard to immigration.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly true.  The United States, and before it the Colonies, have always had laws of varying sorts regarding who could come in and live.
Click to expand...

*Yes, there have been laws that exclude certain groups of people such as those that appear to be carrying communicable diseases, people unable to work, anarchist, and criminals and at times there have been laws that excludes certain nationalities such as the Chinese in part of the 19th century.  However, it was not until the 20th century that most all nationalities would be restricted.  Before then, our boarders were open to all nationalities with few exceptions.  

The 1965 immigration laws added quotas which effectively blocked immigration from some countries, and servery restricted others.  I've always found it strange that in an era in which we passed the civil rights act that forbid discrimination based national origin, that the goverment would pass a law that did exactly that.*


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
> It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
> It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime
> 
> 
> 
> The Statue of Liberty is for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's the case, move it back to Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It is a symbol of our country, even if some don’t see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and since the country it symbolizes has LAWS, it's rather disrespectful to the pretty statue you seem to think is THE last and only word on immigration to ignore the law, isn't it?
Click to expand...


You have no idea what I think do you   Nor do you have a clue what the symbolism is.  Let me clue you in on something - your Messiah doesn't like LEGAL immigration either.  He's looking for all kinds of ways to send strip legal immigrants of their status.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
> It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
> It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime
> 
> 
> 
> The Statue of Liberty is for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  It belongs to the United States, not to "everyone".
> 
> And I am immensely tired of hearing endlessly about a poem as though it not only has the force of law, but actually overrules the REAL laws.
Click to expand...


Who cares what you think?  You aren't the last word on immigration, or what the statue means or what America stands for.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> You can fume all day, but the point was, the jury came up with a decision based on the facts presented, not whatever angry shit you heard on Hate Radio.



I'm not fuming, just don't like that this innocent American died in vain.  If anything, her story is what puts more people on our side; the very idea that some Americans would rather see a criminal let go than to serve rightful justice is what angers real Americans.  



JoeB131 said:


> The thing is, we need immigration because white people aren't producing enough babies to support the old angry white people who are retiring.



So who said we have to produce anything?  That's just what your puppet masters at the DNC told you and you believe them.  Nothing wrong with a country that has 280, 230 or even 175 million people.  See, your party won't tell you what their real reason is, so they hoodwink their blind followers with all kinds of BS stories like we need more people in this country.  There is no truth to it.  The truth is they don't want any opposition in the future.  They want a one-party country where they rule everything with no threats of ever losing power.  Because trust me, if these CA and Mexicans were known to vote strongly Republican, that wall would have been up in the Carter years and our border patrol would be three times the size today.  



JoeB131 said:


> Right. Because after white people introduced it to minorities to get them to work harder, some of them started using it recreationally.
> 
> Of course, we could show a lick of sense and treat drug addiction as a medical problem instead of a criminal one.



Actually we do both, but rehab seldom works.  It's a waste of time and money.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
> It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
> It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime
> 
> 
> 
> *When the statue of liberty was erected, there wasn’t any such thing as “illegal” or “legal” immigration to the United States. That’s because before you can immigrate somewhere illegally, there has to be a law for you to break.
> 
> In the 19th century, immigration was limited by a person's ability to pay for passage to America. There were no visas and passports were not required.  If you came 1st class, or 2nd class, immigration was just a formality.  You filled out an immigration document stating that you weren't an anarchist, had the means of supporting yourself, were in good health, signed the document and you were admired.  If you couldn't afford 1st or 2nd class passage, you went to Ellis Island where you were asked a number of questions to determine if you should be allowed in the country.  Then you were giving a physical.  If you passed you were admitted.
> 
> Prior to 1924, there was no border patrol, so people just wandered back forth across our southern boarder at will.  After 1924, border crossings were created and Mexicans were required to have a visa or other such documents.  However, that was just a method of keeping track of who entered the country.  As long you crossed through a boarder crossing and weren't bringing in contraband, you were admitted.  You could apply for citizenship or you could just live in the country as long as you liked.  That all changed with the 1965 immigration legislation.
> 
> So what we think of as illegal immigration started less than a hundred years.  For most the history of the nation, we have had open boarders in regard to immigration.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, but that was not a time when we had 315 million people and growing.  Nor was it a time when we had millions instead of thousands coming here.
> 
> At one time, cocaine was legal, but as time went on, we made it illegal because when consumed by large amounts of people, it became a problem
> 
> And now we are having problems with too many foreigners in this country.  They ruin neighborhoods, bring in crime and drugs, keep our pay scales down, and are turning us into a bilingual country against our wishes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A large segment of America, which you seem to be one of refuses to accept that legal immigrants, naturalized citizens and other lawfully present people from other countries — 76 percent of all immigrants in the U.S., according to the Pew Research Center — simply work or go to school and lead totally ordinary lives. These immigrants contribute to the economy, fund the Social Security program, etc., etc., etc., and otherwise just mind their own business.
> 
> They have lower crime rates in most categories than native born Americans, 51% speak English effectively, and compared to illegal immigrants, they assimilate rapidly into our culture.  80% of their children born in the US will not only speak English but speak it fluently.  40% of their children will marry outside of their ethnicity and their children will be as American as apple pie.
> 
> The question is why do so many Americans hate foreigners and come up with all these stereotypes that go against facts when most Americans are only 3 or 4 generations away from being immigrants?
> 
> I think there are two reason. First,  Americans travel far less than most industrialized countries and are not exposed to other cultures.  According to a Victorinox Survey.  11% of Americans have never left their home state. 34% have visited less than 10 states and 40% have never left the country and an amazing 73% have never visited more than 2 foreign countries.  Secondly, they confuse cultures.  They don't know the difference between Indians and Arabs.  They confuse Mexicans with Native Americans. And don't see any difference between illegal and legal Hispanics.  I guess it's a combination of racism and xenophobia.
> 
> Face facts: Immigrants commit fewer crimes than U.S.-born peers
> https://nypost.com/2018/01/11/a-shocking-number-of-americans-never-leave-home/*
Click to expand...


Of course, that must be it.  It certainly can't be because of the drugs, the crime, the changing of our language, the taking of our jobs, the stagnant wages for Americans.  It must be Xenophobia and racism.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a great symbol to the peoples following the path of legal entrance to this country.
> Its not in a desert with an “Everyobe Welcome” sign on it
> Obeying the law is easy. Why do liberals find it hard?
> 
> 
> 
> She has nothing to do with laws that were innacted long after she came here.
> 
> She has not changed.
> 
> You have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She's.  A.  Statue.  We could have ten fancy statues in the damned harbor, and they STILL would have fuck and all to do with the law.
> 
> I realize it fits in with your airy-fairy, "no logic, FEELZ!" worldview to act like laws should be based on poems and sightseeing landmarks, but I do hope you'll excuse the rest of us if we think running our nation ought to involve boring stuff like facts and realities and rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to Weather, he brought her up.  In the mean time take your irrational rant and stuff it
Click to expand...


I just heard you say, "I can't defend my multi-post rant about how the Statue of Liberty requires open borders, so . . . it's someone else's fault, and YOU'RE MEAN!"


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
> It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
> It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime
> 
> 
> 
> *When the statue of liberty was erected, there wasn’t any such thing as “illegal” or “legal” immigration to the United States. That’s because before you can immigrate somewhere illegally, there has to be a law for you to break.
> 
> In the 19th century, immigration was limited by a person's ability to pay for passage to America. There were no visas and passports were not required.  If you came 1st class, or 2nd class, immigration was just a formality.  You filled out an immigration document stating that you weren't an anarchist, had the means of supporting yourself, were in good health, signed the document and you were admired.  If you couldn't afford 1st or 2nd class passage, you went to Ellis Island where you were asked a number of questions to determine if you should be allowed in the country.  Then you were giving a physical.  If you passed you were admitted.
> 
> Prior to 1924, there was no border patrol, so people just wandered back forth across our southern boarder at will.  After 1924, border crossings were created and Mexicans were required to have a visa or other such documents.  However, that was just a method of keeping track of who entered the country.  As long you crossed through a boarder crossing and weren't bringing in contraband, you were admitted.  You could apply for citizenship or you could just live in the country as long as you liked.  That all changed with the 1965 immigration legislation.
> 
> So what we think of as illegal immigration started less than a hundred years.  For most the history of the nation, we have had open boarders in regard to immigration.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly true.  The United States, and before it the Colonies, have always had laws of varying sorts regarding who could come in and live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, there have been laws that exclude certain groups of people such those that appear to be carrying communicable diseases, people unable to work, anarchist, and criminals and at times there have been laws that excludes certain nationalities such as the Chinese in part of the 19th century.  However, it was not until the 20th century that most all nationalities would be restricted.  Before then, our boarders were open to all nationalities with few exceptions.
> 
> The 1965 immigration laws added quotas which effectively blocked immigration from some countries, and servery restricted others.  I've always found it strange that in an era in which we passed the civil rights act that forbid discrimination based national origin, that the goverment would pass a law that did exactly that.*
Click to expand...


Admittedly, one doesn't have to restrict immigration from other countries until people actually WANT to come from other countries.  Nevertheless, we have quite a long and steady history of restricting people who are not in OUR best interests.  At no point in time have we felt obligated to let whoever wanted to show up and make themselves at home.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
> It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
> It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime
> 
> 
> 
> The Statue of Liberty is for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  It belongs to the United States, not to "everyone".
> 
> And I am immensely tired of hearing endlessly about a poem as though it not only has the force of law, but actually overrules the REAL laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares what you think?  You aren't the last word on immigration, or what the statue means or what America stands for.
Click to expand...


We know what it stands for--Independence.  This is obvious by the tablet the statue is holding marking the day we adopted the Declaration of Independence.   The poor the weary stuff was added later on, but that's not why it was built: 

*What is the quote on the statue of liberty?*

There are several phrases associated with the Statue of Liberty, but the most recognizable is “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” This quote comes from Emma Lazarus’ sonnet, New Colossus, which she wrote for a fundraiser auction to raise money for the pedestal upon which the Statue of Liberty now sits. The poem did not receive much recognition and was quite forgotten after the auction.

In the early 1900s and after Lazarus’ death, one of her friends began a campaign to memorialize Lazarus and her New Colossus sonnet. The effort was a success, and a plaque with the poem’s text was mounted inside the pedestal of the statute.

What is the quote on the statue of liberty? · How Tall is the Statue of Liberty?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
> It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
> It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime
> 
> 
> 
> The Statue of Liberty is for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  It belongs to the United States, not to "everyone".
> 
> And I am immensely tired of hearing endlessly about a poem as though it not only has the force of law, but actually overrules the REAL laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares what you think?  You aren't the last word on immigration, or what the statue means or what America stands for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know what it stands for--Independence.  This is obvious by the tablet the statue is holding marking the day we adopted the Declaration of Independence.   The poor the weary stuff was added later on, but that's not why it was built:
> 
> *What is the quote on the statue of liberty?*
> 
> There are several phrases associated with the Statue of Liberty, but the most recognizable is “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” This quote comes from Emma Lazarus’ sonnet, New Colossus, which she wrote for a fundraiser auction to raise money for the pedestal upon which the Statue of Liberty now sits. The poem did not receive much recognition and was quite forgotten after the auction.
> 
> In the early 1900s and after Lazarus’ death, one of her friends began a campaign to memorialize Lazarus and her New Colossus sonnet. The effort was a success, and a plaque with the poem’s text was mounted inside the pedestal of the statute.
> 
> What is the quote on the statue of liberty? · How Tall is the Statue of Liberty?
Click to expand...


And this apparently cannot be said enough:

It's just a poem.  Has no force of law whatsoever.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
> It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
> It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime
> 
> 
> 
> The Statue of Liberty is for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  It belongs to the United States, not to "everyone".
> 
> And I am immensely tired of hearing endlessly about a poem as though it not only has the force of law, but actually overrules the REAL laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares what you think?  You aren't the last word on immigration, or what the statue means or what America stands for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know what it stands for--Independence.  This is obvious by the tablet the statue is holding marking the day we adopted the Declaration of Independence.   The poor the weary stuff was added later on, but that's not why it was built:
> 
> *What is the quote on the statue of liberty?*
> 
> There are several phrases associated with the Statue of Liberty, but the most recognizable is “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” This quote comes from Emma Lazarus’ sonnet, New Colossus, which she wrote for a fundraiser auction to raise money for the pedestal upon which the Statue of Liberty now sits. The poem did not receive much recognition and was quite forgotten after the auction.
> 
> In the early 1900s and after Lazarus’ death, one of her friends began a campaign to memorialize Lazarus and her New Colossus sonnet. The effort was a success, and a plaque with the poem’s text was mounted inside the pedestal of the statute.
> 
> What is the quote on the statue of liberty? · How Tall is the Statue of Liberty?
Click to expand...

The Romans should have expanded and offered free land to new settlers.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
> It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
> It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime
> 
> 
> 
> *When the statue of liberty was erected, there wasn’t any such thing as “illegal” or “legal” immigration to the United States. That’s because before you can immigrate somewhere illegally, there has to be a law for you to break.
> 
> In the 19th century, immigration was limited by a person's ability to pay for passage to America. There were no visas and passports were not required.  If you came 1st class, or 2nd class, immigration was just a formality.  You filled out an immigration document stating that you weren't an anarchist, had the means of supporting yourself, were in good health, signed the document and you were admired.  If you couldn't afford 1st or 2nd class passage, you went to Ellis Island where you were asked a number of questions to determine if you should be allowed in the country.  Then you were giving a physical.  If you passed you were admitted.
> 
> Prior to 1924, there was no border patrol, so people just wandered back forth across our southern boarder at will.  After 1924, border crossings were created and Mexicans were required to have a visa or other such documents.  However, that was just a method of keeping track of who entered the country.  As long you crossed through a boarder crossing and weren't bringing in contraband, you were admitted.  You could apply for citizenship or you could just live in the country as long as you liked.  That all changed with the 1965 immigration legislation.
> 
> So what we think of as illegal immigration started less than a hundred years.  For most the history of the nation, we have had open boarders in regard to immigration.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, but that was not a time when we had 315 million people and growing.  Nor was it a time when we had millions instead of thousands coming here.
> 
> At one time, cocaine was legal, but as time went on, we made it illegal because when consumed by large amounts of people, it became a problem
> 
> And now we are having problems with too many foreigners in this country.  They ruin neighborhoods, bring in crime and drugs, keep our pay scales down, and are turning us into a bilingual country against our wishes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A large segment of America, which you seem to be one of refuses to accept that legal immigrants, naturalized citizens and other lawfully present people from other countries — 76 percent of all immigrants in the U.S., according to the Pew Research Center — simply work or go to school and lead totally ordinary lives. These immigrants contribute to the economy, fund the Social Security program, etc., etc., etc., and otherwise just mind their own business.
> 
> They have lower crime rates in most categories than native born Americans, 51% speak English effectively, and compared to illegal immigrants, they assimilate rapidly into our culture.  80% of their children born in the US will not only speak English but speak it fluently.  40% of their children will marry outside of their ethnicity and their children will be as American as apple pie.
> 
> The question is why do so many Americans hate foreigners and come up with all these stereotypes that go against facts when most Americans are only 3 or 4 generations away from being immigrants?
> 
> I think there are two reason. First,  Americans travel far less than most industrialized countries and are not exposed to other cultures.  According to a Victorinox Survey.  11% of Americans have never left their home state. 34% have visited less than 10 states and 40% have never left the country and an amazing 73% have never visited more than 2 foreign countries.  Secondly, they confuse cultures.  They don't know the difference between Indians and Arabs.  They confuse Mexicans with Native Americans. And don't see any difference between illegal and legal Hispanics.  I guess it's a combination of racism and xenophobia.
> 
> Face facts: Immigrants commit fewer crimes than U.S.-born peers
> https://nypost.com/2018/01/11/a-shocking-number-of-americans-never-leave-home/*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, that must be it.  It certainly can't be because of the drugs, the crime, the changing of our language, the taking of our jobs, the stagnant wages for Americans.  It must be Xenophobia and racism.
Click to expand...

*I think the xenophobia and racism is responsible for the stereotypes that you keep falling back on.  Legal immigrants in the US are less likely to be arrested for drugs or alcohol, and less likely to be arrested for most criminal acts than native born Americans.

If legal immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans, it means employers are getting better employees.  If not, they wouldn't be hiring them.  This is exactly what we want and need, people that will make the nation more productive.

For too long, we have been attracting the greatest young minds in the world to our universities then sending them back home in 60 days rather than joining American companies and kicking the shit out of foreign competition.

A kid from Indian rented a unit in our condo last month.  He just graduated from Caltech with a masters in computer science.  He got his BS from Stanford in Math and graduated in the top 10% of his Class.  Microsoft wanted to hire him but because H2b Visas are limited, the company can't get his visa before his 60 days runs out which means he would have to stay in the country illegally to wait for the Visa.  So he and his wife will go back to Indian and accept an offer from a major tech firm that competes with Microsoft, a victory for the alt right, and a loss for America.     *


----------



## Flopper

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
> It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
> It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime
> 
> 
> 
> *When the statue of liberty was erected, there wasn’t any such thing as “illegal” or “legal” immigration to the United States. That’s because before you can immigrate somewhere illegally, there has to be a law for you to break.
> 
> In the 19th century, immigration was limited by a person's ability to pay for passage to America. There were no visas and passports were not required.  If you came 1st class, or 2nd class, immigration was just a formality.  You filled out an immigration document stating that you weren't an anarchist, had the means of supporting yourself, were in good health, signed the document and you were admired.  If you couldn't afford 1st or 2nd class passage, you went to Ellis Island where you were asked a number of questions to determine if you should be allowed in the country.  Then you were giving a physical.  If you passed you were admitted.
> 
> Prior to 1924, there was no border patrol, so people just wandered back forth across our southern boarder at will.  After 1924, border crossings were created and Mexicans were required to have a visa or other such documents.  However, that was just a method of keeping track of who entered the country.  As long you crossed through a boarder crossing and weren't bringing in contraband, you were admitted.  You could apply for citizenship or you could just live in the country as long as you liked.  That all changed with the 1965 immigration legislation.
> 
> So what we think of as illegal immigration started less than a hundred years.  For most the history of the nation, we have had open boarders in regard to immigration.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly true.  The United States, and before it the Colonies, have always had laws of varying sorts regarding who could come in and live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, there have been laws that exclude certain groups of people such those that appear to be carrying communicable diseases, people unable to work, anarchist, and criminals and at times there have been laws that excludes certain nationalities such as the Chinese in part of the 19th century.  However, it was not until the 20th century that most all nationalities would be restricted.  Before then, our boarders were open to all nationalities with few exceptions.
> 
> The 1965 immigration laws added quotas which effectively blocked immigration from some countries, and servery restricted others.  I've always found it strange that in an era in which we passed the civil rights act that forbid discrimination based national origin, that the goverment would pass a law that did exactly that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Admittedly, one doesn't have to restrict immigration from other countries until people actually WANT to come from other countries.  Nevertheless, we have quite a long and steady history of restricting people who are not in OUR best interests.  At no point in time have we felt obligated to let whoever wanted to show up and make themselves at home.
Click to expand...

*I don't think our immigration system restricts people in our best interest.  The system is highly automated to minimize costs. It's purpose is not to select the best but to avoid the worst.   The primary criteria for immigration is nationality, having a relative in the US to sponsor you, a clean criminal record, and not being on a terrorist watch list. 

I believe the ideal immigration system should be constructed as follows.*

*We immigrate about a million people each year.  That needs to double.  That's would only be .6% of the population or 6% over 10 years.  *
*We need to recruit immigrants.  Yes, you heard me right.  If we want good people we need to tell the world.  This has been done in other countries and has worked. The image of US immigration abroad is we don't want you, don't need you, and don't come.  I spoke at length with friends in Germany and England about this.  The consensus seem to be Americans only want people to pick fruit and clean their homes. Why should I go to all the hassle when they really don't want me?*
*We spend about 7 billion on immigration. About 90% goes to enforcement and most of the rest goes to administration with very little actually going to selecting who gets to immigrate.  That needs to change. We need to actually investigate immigrants, check references, conduct in depth interviews, not 20 mins with 10 mins devoted checking forms.*
*Lastly, total immigration for the year should be as firm as possible but country quotas should be guidelines.   In other words, we should give up this nonsense that congress has this God given ability to determine which countries will yield the best citizens.  That should be determined based on individual qualifications of applicants.*


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
> It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
> It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime
> 
> 
> 
> The Statue of Liberty is for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  It belongs to the United States, not to "everyone".
> 
> And I am immensely tired of hearing endlessly about a poem as though it not only has the force of law, but actually overrules the REAL laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares what you think?  You aren't the last word on immigration, or what the statue means or what America stands for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know what it stands for--Independence.  This is obvious by the tablet the statue is holding marking the day we adopted the Declaration of Independence.   The poor the weary stuff was added later on, but that's not why it was built:
> 
> *What is the quote on the statue of liberty?*
> 
> There are several phrases associated with the Statue of Liberty, but the most recognizable is “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” This quote comes from Emma Lazarus’ sonnet, New Colossus, which she wrote for a fundraiser auction to raise money for the pedestal upon which the Statue of Liberty now sits. The poem did not receive much recognition and was quite forgotten after the auction.
> 
> In the early 1900s and after Lazarus’ death, one of her friends began a campaign to memorialize Lazarus and her New Colossus sonnet. The effort was a success, and a plaque with the poem’s text was mounted inside the pedestal of the statute.
> 
> What is the quote on the statue of liberty? · How Tall is the Statue of Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this apparently cannot be said enough:
> 
> It's just a poem.  Has no force of law whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I don’t think any one said it did.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a great symbol to the peoples following the path of legal entrance to this country.
> Its not in a desert with an “Everyobe Welcome” sign on it
> Obeying the law is easy. Why do liberals find it hard?
> 
> 
> 
> She has nothing to do with laws that were innacted long after she came here.
> 
> She has not changed.
> 
> You have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She's.  A.  Statue.  We could have ten fancy statues in the damned harbor, and they STILL would have fuck and all to do with the law.
> 
> I realize it fits in with your airy-fairy, "no logic, FEELZ!" worldview to act like laws should be based on poems and sightseeing landmarks, but I do hope you'll excuse the rest of us if we think running our nation ought to involve boring stuff like facts and realities and rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to Weather, he brought her up.  In the mean time take your irrational rant and stuff it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just heard you say, "I can't defend my multi-post rant about how the Statue of Liberty requires open borders, so . . . it's someone else's fault, and YOU'RE MEAN!"
Click to expand...

Nope, those were your words


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
> It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
> It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime
> 
> 
> 
> *When the statue of liberty was erected, there wasn’t any such thing as “illegal” or “legal” immigration to the United States. That’s because before you can immigrate somewhere illegally, there has to be a law for you to break.
> 
> In the 19th century, immigration was limited by a person's ability to pay for passage to America. There were no visas and passports were not required.  If you came 1st class, or 2nd class, immigration was just a formality.  You filled out an immigration document stating that you weren't an anarchist, had the means of supporting yourself, were in good health, signed the document and you were admired.  If you couldn't afford 1st or 2nd class passage, you went to Ellis Island where you were asked a number of questions to determine if you should be allowed in the country.  Then you were giving a physical.  If you passed you were admitted.
> 
> Prior to 1924, there was no border patrol, so people just wandered back forth across our southern boarder at will.  After 1924, border crossings were created and Mexicans were required to have a visa or other such documents.  However, that was just a method of keeping track of who entered the country.  As long you crossed through a boarder crossing and weren't bringing in contraband, you were admitted.  You could apply for citizenship or you could just live in the country as long as you liked.  That all changed with the 1965 immigration legislation.
> 
> So what we think of as illegal immigration started less than a hundred years.  For most the history of the nation, we have had open boarders in regard to immigration.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly true.  The United States, and before it the Colonies, have always had laws of varying sorts regarding who could come in and live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes, there have been laws that exclude certain groups of people such those that appear to be carrying communicable diseases, people unable to work, anarchist, and criminals and at times there have been laws that excludes certain nationalities such as the Chinese in part of the 19th century.  However, it was not until the 20th century that most all nationalities would be restricted.  Before then, our boarders were open to all nationalities with few exceptions.
> 
> The 1965 immigration laws added quotas which effectively blocked immigration from some countries, and servery restricted others.  I've always found it strange that in an era in which we passed the civil rights act that forbid discrimination based national origin, that the goverment would pass a law that did exactly that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Admittedly, one doesn't have to restrict immigration from other countries until people actually WANT to come from other countries.  Nevertheless, we have quite a long and steady history of restricting people who are not in OUR best interests.  At no point in time have we felt obligated to let whoever wanted to show up and make themselves at home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I don't think our immigration system restricts people in our best interest.  The system is highly automated to minimize costs. It's purpose is not to select the best but to avoid the worst.   The primary criteria for immigration is nationality, having a relative in the US to sponsor you, a clean criminal record, and not being on a terrorist watch list.
> 
> I believe the ideal immigration system should be constructed as follows.*
> 
> *We immigrate about a million people each year.  That needs to double.  That's would only be .6% of the population or 6% over 10 years.  *
> *We need to recruit immigrants.  Yes, you heard me right.  If we want good people we need to tell the world.  This has been done in other countries and has worked. The image of US immigration abroad is we don't want you, don't need you, and don't come.  I spoke at length with friends in Germany and England about this.  The consensus seem to be Americans only want people to pick fruit and clean their homes. Why should I go to all the hassle when they really don't want me?*
> *We spend about 7 billion on immigration. About 90% goes to enforcement and most of the rest goes to administration with very little actually going to selecting who gets to immigrate.  That needs to change. We need to actually investigate immigrants, check references, conduct in depth interviews, not 20 mins with 10 mins devoted checking forms.*
> *Lastly, total immigration for the year should be as firm as possible but country quotas should be guidelines.   In other words, we should give up this nonsense that congress has this God given ability to determine which countries will yield the best citizens.  That should be determined based on individual qualifications of applicants.*
Click to expand...


It doesn't restrict them in our best interests NOW (thanks to Teddy "the Swimmer" Kennedy).  We're kinda trying to change that.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Statue of Liberty is for everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  It belongs to the United States, not to "everyone".
> 
> And I am immensely tired of hearing endlessly about a poem as though it not only has the force of law, but actually overrules the REAL laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares what you think?  You aren't the last word on immigration, or what the statue means or what America stands for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know what it stands for--Independence.  This is obvious by the tablet the statue is holding marking the day we adopted the Declaration of Independence.   The poor the weary stuff was added later on, but that's not why it was built:
> 
> *What is the quote on the statue of liberty?*
> 
> There are several phrases associated with the Statue of Liberty, but the most recognizable is “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” This quote comes from Emma Lazarus’ sonnet, New Colossus, which she wrote for a fundraiser auction to raise money for the pedestal upon which the Statue of Liberty now sits. The poem did not receive much recognition and was quite forgotten after the auction.
> 
> In the early 1900s and after Lazarus’ death, one of her friends began a campaign to memorialize Lazarus and her New Colossus sonnet. The effort was a success, and a plaque with the poem’s text was mounted inside the pedestal of the statute.
> 
> What is the quote on the statue of liberty? · How Tall is the Statue of Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this apparently cannot be said enough:
> 
> It's just a poem.  Has no force of law whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t think any one said it did.
Click to expand...


So you're just citing it at us endlessly to waste space?


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  It belongs to the United States, not to "everyone".
> 
> And I am immensely tired of hearing endlessly about a poem as though it not only has the force of law, but actually overrules the REAL laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares what you think?  You aren't the last word on immigration, or what the statue means or what America stands for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know what it stands for--Independence.  This is obvious by the tablet the statue is holding marking the day we adopted the Declaration of Independence.   The poor the weary stuff was added later on, but that's not why it was built:
> 
> *What is the quote on the statue of liberty?*
> 
> There are several phrases associated with the Statue of Liberty, but the most recognizable is “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” This quote comes from Emma Lazarus’ sonnet, New Colossus, which she wrote for a fundraiser auction to raise money for the pedestal upon which the Statue of Liberty now sits. The poem did not receive much recognition and was quite forgotten after the auction.
> 
> In the early 1900s and after Lazarus’ death, one of her friends began a campaign to memorialize Lazarus and her New Colossus sonnet. The effort was a success, and a plaque with the poem’s text was mounted inside the pedestal of the statute.
> 
> What is the quote on the statue of liberty? · How Tall is the Statue of Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this apparently cannot be said enough:
> 
> It's just a poem.  Has no force of law whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t think any one said it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're just citing it at us endlessly to waste space?
Click to expand...

Haven’t said anything of the kind, but don’t let that stop you.


----------



## Flopper

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
> It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
> It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime
> 
> 
> 
> The Statue of Liberty is for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  It belongs to the United States, not to "everyone".
> 
> And I am immensely tired of hearing endlessly about a poem as though it not only has the force of law, but actually overrules the REAL laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares what you think?  You aren't the last word on immigration, or what the statue means or what America stands for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know what it stands for--Independence.  This is obvious by the tablet the statue is holding marking the day we adopted the Declaration of Independence.   The poor the weary stuff was added later on, but that's not why it was built:
> 
> *What is the quote on the statue of liberty?*
> 
> There are several phrases associated with the Statue of Liberty, but the most recognizable is “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” This quote comes from Emma Lazarus’ sonnet, New Colossus, which she wrote for a fundraiser auction to raise money for the pedestal upon which the Statue of Liberty now sits. The poem did not receive much recognition and was quite forgotten after the auction.
> 
> In the early 1900s and after Lazarus’ death, one of her friends began a campaign to memorialize Lazarus and her New Colossus sonnet. The effort was a success, and a plaque with the poem’s text was mounted inside the pedestal of the statute.
> 
> What is the quote on the statue of liberty? · How Tall is the Statue of Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this apparently cannot be said enough:
> 
> It's just a poem.  Has no force of law whatsoever.
Click to expand...

True, no force of law at all. Yet those words have had tremendous influence on Americans and people around the world.  Every time I heard people say don't pay any attention to what he says, his words mean nothing, I think of these words.

_Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. *“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”*_


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> I think the xenophobia and racism is responsible for the stereotypes that you keep falling back on. Legal immigrants in the US are less likely to be arrested for drugs or alcohol, and less likely to be arrested for most criminal acts than native born Americans.



Illegal Immigrants Accounted for Nearly 37 Percent of Federal Sentences in FY 2014 | Breitbart
and in case you don't like the source: 

Illegal immigrants responsible for almost three-fourths of federal drug possession sentences in 2014

Report: Illegals Committed 600,000 Crimes in Texas in 6 Yrs

Our crime rate with illegals should be 0%.  That's the problem.  I don't care how many less crimes they commit than Americans because THIS IS OUR COUNTRY, and we deal with our own.  But because we have murders, rapes, fraud, theft doesn't mean we should invite more of it to our country. 



Flopper said:


> If legal immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans, it means employers are getting better employees. If not, they wouldn't be hiring them. This is exactly what we want and need, people that will make the nation more productive.



No, they hire them because they can pay them crap, that's why they are hired.  Businesses who don't want to pay American wages get away with dragging people into this country to work for pennies on the dollar.  Yes, that lowers wages for native born Americans. 



Flopper said:


> For too long, we have been attracting the greatest young minds in the world to our universities then sending them back home in 60 days rather than joining American companies and kicking the shit out of foreign competition.



Then the solution is to let them go to school somewhere else. 



Flopper said:


> A kid from Indian rented a unit in our condo last month. He just graduated from Caltech with a masters in computer science. He got his BS from Stanford in Math and graduated in the top 10% of his Class. Microsoft wanted to hire him but because H2b Visas are limited, the company can't get his visa before his 60 days runs out which means he would have to stay in the country illegally to wait for the Visa. So he and his wife will go back to Indian and accept an offer from a major tech firm that competes with Microsoft, a victory for the alt right, and a loss for America.



We allow over a million foreigners into this country a year.  Let's create standards in which one can apply for citizenship in this country.  We'll start with how valuable you are for us, and that doesn't include lettuce pickers.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statue of Liberty is not for illegals
> It’s on an island for people traveling across thousands of miles of ocean to legally enter the USA. We welcome you
> It’s not on the USA/Mexico border welcoming illegals who travel a few feet of dirt to commit their crime
> 
> 
> 
> The Statue of Liberty is for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  It belongs to the United States, not to "everyone".
> 
> And I am immensely tired of hearing endlessly about a poem as though it not only has the force of law, but actually overrules the REAL laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares what you think?  You aren't the last word on immigration, or what the statue means or what America stands for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know what it stands for--Independence.  This is obvious by the tablet the statue is holding marking the day we adopted the Declaration of Independence.   The poor the weary stuff was added later on, but that's not why it was built:
> 
> *What is the quote on the statue of liberty?*
> 
> There are several phrases associated with the Statue of Liberty, but the most recognizable is “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” This quote comes from Emma Lazarus’ sonnet, New Colossus, which she wrote for a fundraiser auction to raise money for the pedestal upon which the Statue of Liberty now sits. The poem did not receive much recognition and was quite forgotten after the auction.
> 
> In the early 1900s and after Lazarus’ death, one of her friends began a campaign to memorialize Lazarus and her New Colossus sonnet. The effort was a success, and a plaque with the poem’s text was mounted inside the pedestal of the statute.
> 
> What is the quote on the statue of liberty? · How Tall is the Statue of Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this apparently cannot be said enough:
> 
> It's just a poem.  Has no force of law whatsoever.
Click to expand...


Actually the point was the statue was not erected to welcome foreigners.  It was put there so that when foreigners come, they are reminded of the value of liberty--not put there as a Welcome Mat.  

The statue was a gift from France with the sole intention of celebrating freedom.  The liberals like to use the poem to say that the statue was put here to welcome any and all foreigners into the country.  It's just a wives tale is all it is.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the xenophobia and racism is responsible for the stereotypes that you keep falling back on. Legal immigrants in the US are less likely to be arrested for drugs or alcohol, and less likely to be arrested for most criminal acts than native born Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal Immigrants Accounted for Nearly 37 Percent of Federal Sentences in FY 2014 | Breitbart
> and in case you don't like the source:
> 
> Illegal immigrants responsible for almost three-fourths of federal drug possession sentences in 2014
> 
> Report: Illegals Committed 600,000 Crimes in Texas in 6 Yrs
> 
> Our crime rate with illegals should be 0%.  That's the problem.  I don't care how many less crimes they commit than Americans because THIS IS OUR COUNTRY, and we deal with our own.  But because we have murders, rapes, fraud, theft doesn't mean we should invite more of it to our country.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If legal immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans, it means employers are getting better employees. If not, they wouldn't be hiring them. This is exactly what we want and need, people that will make the nation more productive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they hire them because they can pay them crap, that's why they are hired.  Businesses who don't want to pay American wages get away with dragging people into this country to work for pennies on the dollar.  Yes, that lowers wages for native born Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> For too long, we have been attracting the greatest young minds in the world to our universities then sending them back home in 60 days rather than joining American companies and kicking the shit out of foreign competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the solution is to let them go to school somewhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> A kid from Indian rented a unit in our condo last month. He just graduated from Caltech with a masters in computer science. He got his BS from Stanford in Math and graduated in the top 10% of his Class. Microsoft wanted to hire him but because H2b Visas are limited, the company can't get his visa before his 60 days runs out which means he would have to stay in the country illegally to wait for the Visa. So he and his wife will go back to Indian and accept an offer from a major tech firm that competes with Microsoft, a victory for the alt right, and a loss for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We allow over a million foreigners into this country a year.  Let's create standards in which one can apply for citizenship in this country.  We'll start with how valuable you are for us, and that doesn't include lettuce pickers.
Click to expand...




Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the xenophobia and racism is responsible for the stereotypes that you keep falling back on. Legal immigrants in the US are less likely to be arrested for drugs or alcohol, and less likely to be arrested for most criminal acts than native born Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal Immigrants Accounted for Nearly 37 Percent of Federal Sentences in FY 2014 | Breitbart
> and in case you don't like the source:
> 
> Illegal immigrants responsible for almost three-fourths of federal drug possession sentences in 2014
> 
> Report: Illegals Committed 600,000 Crimes in Texas in 6 Yrs
> 
> Our crime rate with illegals should be 0%.  That's the problem.  I don't care how many less crimes they commit than Americans because THIS IS OUR COUNTRY, and we deal with our own.  But because we have murders, rapes, fraud, theft doesn't mean we should invite more of it to our country.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If legal immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans, it means employers are getting better employees. If not, they wouldn't be hiring them. This is exactly what we want and need, people that will make the nation more productive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they hire them because they can pay them crap, that's why they are hired.  Businesses who don't want to pay American wages get away with dragging people into this country to work for pennies on the dollar.  Yes, that lowers wages for native born Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> For too long, we have been attracting the greatest young minds in the world to our universities then sending them back home in 60 days rather than joining American companies and kicking the shit out of foreign competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the solution is to let them go to school somewhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> A kid from Indian rented a unit in our condo last month. He just graduated from Caltech with a masters in computer science. He got his BS from Stanford in Math and graduated in the top 10% of his Class. Microsoft wanted to hire him but because H2b Visas are limited, the company can't get his visa before his 60 days runs out which means he would have to stay in the country illegally to wait for the Visa. So he and his wife will go back to Indian and accept an offer from a major tech firm that competes with Microsoft, a victory for the alt right, and a loss for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We allow over a million foreigners into this country a year.  Let's create standards in which one can apply for citizenship in this country.  We'll start with how valuable you are for us, and that doesn't include lettuce pickers.
Click to expand...

*I was discussing legal immigration, not illegal immigration.  Apparently you think they are one and the same.  Legal immigrants draw essentially the same pay as American workers.  They are covered under the same wage and hour laws and minimum wage laws.

 When you suggest denying college entrance to the top students in the world because they are foreigners, you would be killing the American technology sector because that is where we get our best technology talent.  25% of technology companies founded over the last 10 years were founded by an immigrant. 40% of all our computer engineers are foreign born and 25% of all science and technology workers are foreign born.  When you look at new graduates, it’s even more depressing.

Cut off the access to foreign technology workers and America would lose it's top technology companies which would include Google, Microsoft and Apple.


*


----------



## koshergrl

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the xenophobia and racism is responsible for the stereotypes that you keep falling back on. Legal immigrants in the US are less likely to be arrested for drugs or alcohol, and less likely to be arrested for most criminal acts than native born Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal Immigrants Accounted for Nearly 37 Percent of Federal Sentences in FY 2014 | Breitbart
> and in case you don't like the source:
> 
> Illegal immigrants responsible for almost three-fourths of federal drug possession sentences in 2014
> 
> Report: Illegals Committed 600,000 Crimes in Texas in 6 Yrs
> 
> Our crime rate with illegals should be 0%.  That's the problem.  I don't care how many less crimes they commit than Americans because THIS IS OUR COUNTRY, and we deal with our own.  But because we have murders, rapes, fraud, theft doesn't mean we should invite more of it to our country.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If legal immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans, it means employers are getting better employees. If not, they wouldn't be hiring them. This is exactly what we want and need, people that will make the nation more productive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they hire them because they can pay them crap, that's why they are hired.  Businesses who don't want to pay American wages get away with dragging people into this country to work for pennies on the dollar.  Yes, that lowers wages for native born Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> For too long, we have been attracting the greatest young minds in the world to our universities then sending them back home in 60 days rather than joining American companies and kicking the shit out of foreign competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the solution is to let them go to school somewhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> A kid from Indian rented a unit in our condo last month. He just graduated from Caltech with a masters in computer science. He got his BS from Stanford in Math and graduated in the top 10% of his Class. Microsoft wanted to hire him but because H2b Visas are limited, the company can't get his visa before his 60 days runs out which means he would have to stay in the country illegally to wait for the Visa. So he and his wife will go back to Indian and accept an offer from a major tech firm that competes with Microsoft, a victory for the alt right, and a loss for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We allow over a million foreigners into this country a year.  Let's create standards in which one can apply for citizenship in this country.  We'll start with how valuable you are for us, and that doesn't include lettuce pickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the xenophobia and racism is responsible for the stereotypes that you keep falling back on. Legal immigrants in the US are less likely to be arrested for drugs or alcohol, and less likely to be arrested for most criminal acts than native born Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal Immigrants Accounted for Nearly 37 Percent of Federal Sentences in FY 2014 | Breitbart
> and in case you don't like the source:
> 
> Illegal immigrants responsible for almost three-fourths of federal drug possession sentences in 2014
> 
> Report: Illegals Committed 600,000 Crimes in Texas in 6 Yrs
> 
> Our crime rate with illegals should be 0%.  That's the problem.  I don't care how many less crimes they commit than Americans because THIS IS OUR COUNTRY, and we deal with our own.  But because we have murders, rapes, fraud, theft doesn't mean we should invite more of it to our country.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If legal immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans, it means employers are getting better employees. If not, they wouldn't be hiring them. This is exactly what we want and need, people that will make the nation more productive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they hire them because they can pay them crap, that's why they are hired.  Businesses who don't want to pay American wages get away with dragging people into this country to work for pennies on the dollar.  Yes, that lowers wages for native born Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> For too long, we have been attracting the greatest young minds in the world to our universities then sending them back home in 60 days rather than joining American companies and kicking the shit out of foreign competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the solution is to let them go to school somewhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> A kid from Indian rented a unit in our condo last month. He just graduated from Caltech with a masters in computer science. He got his BS from Stanford in Math and graduated in the top 10% of his Class. Microsoft wanted to hire him but because H2b Visas are limited, the company can't get his visa before his 60 days runs out which means he would have to stay in the country illegally to wait for the Visa. So he and his wife will go back to Indian and accept an offer from a major tech firm that competes with Microsoft, a victory for the alt right, and a loss for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We allow over a million foreigners into this country a year.  Let's create standards in which one can apply for citizenship in this country.  We'll start with how valuable you are for us, and that doesn't include lettuce pickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I was discussing legal immigration, not illegal immigration.  Apparently you think they are one and the same.  Legal immigrants draw essentially the same pay as American workers.  They are covered under the same wage and hour laws and minimum wage laws.
> 
> When you suggest denying college entrance to the top students in the world because they are foreigners, you would be killing the American technology sector because that is where we get our best technology talent.  25% of technology companies founded over the last 10 years were founded by an immigrant. 40% of all our computer engineers are foreign born and 25% of all science and technology workers are foreign born.  When you look at new graduates, it’s even more depressing.*
Click to expand...


That's because we need to shut down the dept. of education, and stop all federal funding to schools. When we do that, education will immediately and dramatically improve in this country.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Statue of Liberty is for everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  It belongs to the United States, not to "everyone".
> 
> And I am immensely tired of hearing endlessly about a poem as though it not only has the force of law, but actually overrules the REAL laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares what you think?  You aren't the last word on immigration, or what the statue means or what America stands for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know what it stands for--Independence.  This is obvious by the tablet the statue is holding marking the day we adopted the Declaration of Independence.   The poor the weary stuff was added later on, but that's not why it was built:
> 
> *What is the quote on the statue of liberty?*
> 
> There are several phrases associated with the Statue of Liberty, but the most recognizable is “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” This quote comes from Emma Lazarus’ sonnet, New Colossus, which she wrote for a fundraiser auction to raise money for the pedestal upon which the Statue of Liberty now sits. The poem did not receive much recognition and was quite forgotten after the auction.
> 
> In the early 1900s and after Lazarus’ death, one of her friends began a campaign to memorialize Lazarus and her New Colossus sonnet. The effort was a success, and a plaque with the poem’s text was mounted inside the pedestal of the statute.
> 
> What is the quote on the statue of liberty? · How Tall is the Statue of Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this apparently cannot be said enough:
> 
> It's just a poem.  Has no force of law whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the point was the statue was not erected to welcome foreigners.  It was put there so that when foreigners come, they are reminded of the value of liberty--not put there as a Welcome Mat.
> 
> The statue was a gift from France with the sole intention of celebrating freedom.  The liberals like to use the poem to say that the statue was put here to welcome any and all foreigners into the country.  It's just a wives tale is all it is.
Click to expand...

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

*That sounds like a welcome mat to me.*


----------



## Flopper

koshergrl said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the xenophobia and racism is responsible for the stereotypes that you keep falling back on. Legal immigrants in the US are less likely to be arrested for drugs or alcohol, and less likely to be arrested for most criminal acts than native born Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal Immigrants Accounted for Nearly 37 Percent of Federal Sentences in FY 2014 | Breitbart
> and in case you don't like the source:
> 
> Illegal immigrants responsible for almost three-fourths of federal drug possession sentences in 2014
> 
> Report: Illegals Committed 600,000 Crimes in Texas in 6 Yrs
> 
> Our crime rate with illegals should be 0%.  That's the problem.  I don't care how many less crimes they commit than Americans because THIS IS OUR COUNTRY, and we deal with our own.  But because we have murders, rapes, fraud, theft doesn't mean we should invite more of it to our country.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If legal immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans, it means employers are getting better employees. If not, they wouldn't be hiring them. This is exactly what we want and need, people that will make the nation more productive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they hire them because they can pay them crap, that's why they are hired.  Businesses who don't want to pay American wages get away with dragging people into this country to work for pennies on the dollar.  Yes, that lowers wages for native born Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> For too long, we have been attracting the greatest young minds in the world to our universities then sending them back home in 60 days rather than joining American companies and kicking the shit out of foreign competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the solution is to let them go to school somewhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> A kid from Indian rented a unit in our condo last month. He just graduated from Caltech with a masters in computer science. He got his BS from Stanford in Math and graduated in the top 10% of his Class. Microsoft wanted to hire him but because H2b Visas are limited, the company can't get his visa before his 60 days runs out which means he would have to stay in the country illegally to wait for the Visa. So he and his wife will go back to Indian and accept an offer from a major tech firm that competes with Microsoft, a victory for the alt right, and a loss for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We allow over a million foreigners into this country a year.  Let's create standards in which one can apply for citizenship in this country.  We'll start with how valuable you are for us, and that doesn't include lettuce pickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the xenophobia and racism is responsible for the stereotypes that you keep falling back on. Legal immigrants in the US are less likely to be arrested for drugs or alcohol, and less likely to be arrested for most criminal acts than native born Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal Immigrants Accounted for Nearly 37 Percent of Federal Sentences in FY 2014 | Breitbart
> and in case you don't like the source:
> 
> Illegal immigrants responsible for almost three-fourths of federal drug possession sentences in 2014
> 
> Report: Illegals Committed 600,000 Crimes in Texas in 6 Yrs
> 
> Our crime rate with illegals should be 0%.  That's the problem.  I don't care how many less crimes they commit than Americans because THIS IS OUR COUNTRY, and we deal with our own.  But because we have murders, rapes, fraud, theft doesn't mean we should invite more of it to our country.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If legal immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans, it means employers are getting better employees. If not, they wouldn't be hiring them. This is exactly what we want and need, people that will make the nation more productive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they hire them because they can pay them crap, that's why they are hired.  Businesses who don't want to pay American wages get away with dragging people into this country to work for pennies on the dollar.  Yes, that lowers wages for native born Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> For too long, we have been attracting the greatest young minds in the world to our universities then sending them back home in 60 days rather than joining American companies and kicking the shit out of foreign competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the solution is to let them go to school somewhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> A kid from Indian rented a unit in our condo last month. He just graduated from Caltech with a masters in computer science. He got his BS from Stanford in Math and graduated in the top 10% of his Class. Microsoft wanted to hire him but because H2b Visas are limited, the company can't get his visa before his 60 days runs out which means he would have to stay in the country illegally to wait for the Visa. So he and his wife will go back to Indian and accept an offer from a major tech firm that competes with Microsoft, a victory for the alt right, and a loss for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We allow over a million foreigners into this country a year.  Let's create standards in which one can apply for citizenship in this country.  We'll start with how valuable you are for us, and that doesn't include lettuce pickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I was discussing legal immigration, not illegal immigration.  Apparently you think they are one and the same.  Legal immigrants draw essentially the same pay as American workers.  They are covered under the same wage and hour laws and minimum wage laws.
> 
> When you suggest denying college entrance to the top students in the world because they are foreigners, you would be killing the American technology sector because that is where we get our best technology talent.  25% of technology companies founded over the last 10 years were founded by an immigrant. 40% of all our computer engineers are foreign born and 25% of all science and technology workers are foreign born.  When you look at new graduates, it’s even more depressing.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because we need to shut down the dept. of education, and stop all federal funding to schools. When we do that, education will immediately and dramatically improve in this country.
Click to expand...


*Without the Dept of Education,
We wouldn’t have a federal department to administer Pell Grants to college students which would mean millions of low income students would not be able to attend college.

There wouldn’t be any oversight over states when they break civil rights laws and the number of civil rights cases in the court would increase by 200%.

There wouldn’t be a department to disclose rampant inequality between low-income school districts and wealthy districts.

We would have inconsistent education data, as the quality of data would vary among the states.

There would be more gender discrimination within schools.

There would be no way to hold schools accountable for the funds they receive.

There would no agency to research new techniques in education.

And would that improve education in the classroom?  It wouldn't because 99% of all curriculum and instruction decision are made locally or the state level, not in Washington. 

*


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I'm not fuming, just don't like that this innocent American died in vain. If anything, her story is what puts more people on our side; the very idea that some Americans would rather see a criminal let go than to serve rightful justice is what angers real Americans.



Rightful justice was done, buddy.  We don't prosecute people on the basis of polls, we prosecute them on the basis of evidence presented in a court of law by both sides.  Which is what was done here. And a jury of 12 citizens listened to the State's case and weren't' terribly impressed. Because when it got to the actual evidence, it wasn't what Hate Radio painted it as. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> So who said we have to produce anything? That's just what your puppet masters at the DNC told you and you believe them. Nothing wrong with a country that has 280, 230 or even 175 million people.



It's not the actual number that's the problem, Fifty First Dates, it's the age demographics.  You see, Between 2000 and 2010, the percentage of the populate older than age 65 jumped 15%. They now represent 9% of the population.  Since 1970, the number of people collecting Social Security has jumped from 25 million to nearly 60 million, and that will keep going up as the Baby Boomers retire. 

Without immigrants to fill some of those working positions, we aren't going to have enough workers to fill all the slots.  










Ray From Cleveland said:


> See, your party won't tell you what their real reason is, so they hoodwink their blind followers with all kinds of BS stories like we need more people in this country. There is no truth to it. The truth is they don't want any opposition in the future. They want a one-party country where they rule everything with no threats of ever losing power.



It seems to me that if the GOP can't win over the new generation of citizens, that's on them, isn't it?  

Here's the reality--- if people voted their own economic interests, the GOP would never win another election, because only about 20% of the population really benefits from their policies. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Because trust me, if these CA and Mexicans were known to vote strongly Republican, that wall would have been up in the Carter years and our border patrol would be three times the size today.



Okay, let's look at that. You see, the thing is, George W. Bush actually made the effort to reach out to the Hispanic vote in 2004.  He got 44% of the Hispanic vote, and was the only Republican to win the popular vote since his Dad in 1988.  

So now you have your boy Trump throwing brown people in concentration camps... and he only got 28% of the Hispanic vote and he'll do a lot worse with it 2020.


----------



## OODA_Loop

JoeB131 said:


> Without immigrants to fill some of those working positions, we aren't going to have enough workers to fill all the slots.



You will if you cease entitlements for the able-bodied.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Rightful justice was done, buddy. We don't prosecute people on the basis of polls, we prosecute them on the basis of evidence presented in a court of law by both sides. Which is what was done here. And a jury of 12 citizens listened to the State's case and weren't' terribly impressed. Because when it got to the actual evidence, it wasn't what Hate Radio painted it as.



Yes, it's fair in Joe's mind because a minority killed a white girl, and as a self-hating white, you approve of it.  But when a white police officer defends himself from a potential threat and kills a minority, it's the prosecutor didn't do his job, the officer was incompetent, they didn't present all the evidence and so on and so on. 

Why don't you just face facts Joe, the Democrats are for criminals and against authority plain and simple.  In nearly every instance, the Democrats stick up for evil and the Republicans stick up for the good.  



JoeB131 said:


> It's not the actual number that's the problem, Fifty First Dates, it's the age demographics. You see, Between 2000 and 2010, the percentage of the populate older than age 65 jumped 15%. They now represent 9% of the population. Since 1970, the number of people collecting Social Security has jumped from 25 million to nearly 60 million, and that will keep going up as the Baby Boomers retire.
> 
> Without immigrants to fill some of those working positions, we aren't going to have enough workers to fill all the slots.



So we become a smaller country.  WTF is wrong with that?  Where is it written that a country has to keep increasing their population?  For what reason?  Do you realize that when you were born, we only had 180 million people in this country?  We did just fine and in some cases, better than today.  So what would happen if we decreased back to 180 million that's so bad?  And before you answer, why wasn't it bad back in 1960?  



JoeB131 said:


> It seems to me that if the GOP can't win over the new generation of citizens, that's on them, isn't it?
> 
> Here's the reality--- if people voted their own economic interests, the GOP would never win another election, because only about 20% of the population really benefits from their policies.



The reason we are 20 trillion in debt is because people kept voting for their own economic interest instead of the interest of the country.  It all could have been avoided if we only listened to our founders who didn't want the federal government involved with over 90% of the things they are involved in today. 



JoeB131 said:


> Okay, let's look at that. You see, the thing is, George W. Bush actually made the effort to reach out to the Hispanic vote in 2004. He got 44% of the Hispanic vote, and was the only Republican to win the popular vote since his Dad in 1988.
> 
> So now you have your boy Trump throwing brown people in concentration camps... and he only got 28% of the Hispanic vote and he'll do a lot worse with it 2020.



GW got more Hispanics because he has a Hispanic in his family--Jeb's wife.  How did DumBama get such a large percentage of the Hispanic vote when he was throwing kids into concentration camps as you call them?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  It belongs to the United States, not to "everyone".
> 
> And I am immensely tired of hearing endlessly about a poem as though it not only has the force of law, but actually overrules the REAL laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares what you think?  You aren't the last word on immigration, or what the statue means or what America stands for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know what it stands for--Independence.  This is obvious by the tablet the statue is holding marking the day we adopted the Declaration of Independence.   The poor the weary stuff was added later on, but that's not why it was built:
> 
> *What is the quote on the statue of liberty?*
> 
> There are several phrases associated with the Statue of Liberty, but the most recognizable is “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” This quote comes from Emma Lazarus’ sonnet, New Colossus, which she wrote for a fundraiser auction to raise money for the pedestal upon which the Statue of Liberty now sits. The poem did not receive much recognition and was quite forgotten after the auction.
> 
> In the early 1900s and after Lazarus’ death, one of her friends began a campaign to memorialize Lazarus and her New Colossus sonnet. The effort was a success, and a plaque with the poem’s text was mounted inside the pedestal of the statute.
> 
> What is the quote on the statue of liberty? · How Tall is the Statue of Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this apparently cannot be said enough:
> 
> It's just a poem.  Has no force of law whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the point was the statue was not erected to welcome foreigners.  It was put there so that when foreigners come, they are reminded of the value of liberty--not put there as a Welcome Mat.
> 
> The statue was a gift from France with the sole intention of celebrating freedom.  The liberals like to use the poem to say that the statue was put here to welcome any and all foreigners into the country.  It's just a wives tale is all it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> * “Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”*
> 
> *That sounds like a welcome mat to me.*
Click to expand...


Which again, was added after the statue was up for several years by somebody that had little to do with the statue other than create the pedestal.  It was not the reason for the statue of liberty. The theme behind the statue was to celebrate Independence--not immigration.  Immigration had nothing to do with it.


----------



## JoeB131

OODA_Loop said:


> You will if you cease entitlements for the able-bodied.



Except that really isn't the case. Most of the people who are getting entitlements are white and not able bodied.  

You could end all welfare, and it wouldn't put a dent into budget.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes, it's fair in Joe's mind because a minority killed a white girl, and as a self-hating white, you approve of it. But when a white police officer defends himself from a potential threat and kills a minority, it's the prosecutor didn't do his job, the officer was incompetent, they didn't present all the evidence and so on and so on.



A white police officer is supposed to be a trained professional who is issued a gun and knows how and when to use it.  A guy who finds a gun some fool left lying on a bench isn't held to the same standard. 

Clearly, if you shoot a 12 year old playing with a toy, you REALLY WERE FUCKING INCOMPETENT.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Why don't you just face facts Joe, the Democrats are for criminals and against authority plain and simple. In nearly every instance, the Democrats stick up for evil and the Republicans stick up for the good.



Racist cops aren't good. 
Big corporations aren't good. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> So we become a smaller country.



Are you FUCKING RETARDED?  I just explained to you it's not the numbers, it's the percentages.  If we become a smaller country with no one doing the work, we can sustain ourselves.  The old can't work after a certain point. There aren't enough young people to support them unless we import more.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> So what would happen if we decreased back to 180 million that's so bad? And before you answer, why wasn't it bad back in 1960?



It wasn't that bad in 1960 because only 5% of the population was over 65, and the average lifespan in 1960 was 69.  Today it's 78.  

In 1960, we were at the tail end of the "Baby Boom", where families were having more kids than they are now.  Today, they aren't.  

So we got more people living longer, with less new people to support them in their dotage.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> The reason we are 20 trillion in debt is because people kept voting for their own economic interest instead of the interest of the country. It all could have been avoided if we only listened to our founders who didn't want the federal government involved with over 90% of the things they are involved in today.



Sorry, man, I like  having roads and sanitation and other things that were unknown to the founding slave rapists, but you need a modern society to have. 

We are 20 Trillion in debt because we kept giving tax cuts to the rich instead of redistributing the wealth.  

From 1776 to 1980, we ran up less than a trillion in debt, mostly because- wait for it- the rich paid their fair share.  We had world wars, space programs, superhighways... and we paid for all these things as we bought them.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> GW got more Hispanics because he has a Hispanic in his family--Jeb's wife. How did DumBama get such a large percentage of the Hispanic vote when he was throwing kids into concentration camps as you call them?



Most Hispanics didn't know who Jeb's wife was and didn't care.  They voted for Dubya because he actually proposed sensible plans and reached out to them. 

And, no, Obama didn't throw kids into Concentration Camps... that's your boy Trump.


----------



## koshergrl

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the xenophobia and racism is responsible for the stereotypes that you keep falling back on. Legal immigrants in the US are less likely to be arrested for drugs or alcohol, and less likely to be arrested for most criminal acts than native born Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal Immigrants Accounted for Nearly 37 Percent of Federal Sentences in FY 2014 | Breitbart
> and in case you don't like the source:
> 
> Illegal immigrants responsible for almost three-fourths of federal drug possession sentences in 2014
> 
> Report: Illegals Committed 600,000 Crimes in Texas in 6 Yrs
> 
> Our crime rate with illegals should be 0%.  That's the problem.  I don't care how many less crimes they commit than Americans because THIS IS OUR COUNTRY, and we deal with our own.  But because we have murders, rapes, fraud, theft doesn't mean we should invite more of it to our country.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If legal immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans, it means employers are getting better employees. If not, they wouldn't be hiring them. This is exactly what we want and need, people that will make the nation more productive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they hire them because they can pay them crap, that's why they are hired.  Businesses who don't want to pay American wages get away with dragging people into this country to work for pennies on the dollar.  Yes, that lowers wages for native born Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> For too long, we have been attracting the greatest young minds in the world to our universities then sending them back home in 60 days rather than joining American companies and kicking the shit out of foreign competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the solution is to let them go to school somewhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> A kid from Indian rented a unit in our condo last month. He just graduated from Caltech with a masters in computer science. He got his BS from Stanford in Math and graduated in the top 10% of his Class. Microsoft wanted to hire him but because H2b Visas are limited, the company can't get his visa before his 60 days runs out which means he would have to stay in the country illegally to wait for the Visa. So he and his wife will go back to Indian and accept an offer from a major tech firm that competes with Microsoft, a victory for the alt right, and a loss for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We allow over a million foreigners into this country a year.  Let's create standards in which one can apply for citizenship in this country.  We'll start with how valuable you are for us, and that doesn't include lettuce pickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the xenophobia and racism is responsible for the stereotypes that you keep falling back on. Legal immigrants in the US are less likely to be arrested for drugs or alcohol, and less likely to be arrested for most criminal acts than native born Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal Immigrants Accounted for Nearly 37 Percent of Federal Sentences in FY 2014 | Breitbart
> and in case you don't like the source:
> 
> Illegal immigrants responsible for almost three-fourths of federal drug possession sentences in 2014
> 
> Report: Illegals Committed 600,000 Crimes in Texas in 6 Yrs
> 
> Our crime rate with illegals should be 0%.  That's the problem.  I don't care how many less crimes they commit than Americans because THIS IS OUR COUNTRY, and we deal with our own.  But because we have murders, rapes, fraud, theft doesn't mean we should invite more of it to our country.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If legal immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans, it means employers are getting better employees. If not, they wouldn't be hiring them. This is exactly what we want and need, people that will make the nation more productive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they hire them because they can pay them crap, that's why they are hired.  Businesses who don't want to pay American wages get away with dragging people into this country to work for pennies on the dollar.  Yes, that lowers wages for native born Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> For too long, we have been attracting the greatest young minds in the world to our universities then sending them back home in 60 days rather than joining American companies and kicking the shit out of foreign competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the solution is to let them go to school somewhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> A kid from Indian rented a unit in our condo last month. He just graduated from Caltech with a masters in computer science. He got his BS from Stanford in Math and graduated in the top 10% of his Class. Microsoft wanted to hire him but because H2b Visas are limited, the company can't get his visa before his 60 days runs out which means he would have to stay in the country illegally to wait for the Visa. So he and his wife will go back to Indian and accept an offer from a major tech firm that competes with Microsoft, a victory for the alt right, and a loss for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We allow over a million foreigners into this country a year.  Let's create standards in which one can apply for citizenship in this country.  We'll start with how valuable you are for us, and that doesn't include lettuce pickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I was discussing legal immigration, not illegal immigration.  Apparently you think they are one and the same.  Legal immigrants draw essentially the same pay as American workers.  They are covered under the same wage and hour laws and minimum wage laws.
> 
> When you suggest denying college entrance to the top students in the world because they are foreigners, you would be killing the American technology sector because that is where we get our best technology talent.  25% of technology companies founded over the last 10 years were founded by an immigrant. 40% of all our computer engineers are foreign born and 25% of all science and technology workers are foreign born.  When you look at new graduates, it’s even more depressing.*
Click to expand...


That's because we need to shut down the dept. of education, and stop all federal funding to schools. When we do that, education will immediately and dramatically improve in this country.


----------



## koshergrl

Flopper said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the xenophobia and racism is responsible for the stereotypes that you keep falling back on. Legal immigrants in the US are less likely to be arrested for drugs or alcohol, and less likely to be arrested for most criminal acts than native born Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal Immigrants Accounted for Nearly 37 Percent of Federal Sentences in FY 2014 | Breitbart
> and in case you don't like the source:
> 
> Illegal immigrants responsible for almost three-fourths of federal drug possession sentences in 2014
> 
> Report: Illegals Committed 600,000 Crimes in Texas in 6 Yrs
> 
> Our crime rate with illegals should be 0%.  That's the problem.  I don't care how many less crimes they commit than Americans because THIS IS OUR COUNTRY, and we deal with our own.  But because we have murders, rapes, fraud, theft doesn't mean we should invite more of it to our country.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If legal immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans, it means employers are getting better employees. If not, they wouldn't be hiring them. This is exactly what we want and need, people that will make the nation more productive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they hire them because they can pay them crap, that's why they are hired.  Businesses who don't want to pay American wages get away with dragging people into this country to work for pennies on the dollar.  Yes, that lowers wages for native born Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> For too long, we have been attracting the greatest young minds in the world to our universities then sending them back home in 60 days rather than joining American companies and kicking the shit out of foreign competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the solution is to let them go to school somewhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> A kid from Indian rented a unit in our condo last month. He just graduated from Caltech with a masters in computer science. He got his BS from Stanford in Math and graduated in the top 10% of his Class. Microsoft wanted to hire him but because H2b Visas are limited, the company can't get his visa before his 60 days runs out which means he would have to stay in the country illegally to wait for the Visa. So he and his wife will go back to Indian and accept an offer from a major tech firm that competes with Microsoft, a victory for the alt right, and a loss for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We allow over a million foreigners into this country a year.  Let's create standards in which one can apply for citizenship in this country.  We'll start with how valuable you are for us, and that doesn't include lettuce pickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the xenophobia and racism is responsible for the stereotypes that you keep falling back on. Legal immigrants in the US are less likely to be arrested for drugs or alcohol, and less likely to be arrested for most criminal acts than native born Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal Immigrants Accounted for Nearly 37 Percent of Federal Sentences in FY 2014 | Breitbart
> and in case you don't like the source:
> 
> Illegal immigrants responsible for almost three-fourths of federal drug possession sentences in 2014
> 
> Report: Illegals Committed 600,000 Crimes in Texas in 6 Yrs
> 
> Our crime rate with illegals should be 0%.  That's the problem.  I don't care how many less crimes they commit than Americans because THIS IS OUR COUNTRY, and we deal with our own.  But because we have murders, rapes, fraud, theft doesn't mean we should invite more of it to our country.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If legal immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans, it means employers are getting better employees. If not, they wouldn't be hiring them. This is exactly what we want and need, people that will make the nation more productive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they hire them because they can pay them crap, that's why they are hired.  Businesses who don't want to pay American wages get away with dragging people into this country to work for pennies on the dollar.  Yes, that lowers wages for native born Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> For too long, we have been attracting the greatest young minds in the world to our universities then sending them back home in 60 days rather than joining American companies and kicking the shit out of foreign competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the solution is to let them go to school somewhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> A kid from Indian rented a unit in our condo last month. He just graduated from Caltech with a masters in computer science. He got his BS from Stanford in Math and graduated in the top 10% of his Class. Microsoft wanted to hire him but because H2b Visas are limited, the company can't get his visa before his 60 days runs out which means he would have to stay in the country illegally to wait for the Visa. So he and his wife will go back to Indian and accept an offer from a major tech firm that competes with Microsoft, a victory for the alt right, and a loss for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We allow over a million foreigners into this country a year.  Let's create standards in which one can apply for citizenship in this country.  We'll start with how valuable you are for us, and that doesn't include lettuce pickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I was discussing legal immigration, not illegal immigration.  Apparently you think they are one and the same.  Legal immigrants draw essentially the same pay as American workers.  They are covered under the same wage and hour laws and minimum wage laws.
> 
> When you suggest denying college entrance to the top students in the world because they are foreigners, you would be killing the American technology sector because that is where we get our best technology talent.  25% of technology companies founded over the last 10 years were founded by an immigrant. 40% of all our computer engineers are foreign born and 25% of all science and technology workers are foreign born.  When you look at new graduates, it’s even more depressing.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because we need to shut down the dept. of education, and stop all federal funding to schools. When we do that, education will immediately and dramatically improve in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Without the Dept of Education,
> We wouldn’t have a federal department to administer Pell Grants to college students which would mean millions of low income students would not be able to attend college.
> 
> There wouldn’t be any oversight over states when they break civil rights laws and the number of civil rights cases in the court would increase by 200%.
> 
> There wouldn’t be a department to disclose rampant inequality between low-income school districts and wealthy districts.
> 
> We would have inconsistent education data, as the quality of data would vary among the states.
> 
> There would be more gender discrimination within schools.
> 
> There would be no way to hold schools accountable for the funds they receive.
> 
> There would no agency to research new techniques in education.
> 
> And would that improve education in the classroom?  It wouldn't because 99% of all curriculum and instruction decision are made locally or the state level, not in Washington.
> *
Click to expand...


What total statist drivel. 

Eliminate the department of ed. The world will not collapse. Schools will immediately improve. And if you think I'll scream "omg protect the college funding!" you've confused me with someone else. 

I think the schools should be shut down..including the colleges.


----------



## koshergrl

And btw, no, we do not need the dept. of ed to assure civil rights are protected, what nonsense. It didn't even come into being until 1978...which is, incidentally, almost the exact minute our education system started crapping out retards.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> A white police officer is supposed to be a trained professional who is issued a gun and knows how and when to use it. A guy who finds a gun some fool left lying on a bench isn't held to the same standard.
> 
> Clearly, if you shoot a 12 year old playing with a toy, you REALLY WERE FUCKING INCOMPETENT.



Yes, because I can't remember what I did with the last few guns I found laying around on a bench, can you? 

You people are such saps and that's why the liberals know they can get away telling you anything they want.  Like some other guy busted out a car window, stole the gun because it's a hot commodity---especially in CA, and just decided he was bored with it.  So instead of selling it on the streets for a quick few hundred bucks, he decided to leave it on some park bench loaded and ready to go.    And you actually believe that.

Yes, police are trained.  They are trained that if somebody is pulling a gun out, you get them before they get you. 





JoeB131 said:


> Racist cops aren't good.
> Big corporations aren't good.




Well there you go:  people that protect the public and provide us with jobs are not good.  Illegals who come here, break our laws, commit crime are the good people to a liberal.  If you kill an innocent American, you get liberal bonus points.



JoeB131 said:


> Are you FUCKING RETARDED? I just explained to you it's not the numbers, it's the percentages. If we become a smaller country with no one doing the work, we can sustain ourselves. The old can't work after a certain point. There aren't enough young people to support them unless we import more.



I see.  So what you are admitting is that socialism and liberalism are failures.  Good admission on your part.

So what happens when these people supporting baby boomers now get old?  Their lifespan will probably be in the mid 80's by then.  Do we bring in more third-worlders to support them?  And then who will support those additional third worlders when they get older?

So we have 320 million people now, and left up to Democrats, we will have 400 million by 2025, then 600 million by 2040.  Just how many people do you want to see in this country Joe?  And when that limit (whatever you may believe it is) is met, how will we support our senior citizens then? 




JoeB131 said:


> It wasn't that bad in 1960 because only 5% of the population was over 65, and the average lifespan in 1960 was 69. Today it's 78.
> 
> In 1960, we were at the tail end of the "Baby Boom", where families were having more kids than they are now. Today, they aren't.
> 
> So we got more people living longer, with less new people to support them in their dotage.



It wasn't supposed to work like that, remember? 

Government was to take a large portion of our paychecks, put it in a piggy bank, and able to support us on the money we gave them.  What went wrong? 



JoeB131 said:


> Sorry, man, I like having roads and sanitation and other things that were unknown to the founding slave rapists, but you need a modern society to have.
> 
> We are 20 Trillion in debt because we kept giving tax cuts to the rich instead of redistributing the wealth.
> 
> From 1776 to 1980, we ran up less than a trillion in debt, mostly because- wait for it- the rich paid their fair share. We had world wars, space programs, superhighways... and we paid for all these things as we bought them.



And you thought that would continue forever, didn't you?

_*"Socialism is a great form of government until you run out of other people's money to spend." *_
Margret Thatcher

Well here's the truth Joe, and I won't even provide a site (since you'll refuse to learn anything anyway) so you can look it up yourself:

If we took every dime from people that have a million dollars or more today, we couldn't run this country for one single year.  So this idiocy that we incurred 20 trillion in debt because we didn't steal enough money from people is pure economic ignorance.  The top 20% of our country pays nearly all the taxes that run it. 



JoeB131 said:


> Most Hispanics didn't know who Jeb's wife was and didn't care. They voted for Dubya because he actually proposed sensible plans and reached out to them.
> 
> And, no, Obama didn't throw kids into Concentration Camps... that's your boy Trump.



Sure he didn't, that's why the MSM dug up pictures of kids in cages and tried to make it out as if those pictures were taken during the Trump administration.

Bush has been kissing ass to Hispanics since he was Governor, and yes, everybody knew about his sister-n-law.  It's not like the Bush family was a deep dark secret until George decided to run for the presidency.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Statue of Liberty is for everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  It belongs to the United States, not to "everyone".
> 
> And I am immensely tired of hearing endlessly about a poem as though it not only has the force of law, but actually overrules the REAL laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares what you think?  You aren't the last word on immigration, or what the statue means or what America stands for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know what it stands for--Independence.  This is obvious by the tablet the statue is holding marking the day we adopted the Declaration of Independence.   The poor the weary stuff was added later on, but that's not why it was built:
> 
> *What is the quote on the statue of liberty?*
> 
> There are several phrases associated with the Statue of Liberty, but the most recognizable is “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” This quote comes from Emma Lazarus’ sonnet, New Colossus, which she wrote for a fundraiser auction to raise money for the pedestal upon which the Statue of Liberty now sits. The poem did not receive much recognition and was quite forgotten after the auction.
> 
> In the early 1900s and after Lazarus’ death, one of her friends began a campaign to memorialize Lazarus and her New Colossus sonnet. The effort was a success, and a plaque with the poem’s text was mounted inside the pedestal of the statute.
> 
> What is the quote on the statue of liberty? · How Tall is the Statue of Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this apparently cannot be said enough:
> 
> It's just a poem.  Has no force of law whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, no force of law at all. Yet those words have had tremendous influence on Americans and people around the world.  Every time I heard people say don't pay any attention to what he says, his words mean nothing, I think of these words.
> 
> _Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
> With silent lips. *“Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”*_
Click to expand...


I just heard, "Only the feeelz matter!"


----------



## danielpalos

koshergrl said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the xenophobia and racism is responsible for the stereotypes that you keep falling back on. Legal immigrants in the US are less likely to be arrested for drugs or alcohol, and less likely to be arrested for most criminal acts than native born Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal Immigrants Accounted for Nearly 37 Percent of Federal Sentences in FY 2014 | Breitbart
> and in case you don't like the source:
> 
> Illegal immigrants responsible for almost three-fourths of federal drug possession sentences in 2014
> 
> Report: Illegals Committed 600,000 Crimes in Texas in 6 Yrs
> 
> Our crime rate with illegals should be 0%.  That's the problem.  I don't care how many less crimes they commit than Americans because THIS IS OUR COUNTRY, and we deal with our own.  But because we have murders, rapes, fraud, theft doesn't mean we should invite more of it to our country.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If legal immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans, it means employers are getting better employees. If not, they wouldn't be hiring them. This is exactly what we want and need, people that will make the nation more productive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they hire them because they can pay them crap, that's why they are hired.  Businesses who don't want to pay American wages get away with dragging people into this country to work for pennies on the dollar.  Yes, that lowers wages for native born Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> For too long, we have been attracting the greatest young minds in the world to our universities then sending them back home in 60 days rather than joining American companies and kicking the shit out of foreign competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the solution is to let them go to school somewhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> A kid from Indian rented a unit in our condo last month. He just graduated from Caltech with a masters in computer science. He got his BS from Stanford in Math and graduated in the top 10% of his Class. Microsoft wanted to hire him but because H2b Visas are limited, the company can't get his visa before his 60 days runs out which means he would have to stay in the country illegally to wait for the Visa. So he and his wife will go back to Indian and accept an offer from a major tech firm that competes with Microsoft, a victory for the alt right, and a loss for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We allow over a million foreigners into this country a year.  Let's create standards in which one can apply for citizenship in this country.  We'll start with how valuable you are for us, and that doesn't include lettuce pickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the xenophobia and racism is responsible for the stereotypes that you keep falling back on. Legal immigrants in the US are less likely to be arrested for drugs or alcohol, and less likely to be arrested for most criminal acts than native born Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal Immigrants Accounted for Nearly 37 Percent of Federal Sentences in FY 2014 | Breitbart
> and in case you don't like the source:
> 
> Illegal immigrants responsible for almost three-fourths of federal drug possession sentences in 2014
> 
> Report: Illegals Committed 600,000 Crimes in Texas in 6 Yrs
> 
> Our crime rate with illegals should be 0%.  That's the problem.  I don't care how many less crimes they commit than Americans because THIS IS OUR COUNTRY, and we deal with our own.  But because we have murders, rapes, fraud, theft doesn't mean we should invite more of it to our country.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If legal immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans, it means employers are getting better employees. If not, they wouldn't be hiring them. This is exactly what we want and need, people that will make the nation more productive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they hire them because they can pay them crap, that's why they are hired.  Businesses who don't want to pay American wages get away with dragging people into this country to work for pennies on the dollar.  Yes, that lowers wages for native born Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> For too long, we have been attracting the greatest young minds in the world to our universities then sending them back home in 60 days rather than joining American companies and kicking the shit out of foreign competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the solution is to let them go to school somewhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> A kid from Indian rented a unit in our condo last month. He just graduated from Caltech with a masters in computer science. He got his BS from Stanford in Math and graduated in the top 10% of his Class. Microsoft wanted to hire him but because H2b Visas are limited, the company can't get his visa before his 60 days runs out which means he would have to stay in the country illegally to wait for the Visa. So he and his wife will go back to Indian and accept an offer from a major tech firm that competes with Microsoft, a victory for the alt right, and a loss for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We allow over a million foreigners into this country a year.  Let's create standards in which one can apply for citizenship in this country.  We'll start with how valuable you are for us, and that doesn't include lettuce pickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I was discussing legal immigration, not illegal immigration.  Apparently you think they are one and the same.  Legal immigrants draw essentially the same pay as American workers.  They are covered under the same wage and hour laws and minimum wage laws.
> 
> When you suggest denying college entrance to the top students in the world because they are foreigners, you would be killing the American technology sector because that is where we get our best technology talent.  25% of technology companies founded over the last 10 years were founded by an immigrant. 40% of all our computer engineers are foreign born and 25% of all science and technology workers are foreign born.  When you look at new graduates, it’s even more depressing.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because we need to shut down the dept. of education, and stop all federal funding to schools. When we do that, education will immediately and dramatically improve in this country.
Click to expand...

in right wing fantasy?


----------



## Redfish

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  It belongs to the United States, not to "everyone".
> 
> And I am immensely tired of hearing endlessly about a poem as though it not only has the force of law, but actually overrules the REAL laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares what you think?  You aren't the last word on immigration, or what the statue means or what America stands for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know what it stands for--Independence.  This is obvious by the tablet the statue is holding marking the day we adopted the Declaration of Independence.   The poor the weary stuff was added later on, but that's not why it was built:
> 
> *What is the quote on the statue of liberty?*
> 
> There are several phrases associated with the Statue of Liberty, but the most recognizable is “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” This quote comes from Emma Lazarus’ sonnet, New Colossus, which she wrote for a fundraiser auction to raise money for the pedestal upon which the Statue of Liberty now sits. The poem did not receive much recognition and was quite forgotten after the auction.
> 
> In the early 1900s and after Lazarus’ death, one of her friends began a campaign to memorialize Lazarus and her New Colossus sonnet. The effort was a success, and a plaque with the poem’s text was mounted inside the pedestal of the statute.
> 
> What is the quote on the statue of liberty? · How Tall is the Statue of Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this apparently cannot be said enough:
> 
> It's just a poem.  Has no force of law whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the point was the statue was not erected to welcome foreigners.  It was put there so that when foreigners come, they are reminded of the value of liberty--not put there as a Welcome Mat.
> 
> The statue was a gift from France with the sole intention of celebrating freedom.  The liberals like to use the poem to say that the statue was put here to welcome any and all foreigners into the country.  It's just a wives tale is all it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> * “Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”*
> 
> *That sounds like a welcome mat to me.*
Click to expand...



come in legally and you are welcome,  sneak in illegally and you are a criminal, simple as that.


----------



## Contumacious

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​





THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO INTERDICT DETAIN AND DEPORT BECAUSE THE STATES RETAINED THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL IMMIGRATION.

IN 1889 A RACIST SCOTUS (9 WHITE GUYS) USURPED THE AUTHORITY BECAUSE THEY CONCLUDED THAT THE CHINESE HAD CREATED AN "EMERGENCY" BY INSISTING TO WORK IN CALIFORNIA'S GOLD MINES.

.


----------



## Redfish

Contumacious said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO INTERDICT DETAIN AND DEPORT BECAUSE THE STATES RETAINED THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL IMMIGRATION.
> 
> IN 1889 A RACIST SCOTUS (9 WHITE GUYS) USURPED THE AUTHORITY BECAUSE THEY CONCLUDED THAT THE CHINESE HAD CREATED AN "EMERGENCY" BY INSISTING TO WORK IN CALIFORNIA'S GOLD MINES.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



wrong, immigration is federal law, not state


----------



## Contumacious

Redfish said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO INTERDICT DETAIN AND DEPORT BECAUSE THE STATES RETAINED THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL IMMIGRATION.
> 
> IN 1889 A RACIST SCOTUS (9 WHITE GUYS) USURPED THE AUTHORITY BECAUSE THEY CONCLUDED THAT THE CHINESE HAD CREATED AN "EMERGENCY" BY INSISTING TO WORK IN CALIFORNIA'S GOLD MINES.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wrong, immigration is federal law, not state
Click to expand...


*4.* _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that *no power over them has been delegated to the United States*, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.

*Thomas Jefferson*


Identify the federal Law in effect from 1800 until 1889


.


----------



## danielpalos

Just more right wing fake news a fake Causes.  Immigration cannot be a problem if we have alleged and Right Wing wars on crime, drugs, and terror; 10USC246 must apply, first.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares what you think?  You aren't the last word on immigration, or what the statue means or what America stands for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know what it stands for--Independence.  This is obvious by the tablet the statue is holding marking the day we adopted the Declaration of Independence.   The poor the weary stuff was added later on, but that's not why it was built:
> 
> *What is the quote on the statue of liberty?*
> 
> There are several phrases associated with the Statue of Liberty, but the most recognizable is “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” This quote comes from Emma Lazarus’ sonnet, New Colossus, which she wrote for a fundraiser auction to raise money for the pedestal upon which the Statue of Liberty now sits. The poem did not receive much recognition and was quite forgotten after the auction.
> 
> In the early 1900s and after Lazarus’ death, one of her friends began a campaign to memorialize Lazarus and her New Colossus sonnet. The effort was a success, and a plaque with the poem’s text was mounted inside the pedestal of the statute.
> 
> What is the quote on the statue of liberty? · How Tall is the Statue of Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this apparently cannot be said enough:
> 
> It's just a poem.  Has no force of law whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the point was the statue was not erected to welcome foreigners.  It was put there so that when foreigners come, they are reminded of the value of liberty--not put there as a Welcome Mat.
> 
> The statue was a gift from France with the sole intention of celebrating freedom.  The liberals like to use the poem to say that the statue was put here to welcome any and all foreigners into the country.  It's just a wives tale is all it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> * “Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”*
> 
> *That sounds like a welcome mat to me.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which again, was added after the statue was up for several years by somebody that had little to do with the statue other than create the pedestal.  It was not the reason for the statue of liberty. The theme behind the statue was to celebrate Independence--not immigration.  Immigration had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

*I agree.  Immigration was not an issue.  Except for the Chinese, our borders were open to all nationalities.  The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the torch, heading toward Ellis Island.  

Maybe we should change the inscription because America certainly doesn't welcome your tired, poor, homeless, and huddled masses.  In fact, that is exactly who we're trying to keep out.  Who we really want in America is White English speaking well educated upper class immigrants, who have never known adversity and who will raise over-privileged white children to follow in their footsteps.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Maybe we should change the inscription because America certainly doesn't welcome your tired, poor, homeless, and huddled masses. In fact, that is exactly who we're trying to keep out



That is correct because we have enough of our own to take care of.  We can't take care of the other 7 billion or so that didn't make it here yet.  20 trillion?  Who's counting?  

It may not seem like it to you, but we are a country with a lot of our own problems.  We have crime problems, drug problems, debt problems, obesity problems, healthcare problems..........  

Maybe someday we will be able to take control of our problems, but until that time, we don't need to be inviting more problems in.


----------



## danielpalos

End our wars on crime, drugs, and terror to stop creating refugees.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should change the inscription because America certainly doesn't welcome your tired, poor, homeless, and huddled masses. In fact, that is exactly who we're trying to keep out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct because we have enough of our own to take care of.  We can't take care of the other 7 billion or so that didn't make it here yet.  20 trillion?  Who's counting?
> 
> It may not seem like it to you, but we are a country with a lot of our own problems.  We have crime problems, drug problems, debt problems, obesity problems, healthcare problems..........
> 
> Maybe someday we will be able to take control of our problems, but until that time, we don't need to be inviting more problems in.
Click to expand...

*It's pretty obvious that we don't have the solutions to those problems.  The same people doing the same thing over and over is not going to solve anything.  Maybe instead of looking inward for solutions we should be looking outward.  Being that this country was build by immigrants and their offspring, building a wall around the country with a keep out sign might be a very bad idea. *


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should change the inscription because America certainly doesn't welcome your tired, poor, homeless, and huddled masses. In fact, that is exactly who we're trying to keep out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct because we have enough of our own to take care of.  We can't take care of the other 7 billion or so that didn't make it here yet.  20 trillion?  Who's counting?
> 
> It may not seem like it to you, but we are a country with a lot of our own problems.  We have crime problems, drug problems, debt problems, obesity problems, healthcare problems..........
> 
> Maybe someday we will be able to take control of our problems, but until that time, we don't need to be inviting more problems in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It's pretty obvious that we don't have the solutions to those problems.  The same people doing the same thing over and over is not going to solve anything.  Maybe instead of looking inward for solutions we should be looking outward.  Being that this country was build by immigrants and their offspring, building a wall around the country with a keep out sign might be a very bad idea. *
Click to expand...


I don't know why.  Even with the wall, we will continue as always to allow "some" people to come in. We will allow nearly a million new people a year to become citizens of this great country.  All the wall will do is keep people out who are not supposed to be here.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should change the inscription because America certainly doesn't welcome your tired, poor, homeless, and huddled masses. In fact, that is exactly who we're trying to keep out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct because we have enough of our own to take care of.  We can't take care of the other 7 billion or so that didn't make it here yet.  20 trillion?  Who's counting?
> 
> It may not seem like it to you, but we are a country with a lot of our own problems.  We have crime problems, drug problems, debt problems, obesity problems, healthcare problems..........
> 
> Maybe someday we will be able to take control of our problems, but until that time, we don't need to be inviting more problems in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It's pretty obvious that we don't have the solutions to those problems.  The same people doing the same thing over and over is not going to solve anything.  Maybe instead of looking inward for solutions we should be looking outward.  Being that this country was build by immigrants and their offspring, building a wall around the country with a keep out sign might be a very bad idea. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know why.  Even with the wall, we will continue as always to allow "some" people to come in. We will allow nearly a million new people a year to become citizens of this great country.  All the wall will do is keep people out who are not supposed to be here.
Click to expand...

*I thought your position was to stop immigration both legal and illegal.  When I said, "building a wall around the country", I was speaking figuratively and referring to isolationism.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should change the inscription because America certainly doesn't welcome your tired, poor, homeless, and huddled masses. In fact, that is exactly who we're trying to keep out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct because we have enough of our own to take care of.  We can't take care of the other 7 billion or so that didn't make it here yet.  20 trillion?  Who's counting?
> 
> It may not seem like it to you, but we are a country with a lot of our own problems.  We have crime problems, drug problems, debt problems, obesity problems, healthcare problems..........
> 
> Maybe someday we will be able to take control of our problems, but until that time, we don't need to be inviting more problems in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It's pretty obvious that we don't have the solutions to those problems.  The same people doing the same thing over and over is not going to solve anything.  Maybe instead of looking inward for solutions we should be looking outward.  Being that this country was build by immigrants and their offspring, building a wall around the country with a keep out sign might be a very bad idea. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know why.  Even with the wall, we will continue as always to allow "some" people to come in. We will allow nearly a million new people a year to become citizens of this great country.  All the wall will do is keep people out who are not supposed to be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I thought your position was to stop immigration both legal and illegal.  When I said, "building a wall around the country", I was speaking figuratively and referring to isolationism.*
Click to expand...


Oh, without a doubt that is my position, but the wall was not in support of what I think, it was in support to curb illegal crossings.  

There is no possible way that even Republicans would vote to stop all immigration, but I will support any measure that gets us closer to my desire.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should change the inscription because America certainly doesn't welcome your tired, poor, homeless, and huddled masses. In fact, that is exactly who we're trying to keep out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct because we have enough of our own to take care of.  We can't take care of the other 7 billion or so that didn't make it here yet.  20 trillion?  Who's counting?
> 
> It may not seem like it to you, but we are a country with a lot of our own problems.  We have crime problems, drug problems, debt problems, obesity problems, healthcare problems..........
> 
> Maybe someday we will be able to take control of our problems, but until that time, we don't need to be inviting more problems in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It's pretty obvious that we don't have the solutions to those problems.  The same people doing the same thing over and over is not going to solve anything.  Maybe instead of looking inward for solutions we should be looking outward.  Being that this country was build by immigrants and their offspring, building a wall around the country with a keep out sign might be a very bad idea. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know why.  Even with the wall, we will continue as always to allow "some" people to come in. We will allow nearly a million new people a year to become citizens of this great country.  All the wall will do is keep people out who are not supposed to be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I thought your position was to stop immigration both legal and illegal.  When I said, "building a wall around the country", I was speaking figuratively and referring to isolationism.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, without a doubt that is my position, but the wall was not in support of what I think, it was in support to curb illegal crossings.
> 
> There is no possible way that even Republicans would vote to stop all immigration, but I will support any measure that gets us closer to my desire.
Click to expand...

*Maybe we should discuss legal immigration because we both agree illegal immigration needs to stop.  We just don't agree on the means.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct because we have enough of our own to take care of.  We can't take care of the other 7 billion or so that didn't make it here yet.  20 trillion?  Who's counting?
> 
> It may not seem like it to you, but we are a country with a lot of our own problems.  We have crime problems, drug problems, debt problems, obesity problems, healthcare problems..........
> 
> Maybe someday we will be able to take control of our problems, but until that time, we don't need to be inviting more problems in.
> 
> 
> 
> *It's pretty obvious that we don't have the solutions to those problems.  The same people doing the same thing over and over is not going to solve anything.  Maybe instead of looking inward for solutions we should be looking outward.  Being that this country was build by immigrants and their offspring, building a wall around the country with a keep out sign might be a very bad idea. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know why.  Even with the wall, we will continue as always to allow "some" people to come in. We will allow nearly a million new people a year to become citizens of this great country.  All the wall will do is keep people out who are not supposed to be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I thought your position was to stop immigration both legal and illegal.  When I said, "building a wall around the country", I was speaking figuratively and referring to isolationism.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, without a doubt that is my position, but the wall was not in support of what I think, it was in support to curb illegal crossings.
> 
> There is no possible way that even Republicans would vote to stop all immigration, but I will support any measure that gets us closer to my desire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Maybe we should discuss legal immigration because we both agree illegal immigration needs to stop.  We just don't agree on the means.*
Click to expand...


What's to discuss?  We have legal immigration and have had it for decades.  There is nothing wrong with our immigration system outside of not enforcing it.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It's pretty obvious that we don't have the solutions to those problems.  The same people doing the same thing over and over is not going to solve anything.  Maybe instead of looking inward for solutions we should be looking outward.  Being that this country was build by immigrants and their offspring, building a wall around the country with a keep out sign might be a very bad idea. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why.  Even with the wall, we will continue as always to allow "some" people to come in. We will allow nearly a million new people a year to become citizens of this great country.  All the wall will do is keep people out who are not supposed to be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I thought your position was to stop immigration both legal and illegal.  When I said, "building a wall around the country", I was speaking figuratively and referring to isolationism.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, without a doubt that is my position, but the wall was not in support of what I think, it was in support to curb illegal crossings.
> 
> There is no possible way that even Republicans would vote to stop all immigration, but I will support any measure that gets us closer to my desire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Maybe we should discuss legal immigration because we both agree illegal immigration needs to stop.  We just don't agree on the means.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's to discuss?  We have legal immigration and have had it for decades.  There is nothing wrong with our immigration system outside of not enforcing it.
Click to expand...

*I think we are in total disagreement in the need for legal immigrants.  You would see the numbers decreased and I want to see them increased.  You believe they take jobs from Americans and I believe they create them.  You think the immigration system is just fine the way it is. I think it should be totally overhauled because it focuses almost entirely on keeping undesirable elements out and ignores encouraging those that are desirable. *


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> That's because we need to shut down the dept. of education, and stop all federal funding to schools. When we do that, education will immediately and dramatically improve in this country.



How? 

Here's why education sucks in this country.  Because Mom and Dad think the TV is a babysitter.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You people are such saps and that's why the liberals know they can get away telling you anything they want. Like some other guy busted out a car window, stole the gun because it's a hot commodity---especially in CA, and just decided he was bored with it. So instead of selling it on the streets for a quick few hundred bucks, he decided to leave it on some park bench loaded and ready to go. And you actually believe that.



It doesn't matter what I believe, it's what the evidence shows. The evidence didn't show that he stole the gun. His fingerprints were not on the car it was stolen from. When they tested his hands for gun power residue, they found minimal amounts, supporting his statement the gun was wrapped up in a cloth. Maybe some other guy did bust it out, then panicked and left it when he saw a cop passing by.  

this is why we have a "reasonable doubt" standard in the law. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> It wasn't supposed to work like that, remember?
> 
> Government was to take a large portion of our paychecks, put it in a piggy bank, and able to support us on the money we gave them. What went wrong?



Reagan, Bush and Trump used that money to cover other expenses to they could give tax breaks to billionaires... I'm sorry we have to keep explaining this to you. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> If we took every dime from people that have a million dollars or more today, we couldn't run this country for one single year. So this idiocy that we incurred 20 trillion in debt because we didn't steal enough money from people is pure economic ignorance. The top 20% of our country pays nearly all the taxes that run it.



That's simply not true.  

In fact, the top one percent has 43% of the wealth in this country. That's more than enough to fund the government for years. If we distributed GDP evenly, every man woman and child would have $50,000 each.  Even the illegals.  

And, no, thinking that we should distribute the wealth more evenly isn't socialism, it's just common sense.  Third world countries are the ones with super  rich and lots of poor.  A real advanced nation has a middle class. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Bush has been kissing ass to Hispanics since he was Governor, and yes, everybody knew about his sister-n-law. It's not like the Bush family was a deep dark secret until George decided to run for the presidency.



Kissing ass? You mean not treating them like the enemy because of where their parents or grandparents were born?  What a crazy concept!  Nope, nope, we should keep demonizing them to pander to fucked up racists like you, even though your sort is THANKFULLY dying off (although not nearly fast enough).  

In 30 years, we are going to look back at racist fucks like you the way we look back at Jim Crow or the Klan and wonder what people were thinking.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It may not seem like it to you, but we are a country with a lot of our own problems. We have crime problems, drug problems, debt problems, obesity problems, healthcare problems..........



None of which are caused by immigration and some of which can be solved by them.  

Here's the real problem... you are kind of a loser who can't get health insurance, that's how useless and untalented you are... and of course, you are afraid of an immigrant taking your job, because he's healthier, harder worker, and not an asshole.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Coyote said:


> And another one who thinks punishing children is a suitable response.  Way to go dude.



^^^^ *Claims* to care about children......... 
.
.
.
Fights to import MS-13 members who kill AMERICAN CHILDREN....
.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

JoeB131 said:


> None of which are caused by immigration and some of which can be solved by them.
> 
> Here's the real problem... you are kind of a loser who can't get health insurance, that's how useless and untalented you are... and of course, you are afraid of an immigrant taking your job, because he's healthier, harder worker, and not an asshole.



.

^^^^^ Makes a totally asinine *completely false statement* that open borders is harmless......
(Acting as if all immigration is legal immigration (stupid nonsense))
..
.
Then immediately resorts to personal insults because he realizes his own shit actually does stink.  (So typical of imbeciles serving up nothing burgers 24/7)


----------



## JoeB131

BasicHumanUnit said:


> ^^^^ *Claims* to care about children.........
> .
> .
> .
> Fights to import MS-13 members who kill AMERICAN CHILDREN....



Again, American children are more likely to be killed by family members than MS-13. Most of the people killed by MS-13 are rival gang members. I'll be in mourning for 15 seconds. 



BasicHumanUnit said:


> ^^^^^ Makes a totally asinine *completely false statement* that open borders is harmless......
> (Acting as if all immigration is legal immigration (stupid nonsense))
> ..
> .
> Then immediately resorts to personal insults because he realizes his own shit actually does stink. (So typical of imbeciles serving up nothing burgers 24/7)



Naw, just pointing out that when a racist POS like Ray kicks down, he's admitting the own failure of his life.


----------



## Redfish

Contumacious said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO INTERDICT DETAIN AND DEPORT BECAUSE THE STATES RETAINED THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL IMMIGRATION.
> 
> IN 1889 A RACIST SCOTUS (9 WHITE GUYS) USURPED THE AUTHORITY BECAUSE THEY CONCLUDED THAT THE CHINESE HAD CREATED AN "EMERGENCY" BY INSISTING TO WORK IN CALIFORNIA'S GOLD MINES.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wrong, immigration is federal law, not state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *4.* _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that *no power over them has been delegated to the United States*, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.
> 
> *Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> 
> Identify the federal Law in effect from 1800 until 1889
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...



that law applies to LEGAL aliens.   Immigration law is federal, not state.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Again, American children are more likely to be killed by family members than MS-13. Most of the people killed by MS-13 are rival gang members. I'll be in mourning for 15 seconds.



Well I say that's a good enough reason to let them in (liberal thinking here). 



JoeB131 said:


> Naw, just pointing out that when a racist POS like Ray kicks down, he's admitting the own failure of his life.



Says a supposed resume writer.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It may not seem like it to you, but we are a country with a lot of our own problems. We have crime problems, drug problems, debt problems, obesity problems, healthcare problems..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of which are caused by immigration and some of which can be solved by them.
> 
> Here's the real problem... you are kind of a loser who can't get health insurance, that's how useless and untalented you are... and of course, you are afraid of an immigrant taking your job, because he's healthier, harder worker, and not an asshole.
Click to expand...


Well Joe, I'm a person that believes in God, or Karma for your believers that think we are advanced monkeys.  When you criticize people because of their health conditions, it's likely (and hopefully) it will come back to you.  So I truly hope you get an illness that affects your ability to work and make money.  It's only deserving of your kind.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Well Joe, I'm a person that believes in God, or Karma for your believers that think we are advanced monkeys. When you criticize people because of their health conditions, it's likely (and hopefully) it will come back to you. So I truly hope you get an illness that affects your ability to work and make money. It's only deserving of your kind.



I've had that... and frankly, was screwed over by my employer and insurance company because of it. 

But funny thing happened, what i learned from that experience is that your health shouldn't be contingent on someone else's ability to make money off your labor..... 

I had no problem getting a new job that provided health insurance..

You on the other hand, take it up the ass from the one percent, and want to kick down at people who have less than you do.  True, a lot of it is your own damned fault for not gaining any additional skills and being very limited in one thing that any young kid out of high school could learn how to do.  And true that you won't even make a base effort to improve your situation.  

Because you are just an awful person.... so maybe the misery you have is Karmic.  

I, on the other hand, had devoted myself to helping people. I will be spending most of today helping four people find new jobs.  Yes, I'll get paid for my troubles, but I also do it because it's a decent thing to do.


----------



## Redfish

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know what it stands for--Independence.  This is obvious by the tablet the statue is holding marking the day we adopted the Declaration of Independence.   The poor the weary stuff was added later on, but that's not why it was built:
> 
> *What is the quote on the statue of liberty?*
> 
> There are several phrases associated with the Statue of Liberty, but the most recognizable is “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” This quote comes from Emma Lazarus’ sonnet, New Colossus, which she wrote for a fundraiser auction to raise money for the pedestal upon which the Statue of Liberty now sits. The poem did not receive much recognition and was quite forgotten after the auction.
> 
> In the early 1900s and after Lazarus’ death, one of her friends began a campaign to memorialize Lazarus and her New Colossus sonnet. The effort was a success, and a plaque with the poem’s text was mounted inside the pedestal of the statute.
> 
> What is the quote on the statue of liberty? · How Tall is the Statue of Liberty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this apparently cannot be said enough:
> 
> It's just a poem.  Has no force of law whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the point was the statue was not erected to welcome foreigners.  It was put there so that when foreigners come, they are reminded of the value of liberty--not put there as a Welcome Mat.
> 
> The statue was a gift from France with the sole intention of celebrating freedom.  The liberals like to use the poem to say that the statue was put here to welcome any and all foreigners into the country.  It's just a wives tale is all it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> * “Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”*
> 
> *That sounds like a welcome mat to me.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which again, was added after the statue was up for several years by somebody that had little to do with the statue other than create the pedestal.  It was not the reason for the statue of liberty. The theme behind the statue was to celebrate Independence--not immigration.  Immigration had nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I agree.  Immigration was not an issue.  Except for the Chinese, our borders were open to all nationalities.  The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the torch, heading toward Ellis Island.
> 
> Maybe we should change the inscription because America certainly doesn't welcome your tired, poor, homeless, and huddled masses.  In fact, that is exactly who we're trying to keep out.  Who we really want in America is White English speaking well educated upper class immigrants, who have never known adversity and who will raise over-privileged white children to follow in their footsteps.*
Click to expand...



the people who came through Ellis Island came legally,  that's the difference, dude.   I don't understand why you don't get this.


----------



## Redfish

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why.  Even with the wall, we will continue as always to allow "some" people to come in. We will allow nearly a million new people a year to become citizens of this great country.  All the wall will do is keep people out who are not supposed to be here.
> 
> 
> 
> *I thought your position was to stop immigration both legal and illegal.  When I said, "building a wall around the country", I was speaking figuratively and referring to isolationism.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, without a doubt that is my position, but the wall was not in support of what I think, it was in support to curb illegal crossings.
> 
> There is no possible way that even Republicans would vote to stop all immigration, but I will support any measure that gets us closer to my desire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Maybe we should discuss legal immigration because we both agree illegal immigration needs to stop.  We just don't agree on the means.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's to discuss?  We have legal immigration and have had it for decades.  There is nothing wrong with our immigration system outside of not enforcing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I think we are in total disagreement in the need for legal immigrants.  You would see the numbers decreased and I want to see them increased.  You believe they take jobs from Americans and I believe they create them.  You think the immigration system is just fine the way it is. I think it should be totally overhauled because it focuses almost entirely on keeping undesirable elements out and ignores encouraging those that are desirable. *
Click to expand...



should there be no limits on legal immigration?   Do you know that all immigration was stopped in the 1920s in order to allow time for recent immigrants (legal) to assimilate and become americans?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Reagan, Bush and Trump used that money to cover other expenses to they could give tax breaks to billionaires... I'm sorry we have to keep explaining this to you.



Who is WE Willis?  

Well now you're going to have to explain it differently next time:  From Politifact: 

*Our ruling*

*A Facebook posts says, "Bush ‘borrowed’ $1.37 trillion of Social Security surplus revenue to pay for his tax cuts for the rich and his war in Iraq and never paid it back."

By law, the Social Security surplus is converted into bonds, and the cash is used by the Treasury to pay for government expenses. If we agree that this is "borrowing," every president since 1935 has done it, to fund all sorts of things. Even if Bush "borrowed" from the surplus, the amount is more like $708 billion, and the borrowing wasn’t earmarked for a special purposes.

As for not "paying back," the bonds won’t need to be repaid until 2020.

Overall, the claim is misleading and confuses many points. So we rate it Mostly False.
*
Did George W. Bush 'borrow' from Social Security to fund the war in Iraq and tax cuts?





JoeB131 said:


> That's simply not true.
> 
> In fact, the top one percent has 43% of the wealth in this country. That's more than enough to fund the government for years. If we distributed GDP evenly, every man woman and child would have $50,000 each. Even the illegals.
> 
> And, no, thinking that we should distribute the wealth more evenly isn't socialism, it's just common sense. Third world countries are the ones with super rich and lots of poor. A real advanced nation has a middle class.



Pretty soon you're going to have to start paying me for your education Joe  

_*But it’s a fantasy to imagine that raising taxes on the rich will solve our deficit problem. If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode.

It’s the spending, stupid.*_

John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really.



JoeB131 said:


> Kissing ass? You mean not treating them like the enemy because of where their parents or grandparents were born? What a crazy concept! Nope, nope, we should keep demonizing them to pander to fucked up racists like you, even though your sort is THANKFULLY dying off (although not nearly fast enough).



Yes Joe, we are dying off. Anything else your puppet masters have told you recently?  



JoeB131 said:


> In 30 years, we are going to look back at racist fucks like you the way we look back at Jim Crow or the Klan and wonder what people were thinking.



And that's what the Democrats were saying 30 years ago.  Don't you know when you are being brainwashed?


----------



## danielpalos

Redfish said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this apparently cannot be said enough:
> 
> It's just a poem.  Has no force of law whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the point was the statue was not erected to welcome foreigners.  It was put there so that when foreigners come, they are reminded of the value of liberty--not put there as a Welcome Mat.
> 
> The statue was a gift from France with the sole intention of celebrating freedom.  The liberals like to use the poem to say that the statue was put here to welcome any and all foreigners into the country.  It's just a wives tale is all it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> * “Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”*
> 
> *That sounds like a welcome mat to me.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which again, was added after the statue was up for several years by somebody that had little to do with the statue other than create the pedestal.  It was not the reason for the statue of liberty. The theme behind the statue was to celebrate Independence--not immigration.  Immigration had nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I agree.  Immigration was not an issue.  Except for the Chinese, our borders were open to all nationalities.  The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the torch, heading toward Ellis Island.
> 
> Maybe we should change the inscription because America certainly doesn't welcome your tired, poor, homeless, and huddled masses.  In fact, that is exactly who we're trying to keep out.  Who we really want in America is White English speaking well educated upper class immigrants, who have never known adversity and who will raise over-privileged white children to follow in their footsteps.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the people who came through Ellis Island came legally,  that's the difference, dude.   I don't understand why you don't get this.
Click to expand...

how many people come through Ellis Island, now?


----------



## danielpalos

Redfish said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I thought your position was to stop immigration both legal and illegal.  When I said, "building a wall around the country", I was speaking figuratively and referring to isolationism.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, without a doubt that is my position, but the wall was not in support of what I think, it was in support to curb illegal crossings.
> 
> There is no possible way that even Republicans would vote to stop all immigration, but I will support any measure that gets us closer to my desire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Maybe we should discuss legal immigration because we both agree illegal immigration needs to stop.  We just don't agree on the means.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's to discuss?  We have legal immigration and have had it for decades.  There is nothing wrong with our immigration system outside of not enforcing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I think we are in total disagreement in the need for legal immigrants.  You would see the numbers decreased and I want to see them increased.  You believe they take jobs from Americans and I believe they create them.  You think the immigration system is just fine the way it is. I think it should be totally overhauled because it focuses almost entirely on keeping undesirable elements out and ignores encouraging those that are desirable. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> should there be no limits on legal immigration?   Do you know that all immigration was stopped in the 1920s in order to allow time for recent immigrants (legal) to assimilate and become americans?
Click to expand...

We are creating refugees with our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; that, the right wing refuses to pay wartime tax rates for.  How, fiscally irresponsible is that.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Joe, I'm a person that believes in God, or Karma for your believers that think we are advanced monkeys. When you criticize people because of their health conditions, it's likely (and hopefully) it will come back to you. So I truly hope you get an illness that affects your ability to work and make money. It's only deserving of your kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've had that... and frankly, was screwed over by my employer and insurance company because of it.
> 
> But funny thing happened, what i learned from that experience is that your health shouldn't be contingent on someone else's ability to make money off your labor.....
> 
> I had no problem getting a new job that provided health insurance..
> 
> You on the other hand, take it up the ass from the one percent, and want to kick down at people who have less than you do.  True, a lot of it is your own damned fault for not gaining any additional skills and being very limited in one thing that any young kid out of high school could learn how to do.  And true that you won't even make a base effort to improve your situation.
> 
> Because you are just an awful person.... so maybe the misery you have is Karmic.
> 
> I, on the other hand, had devoted myself to helping people. I will be spending most of today helping four people find new jobs.  Yes, I'll get paid for my troubles, but I also do it because it's a decent thing to do.
Click to expand...


Sure you do.  That's why you have the same schedule here on USMB that you had over  a year ago---because you work from home.  You are here early mornings, and then gone all day until after most working people get home.  Weekends are different like most working people here. 

My fault?  It's my fault people were dumb enough to vote in some clown with a name like a terrorist for President?  My fault we have so many stupid people to think that government is the solution to our healthcare problems?  My fault that when I chose a career, I didn't predict some big eared potato head would F-up the system we had in place most of our lives? 

Yeah Joe, it's my fault, because it's like I've always said, the best part of being a Democrat is never having to say you were wrong.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan, Bush and Trump used that money to cover other expenses to they could give tax breaks to billionaires... I'm sorry we have to keep explaining this to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is WE Willis?
> 
> Well now you're going to have to explain it differently next time:  From Politifact:
> 
> *Our ruling*
> 
> *A Facebook posts says, "Bush ‘borrowed’ $1.37 trillion of Social Security surplus revenue to pay for his tax cuts for the rich and his war in Iraq and never paid it back."
> 
> By law, the Social Security surplus is converted into bonds, and the cash is used by the Treasury to pay for government expenses. If we agree that this is "borrowing," every president since 1935 has done it, to fund all sorts of things. Even if Bush "borrowed" from the surplus, the amount is more like $708 billion, and the borrowing wasn’t earmarked for a special purposes.
> 
> As for not "paying back," the bonds won’t need to be repaid until 2020.
> 
> Overall, the claim is misleading and confuses many points. So we rate it Mostly False.
> *
> Did George W. Bush 'borrow' from Social Security to fund the war in Iraq and tax cuts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's simply not true.
> 
> In fact, the top one percent has 43% of the wealth in this country. That's more than enough to fund the government for years. If we distributed GDP evenly, every man woman and child would have $50,000 each. Even the illegals.
> 
> And, no, thinking that we should distribute the wealth more evenly isn't socialism, it's just common sense. Third world countries are the ones with super rich and lots of poor. A real advanced nation has a middle class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty soon you're going to have to start paying me for your education Joe
> 
> _*But it’s a fantasy to imagine that raising taxes on the rich will solve our deficit problem. If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode.
> 
> It’s the spending, stupid.*_
> 
> John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kissing ass? You mean not treating them like the enemy because of where their parents or grandparents were born? What a crazy concept! Nope, nope, we should keep demonizing them to pander to fucked up racists like you, even though your sort is THANKFULLY dying off (although not nearly fast enough).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Joe, we are dying off. Anything else your puppet masters have told you recently?
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 30 years, we are going to look back at racist fucks like you the way we look back at Jim Crow or the Klan and wonder what people were thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's what the Democrats were saying 30 years ago.  Don't you know when you are being brainwashed?
Click to expand...




> $1.37 trillion



Why did the right wing ask for a tax cut if we were, "going to war"?


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> But it’s a fantasy to imagine that raising taxes on the rich will solve our deficit problem. If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode.
> 
> It’s the spending, stupid.



First, John Stossell had no credibility.  But it was funny to watch him get bitched slapped by a wrestler. 


To the point, though... I wasn't talking about income, I was talking about WEALTH. If we had proper capital gains taxes, proper corporate taxes, proper estate taxes, we'd have plenty of ways to separate the One Percenters from their ill-gotten gains.  And we'd fund the government just fine.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Sure you do. That's why you have the same schedule here on USMB that you had over a year ago---because you work from home. You are here early mornings, and then gone all day until after most working people get home. Weekends are different like most working people here.



Um, yeah, during the day I'm working. I'm often working on weekends and evenings, too.  Sorry you don't get this... You on the other hand, seem to be here all day, whining about lazy minorities... funny how that works.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> My fault? It's my fault people were dumb enough to vote in some clown with a name like a terrorist for President? My fault we have so many stupid people to think that government is the solution to our healthcare problems? My fault that when I chose a career, I didn't predict some big eared potato head would F-up the system we had in place most of our lives?



Again, what we got was what Republicans wanted.  We wanted single Payer, which would have been the best thing for you. Heck, HillaryCare would have been good for you.  Your boss would pay into a fund if he didn't provide insurance and you'd qualify.  

But the reason why it's your fault is because you picked a career anyone could do.  I'm effectively on my third career, because I adapt to changes.  Couldn't do what I did when I was in my 20s, I realize that.  So I gained skills so I could do other things. Amazing. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yeah Joe, it's my fault, because it's like I've always said, the best part of being a Democrat is never having to say you were wrong.



Naw, man, wrong is hating on people who have less than you do so you can feel better about your own failures.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> First, John Stossell had no credibility. But it was funny to watch him get bitched slapped by a wrestler.



Oh, a wrestler?  That settles it, a guy with his own television show has no credibility because of a wrestler.  LOL!

Well, when you can provide evidence that he is wrong, then you'll have some credibility criticizing him.



JoeB131 said:


> To the point, though... I wasn't talking about income, I was talking about WEALTH. If we had proper capital gains taxes, proper corporate taxes, proper estate taxes, we'd have plenty of ways to separate the One Percenters from their ill-gotten gains. And we'd fund the government just fine.



I just posted evidence of how wrong you are.  Wealth is income, a lot of income.  And if you took every dollar away from the wealthy, WTF would they be able to pay taxes on?  They'd be broke.



JoeB131 said:


> Um, yeah, during the day I'm working. I'm often working on weekends and evenings, too. Sorry you don't get this... You on the other hand, seem to be here all day, whining about lazy minorities... funny how that works.



I'm sure you're working all day, FOR SOMEBODY ELSE!



JoeB131 said:


> Again, what we got was what Republicans wanted. We wanted single Payer, which would have been the best thing for you. Heck, HillaryCare would have been good for you. Your boss would pay into a fund if he didn't provide insurance and you'd qualify.
> 
> But the reason why it's your fault is because you picked a career anyone could do. I'm effectively on my third career, because I adapt to changes. Couldn't do what I did when I was in my 20s, I realize that. So I gained skills so I could do other things. Amazing.



No, do you know what would have been the best thing for me?  For communists to STF our of my life.  For that big eared clown to never be elected SO I WOULD have insurance today.  That's what would be the best for me. You people are so brainwashed you refuse to look at facts: facts like not one Republican voted for Commie Care.  They tried to water it down as much as possible with the little power they had.  But your puppet masters told you to blame Republicans because it was a total failure and you need to blame somebody for Democrat failures.



JoeB131 said:


> Naw, man, wrong is hating on people who have less than you do so you can feel better about your own failures.



I don't hate people that have less than me, I hate people that try a lot less than me.  Big difference.  In contrast to you, you hate people that tried harder and became way more successful than you.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Flopper said:


> *It's pretty obvious that we don't have the solutions to those problems.  The same people doing the same thing over and over is not going to solve anything.  Maybe instead of looking inward for solutions we should be looking outward.  Being that this country was build by immigrants and their offspring, building a wall around the country with a keep out sign might be a very bad idea. *



The Major Flaw in your thinking and those who think like you is that the world is the same as it was 200 years ago.
It is not.  Too many people coming here now are sent by their governments to over-run America (Mexico and other SA countries) while many come here on missions of disruption and hatred such as Jihad and MS-13.

Your thinking is naive and foolish in the context of today's immigration.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I just posted evidence of how wrong you are. Wealth is income, a lot of income. And if you took every dollar away from the wealthy, WTF would they be able to pay taxes on? They'd be broke.



Except the wealthy have a lot more than 616 BIllion... sorry.

here you go, a list of the 20 wealthiest Americans..  Add up just these 20 guys, you get more than 732Billion...










Ray From Cleveland said:


> I just posted evidence of how wrong you are. Wealth is income, a lot of income. And if you took every dollar away from the wealthy, WTF would they be able to pay taxes on? They'd be broke.



wrong- see above chart.



Ray From Cleveland said:


> I'm sure you're working all day, FOR SOMEBODY ELSE!



Well, you'd be wrong, as usual...




Ray From Cleveland said:


> o, do you know what would have been the best thing for me? For communists to STF our of my life. For that big eared clown to never be elected SO I WOULD have insurance today.



Your boss would have fucked you regardless...



Ray From Cleveland said:


> You people are so brainwashed you refuse to look at facts: facts like not one Republican voted for Commie Care. They tried to water it down as much as possible with the little power they had. But your puppet masters told you to blame Republicans because it was a total failure and you need to blame somebody for Democrat failures.



Naw, I knew it was going to be a problem because the Dems listened to the GOP and went along with what Big Insurance wanted.  You see, in trying to get Susan Collins to go along with it, they gave up on the Public Option and Medicare Buy in, which would have solved 99% of the problems with ACA.  But the real problem is that we have a health insurance industry that pays its CEO's 9 figure incomes to figure out how to cheat people after they've paid the premiums... that's the real problem.



Ray From Cleveland said:


> I don't hate people that have less than me, I hate people that try a lot less than me. Big difference. In contrast to you, you hate people that tried harder and became way more successful than you.



Naw, I hate people who got rich ripping off people like you who did the actual work.  But you'll sit there in your slum without your insurance and complain about the guy who decided that they weren't going to work for an extra $10 a week and give up $100 in benefits.


----------



## Flopper

Redfish said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this apparently cannot be said enough:
> 
> It's just a poem.  Has no force of law whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the point was the statue was not erected to welcome foreigners.  It was put there so that when foreigners come, they are reminded of the value of liberty--not put there as a Welcome Mat.
> 
> The statue was a gift from France with the sole intention of celebrating freedom.  The liberals like to use the poem to say that the statue was put here to welcome any and all foreigners into the country.  It's just a wives tale is all it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> * “Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”*
> 
> *That sounds like a welcome mat to me.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which again, was added after the statue was up for several years by somebody that had little to do with the statue other than create the pedestal.  It was not the reason for the statue of liberty. The theme behind the statue was to celebrate Independence--not immigration.  Immigration had nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I agree.  Immigration was not an issue.  Except for the Chinese, our borders were open to all nationalities.  The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the torch, heading toward Ellis Island.
> 
> Maybe we should change the inscription because America certainly doesn't welcome your tired, poor, homeless, and huddled masses.  In fact, that is exactly who we're trying to keep out.  Who we really want in America is White English speaking well educated upper class immigrants, who have never known adversity and who will raise over-privileged white children to follow in their footsteps.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the people who came through Ellis Island came legally,  that's the difference, dude.   I don't understand why you don't get this.
Click to expand...

*Apparently, you reply before even reading the post.  I think I understand probably better than most people on this thread the differences between illegal and legal immigrants. Our entire immigration systems has serious problems starting with who and how we select immigrants to how we keep undocumented immigrants out of the country.   *


----------



## danielpalos

Flopper said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the point was the statue was not erected to welcome foreigners.  It was put there so that when foreigners come, they are reminded of the value of liberty--not put there as a Welcome Mat.
> 
> The statue was a gift from France with the sole intention of celebrating freedom.  The liberals like to use the poem to say that the statue was put here to welcome any and all foreigners into the country.  It's just a wives tale is all it is.
> 
> 
> 
> * “Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”*
> 
> *That sounds like a welcome mat to me.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which again, was added after the statue was up for several years by somebody that had little to do with the statue other than create the pedestal.  It was not the reason for the statue of liberty. The theme behind the statue was to celebrate Independence--not immigration.  Immigration had nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I agree.  Immigration was not an issue.  Except for the Chinese, our borders were open to all nationalities.  The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the torch, heading toward Ellis Island.
> 
> Maybe we should change the inscription because America certainly doesn't welcome your tired, poor, homeless, and huddled masses.  In fact, that is exactly who we're trying to keep out.  Who we really want in America is White English speaking well educated upper class immigrants, who have never known adversity and who will raise over-privileged white children to follow in their footsteps.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the people who came through Ellis Island came legally,  that's the difference, dude.   I don't understand why you don't get this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Apparently, you reply before even reading the post.  I think I understand probably better than most people on this thread the differences between illegal and legal immigrants. Our entire immigration systems has serious problems starting with who and how we select immigrants to how we keep undocumented immigrants out of the country.   *
Click to expand...

all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.  it is a federal Obligation since 1808.


----------



## WEATHER53

Redfish said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this apparently cannot be said enough:
> 
> It's just a poem.  Has no force of law whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the point was the statue was not erected to welcome foreigners.  It was put there so that when foreigners come, they are reminded of the value of liberty--not put there as a Welcome Mat.
> 
> The statue was a gift from France with the sole intention of celebrating freedom.  The liberals like to use the poem to say that the statue was put here to welcome any and all foreigners into the country.  It's just a wives tale is all it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> * “Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”*
> 
> *That sounds like a welcome mat to me.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which again, was added after the statue was up for several years by somebody that had little to do with the statue other than create the pedestal.  It was not the reason for the statue of liberty. The theme behind the statue was to celebrate Independence--not immigration.  Immigration had nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I agree.  Immigration was not an issue.  Except for the Chinese, our borders were open to all nationalities.  The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the torch, heading toward Ellis Island.
> 
> Maybe we should change the inscription because America certainly doesn't welcome your tired, poor, homeless, and huddled masses.  In fact, that is exactly who we're trying to keep out.  Who we really want in America is White English speaking well educated upper class immigrants, who have never known adversity and who will raise over-privileged white children to follow in their footsteps.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the people who came through Ellis Island came legally,  that's the difference, dude.   I don't understand why you don't get this.
Click to expand...

Laws do not matter to liberals. They consider them discriminatory (because minorities disproportionately cannot follow them) and oppressive (because they are compatible with responsibility and good conduct).  Immigration  is but  one target


----------



## danielpalos

WEATHER53 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the point was the statue was not erected to welcome foreigners.  It was put there so that when foreigners come, they are reminded of the value of liberty--not put there as a Welcome Mat.
> 
> The statue was a gift from France with the sole intention of celebrating freedom.  The liberals like to use the poem to say that the statue was put here to welcome any and all foreigners into the country.  It's just a wives tale is all it is.
> 
> 
> 
> * “Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”*
> 
> *That sounds like a welcome mat to me.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which again, was added after the statue was up for several years by somebody that had little to do with the statue other than create the pedestal.  It was not the reason for the statue of liberty. The theme behind the statue was to celebrate Independence--not immigration.  Immigration had nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I agree.  Immigration was not an issue.  Except for the Chinese, our borders were open to all nationalities.  The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the torch, heading toward Ellis Island.
> 
> Maybe we should change the inscription because America certainly doesn't welcome your tired, poor, homeless, and huddled masses.  In fact, that is exactly who we're trying to keep out.  Who we really want in America is White English speaking well educated upper class immigrants, who have never known adversity and who will raise over-privileged white children to follow in their footsteps.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the people who came through Ellis Island came legally,  that's the difference, dude.   I don't understand why you don't get this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laws do no matter to liberals. They consider them discriminatory (because minorities disproportionately cannot follow them) and oppressive (because they are compatible with responsibility and good conduct).  Immigration  is but  one target
Click to expand...

they matter even less to the right wing. they like to make it up while they go along while in the majority.


----------



## WEATHER53

JoeB131 said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^ *Claims* to care about children.........
> .
> .
> .
> Fights to import MS-13 members who kill AMERICAN CHILDREN....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, American children are more likely to be killed by family members than MS-13. Most of the people killed by MS-13 are rival gang members. I'll be in mourning for 15 seconds.
> 
> 
> 
> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^ Makes a totally asinine *completely false statement* that open borders is harmless......
> (Acting as if all immigration is legal immigration (stupid nonsense))
> ..
> .
> Then immediately resorts to personal insults because he realizes his own shit actually does stink. (So typical of imbeciles serving up nothing burgers 24/7)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naw, just pointing out that when a racist POS like Ray kicks down, he's admitting the own failure of his life.
Click to expand...

Children are also more likely to be killed by a family member than by playing in the street but we don’t ignore them playing there nor encourage it as a good idea


----------



## Contumacious

danielpalos said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> * “Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”*
> 
> *That sounds like a welcome mat to me.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which again, was added after the statue was up for several years by somebody that had little to do with the statue other than create the pedestal.  It was not the reason for the statue of liberty. The theme behind the statue was to celebrate Independence--not immigration.  Immigration had nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I agree.  Immigration was not an issue.  Except for the Chinese, our borders were open to all nationalities.  The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the torch, heading toward Ellis Island.
> 
> Maybe we should change the inscription because America certainly doesn't welcome your tired, poor, homeless, and huddled masses.  In fact, that is exactly who we're trying to keep out.  Who we really want in America is White English speaking well educated upper class immigrants, who have never known adversity and who will raise over-privileged white children to follow in their footsteps.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the people who came through Ellis Island came legally,  that's the difference, dude.   I don't understand why you don't get this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Apparently, you reply before even reading the post.  I think I understand probably better than most people on this thread the differences between illegal and legal immigrants. Our entire immigration systems has serious problems starting with who and how we select immigrants to how we keep undocumented immigrants out of the country.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.  it is a federal Obligation since 1808.
Click to expand...



HUH?

LINK?

.


----------



## danielpalos

Contumacious said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which again, was added after the statue was up for several years by somebody that had little to do with the statue other than create the pedestal.  It was not the reason for the statue of liberty. The theme behind the statue was to celebrate Independence--not immigration.  Immigration had nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> *I agree.  Immigration was not an issue.  Except for the Chinese, our borders were open to all nationalities.  The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the torch, heading toward Ellis Island.
> 
> Maybe we should change the inscription because America certainly doesn't welcome your tired, poor, homeless, and huddled masses.  In fact, that is exactly who we're trying to keep out.  Who we really want in America is White English speaking well educated upper class immigrants, who have never known adversity and who will raise over-privileged white children to follow in their footsteps.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the people who came through Ellis Island came legally,  that's the difference, dude.   I don't understand why you don't get this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Apparently, you reply before even reading the post.  I think I understand probably better than most people on this thread the differences between illegal and legal immigrants. Our entire immigration systems has serious problems starting with who and how we select immigrants to how we keep undocumented immigrants out of the country.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.  it is a federal Obligation since 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> HUH?
> 
> LINK?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Our federal Constitution, ever read it?  Entry into the Union is a federal Obligation after 1808.


----------



## Contumacious

danielpalos said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I agree.  Immigration was not an issue.  Except for the Chinese, our borders were open to all nationalities.  The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the torch, heading toward Ellis Island.
> 
> Maybe we should change the inscription because America certainly doesn't welcome your tired, poor, homeless, and huddled masses.  In fact, that is exactly who we're trying to keep out.  Who we really want in America is White English speaking well educated upper class immigrants, who have never known adversity and who will raise over-privileged white children to follow in their footsteps.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the people who came through Ellis Island came legally,  that's the difference, dude.   I don't understand why you don't get this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Apparently, you reply before even reading the post.  I think I understand probably better than most people on this thread the differences between illegal and legal immigrants. Our entire immigration systems has serious problems starting with who and how we select immigrants to how we keep undocumented immigrants out of the country.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.  it is a federal Obligation since 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> HUH?
> 
> LINK?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution, ever read it?  Entry into the Union is a federal Obligation after 1808.
Click to expand...



Shut the fuck up.

Our federal Constitution, ever read it? 


The states RETAINED the authority to regulate immigration.

Fedgov has authority to NATURALIZE those individuals who seek to become US Citizens.


.


----------



## Flopper

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It's pretty obvious that we don't have the solutions to those problems.  The same people doing the same thing over and over is not going to solve anything.  Maybe instead of looking inward for solutions we should be looking outward.  Being that this country was build by immigrants and their offspring, building a wall around the country with a keep out sign might be a very bad idea. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Major Flaw in your thinking and those who think like you is that the world is the same as it was 200 years ago.
> It is not.  Too many people coming here now are sent by their governments to over-run America (Mexico and other SA countries) while many come here on missions of disruption and hatred such as Jihad and MS-13.
> 
> Your thinking is naive and foolish in the context of today's immigration.
Click to expand...

*The Mexican government does not send immigrants to the US.  That rather silly idea goes back about 50 years. 

Why in the world would the Mexican government want to send workers to the US when they are experiencing a shortage of both farm and skilled labor?  Mexican daily wages have risen almost 60% over the last 10 years.  The unemployment rate in Mexico is now 3.2% compared to the US unemployment rate of 4%.  This goes a long way in explaining why more Mexican immigrants are returning home than arriving in the United States.  Illegal  immigration across our southern boarder was recently at a 20 year low and is predicted to continue falling over the next 10 years.

The long term outlook in the labor market both in the US and Mexico is a rising shortage of workers, particular in agriculture.  The shortage in the US is predicted to reach 34 million by 2024.

The Mara Salvatrucha gang (MS-13) was started in Los Angeles in the 1980's by Salvadoran immigrants fleeing the Central American Civil wars.  It is estimated that  there are 8,000 to 10,000 members in the US, a tiny fraction of the number of legal and illegal immigrants, and naturalized Americans from Mexico and Central America, estimated to be over 40 million.

It's interesting to note that MS-13 grew out the refuges of the civil wars in Central American in which the US government actively promoted by pumping billions of dollars in military aid in order stop communist revolutionaries.  Now, 35 years later we are dealing with the consequences.   
Mexico Average Daily Wages | 2000-2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast
Illegal Immigration Statistics - FactCheck.org
MS-13 - Wikipedia
Central American crisis - Wikipedia*


----------



## danielpalos

Contumacious said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the people who came through Ellis Island came legally,  that's the difference, dude.   I don't understand why you don't get this.
> 
> 
> 
> *Apparently, you reply before even reading the post.  I think I understand probably better than most people on this thread the differences between illegal and legal immigrants. Our entire immigration systems has serious problems starting with who and how we select immigrants to how we keep undocumented immigrants out of the country.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.  it is a federal Obligation since 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> HUH?
> 
> LINK?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution, ever read it?  Entry into the Union is a federal Obligation after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Shut the fuck up.
> 
> Our federal Constitution, ever read it?
> 
> 
> The states RETAINED the authority to regulate immigration.
> 
> Fedgov has authority to NATURALIZE those individuals who seek to become US Citizens.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Nope.  They can charge up to Ten Dollars to ensure compliance with State inspection laws to ensure Commerce is lawful within the State.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

*The immigration issue shows how millions of racist Democrat Voters are on a mission to displace Anglo Voters.*
*Democrats are despicable racist cretins.*


----------



## danielpalos

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> *The immigration issue shows how millions of racist Democrat Voters are on a mission to displace Anglo Voters.
> Democrats are despicable racist cretins.*


y'all are just lousy Capitalists; we should be Making money not Losing money on public policies


----------



## JoeB131

WEATHER53 said:


> Children are also more likely to be killed by a family member than by playing in the street but we don’t ignore them playing there nor encourage it as a good idea



Nobody saying MS-13 is a good idea.  THe craziness is locking up small children and yanking them from their mother's arms because they MIGHT grow up to join MS-13.


----------



## AZGAL

*U.S. Embassy in Algeria*
Internet Romance and Marriage Fraud

Many Algerians befriend American citizens through Internet dating and social networking sites and these relationships may lead to engagement and marriage.  While some of these marriages are successful, the U.S. Embassy in Algiers warns against marriage scams.  It is not uncommon for foreign nationals to enter into marriages with Americans solely for immigration or financial purposes.  Relationships developed via correspondence, particularly those begun on the Internet, are especially susceptible to manipulation.  Often, the marriages end in divorce in the United States when the foreign national acquires legal permanent residence (“green card”) or U.S. citizenship.  In some cases, the new American or permanent resident then remarries a wife he divorced before, around the same time as entering into a relationship with a sponsoring American citizen.
*The U.S. Embassy has seen several cases in which American citizens are lured to Algeria and are then held against their will in abusive situations.  American citizens who do not speak the local languages and are dependent solely on the one Algerian national are especially vulnerable.  Sometimes the American citizen is able to escape only with police / Embassy intervention. *American citizens in this situation have often found that their personal and financial information is hacked.  As an American citizen, you need to be responsible for ensuring you are in legal status in Algeria and not rely on someone promising to take care of it for you.  The Algerian national may try to threaten to have you arrested/deported if you do not follow his commands.


----------



## AZGAL

*Fraud Types-ImmigrationFraud.com

The U Visa Amnesty: False Allegation Green Cards for All
Fast-Tracked Green Cards Given to Anyone Claiming to Be Crime Victim
*
Illegal immigrants and short-term visa holders claiming to be crime victims are eligible to get green cards. Initially set up as a non-immigrant (short-term) visa so foreign nationals could stay in the country while they assist law enforcement with criminal prosecutions and investigations, immigration advocates rallied congressional members to turn the visa into a path to citizenship – and like the VAWA green card – this is open to any foreigner making a simple allegation of being a crime victim. They do NOT need to be helping with pending law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, and this is no longer a "visa," but a full, legal path to citizenship.

This program has proven so successful that California politicians created a law whereby state taxpayer funds are diverted to to help with the immigration process of any foreign national claiming to be a crime victim.

California, the state with the largest number of illegal immigrants in the nation, has successfully used this provision to provide amnesty (get legal immigration statuses) for large numbers of its illegal immigrant community. By law, state taxpayer funds are diverted to any foreign national claiming to be a crime victim to help them with federal immigration proceedings.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Except the wealthy have a lot more than 616 BIllion... sorry.
> 
> here you go, a list of the 20 wealthiest Americans.. Add up just these 20 guys, you get more than 732Billion...



Read the excerpt again. It says taking all of their "income" not accumulated assets.  To accumulate what they are worth today, it took them decades to do, not just one year. 



JoeB131 said:


> Your boss would have fucked you regardless...



Right, he didn't fuck me for nearly 20 years, all of a sudden Commie Care went into effect, and he got rid of healthcare insurance two weeks later.  God you suckers will believe anything.  



JoeB131 said:


> Naw, I knew it was going to be a problem because the Dems listened to the GOP and went along with what Big Insurance wanted. You see, in trying to get Susan Collins to go along with it, they gave up on the Public Option and Medicare Buy in, which would have solved 99% of the problems with ACA. But the real problem is that we have a health insurance industry that pays its CEO's 9 figure incomes to figure out how to cheat people after they've paid the premiums... that's the real problem.



Sure, that's what they do even though illegal.  Insurance companies have A CONTRACT which can't be broken.  You read the contract to find out exactly what you are entitled to.  

Unlike government who takes our money and puts it under a mattress, insurance companies invest premium money so the profits can offset some of the claims.........that was until that commie took over and forced them to stop investing and spend at least 85% of their money on claims alone which of course meant less money coming in for the companies. 

Afterwards insurance companies could no longer survive doing it the Communist way, so most dropped out of the program and medical insurance continued to skyrocket.  



JoeB131 said:


> Naw, I hate people who got rich ripping off people like you who did the actual work. But you'll sit there in your slum without your insurance and complain about the guy who decided that they weren't going to work for an extra $10 a week and give up $100 in benefits.



You never ran a business in your life and are obviously ignorant how it all works.  If your product or service is more expensive than your competitor, your customers eventually go to your competitor for services.  Or let me take you by the hand and explain it so you might possibly understand: 

You and I both have a small local delivery service.  We each employ 20 people.  I decide to cut my overhead by eliminating medical insurance for my employees since Commie Care is the new threat on the nation.  I pay on average $400.00 per month per employee for coverage.  That means by cutting coverage, I save $8,000 a month that I can pass on to my customers.  

You on the other hand refuse to cut that benefit.  You can't offer your customers the same price I can for a delivery.  Eventually people figure it out and begin going to my company for their delivery needs.  You have two choices at that point: do what I did and drop coverage, or go out of business.  

That's why all the jobs I applied for don't offer coverage anymore, and it's not coincidence this happened after Commie Care became the law of the land.  If you don't drop coverage, you close your company and your employees would be without coverage anyway since they no longer have a job.  

Now, I hope you can figure it out from there.


----------



## Flopper

Redfish said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I thought your position was to stop immigration both legal and illegal.  When I said, "building a wall around the country", I was speaking figuratively and referring to isolationism.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, without a doubt that is my position, but the wall was not in support of what I think, it was in support to curb illegal crossings.
> 
> There is no possible way that even Republicans would vote to stop all immigration, but I will support any measure that gets us closer to my desire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Maybe we should discuss legal immigration because we both agree illegal immigration needs to stop.  We just don't agree on the means.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's to discuss?  We have legal immigration and have had it for decades.  There is nothing wrong with our immigration system outside of not enforcing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I think we are in total disagreement in the need for legal immigrants.  You would see the numbers decreased and I want to see them increased.  You believe they take jobs from Americans and I believe they create them.  You think the immigration system is just fine the way it is. I think it should be totally overhauled because it focuses almost entirely on keeping undesirable elements out and ignores encouraging those that are desirable. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> should there be no limits on legal immigration?   Do you know that all immigration was stopped in the 1920s in order to allow time for recent immigrants (legal) to assimilate and become americans?
Click to expand...

*Interesting, I didn't know that.

I believe in yearly limits on total immigration and country targets.  I envision a system which selects or recruits the best possible immigrants regardless of nationality.

In the system we have today, nationality is the most important criteria for immigration, followed by the lack of a criminal record, not being on a terrorist watch list, and having someone in the US that will vouch for you.  The purpose of  the system is make sure we don't get any really bad people.  That's OK as far as it goes, but why not shoot for getting some really good people that can be an asset to nation.  It is certainly possible but not with the system we have today.  It tends ignore the qualifications of the individual in favor of racist and xenophobic ideas of a hundred years ago. *


----------



## WEATHER53

Nobody has really cared about color for a long time. Barry fired that back up but he’s gone
We do dare about citizens and criminals though.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Read the excerpt again. It says taking all of their "income" not accumulated assets. To accumulate what they are worth today, it took them decades to do, not just one year.



Exactly my point.  Accumulated assets,... ALSO KNOWN AS WEALTH.  

Sorry you don't get this.  There is more than enough WEALTH in this country to fairly distribute it.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Right, he didn't fuck me for nearly 20 years, all of a sudden Commie Care went into effect, and he got rid of healthcare insurance two weeks later. God you suckers will believe anything.



He was probably already fucking you with a policy that didn't cover anything, but you never got sick enough to notice.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Sure, that's what they do even though illegal. Insurance companies have A CONTRACT which can't be broken. You read the contract to find out exactly what you are entitled to.



Right, because average working stiffs should go toe to toe with lawyers to find out if they will get what they pay for. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Unlike government who takes our money and puts it under a mattress, insurance companies invest premium money so the profits can offset some of the claims.........that was until that commie took over and forced them to stop investing and spend at least 85% of their money on claims alone which of course meant less money coming in for the companies.



Again, buddy, you miss the point.  Our system spends twice as much per capita as any other industrialized country, and we have the lowest life expectency and highest infant mortality rates in the industrialized world. And 62% of bankruptcies are linked to medical crisis. So we spend the most, we get the shittiest results, but some rich guy got to make a killing on his investment, so there's that. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Afterwards insurance companies could no longer survive doing it the Communist way, so most dropped out of the program and medical insurance continued to skyrocket.



Oh, I wish the insurance companies would disappear.  They've done anything but. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> You never ran a business in your life and are obviously ignorant how it all works. If your product or service is more expensive than your competitor, your customers eventually go to your competitor for services. Or let me take you by the hand and explain it so you might possibly understand:



Wow, by your logic, no one would ever eat at Red Lobster because you can get the same food a lot cheaper at Long John Silvers... oh, no, wait.  Red Lobster does a lot better than LJS's fish flavored grease. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> You and I both have a small local delivery service. We each employ 20 people. I decide to cut my overhead by eliminating medical insurance for my employees since Commie Care is the new threat on the nation. I pay on average $400.00 per month per employee for coverage. That means by cutting coverage, I save $8,000 a month that I can pass on to my customers.



Except, of course, the only people who would still work for you at that point are the worst white trash losers who have absolutely no other options. You know, the kind who sits in his truck all day and posts to message boards instead of making deliveries, and when he gets to a work site, he whines about how lazy the unions guys are because they make more than he does.  




Ray From Cleveland said:


> You on the other hand refuse to cut that benefit. You can't offer your customers the same price I can for a delivery. Eventually people figure it out and begin going to my company for their delivery needs. You have two choices at that point: do what I did and drop coverage, or go out of business.



Well, you see, here's the thing. My employers are happy. They look forward to coming to work, and they produce good service. So, yeah, you pay a little more for my service, but you get better service.  As opposed to the company who hired White Trash Ray who spent all day insulting the customers....

Of course, pay and benefits aren't everything. There are companies that pay really well but are toxic work environments. There are companies that pay kind of average, but everyone has been there for years and they are a community.  But the notion that you can continue to fuck your workers, and get good results... um, this is why the Japanese are beating the pants off of us.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> That's why all the jobs I applied for don't offer coverage anymore, and it's not coincidence this happened after Commie Care became the law of the land. If you don't drop coverage, you close your company and your employees would be without coverage anyway since they no longer have a job.



No, buddy, I found several jobs that offered coverage only looking for 10 minutes.  the reason why you can't find coverage is you won't look. Oh, yeah, and you think "Dead Hooker List" is a good source for quality jobs. Here's a hint, if the company is too cheap to pay for a job listing, they are too cheap to pay anything for the actual job.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Exactly my point. Accumulated assets,... ALSO KNOWN AS WEALTH.
> 
> Sorry you don't get this. There is more than enough WEALTH in this country to fairly distribute it.



So what do you want to do, steal all their money and give some of it to you?  Okay, so let's say we did that.  Now we can run the government for about a year.  WTF are we going to do the next year, the year after that, the year after that?  After all, there would be no rich people to tax any longer; you know, the same rich people that mostly pay for our government today? 

You and your Hitler mentally is why your party is sinking so quickly.  



JoeB131 said:


> He was probably already fucking you with a policy that didn't cover anything, but you never got sick enough to notice.



Well guess what?  It was ten times better than what I had after that Mulatto freak left the White House. 



JoeB131 said:


> Right, because average working stiffs should go toe to toe with lawyers to find out if they will get what they pay for.



Nope, there are other ways.  You can contact local news agencies. Your state likely has bureaucracies to handle matters like that.  In our state, the Ohio Attorney General has a complaint department and checks into those things.  The state will take it up with the agency if they are indeed not giving you what was contracted.  They will even sue them on your behalf and it won't cost you a dime.  



JoeB131 said:


> Again, buddy, you miss the point. Our system spends twice as much per capita as any other industrialized country, and we have the lowest life expectency and highest infant mortality rates in the industrialized world. And 62% of bankruptcies are linked to medical crisis. So we spend the most, we get the shittiest results, but some rich guy got to make a killing on his investment, so there's that.



There is also no evidence that infant mortality rates or life expectancy is related to our healthcare system.  In fact, most people die in this country when they are on government healthcare called Medicare.  I'd give you a link as to why our infant mortality rate is lower than some countries, but I know how you hate to learn new things. 



JoeB131 said:


> Oh, I wish the insurance companies would disappear. They've done anything but.



They did disappear from Commie Care.  



JoeB131 said:


> Wow, by your logic, no one would ever eat at Red Lobster because you can get the same food a lot cheaper at Long John Silvers... oh, no, wait. Red Lobster does a lot better than LJS's fish flavored grease.



If you had two restaurants like Red Lobster, and one cost you 30 bucks more per dinner and you get the same thing, that restaurant will be closed up in a year or two.  



JoeB131 said:


> Except, of course, the only people who would still work for you at that point are the worst white trash losers who have absolutely no other options. You know, the kind who sits in his truck all day and posts to message boards instead of making deliveries, and when he gets to a work site, he whines about how lazy the unions guys are because they make more than he does.



Then go ahead and show my posts during the work week.  I took some time off a few months ago for one week when I was home.  Other than that, you barely see me post during the day.  And if I do, it's while I'm getting loaded or unloaded or both.  It takes between 20 minutes to 2 hours depending on where you go.  WTF am I supposed to do?  



JoeB131 said:


> Well, you see, here's the thing. My employers are happy. They look forward to coming to work, and they produce good service. So, yeah, you pay a little more for my service, but you get better service. As opposed to the company who hired White Trash Ray who spent all day insulting the customers....
> 
> Of course, pay and benefits aren't everything. There are companies that pay really well but are toxic work environments. There are companies that pay kind of average, but everyone has been there for years and they are a community. But the notion that you can continue to fuck your workers, and get good results... um, this is why the Japanese are beating the pants off of us.



A customer cares about one thing, getting his or her freight to the desired destination.  That's it.  Whoever does it the cheapest is likely to get that work.  



JoeB131 said:


> No, buddy, I found several jobs that offered coverage only looking for 10 minutes. the reason why you can't find coverage is you won't look. Oh, yeah, and you think "Dead Hooker List" is a good source for quality jobs. Here's a hint, if the company is too cheap to pay for a job listing, they are too cheap to pay anything for the actual job.



You found one with a shit company that has garbage equipment.  Many of their cabs don't even have AC, and I seriously believe some of them have inadequate heat as well.  I talk to their drivers all the time.  I haven't found one that was happy with the company yet.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So what do you want to do, steal all their money and give some of it to you? Okay, so let's say we did that. Now we can run the government for about a year. WTF are we going to do the next year, the year after that, the year after that? After all, there would be no rich people to tax any longer; you know, the same rich people that mostly pay for our government today?



Again, buddy, you mistake the parasites for a vital organ.  We could do just fine without the rich. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> There is also no evidence that infant mortality rates or life expectancy is related to our healthcare system. In fact, most people die in this country when they are on government healthcare called Medicare. I'd give you a link as to why our infant mortality rate is lower than some countries, but I know how you hate to learn new things.



wow, there's no evidence that the two clearest metrics of health is in any way related tot he fact that 25% of our population has no or inadequate health coverage.... 

Um, yes, most people die while on Medicare because private insurance won't cover really old people, dummy. Man, you just aren't very smart, are you? 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> If you had two restaurants like Red Lobster, and one cost you 30 bucks more per dinner and you get the same thing, that restaurant will be closed up in a year or two.



Miss the point entirely, but that's okay...  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Other than that, you barely see me post during the day. And if I do, it's while I'm getting loaded or unloaded or both.



I'm sure you are "Getting loaded" a lot. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> A customer cares about one thing, getting his or her freight to the desired destination. That's it. Whoever does it the cheapest is likely to get that work.



Really/ Dude, I used to be in purchasing.  I've seen more than a few companies that brought in product late, lost packages, brought in damaged skids, because they hired the cheap guys who didn't care if they got fired or not.   We told the vendor to never use that company again, or we wouldn't use them. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> You found one with a shit company that has garbage equipment. Many of their cabs don't even have AC, and I seriously believe some of them have inadequate heat as well. I talk to their drivers all the time. I haven't found one that was happy with the company yet.



Actually, the drivers probably told you that because they didn't want you to apply...  They'd have told you they had daily sodomy if that kept you away.


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know what it stands for--Independence.  This is obvious by the tablet the statue is holding marking the day we adopted the Declaration of Independence.   The poor the weary stuff was added later on, but that's not why it was built:
> 
> *What is the quote on the statue of liberty?*
> 
> There are several phrases associated with the Statue of Liberty, but the most recognizable is “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” This quote comes from Emma Lazarus’ sonnet, New Colossus, which she wrote for a fundraiser auction to raise money for the pedestal upon which the Statue of Liberty now sits. The poem did not receive much recognition and was quite forgotten after the auction.
> 
> In the early 1900s and after Lazarus’ death, one of her friends began a campaign to memorialize Lazarus and her New Colossus sonnet. The effort was a success, and a plaque with the poem’s text was mounted inside the pedestal of the statute.
> 
> What is the quote on the statue of liberty? · How Tall is the Statue of Liberty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this apparently cannot be said enough:
> 
> It's just a poem.  Has no force of law whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the point was the statue was not erected to welcome foreigners.  It was put there so that when foreigners come, they are reminded of the value of liberty--not put there as a Welcome Mat.
> 
> The statue was a gift from France with the sole intention of celebrating freedom.  The liberals like to use the poem to say that the statue was put here to welcome any and all foreigners into the country.  It's just a wives tale is all it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> * “Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”*
> 
> *That sounds like a welcome mat to me.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which again, was added after the statue was up for several years by somebody that had little to do with the statue other than create the pedestal.  It was not the reason for the statue of liberty. The theme behind the statue was to celebrate Independence--not immigration.  Immigration had nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I agree.  Immigration was not an issue.  Except for the Chinese, our borders were open to all nationalities.  The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the torch, heading toward Ellis Island.
> 
> Maybe we should change the inscription because America certainly doesn't welcome your tired, poor, homeless, and huddled masses.  In fact, that is exactly who we're trying to keep out.  Who we really want in America is White English speaking well educated upper class immigrants, who have never known adversity and who will raise over-privileged white children to follow in their footsteps.*
Click to expand...


We're talking about immigration, not illegal aliens coming here illegally, racist race baiting piece of shit.

You can try to conflate legal with illegal immigration all day long and it's still a pile of stinking shit.  It's like equating customers of a store and shoplifters


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, without a doubt that is my position, but the wall was not in support of what I think, it was in support to curb illegal crossings.
> 
> There is no possible way that even Republicans would vote to stop all immigration, but I will support any measure that gets us closer to my desire.
> 
> 
> 
> *Maybe we should discuss legal immigration because we both agree illegal immigration needs to stop.  We just don't agree on the means.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's to discuss?  We have legal immigration and have had it for decades.  There is nothing wrong with our immigration system outside of not enforcing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I think we are in total disagreement in the need for legal immigrants.  You would see the numbers decreased and I want to see them increased.  You believe they take jobs from Americans and I believe they create them.  You think the immigration system is just fine the way it is. I think it should be totally overhauled because it focuses almost entirely on keeping undesirable elements out and ignores encouraging those that are desirable. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> should there be no limits on legal immigration?   Do you know that all immigration was stopped in the 1920s in order to allow time for recent immigrants (legal) to assimilate and become americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Interesting, I didn't know that.
> 
> I believe in yearly limits on total immigration and country targets.  I envision a system which selects or recruits the best possible immigrants regardless of nationality.
> 
> In the system we have today, nationality is the most important criteria for immigration, followed by the lack of a criminal record, not being on a terrorist watch list, and having someone in the US that will vouch for you.  The purpose of  the system is make sure we don't get any really bad people.  That's OK as far as it goes, but why not shoot for getting some really good people that can be an asset to nation.  It is certainly possible but not with the system we have today.  It tends ignore the qualifications of the individual in favor of racist and xenophobic ideas of a hundred years ago. *
Click to expand...


Wanting people to come here legally  is racist.  Fuck you, garbage


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children are also more likely to be killed by a family member than by playing in the street but we don’t ignore them playing there nor encourage it as a good idea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody saying MS-13 is a good idea.  THe craziness is locking up small children and yanking them from their mother's arms because they MIGHT grow up to join MS-13.
Click to expand...


Strawman.  You just lose more and more touch with reality.  No one thinks that except you apparently since you created the idea


----------



## WEATHER53

JoeB131 said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children are also more likely to be killed by a family member than by playing in the street but we don’t ignore them playing there nor encourage it as a good idea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody saying MS-13 is a good idea.  THe craziness is locking up small children and yanking them from their mother's arms because they MIGHT grow up to join MS-13.
Click to expand...

When that starts happening please advise us


----------



## kaz

WEATHER53 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children are also more likely to be killed by a family member than by playing in the street but we don’t ignore them playing there nor encourage it as a good idea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody saying MS-13 is a good idea.  THe craziness is locking up small children and yanking them from their mother's arms because they MIGHT grow up to join MS-13.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When that starts happening please advise us
Click to expand...


Joe brings the whack to whack job.

They're afraid because they think the babies are M-13!  You know he was saluting the general after he came up with that one


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this apparently cannot be said enough:
> 
> It's just a poem.  Has no force of law whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the point was the statue was not erected to welcome foreigners.  It was put there so that when foreigners come, they are reminded of the value of liberty--not put there as a Welcome Mat.
> 
> The statue was a gift from France with the sole intention of celebrating freedom.  The liberals like to use the poem to say that the statue was put here to welcome any and all foreigners into the country.  It's just a wives tale is all it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> * “Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”*
> 
> *That sounds like a welcome mat to me.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which again, was added after the statue was up for several years by somebody that had little to do with the statue other than create the pedestal.  It was not the reason for the statue of liberty. The theme behind the statue was to celebrate Independence--not immigration.  Immigration had nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I agree.  Immigration was not an issue.  Except for the Chinese, our borders were open to all nationalities.  The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the torch, heading toward Ellis Island.
> 
> Maybe we should change the inscription because America certainly doesn't welcome your tired, poor, homeless, and huddled masses.  In fact, that is exactly who we're trying to keep out.  Who we really want in America is White English speaking well educated upper class immigrants, who have never known adversity and who will raise over-privileged white children to follow in their footsteps.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about immigration, not illegal aliens coming here illegally, racist race baiting piece of shit.
> 
> You can try to conflate legal with illegal immigration all day long and it's still a pile of stinking shit.  It's like equating customers of a store and shoplifters
Click to expand...


Even if we could stop all illegals and kick the ones out that are here, we will always keep bringing them in by about a million a year plus workers and Visa's. As for myself, I would like to virtually close down the borders. 

A guy calls me on the phone today, and the number said he was from my drug store.  I had to ask the SOB to repeat himself about five times until I could figure out WTF he was trying to tell me.  He's trying to pronounce medications in his very broken English.  Never had that problem 40 years ago.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Again, buddy, you mistake the parasites for a vital organ. We could do just fine without the rich.



So who would pay all the bills for the country if there were no rich?  Remember that the rich pay most of the taxes that do run our country and half of the country pays no income tax at all.  So where are you going to get this money from?  I can't wait to read your answer to that one.  




JoeB131 said:


> wow, there's no evidence that the two clearest metrics of health is in any way related tot he fact that 25% of our population has no or inadequate health coverage....
> 
> Um, yes, most people die while on Medicare because private insurance won't cover really old people, dummy. Man, you just aren't very smart, are you?



Sure private insurance does.  Do you think well-to-do people use Medicare?  

Just because you have no coverage doesn't mean you don't get help if needed.  



JoeB131 said:


> Really/ Dude, I used to be in purchasing. I've seen more than a few companies that brought in product late, lost packages, brought in damaged skids, because they hired the cheap guys who didn't care if they got fired or not. We told the vendor to never use that company again, or we wouldn't use them.





JoeB131 said:


> Actually, the drivers probably told you that because they didn't want you to apply... They'd have told you they had daily sodomy if that kept you away.



Oh, I'm aware of those companies, most of them are union where the employees don't give a shite because nobody ever gets fired for it.


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the point was the statue was not erected to welcome foreigners.  It was put there so that when foreigners come, they are reminded of the value of liberty--not put there as a Welcome Mat.
> 
> The statue was a gift from France with the sole intention of celebrating freedom.  The liberals like to use the poem to say that the statue was put here to welcome any and all foreigners into the country.  It's just a wives tale is all it is.
> 
> 
> 
> * “Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”*
> 
> *That sounds like a welcome mat to me.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which again, was added after the statue was up for several years by somebody that had little to do with the statue other than create the pedestal.  It was not the reason for the statue of liberty. The theme behind the statue was to celebrate Independence--not immigration.  Immigration had nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I agree.  Immigration was not an issue.  Except for the Chinese, our borders were open to all nationalities.  The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the torch, heading toward Ellis Island.
> 
> Maybe we should change the inscription because America certainly doesn't welcome your tired, poor, homeless, and huddled masses.  In fact, that is exactly who we're trying to keep out.  Who we really want in America is White English speaking well educated upper class immigrants, who have never known adversity and who will raise over-privileged white children to follow in their footsteps.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about immigration, not illegal aliens coming here illegally, racist race baiting piece of shit.
> 
> You can try to conflate legal with illegal immigration all day long and it's still a pile of stinking shit.  It's like equating customers of a store and shoplifters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if we could stop all illegals and kick the ones out that are here, we will always keep bringing them in by about a million a year plus workers and Visa's. As for myself, I would like to virtually close down the borders.
> 
> A guy calls me on the phone today, and the number said he was from my drug store.  I had to ask the SOB to repeat himself about five times until I could figure out WTF he was trying to tell me.  He's trying to pronounce medications in his very broken English.  Never had that problem 40 years ago.
Click to expand...


Racists like Flopper who exploit brown people for his own selfish personal interest are the most despicable.

I'm a good guy!  Now shower me with free government cheese, right Flopper the race whore?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> * “Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”*
> 
> *That sounds like a welcome mat to me.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which again, was added after the statue was up for several years by somebody that had little to do with the statue other than create the pedestal.  It was not the reason for the statue of liberty. The theme behind the statue was to celebrate Independence--not immigration.  Immigration had nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I agree.  Immigration was not an issue.  Except for the Chinese, our borders were open to all nationalities.  The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the torch, heading toward Ellis Island.
> 
> Maybe we should change the inscription because America certainly doesn't welcome your tired, poor, homeless, and huddled masses.  In fact, that is exactly who we're trying to keep out.  Who we really want in America is White English speaking well educated upper class immigrants, who have never known adversity and who will raise over-privileged white children to follow in their footsteps.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about immigration, not illegal aliens coming here illegally, racist race baiting piece of shit.
> 
> You can try to conflate legal with illegal immigration all day long and it's still a pile of stinking shit.  It's like equating customers of a store and shoplifters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if we could stop all illegals and kick the ones out that are here, we will always keep bringing them in by about a million a year plus workers and Visa's. As for myself, I would like to virtually close down the borders.
> 
> A guy calls me on the phone today, and the number said he was from my drug store.  I had to ask the SOB to repeat himself about five times until I could figure out WTF he was trying to tell me.  He's trying to pronounce medications in his very broken English.  Never had that problem 40 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racists like Flopper who exploit brown people for his own selfish personal interest are the most despicable.
> 
> I'm a good guy!  Now shower me with free government cheese, right Flopper the race whore?
Click to expand...


Makes you wonder how much immigration support we would have from the left if these illegals were from Europe and Canada.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Even if we could stop all illegals and kick the ones out that are here, we will always keep bringing them in by about a million a year plus workers and Visa's. As for myself, I would like to virtually close down the borders.



Of course you would.  You are terrified of the competition. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> A guy calls me on the phone today, and the number said he was from my drug store. I had to ask the SOB to repeat himself about five times until I could figure out WTF he was trying to tell me. He's trying to pronounce medications in his very broken English. Never had that problem 40 years ago.



40 years ago, the schools did a good enough job teaching kids how to work in pharmacies.. not so much now.  Now Cleetus can't read, so they have to bring in Pradip from India to work in the Pharmacy because he could graduate pharmacy college. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> So who would pay all the bills for the country if there were no rich? Remember that the rich pay most of the taxes that do run our country and half of the country pays no income tax at all. So where are you going to get this money from? I can't wait to read your answer to that one.



If the wealth was fairly distributed, we wouldn't need a lot of government programs.  Again, we could do just fine without the Uber Rich. Europe and Japan already do. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Sure private insurance does. Do you think well-to-do people use Medicare?
> 
> Just because you have no coverage doesn't mean you don't get help if needed.



If you really need it,  you are going to go broke very fast without coverage. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Oh, I'm aware of those companies, most of them are union where the employees don't give a shite because nobody ever gets fired for it.



Union Truckers usually do a good job.  It's the small fly by night companies with crappy equipment and white trash drivers that were the problem.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if we could stop all illegals and kick the ones out that are here, we will always keep bringing them in by about a million a year plus workers and Visa's. As for myself, I would like to virtually close down the borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you would.  You are terrified of the competition
Click to expand...


Sure Goebbels

Joe:  We need people to pick fruit, Americans won't do it

Joe:  You're afraid of competition

So you want to bring in only poor, uneducated people because you're not afraid of competition.  That's your own story, Goebbels.  Meanwhile, Ray and I want to bring in only people who can work and support themselves.  You know, not the Mexican yous.

Of the three of us, Ray and I are clearly the ones who aren't afraid of competition, you're just full of shit.

You got fired for being a paper pusher with a bad attitude and now you write resumes even though you have no reading comprehension and don't know even basic business terms.

Your stories are lame on their own.  You don't even need help


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> So you want to bring in only poor, uneducated people because you're not afraid of competition. That's your own story, Goebbels. Meanwhile, Ray and I want to bring in only people who can work and support themselves. You know, not the Mexican yous.
> 
> Of the three of us, Ray and I are clearly the ones who aren't afraid of competition, you're just full of shit.



Naw, man... I don't worry about illegals because they can't do what I do. Ray obviously lives in terror that some Mexican can figure out how to drive a truck in a straight line.  



kaz said:


> You got fired for being a paper pusher with a bad attitude and now you write resumes even though you have no reading comprehension and don't know even basic business terms.



And yet I make a lot of money doing it... 

Funny, that. 



kaz said:


> Your stories are lame on their own. You don't even need help



Yet you wait breathlessly for them and spend a lot of time stalking me on line, buddy.  Probably because I bitched slapped you by pointing out what a bottom feeder you are in the business world.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to bring in only poor, uneducated people because you're not afraid of competition. That's your own story, Goebbels. Meanwhile, Ray and I want to bring in only people who can work and support themselves. You know, not the Mexican yous.
> 
> Of the three of us, Ray and I are clearly the ones who aren't afraid of competition, you're just full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, man... I don't worry about illegals because they can't do what I do. Ray obviously lives in terror that some Mexican can figure out how to drive a truck in a straight line.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got fired for being a paper pusher with a bad attitude and now you write resumes even though you have no reading comprehension and don't know even basic business terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet I make a lot of money doing it...
> 
> Funny, that.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your stories are lame on their own. You don't even need help
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you wait breathlessly for them and spend a lot of time stalking me on line, buddy.  Probably because I bitched slapped you by pointing out what a bottom feeder you are in the business world.
Click to expand...


Yeah Goebbels, $25K a year is a "lot of money."  As for that Mexicans can't do what you do, why can't a poor, uneducated Mexican write resumes without having reading comprehension or knowledge of basic business terms?  I think they have your lack of skillset covered just fine.

Now that I think of it, I bet they could push paper like you did too, only with a better attitude and an appreciation they have a job


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to bring in only poor, uneducated people because you're not afraid of competition. That's your own story, Goebbels. Meanwhile, Ray and I want to bring in only people who can work and support themselves. You know, not the Mexican yous.
> 
> Of the three of us, Ray and I are clearly the ones who aren't afraid of competition, you're just full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, man... I don't worry about illegals because they can't do what I do. Ray obviously lives in terror that some Mexican can figure out how to drive a truck in a straight line
Click to expand...


I'll admit that I don't know much about the life of being a trucker.  But the successful truck drivers that I have come across are polite, hard working and value their jobs.  I bet Ray is a hell of a truck driver.

That while you're in a people business and have no idea how sales works in your own industry, have extremely low English comprehension, don't know basic business terms and have a bad attitude.

Like you're talking


----------



## Redfish

Flopper said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the point was the statue was not erected to welcome foreigners.  It was put there so that when foreigners come, they are reminded of the value of liberty--not put there as a Welcome Mat.
> 
> The statue was a gift from France with the sole intention of celebrating freedom.  The liberals like to use the poem to say that the statue was put here to welcome any and all foreigners into the country.  It's just a wives tale is all it is.
> 
> 
> 
> * “Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”*
> 
> *That sounds like a welcome mat to me.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which again, was added after the statue was up for several years by somebody that had little to do with the statue other than create the pedestal.  It was not the reason for the statue of liberty. The theme behind the statue was to celebrate Independence--not immigration.  Immigration had nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I agree.  Immigration was not an issue.  Except for the Chinese, our borders were open to all nationalities.  The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the torch, heading toward Ellis Island.
> 
> Maybe we should change the inscription because America certainly doesn't welcome your tired, poor, homeless, and huddled masses.  In fact, that is exactly who we're trying to keep out.  Who we really want in America is White English speaking well educated upper class immigrants, who have never known adversity and who will raise over-privileged white children to follow in their footsteps.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the people who came through Ellis Island came legally,  that's the difference, dude.   I don't understand why you don't get this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Apparently, you reply before even reading the post.  I think I understand probably better than most people on this thread the differences between illegal and legal immigrants. Our entire immigration systems has serious problems starting with who and how we select immigrants to how we keep undocumented immigrants out of the country.   *
Click to expand...



I read your post and understand exactly what you said.  No one, including me, has ever said that only white, educated, English speaking people should be allowed to immigrate here.   All we are saying is come legally, and if you come in illegally you will be deported back to where you came from or stopped at the border.   What do you find objectionable about that?


----------



## Redfish

Flopper said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It's pretty obvious that we don't have the solutions to those problems.  The same people doing the same thing over and over is not going to solve anything.  Maybe instead of looking inward for solutions we should be looking outward.  Being that this country was build by immigrants and their offspring, building a wall around the country with a keep out sign might be a very bad idea. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Major Flaw in your thinking and those who think like you is that the world is the same as it was 200 years ago.
> It is not.  Too many people coming here now are sent by their governments to over-run America (Mexico and other SA countries) while many come here on missions of disruption and hatred such as Jihad and MS-13.
> 
> Your thinking is naive and foolish in the context of today's immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The Mexican government does not send immigrants to the US.  That rather silly idea goes back about 50 years.
> 
> Why in the world would the Mexican government want to send workers to the US when they are experiencing a shortage of both farm and skilled labor?  Mexican daily wages have risen almost 60% over the last 10 years.  The unemployment rate in Mexico is now 3.2% compared to the US unemployment rate of 4%.  This goes a long way in explaining why more Mexican immigrants are returning home than arriving in the United States.  Illegal  immigration across our southern boarder was recently at a 20 year low and is predicted to continue falling over the next 10 years.
> 
> The long term outlook in the labor market both in the US and Mexico is a rising shortage of workers, particular in agriculture.  The shortage in the US is predicted to reach 34 million by 2024.
> 
> The Mara Salvatrucha gang (MS-13) was started in Los Angeles in the 1980's by Salvadoran immigrants fleeing the Central American Civil wars.  It is estimated that  there are 8,000 to 10,000 members in the US, a tiny fraction of the number of legal and illegal immigrants, and naturalized Americans from Mexico and Central America, estimated to be over 40 million.
> 
> It's interesting to note that MS-13 grew out the refuges of the civil wars in Central American in which the US government actively promoted by pumping billions of dollars in military aid in order stop communist revolutionaries.  Now, 35 years later we are dealing with the consequences.
> Mexico Average Daily Wages | 2000-2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast
> Illegal Immigration Statistics - FactCheck.org
> MS-13 - Wikipedia
> Central American crisis - Wikipedia*
Click to expand...



so now MS13 is our fault?  you are a very confused person.


----------



## kaz

Redfish said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It's pretty obvious that we don't have the solutions to those problems.  The same people doing the same thing over and over is not going to solve anything.  Maybe instead of looking inward for solutions we should be looking outward.  Being that this country was build by immigrants and their offspring, building a wall around the country with a keep out sign might be a very bad idea. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Major Flaw in your thinking and those who think like you is that the world is the same as it was 200 years ago.
> It is not.  Too many people coming here now are sent by their governments to over-run America (Mexico and other SA countries) while many come here on missions of disruption and hatred such as Jihad and MS-13.
> 
> Your thinking is naive and foolish in the context of today's immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The Mexican government does not send immigrants to the US.  That rather silly idea goes back about 50 years.
> 
> Why in the world would the Mexican government want to send workers to the US when they are experiencing a shortage of both farm and skilled labor?  Mexican daily wages have risen almost 60% over the last 10 years.  The unemployment rate in Mexico is now 3.2% compared to the US unemployment rate of 4%.  This goes a long way in explaining why more Mexican immigrants are returning home than arriving in the United States.  Illegal  immigration across our southern boarder was recently at a 20 year low and is predicted to continue falling over the next 10 years.
> 
> The long term outlook in the labor market both in the US and Mexico is a rising shortage of workers, particular in agriculture.  The shortage in the US is predicted to reach 34 million by 2024.
> 
> The Mara Salvatrucha gang (MS-13) was started in Los Angeles in the 1980's by Salvadoran immigrants fleeing the Central American Civil wars.  It is estimated that  there are 8,000 to 10,000 members in the US, a tiny fraction of the number of legal and illegal immigrants, and naturalized Americans from Mexico and Central America, estimated to be over 40 million.
> 
> It's interesting to note that MS-13 grew out the refuges of the civil wars in Central American in which the US government actively promoted by pumping billions of dollars in military aid in order stop communist revolutionaries.  Now, 35 years later we are dealing with the consequences.
> Mexico Average Daily Wages | 2000-2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast
> Illegal Immigration Statistics - FactCheck.org
> MS-13 - Wikipedia
> Central American crisis - Wikipedia*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so now MS13 is our fault?  you are a very confused person.
Click to expand...

You're white, thats all the racist flopper needs to know.

White, male, american, the axis of evil in one


----------



## Redfish

kaz said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It's pretty obvious that we don't have the solutions to those problems.  The same people doing the same thing over and over is not going to solve anything.  Maybe instead of looking inward for solutions we should be looking outward.  Being that this country was build by immigrants and their offspring, building a wall around the country with a keep out sign might be a very bad idea. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Major Flaw in your thinking and those who think like you is that the world is the same as it was 200 years ago.
> It is not.  Too many people coming here now are sent by their governments to over-run America (Mexico and other SA countries) while many come here on missions of disruption and hatred such as Jihad and MS-13.
> 
> Your thinking is naive and foolish in the context of today's immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The Mexican government does not send immigrants to the US.  That rather silly idea goes back about 50 years.
> 
> Why in the world would the Mexican government want to send workers to the US when they are experiencing a shortage of both farm and skilled labor?  Mexican daily wages have risen almost 60% over the last 10 years.  The unemployment rate in Mexico is now 3.2% compared to the US unemployment rate of 4%.  This goes a long way in explaining why more Mexican immigrants are returning home than arriving in the United States.  Illegal  immigration across our southern boarder was recently at a 20 year low and is predicted to continue falling over the next 10 years.
> 
> The long term outlook in the labor market both in the US and Mexico is a rising shortage of workers, particular in agriculture.  The shortage in the US is predicted to reach 34 million by 2024.
> 
> The Mara Salvatrucha gang (MS-13) was started in Los Angeles in the 1980's by Salvadoran immigrants fleeing the Central American Civil wars.  It is estimated that  there are 8,000 to 10,000 members in the US, a tiny fraction of the number of legal and illegal immigrants, and naturalized Americans from Mexico and Central America, estimated to be over 40 million.
> 
> It's interesting to note that MS-13 grew out the refuges of the civil wars in Central American in which the US government actively promoted by pumping billions of dollars in military aid in order stop communist revolutionaries.  Now, 35 years later we are dealing with the consequences.
> Mexico Average Daily Wages | 2000-2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast
> Illegal Immigration Statistics - FactCheck.org
> MS-13 - Wikipedia
> Central American crisis - Wikipedia*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so now MS13 is our fault?  you are a very confused person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're white, thats all the racist flopper needs to know.
> 
> White, male, american, the axis of evil in one
Click to expand...



some don't consider Cajuns to be white,  but dats ok.


----------



## WEATHER53

Redfish said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> * “Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”*
> 
> *That sounds like a welcome mat to me.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which again, was added after the statue was up for several years by somebody that had little to do with the statue other than create the pedestal.  It was not the reason for the statue of liberty. The theme behind the statue was to celebrate Independence--not immigration.  Immigration had nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I agree.  Immigration was not an issue.  Except for the Chinese, our borders were open to all nationalities.  The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the torch, heading toward Ellis Island.
> 
> Maybe we should change the inscription because America certainly doesn't welcome your tired, poor, homeless, and huddled masses.  In fact, that is exactly who we're trying to keep out.  Who we really want in America is White English speaking well educated upper class immigrants, who have never known adversity and who will raise over-privileged white children to follow in their footsteps.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the people who came through Ellis Island came legally,  that's the difference, dude.   I don't understand why you don't get this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Apparently, you reply before even reading the post.  I think I understand probably better than most people on this thread the differences between illegal and legal immigrants. Our entire immigration systems has serious problems starting with who and how we select immigrants to how we keep undocumented immigrants out of the country.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I read your post and understand exactly what you said.  No one, including me, has ever said that only white, educated, English speaking people should be allowed to immigrate here.   All we are saying is come legally, and if you come in illegally you will be deported back to where you came from or stopped at the border.   What do you find objectionable about that?
Click to expand...

The law is EASY to obey. Why do libbies find it hard and objectionable?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

WEATHER53 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which again, was added after the statue was up for several years by somebody that had little to do with the statue other than create the pedestal.  It was not the reason for the statue of liberty. The theme behind the statue was to celebrate Independence--not immigration.  Immigration had nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> *I agree.  Immigration was not an issue.  Except for the Chinese, our borders were open to all nationalities.  The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the torch, heading toward Ellis Island.
> 
> Maybe we should change the inscription because America certainly doesn't welcome your tired, poor, homeless, and huddled masses.  In fact, that is exactly who we're trying to keep out.  Who we really want in America is White English speaking well educated upper class immigrants, who have never known adversity and who will raise over-privileged white children to follow in their footsteps.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the people who came through Ellis Island came legally,  that's the difference, dude.   I don't understand why you don't get this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Apparently, you reply before even reading the post.  I think I understand probably better than most people on this thread the differences between illegal and legal immigrants. Our entire immigration systems has serious problems starting with who and how we select immigrants to how we keep undocumented immigrants out of the country.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I read your post and understand exactly what you said.  No one, including me, has ever said that only white, educated, English speaking people should be allowed to immigrate here.   All we are saying is come legally, and if you come in illegally you will be deported back to where you came from or stopped at the border.   What do you find objectionable about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is EASY to obey. Why do libbies find it hard and objectionable?
Click to expand...


It's just like they do with police shootings.  They complain about the police using deadly force to protect themselves, protest and riot when police have to instead of doing the simplest thing:  Follow all order of the officer and nobody gets killed.  Too complicated  for liberals to figure out.  It makes more sense to get themselves arrested jumping up and down on a police car during  riot.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Of course you would. You are terrified of the competition.



We all should be because they are competing for lower wages which brings down all our wages.  You don't have the intelligence to understand that.  Yet you bitch and moan about the fading of unions in this country which means workers get paid according to their abilities instead of what the unions force companies to pay them. 



JoeB131 said:


> 40 years ago, the schools did a good enough job teaching kids how to work in pharmacies.. not so much now. Now Cleetus can't read, so they have to bring in Pradip from India to work in the Pharmacy because he could graduate pharmacy college.



Pharmacy college?  Where is this pharmacy college located exactly?  

You're amazing Joe.  People who work at at a pharmacy are not going to this pharmacy college of yours.  It's just a simple job of taking orders, contacting and checking out customers.  You don't need people from India to do that. 

Our schools?  You mean the ones that are almost entirely run by liberals?  



JoeB131 said:


> If the wealth was fairly distributed, we wouldn't need a lot of government programs. Again, we could do just fine without the Uber Rich. Europe and Japan already do.



So does Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, yet I never heard you talk about moving to any one of these places. 

Not to worry though, keep voting in Socialists, dictators and Communists that hold this belief of total wealth confiscation.  Do you want to know what the result will be?  

800,000 people are about to flee New York and California because of taxes, say economists



JoeB131 said:


> If you really need it, you are going to go broke very fast without coverage.



They can't take from you what you don't have.  In any case, it has nothing to do with our average lifespan or birth rate.  



JoeB131 said:


> Union Truckers usually do a good job. It's the small fly by night companies with crappy equipment and white trash drivers that were the problem.



Really?  UPS regulations are that anything marked FRAGLE cannot be dropped less than three feet.  

The problem with you liberals is you think you know more than anybody else about everything.  Here you are trying to debate me--a guy that's been in this industry for over 30 years about delivery and trucking outfits.


----------



## Coyote

*This thread is in POLITICS.  That means it must stay on topic, which is IMMIGRATION POLICY.  I am going to clean the recent material in the thread, in the meantime discuss the topic.*


----------



## Coyote

A new thread has been created for the off topic topic since there is a good discussion.  It can be found here Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Flopper

Redfish said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> * “Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”*
> 
> *That sounds like a welcome mat to me.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which again, was added after the statue was up for several years by somebody that had little to do with the statue other than create the pedestal.  It was not the reason for the statue of liberty. The theme behind the statue was to celebrate Independence--not immigration.  Immigration had nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I agree.  Immigration was not an issue.  Except for the Chinese, our borders were open to all nationalities.  The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the torch, heading toward Ellis Island.
> 
> Maybe we should change the inscription because America certainly doesn't welcome your tired, poor, homeless, and huddled masses.  In fact, that is exactly who we're trying to keep out.  Who we really want in America is White English speaking well educated upper class immigrants, who have never known adversity and who will raise over-privileged white children to follow in their footsteps.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the people who came through Ellis Island came legally,  that's the difference, dude.   I don't understand why you don't get this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Apparently, you reply before even reading the post.  I think I understand probably better than most people on this thread the differences between illegal and legal immigrants. Our entire immigration systems has serious problems starting with who and how we select immigrants to how we keep undocumented immigrants out of the country.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I read your post and understand exactly what you said.  No one, including me, has ever said that only white, educated, English speaking people should be allowed to immigrate here.   All we are saying is come legally, and if you come in illegally you will be deported back to where you came from or stopped at the border.   What do you find objectionable about that?
Click to expand...

*Nothing except the quotas should be reasonable.  It shouldn't take a 50 to a 100 years for a computer engineer from India to get a work permit.  Neither should it be impossible for a Honduran family of agricultural workers to immigrate.  The decision to allow a person to immigrate should be based on their education, skills and character, not there country of origin.  

There's a computer engineer in my condo with an H2b visa, a graduate of Stanford and CalTech  that needs a work permit so he can leave his current employer and start a new company in the US.  He was told by immigration that there are 225,000 workers from India  trying to get a work permit so the wait would be in excess of 50 years.  If he were born in Thailand, the wait would be about 1 year.  That's crazy.  I'm all for enforcing immigration laws but those laws need to fair and in the best interest of the country. *


----------



## JoeB131

Here's how I would reform immigration. 

1) Create something like germany's guest worker program, for low skill labor. 

2) Put more enforcement emphasis on employers, not the border. 

3) Create a national ID Act that would clearly identify all citizens and resident aliens.  You can't get a job without one, or access government services.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which again, was added after the statue was up for several years by somebody that had little to do with the statue other than create the pedestal.  It was not the reason for the statue of liberty. The theme behind the statue was to celebrate Independence--not immigration.  Immigration had nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> *I agree.  Immigration was not an issue.  Except for the Chinese, our borders were open to all nationalities.  The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the torch, heading toward Ellis Island.
> 
> Maybe we should change the inscription because America certainly doesn't welcome your tired, poor, homeless, and huddled masses.  In fact, that is exactly who we're trying to keep out.  Who we really want in America is White English speaking well educated upper class immigrants, who have never known adversity and who will raise over-privileged white children to follow in their footsteps.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the people who came through Ellis Island came legally,  that's the difference, dude.   I don't understand why you don't get this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Apparently, you reply before even reading the post.  I think I understand probably better than most people on this thread the differences between illegal and legal immigrants. Our entire immigration systems has serious problems starting with who and how we select immigrants to how we keep undocumented immigrants out of the country.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I read your post and understand exactly what you said.  No one, including me, has ever said that only white, educated, English speaking people should be allowed to immigrate here.   All we are saying is come legally, and if you come in illegally you will be deported back to where you came from or stopped at the border.   What do you find objectionable about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nothing except the quotas should be reasonable.  It shouldn't take a 50 to a 100 years for a computer engineer from India to get a work permit.  Neither should it be impossible for a Honduran family of agricultural workers to immigrate.  The decision to allow a person to immigrate should be based on their education, skills and character, not there country of origin.
> 
> There's a computer engineer in my condo with an H2b visa, a graduate of Stanford and CalTech  that needs a work permit so he can leave his current employer and start a new company in the US.  He was told by immigration that there are 225,000 workers from India  trying to get a work permit so the wait would be in excess of 50 years.  If he were born in Thailand, the wait would be about 1 year.  That's crazy.  I'm all for enforcing immigration laws but those laws need to fair and in the best interest of the country. *
Click to expand...


Then why doesn't he go to Thailand?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Here's how I would reform immigration.
> 
> 1) Create something like germany's guest worker program, for low skill labor.
> 
> 2) Put more enforcement emphasis on employers, not the border.
> 
> 3) Create a national ID Act that would clearly identify all citizens and resident aliens.  You can't get a job without one, or access government services.



My immigration reform:  Caught here illegally, you face a minimum five years in prison before deportation.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> My immigration reform: Caught here illegally, you face a minimum five years in prison before deportation.



We don't have enough prison space for the real criminals, much less a misdemeanor.  

Right now, we lock up 2 million people.  

There are currently 11 million undocumented immigrants here.  You are really going to lock them all up for 5 years?  

You also have the problem is that their home countries are in no hurry to take them back.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> My immigration reform: Caught here illegally, you face a minimum five years in prison before deportation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have enough prison space for the real criminals, much less a misdemeanor.
> 
> Right now, we lock up 2 million people.
> 
> There are currently 11 million undocumented immigrants here.  You are really going to lock them all up for 5 years?
> 
> You also have the problem is that their home countries are in no hurry to take them back.
Click to expand...


Yeah gee, I wonder why?  

You wouldn't need to build 11 million prison cells because most all of them would pack their things and get the hell out of the country.  A good enough deterrent works every time it's tried. Don't you remember what happened in Arizona when they instituted their own immigration policies that Ears stopped?  Most of them got out of Dodge.  

We keep treating these illegals like guests--especially in Democrat controlled areas, and then wonder how we ended up with 11 million of them.


----------



## WEATHER53

11 million st approx $1,000 a day everyday to either care for medically, house, feed or incarcerate. I am
niw taking deductions as they are dependents


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I agree.  Immigration was not an issue.  Except for the Chinese, our borders were open to all nationalities.  The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the torch, heading toward Ellis Island.
> 
> Maybe we should change the inscription because America certainly doesn't welcome your tired, poor, homeless, and huddled masses.  In fact, that is exactly who we're trying to keep out.  Who we really want in America is White English speaking well educated upper class immigrants, who have never known adversity and who will raise over-privileged white children to follow in their footsteps.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the people who came through Ellis Island came legally,  that's the difference, dude.   I don't understand why you don't get this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Apparently, you reply before even reading the post.  I think I understand probably better than most people on this thread the differences between illegal and legal immigrants. Our entire immigration systems has serious problems starting with who and how we select immigrants to how we keep undocumented immigrants out of the country.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I read your post and understand exactly what you said.  No one, including me, has ever said that only white, educated, English speaking people should be allowed to immigrate here.   All we are saying is come legally, and if you come in illegally you will be deported back to where you came from or stopped at the border.   What do you find objectionable about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nothing except the quotas should be reasonable.  It shouldn't take a 50 to a 100 years for a computer engineer from India to get a work permit.  Neither should it be impossible for a Honduran family of agricultural workers to immigrate.  The decision to allow a person to immigrate should be based on their education, skills and character, not there country of origin.
> 
> There's a computer engineer in my condo with an H2b visa, a graduate of Stanford and CalTech  that needs a work permit so he can leave his current employer and start a new company in the US.  He was told by immigration that there are 225,000 workers from India  trying to get a work permit so the wait would be in excess of 50 years.  If he were born in Thailand, the wait would be about 1 year.  That's crazy.  I'm all for enforcing immigration laws but those laws need to fair and in the best interest of the country. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why doesn't he go to Thailand?
Click to expand...

*Would you immigrate to Thailand and give up your US citizenship to work in another country.  It think not.

What he will probably do is return to India and setup his company there since his backers have agreed to fund him wherever he decides to go.  I just hate to see our nation lose someone that talented.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the people who came through Ellis Island came legally,  that's the difference, dude.   I don't understand why you don't get this.
> 
> 
> 
> *Apparently, you reply before even reading the post.  I think I understand probably better than most people on this thread the differences between illegal and legal immigrants. Our entire immigration systems has serious problems starting with who and how we select immigrants to how we keep undocumented immigrants out of the country.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I read your post and understand exactly what you said.  No one, including me, has ever said that only white, educated, English speaking people should be allowed to immigrate here.   All we are saying is come legally, and if you come in illegally you will be deported back to where you came from or stopped at the border.   What do you find objectionable about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nothing except the quotas should be reasonable.  It shouldn't take a 50 to a 100 years for a computer engineer from India to get a work permit.  Neither should it be impossible for a Honduran family of agricultural workers to immigrate.  The decision to allow a person to immigrate should be based on their education, skills and character, not there country of origin.
> 
> There's a computer engineer in my condo with an H2b visa, a graduate of Stanford and CalTech  that needs a work permit so he can leave his current employer and start a new company in the US.  He was told by immigration that there are 225,000 workers from India  trying to get a work permit so the wait would be in excess of 50 years.  If he were born in Thailand, the wait would be about 1 year.  That's crazy.  I'm all for enforcing immigration laws but those laws need to fair and in the best interest of the country. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why doesn't he go to Thailand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Would you immigrate to Thailand and give up your US citizenship to work in another country.  It think not.
> 
> What he will probably do is return to India and setup his company there since his backers have agreed to fund him wherever he decides to go.  I just hate to see our nation lose someone that talented.*
Click to expand...


And I hate to lose a nation because we are inviting so many immigrants here who are changing our language, culture and politics.  

Sorry, but I don't want to see us as a single-party government forever because we fell into this Democrat trap.  Once they get unrestricted power, the great experiment will be over, and our success will only be known to our children in history books.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Apparently, you reply before even reading the post.  I think I understand probably better than most people on this thread the differences between illegal and legal immigrants. Our entire immigration systems has serious problems starting with who and how we select immigrants to how we keep undocumented immigrants out of the country.   *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read your post and understand exactly what you said.  No one, including me, has ever said that only white, educated, English speaking people should be allowed to immigrate here.   All we are saying is come legally, and if you come in illegally you will be deported back to where you came from or stopped at the border.   What do you find objectionable about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nothing except the quotas should be reasonable.  It shouldn't take a 50 to a 100 years for a computer engineer from India to get a work permit.  Neither should it be impossible for a Honduran family of agricultural workers to immigrate.  The decision to allow a person to immigrate should be based on their education, skills and character, not there country of origin.
> 
> There's a computer engineer in my condo with an H2b visa, a graduate of Stanford and CalTech  that needs a work permit so he can leave his current employer and start a new company in the US.  He was told by immigration that there are 225,000 workers from India  trying to get a work permit so the wait would be in excess of 50 years.  If he were born in Thailand, the wait would be about 1 year.  That's crazy.  I'm all for enforcing immigration laws but those laws need to fair and in the best interest of the country. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why doesn't he go to Thailand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Would you immigrate to Thailand and give up your US citizenship to work in another country.  It think not.
> 
> What he will probably do is return to India and setup his company there since his backers have agreed to fund him wherever he decides to go.  I just hate to see our nation lose someone that talented.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I hate to lose a nation because we are inviting so many immigrants here who are changing our language, culture and politics.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't want to see us as a single-party government forever because we fell into this Democrat trap.  Once they get unrestricted power, the great experiment will be over, and our success will only be known to our children in history books.
Click to expand...

*600,000 new immigrants (about .18% of the population) each year becoming citizens is not a lot and they're not getting control of the government.  Only 20% of naturalized Americans are coming from Latin America.

You lost the nation long ago to immigrants because most all of us are immigrants, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd generation. *


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> And I hate to lose a nation because we are inviting so many immigrants here who are changing our language, culture and politics.



Okay, let's look at that.  

Hey, ever notice that we celebrate Octoberfest and St. Paddy's Day?  Why those damned immigrants, changing our culture!  The Founding Fathers didn't celebrate those things!  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Sorry, but I don't want to see us as a single-party government forever because we fell into this Democrat trap. Once they get unrestricted power, the great experiment will be over, and our success will only be known to our children in history books.



And our children will look back at bigots like you the way we look back at George Wallace blocking the door to the school.  "What were those people thinking?" right before they go on a date with their Hispanic girlfriend.  

If we do become a single party government, it will be because the Republican Party decided to double and triple down in becoming a White Nationalist party when even most whites aren't terribly comfortable with that.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, let's look at that.
> 
> Hey, ever notice that we celebrate Octoberfest and St. Paddy's Day? Why those damned immigrants, changing our culture! The Founding Fathers didn't celebrate those things!



No, not everybody celebrates those days, and they are one day events--not changing the entire country.  Nice try though.



JoeB131 said:


> And our children will look back at bigots like you the way we look back at George Wallace blocking the door to the school. "What were those people thinking?" right before they go on a date with their Hispanic girlfriend.
> 
> If we do become a single party government, it will be because the Republican Party decided to double and triple down in becoming a White Nationalist party when even most whites aren't terribly comfortable with that.



No, once Democrats have power and convert us to Socialism/ Communism, it will be the fault of surrender first whites like you who offered this country for political sacrifice.  Then we will be just like all the other shitholes across the world like North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, and all of the countries directly south of our border.  And if the liberals don't destroy history like they are trying to do today like tearing down statues, our children will read about what a great country this once was and ask why did we let it slip through our fingers?  Why didn't we do something to preserve it like the many generations before us.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read your post and understand exactly what you said.  No one, including me, has ever said that only white, educated, English speaking people should be allowed to immigrate here.   All we are saying is come legally, and if you come in illegally you will be deported back to where you came from or stopped at the border.   What do you find objectionable about that?
> 
> 
> 
> *Nothing except the quotas should be reasonable.  It shouldn't take a 50 to a 100 years for a computer engineer from India to get a work permit.  Neither should it be impossible for a Honduran family of agricultural workers to immigrate.  The decision to allow a person to immigrate should be based on their education, skills and character, not there country of origin.
> 
> There's a computer engineer in my condo with an H2b visa, a graduate of Stanford and CalTech  that needs a work permit so he can leave his current employer and start a new company in the US.  He was told by immigration that there are 225,000 workers from India  trying to get a work permit so the wait would be in excess of 50 years.  If he were born in Thailand, the wait would be about 1 year.  That's crazy.  I'm all for enforcing immigration laws but those laws need to fair and in the best interest of the country. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why doesn't he go to Thailand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Would you immigrate to Thailand and give up your US citizenship to work in another country.  It think not.
> 
> What he will probably do is return to India and setup his company there since his backers have agreed to fund him wherever he decides to go.  I just hate to see our nation lose someone that talented.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I hate to lose a nation because we are inviting so many immigrants here who are changing our language, culture and politics.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't want to see us as a single-party government forever because we fell into this Democrat trap.  Once they get unrestricted power, the great experiment will be over, and our success will only be known to our children in history books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *600,000 new immigrants (about .18% of the population) each year becoming citizens is not a lot and they're not getting control of the government.  Only 20% of naturalized Americans are coming from Latin America.
> 
> You lost the nation long ago to immigrants because most all of us are immigrants, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd generation. *
Click to expand...


Yes we are, but we don't need immigrants any longer.  They are causing more problems for this country than we can handle.  I don't care what the percentage is.  But since you're so good at math,  what percentage of our population where the 15 hijackers that were responsible for 911?


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> No, once Democrats have power and convert us to Socialism/ Communism, it will be the fault of surrender first whites like you who offered this country for political sacrifice.



Yawn, guy, you might like living in a country where most of us are exploited, but frankly, I'm not that thrilled with the concept. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Then we will be just like all the other shitholes across the world like North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, and all of the countries directly south of our border.



You mean the countries south of the border we spent years exploiting.   those countries? 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> And if the liberals don't destroy history like they are trying to do today like tearing down statues, our children will read about what a great country this once was and ask why did we let it slip through our fingers? Why didn't we do something to preserve it like the many generations before us.



Actually, if they were reading accurate history books, they'd know this was a country built by immigrants...  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes we are, but we don't need immigrants any longer. They are causing more problems for this country than we can handle. I don't care what the percentage is. But since you're so good at math, what percentage of our population where the 15 hijackers that were responsible for 911?



What percentage of the population were the white racists who blew up the Murrow building?


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I didn't say anything about contributions. I said if Socialism is so great, why not move and try it out for a while before you try to destroy this country with it?



1) I don't advocate socialism...I realize that you confuse "being a decent human being" with that, but that's neither here nor there. 

2) This is the immigration thread, not the Socialism thread

3) When you have a DD214, then you can tell veterans about who does and doesn't love this country.  




Ray From Cleveland said:


> You leftists are amazing with your blame game. You credit DumBama for the great economy Trump is presiding over and now you are telling me that other countries would be just as great as we are today if something like wars didn't happen almost 200 years ago.



You do realize that when you steal half a country's territory, that's going to have an effect, right?  

Or do you worry they'll take it back through immigration? 

Don't worry, man, Ohio is safe. Nobody really wants that sinkhole.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> 1) I don't advocate socialism...I realize that you confuse "being a decent human being" with that, but that's neither here nor there.
> 
> 2) This is the immigration thread, not the Socialism thread
> 
> 3) When you have a DD214, then you can tell veterans about who does and doesn't love this country.



Never said anything about loving the country either.  But we are a country of laws, and our laws tell us exactly what the situation of foreigners coming to this country are.  It's you on the left that wish to ignore those laws.  



JoeB131 said:


> You do realize that when you steal half a country's territory, that's going to have an effect, right?
> 
> Or do you worry they'll take it back through immigration?
> 
> Don't worry, man, Ohio is safe. Nobody really wants that sinkhole.



Yes, because Ill is such a paradise. 

As a member of the Party of Excuses, your talk about what happened nearly 200 years ago is nothing more than that--an excuse.  200 years ago and more is when people were making claims to land be it found or fought for.  Those days are long gone and the boundaries have been set for generations.  Now it's time to work with them.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Nothing except the quotas should be reasonable.  It shouldn't take a 50 to a 100 years for a computer engineer from India to get a work permit.  Neither should it be impossible for a Honduran family of agricultural workers to immigrate.  The decision to allow a person to immigrate should be based on their education, skills and character, not there country of origin.
> 
> There's a computer engineer in my condo with an H2b visa, a graduate of Stanford and CalTech  that needs a work permit so he can leave his current employer and start a new company in the US.  He was told by immigration that there are 225,000 workers from India  trying to get a work permit so the wait would be in excess of 50 years.  If he were born in Thailand, the wait would be about 1 year.  That's crazy.  I'm all for enforcing immigration laws but those laws need to fair and in the best interest of the country. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why doesn't he go to Thailand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Would you immigrate to Thailand and give up your US citizenship to work in another country.  It think not.
> 
> What he will probably do is return to India and setup his company there since his backers have agreed to fund him wherever he decides to go.  I just hate to see our nation lose someone that talented.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I hate to lose a nation because we are inviting so many immigrants here who are changing our language, culture and politics.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't want to see us as a single-party government forever because we fell into this Democrat trap.  Once they get unrestricted power, the great experiment will be over, and our success will only be known to our children in history books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *600,000 new immigrants (about .18% of the population) each year becoming citizens is not a lot and they're not getting control of the government.  Only 20% of naturalized Americans are coming from Latin America.
> 
> You lost the nation long ago to immigrants because most all of us are immigrants, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd generation. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we are, but we don't need immigrants any longer.  They are causing more problems for this country than we can handle.  I don't care what the percentage is.  But since you're so good at math,  what percentage of our population where the 15 hijackers that were responsible for 911?
Click to expand...

*Legal immigrants to the US are better educated, and more likely to start new businesses than native born Americans.  They tend to be risk takers and are far more likely to make the sacrifices needed to live the American dream than native born Americans. 

In America, we seem to forget just how lucky we are to be born in a country where we are free to do whatever we choose with our lives.  Immigrants remind us of just how lucky we are and how we fail to take advantage of our freedoms.  Maybe that's why so many of us resent immigrants.  

The day we stop immigration, is the day American goes into a downward spiral and become a second rate nation. It is new blood and new ideas that make America great.   *


----------



## koshergrl

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why doesn't he go to Thailand?
> 
> 
> 
> *Would you immigrate to Thailand and give up your US citizenship to work in another country.  It think not.
> 
> What he will probably do is return to India and setup his company there since his backers have agreed to fund him wherever he decides to go.  I just hate to see our nation lose someone that talented.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I hate to lose a nation because we are inviting so many immigrants here who are changing our language, culture and politics.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't want to see us as a single-party government forever because we fell into this Democrat trap.  Once they get unrestricted power, the great experiment will be over, and our success will only be known to our children in history books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *600,000 new immigrants (about .18% of the population) each year becoming citizens is not a lot and they're not getting control of the government.  Only 20% of naturalized Americans are coming from Latin America.
> 
> You lost the nation long ago to immigrants because most all of us are immigrants, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd generation. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we are, but we don't need immigrants any longer.  They are causing more problems for this country than we can handle.  I don't care what the percentage is.  But since you're so good at math,  what percentage of our population where the 15 hijackers that were responsible for 911?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Legal immigrants to the US are better educated, and more likely to start new businesses than native born Americans.  They tend to be risk takers and are far more likely to make the sacrifices needed to live the American dream than native born Americans.
> 
> In America, we seem to forget just how lucky we are to be born in a country where we are free to do whatever we choose with our lives.  Immigrants remind us of just how lucky we are and how we fail to take advantage of our freedoms.  Maybe that's why so many of us resent immigrants.
> 
> The day we stop immigration, is the day American goes into a downward spiral and become a second rate nation. It is new blood and new ideas that make America great.   *
Click to expand...

Nobody is interested in stopping immigration.


----------



## MaryL

I know a few "legal" immigrants. They had to pay thousands and hire immigration lawyers. People from Hungary or Lithuania or east Germany. Back in the day. During the height of Communism .  But now, Mexicans   just sneak in here, and if caught, claim they  are "victim of immigration laws" and nobody questions that. Well some of us do, because we know better. It's bullshit. In Human terms, this is plain unadulterated bullshit. We need to hold Mexicans to the same immigration standard as people fleeing Communism or real oppression, not this exaggerated bullshit...and, besides, they can and SHOULD immigrate legally with no excuses. Because others managed to  get in here over the years without making sanctuary cities for them, or political pandering to them. You notice that? Just Mexicans...They need special help. Why?


----------



## Flopper

koshergrl said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Would you immigrate to Thailand and give up your US citizenship to work in another country.  It think not.
> 
> What he will probably do is return to India and setup his company there since his backers have agreed to fund him wherever he decides to go.  I just hate to see our nation lose someone that talented.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I hate to lose a nation because we are inviting so many immigrants here who are changing our language, culture and politics.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't want to see us as a single-party government forever because we fell into this Democrat trap.  Once they get unrestricted power, the great experiment will be over, and our success will only be known to our children in history books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *600,000 new immigrants (about .18% of the population) each year becoming citizens is not a lot and they're not getting control of the government.  Only 20% of naturalized Americans are coming from Latin America.
> 
> You lost the nation long ago to immigrants because most all of us are immigrants, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd generation. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we are, but we don't need immigrants any longer.  They are causing more problems for this country than we can handle.  I don't care what the percentage is.  But since you're so good at math,  what percentage of our population where the 15 hijackers that were responsible for 911?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Legal immigrants to the US are better educated, and more likely to start new businesses than native born Americans.  They tend to be risk takers and are far more likely to make the sacrifices needed to live the American dream than native born Americans.
> 
> In America, we seem to forget just how lucky we are to be born in a country where we are free to do whatever we choose with our lives.  Immigrants remind us of just how lucky we are and how we fail to take advantage of our freedoms.  Maybe that's why so many of us resent immigrants.
> 
> The day we stop immigration, is the day American goes into a downward spiral and become a second rate nation. It is new blood and new ideas that make America great.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nobody is interested in stopping immigration.*
Click to expand...

*Ray seems to be.

In many discussions on immigration, I have found that most people that feel very strongly about illegal immigration feel exactly the same about legal immigration.  They simply don't won't foreigners in the country, polluting our culture with other languages, customs, and ideas.*


----------



## Flopper

MaryL said:


> I know a few "legal" immigrants. They had to pay thousands and hire immigration lawyers. People from Hungary or Lithuania or east Germany. Back in the day. During the height of Communism .  But now, Mexicans   just sneak in here, and if caught, claim they  are "victim of immigration laws" and nobody questions that. Well some of us do, because we know better. It's bullshit. In Human terms, this is plain unadulterated bullshit. We need to hold Mexicans to the same immigration standard as people fleeing Communism or real oppression, not this exaggerated bullshit...and, besides, they can and SHOULD immigrate legally with no excuses. Because others managed to  get in here over the years without making sanctuary cities for them, or political pandering to them. You notice that? Just Mexicans...They need special help. Why?


*Most people that are detained at the border are removed or deported. Of those that aren't, the primary reason is they are able to produce documentation showing they are legally in the US.

Interior deportations are much harder because detainees  are heard in immigration courts not criminal courts. Immigration courts are civil courts and follow different laws and procedures.  Since many of the people being detained are long term residents in the US, they are more likely to have lawyers and to be released.  If you don't like this, change the law.  *


----------



## koshergrl

Flopper said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I hate to lose a nation because we are inviting so many immigrants here who are changing our language, culture and politics.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't want to see us as a single-party government forever because we fell into this Democrat trap.  Once they get unrestricted power, the great experiment will be over, and our success will only be known to our children in history books.
> 
> 
> 
> *600,000 new immigrants (about .18% of the population) each year becoming citizens is not a lot and they're not getting control of the government.  Only 20% of naturalized Americans are coming from Latin America.
> 
> You lost the nation long ago to immigrants because most all of us are immigrants, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd generation. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we are, but we don't need immigrants any longer.  They are causing more problems for this country than we can handle.  I don't care what the percentage is.  But since you're so good at math,  what percentage of our population where the 15 hijackers that were responsible for 911?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Legal immigrants to the US are better educated, and more likely to start new businesses than native born Americans.  They tend to be risk takers and are far more likely to make the sacrifices needed to live the American dream than native born Americans.
> 
> In America, we seem to forget just how lucky we are to be born in a country where we are free to do whatever we choose with our lives.  Immigrants remind us of just how lucky we are and how we fail to take advantage of our freedoms.  Maybe that's why so many of us resent immigrants.
> 
> The day we stop immigration, is the day American goes into a downward spiral and become a second rate nation. It is new blood and new ideas that make America great.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nobody is interested in stopping immigration.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Ray seems to be.
> 
> In many discussions on immigration, I have found that most people that feel very strongly about illegal immigration feel exactly the same about legal immigration.  They simply don't won't foreigners in the country, polluting our culture with other languages, customs, and ideas.*
Click to expand...


Sure you have. And Trump said all migrants are animals, too.


----------



## JoeB131

MaryL said:


> I know a few "legal" immigrants. They had to pay thousands and hire immigration lawyers. People from Hungary or Lithuania or east Germany. Back in the day. During the height of Communism . But now, Mexicans just sneak in here, and if caught, claim they are "victim of immigration laws" and nobody questions that. Well some of us do, because we know better. It's bullshit. In Human terms, this is plain unadulterated bullshit. We need to hold Mexicans to the same immigration standard as people fleeing Communism or real oppression, not this exaggerated bullshit...and, besides, they can and SHOULD immigrate legally with no excuses. Because others managed to get in here over the years without making sanctuary cities for them, or political pandering to them. You notice that? Just Mexicans...They need special help. Why?



Again, the thing is, we steal half of Mexico's territory and then wonder why they want to come here.  amazing.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I hate to lose a nation because we are inviting so many immigrants here who are changing our language, culture and politics.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't want to see us as a single-party government forever because we fell into this Democrat trap.  Once they get unrestricted power, the great experiment will be over, and our success will only be known to our children in history books.
> 
> 
> 
> *600,000 new immigrants (about .18% of the population) each year becoming citizens is not a lot and they're not getting control of the government.  Only 20% of naturalized Americans are coming from Latin America.
> 
> You lost the nation long ago to immigrants because most all of us are immigrants, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd generation. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we are, but we don't need immigrants any longer.  They are causing more problems for this country than we can handle.  I don't care what the percentage is.  But since you're so good at math,  what percentage of our population where the 15 hijackers that were responsible for 911?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Legal immigrants to the US are better educated, and more likely to start new businesses than native born Americans.  They tend to be risk takers and are far more likely to make the sacrifices needed to live the American dream than native born Americans.
> 
> In America, we seem to forget just how lucky we are to be born in a country where we are free to do whatever we choose with our lives.  Immigrants remind us of just how lucky we are and how we fail to take advantage of our freedoms.  Maybe that's why so many of us resent immigrants.
> 
> The day we stop immigration, is the day American goes into a downward spiral and become a second rate nation. It is new blood and new ideas that make America great.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nobody is interested in stopping immigration.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Ray seems to be.
> 
> In many discussions on immigration, I have found that most people that feel very strongly about illegal immigration feel exactly the same about legal immigration.  They simply don't won't foreigners in the country, polluting our culture with other languages, customs, and ideas.*
Click to expand...


And let's not forget taking our jobs, keeping wages down for the jobs they didn't take, and the crime they bring with them.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> In America, we seem to forget just how lucky we are to be born in a country where we are free to do whatever we choose with our lives. Immigrants remind us of just how lucky we are and how we fail to take advantage of our freedoms. Maybe that's why so many of us resent immigrants.



The last thing we need is immigrants for that.  If you really want to appreciate our freedoms, make sure Democrats never have power again in this country because liberals are power hungry control freaks that hate freedom.

I'm sure foreigners do take a lot of risks.  If they fail, screw the country, they are moving back home.  It's the same thing in my field of work where we are polluted with immigrants.  If a foreign driver kills Americans in an accident, just hop on a plane and go back to their country.  Problem solved.

We survived a lot of misfortunes in this country.  Diseases, wars, murders, so I don't think that stopping a bunch of people from other countries is going to be the end of our civilization.  I think it would improve things very much in fact.


----------



## koshergrl

Here in Oregon, I would rather meet up with an immigrant in the woods than a federal goon..the Bundys felt the same and for the same reasons. Immigrants feel the same about us. 

You know how you know joeb and the pigs like him are anti-American marxists? They encourage people to fight ICE...but they think people who fight any federal goon in the rural areas should be shot.


----------



## Flopper

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said anything about loving the country either. But we are a country of laws, and our laws tell us exactly what the situation of foreigners coming to this country are. It's you on the left that wish to ignore those laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because we recognize those laws are impractical.  There are a lot of stupid laws on the books that people ignore every day. Or if they get caught breaking them, it just isn't a big deal.
> 
> This isn't a big deal.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because Ill is such a paradise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to OH, it's wonderful.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a member of the Party of Excuses, your talk about what happened nearly 200 years ago is nothing more than that--an excuse. 200 years ago and more is when people were making claims to land be it found or fought for. Those days are long gone and the boundaries have been set for generations. Now it's time to work with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> first, you kind of suck at math.
> 
> second, and I know you don't get this... is that borders and cultures change all the time.  If we got a Blue Box and dropped your ass back in 1776, you would not fit in.
> 
> But then again, if the GOP didn't use race to keep dumb people like you voting against your own economic interests, they'd never win an election.
Click to expand...

*To say our immigration laws are impractical is an understatement.  They are absurd.  Why should it take a person form India up to 100 years to get a work permit and someone from Thailand, only a of couple years?  Why can't an H2-B visa holder start a business?  Why is a sponsor needed to immigrate when the government does nothing when the sponsor does not fulfill their obligation?  Under current laws, Immigration and Customs can't determine if a Visa holder is actually living in the US. The current law does not require a visa holder in the US to notify ICE of their address.  The federal government spent tens of millions of dollars developing the E-Verify system but the law doesn't require it's use.  ICE spends over 10 times as much money deporting people as it does selecting them for permanent residence and citizenship.

Our immigration courts are a mess because there're no laws backing up most of the regulations. Children as young as 3 or 4 years old are sometimes required to defend themselves in court.  Immigrants show up for hearings not speaking English well enough to plead their case and since the court doesn't provide interpreters the hearing is reschedule.  A backlog of over 250,000 cases means waits for hearings can be as long as 6 mos or even up to a year.  Most hearing are about requests for delaying departure.  The long waits for hearings often result in no shows by the petitioners because they have already left the country.  However since the court has no way of knowing that since ICE doesn't track departures the court issues an order of appearance or detention.  And so it goes..       *


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *600,000 new immigrants (about .18% of the population) each year becoming citizens is not a lot and they're not getting control of the government.  Only 20% of naturalized Americans are coming from Latin America.
> 
> You lost the nation long ago to immigrants because most all of us are immigrants, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd generation. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we are, but we don't need immigrants any longer.  They are causing more problems for this country than we can handle.  I don't care what the percentage is.  But since you're so good at math,  what percentage of our population where the 15 hijackers that were responsible for 911?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Legal immigrants to the US are better educated, and more likely to start new businesses than native born Americans.  They tend to be risk takers and are far more likely to make the sacrifices needed to live the American dream than native born Americans.
> 
> In America, we seem to forget just how lucky we are to be born in a country where we are free to do whatever we choose with our lives.  Immigrants remind us of just how lucky we are and how we fail to take advantage of our freedoms.  Maybe that's why so many of us resent immigrants.
> 
> The day we stop immigration, is the day American goes into a downward spiral and become a second rate nation. It is new blood and new ideas that make America great.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nobody is interested in stopping immigration.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Ray seems to be.
> 
> In many discussions on immigration, I have found that most people that feel very strongly about illegal immigration feel exactly the same about legal immigration.  They simply don't won't foreigners in the country, polluting our culture with other languages, customs, and ideas.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And let's not forget taking our jobs, keeping wages down for the jobs they didn't take, and the crime they bring with them.
Click to expand...

*Contrary to popular beliefs, legal immigrants on balance create jobs because half of the fastest growing startups in the country which now employ millions, owe their existence to immigrants.  For example here are just a few of the thousands of large businesses founded by immigrants. :
Tesla
Employees 37,000

Pfizer
Employees 116,000

Panda Express
Employees 24,000

Zumba Fitness
Employees 18,000

Capital One Banking and Financial Services
Employees 45,000

Ebay
Employees 11,000

Intel
Employs 107,000

Google
Employees 58,000

SpaceX
Employees 18,000

Kohl's
Employees 140,000

Yahoo
Employees 11,000

It's estimated that there are over 1 million small business founded by immigrants with less than 50 employees employing over 10 million employees.  It's estimated that the 20 million immigrants over the last 18 years are responsible for over 30 million jobs.

Does Immigration Create Jobs?
From Tesla to Pfizer: 14 major US companies founded by immigrants*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we are, but we don't need immigrants any longer.  They are causing more problems for this country than we can handle.  I don't care what the percentage is.  But since you're so good at math,  what percentage of our population where the 15 hijackers that were responsible for 911?
> 
> 
> 
> *Legal immigrants to the US are better educated, and more likely to start new businesses than native born Americans.  They tend to be risk takers and are far more likely to make the sacrifices needed to live the American dream than native born Americans.
> 
> In America, we seem to forget just how lucky we are to be born in a country where we are free to do whatever we choose with our lives.  Immigrants remind us of just how lucky we are and how we fail to take advantage of our freedoms.  Maybe that's why so many of us resent immigrants.
> 
> The day we stop immigration, is the day American goes into a downward spiral and become a second rate nation. It is new blood and new ideas that make America great.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nobody is interested in stopping immigration.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Ray seems to be.
> 
> In many discussions on immigration, I have found that most people that feel very strongly about illegal immigration feel exactly the same about legal immigration.  They simply don't won't foreigners in the country, polluting our culture with other languages, customs, and ideas.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And let's not forget taking our jobs, keeping wages down for the jobs they didn't take, and the crime they bring with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Contrary to popular beliefs, legal immigrants on balance create jobs because half of the fastest growing startups in the country which now employ millions, owe their existence to immigrants.  For example here are just a few of the thousands of large businesses founded by immigrants. :
> Tesla
> Employees 37,000
> 
> Pfizer
> Employees 116,000
> 
> Panda Express
> Employees 24,000
> 
> Zumba Fitness
> Employees 18,000
> 
> Capital One Banking and Financial Services
> Employees 45,000
> 
> Ebay
> Employees 11,000
> 
> Intel
> Employs 107,000
> 
> Google
> Employees 58,000
> 
> SpaceX
> Employees 18,000
> 
> Kohl's
> Employees 140,000
> 
> Yahoo
> Employees 11,000
> 
> It's estimated that there are over 1 million small business founded by immigrants with less than 50 employees employing over 10 million employees.  It's estimated that the 20 million immigrants over the last 18 years are responsible for over 30 million jobs.
> 
> Does Immigration Create Jobs?
> From Tesla to Pfizer: 14 major US companies founded by immigrants*
Click to expand...


I don't know if you have a point here or not.  We'd be just fine with American innovation.  Now if you like, I can post all the problems immigration has caused us as well.  Theft, rape, murder, the billions of dollars it takes to give these people medical care, social services for their anchor babies, destruction of property and neighborhoods.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Legal immigrants to the US are better educated, and more likely to start new businesses than native born Americans.  They tend to be risk takers and are far more likely to make the sacrifices needed to live the American dream than native born Americans.
> 
> In America, we seem to forget just how lucky we are to be born in a country where we are free to do whatever we choose with our lives.  Immigrants remind us of just how lucky we are and how we fail to take advantage of our freedoms.  Maybe that's why so many of us resent immigrants.
> 
> The day we stop immigration, is the day American goes into a downward spiral and become a second rate nation. It is new blood and new ideas that make America great.   *
> 
> 
> 
> *Nobody is interested in stopping immigration.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Ray seems to be.
> 
> In many discussions on immigration, I have found that most people that feel very strongly about illegal immigration feel exactly the same about legal immigration.  They simply don't won't foreigners in the country, polluting our culture with other languages, customs, and ideas.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And let's not forget taking our jobs, keeping wages down for the jobs they didn't take, and the crime they bring with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Contrary to popular beliefs, legal immigrants on balance create jobs because half of the fastest growing startups in the country which now employ millions, owe their existence to immigrants.  For example here are just a few of the thousands of large businesses founded by immigrants. :
> Tesla
> Employees 37,000
> 
> Pfizer
> Employees 116,000
> 
> Panda Express
> Employees 24,000
> 
> Zumba Fitness
> Employees 18,000
> 
> Capital One Banking and Financial Services
> Employees 45,000
> 
> Ebay
> Employees 11,000
> 
> Intel
> Employs 107,000
> 
> Google
> Employees 58,000
> 
> SpaceX
> Employees 18,000
> 
> Kohl's
> Employees 140,000
> 
> Yahoo
> Employees 11,000
> 
> It's estimated that there are over 1 million small business founded by immigrants with less than 50 employees employing over 10 million employees.  It's estimated that the 20 million immigrants over the last 18 years are responsible for over 30 million jobs.
> 
> Does Immigration Create Jobs?
> From Tesla to Pfizer: 14 major US companies founded by immigrants*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if you have a point here or not.  We'd be just fine with American innovation.  Now if you like, I can post all the problems immigration has caused us as well.  Theft, rape, murder, the billions of dollars it takes to give these people medical care, social services for their anchor babies, destruction of property and neighborhoods.
Click to expand...

*And I can respond with proof to the contrary that legal immigrants commit less crimes than native born citizens.  It's not worth the time.  *


----------



## WEATHER53

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Nobody is interested in stopping immigration.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Ray seems to be.
> 
> In many discussions on immigration, I have found that most people that feel very strongly about illegal immigration feel exactly the same about legal immigration.  They simply don't won't foreigners in the country, polluting our culture with other languages, customs, and ideas.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And let's not forget taking our jobs, keeping wages down for the jobs they didn't take, and the crime they bring with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Contrary to popular beliefs, legal immigrants on balance create jobs because half of the fastest growing startups in the country which now employ millions, owe their existence to immigrants.  For example here are just a few of the thousands of large businesses founded by immigrants. :
> Tesla
> Employees 37,000
> 
> Pfizer
> Employees 116,000
> 
> Panda Express
> Employees 24,000
> 
> Zumba Fitness
> Employees 18,000
> 
> Capital One Banking and Financial Services
> Employees 45,000
> 
> Ebay
> Employees 11,000
> 
> Intel
> Employs 107,000
> 
> Google
> Employees 58,000
> 
> SpaceX
> Employees 18,000
> 
> Kohl's
> Employees 140,000
> 
> Yahoo
> Employees 11,000
> 
> It's estimated that there are over 1 million small business founded by immigrants with less than 50 employees employing over 10 million employees.  It's estimated that the 20 million immigrants over the last 18 years are responsible for over 30 million jobs.
> 
> Does Immigration Create Jobs?
> From Tesla to Pfizer: 14 major US companies founded by immigrants*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if you have a point here or not.  We'd be just fine with American innovation.  Now if you like, I can post all the problems immigration has caused us as well.  Theft, rape, murder, the billions of dollars it takes to give these people medical care, social services for their anchor babies, destruction of property and neighborhoods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And I can respond with proof to the contrary that legal immigrants commit less crimes than native born citizens.  It's not worth the time.  *
Click to expand...

There are about 1/30th of them thus it is Extremely Obvious that non illegals would commit way more crime total numbers


----------



## Flopper

WEATHER53 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ray seems to be.
> 
> In many discussions on immigration, I have found that most people that feel very strongly about illegal immigration feel exactly the same about legal immigration.  They simply don't won't foreigners in the country, polluting our culture with other languages, customs, and ideas.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And let's not forget taking our jobs, keeping wages down for the jobs they didn't take, and the crime they bring with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Contrary to popular beliefs, legal immigrants on balance create jobs because half of the fastest growing startups in the country which now employ millions, owe their existence to immigrants.  For example here are just a few of the thousands of large businesses founded by immigrants. :
> Tesla
> Employees 37,000
> 
> Pfizer
> Employees 116,000
> 
> Panda Express
> Employees 24,000
> 
> Zumba Fitness
> Employees 18,000
> 
> Capital One Banking and Financial Services
> Employees 45,000
> 
> Ebay
> Employees 11,000
> 
> Intel
> Employs 107,000
> 
> Google
> Employees 58,000
> 
> SpaceX
> Employees 18,000
> 
> Kohl's
> Employees 140,000
> 
> Yahoo
> Employees 11,000
> 
> It's estimated that there are over 1 million small business founded by immigrants with less than 50 employees employing over 10 million employees.  It's estimated that the 20 million immigrants over the last 18 years are responsible for over 30 million jobs.
> 
> Does Immigration Create Jobs?
> From Tesla to Pfizer: 14 major US companies founded by immigrants*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if you have a point here or not.  We'd be just fine with American innovation.  Now if you like, I can post all the problems immigration has caused us as well.  Theft, rape, murder, the billions of dollars it takes to give these people medical care, social services for their anchor babies, destruction of property and neighborhoods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And I can respond with proof to the contrary that legal immigrants commit less crimes than native born citizens.  It's not worth the time.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are about 1/30th of them thus it is Extremely Obvious that non illegals would commit way more crime total numbers
Click to expand...

*Actually, I was referring crime rates not total numbers of legal immigrants and native born citizens.*


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> Here in Oregon, I would rather meet up with an immigrant in the woods than a federal goon..the Bundys felt the same and for the same reasons. Immigrants feel the same about us.
> 
> You know how you know joeb and the pigs like him are anti-American marxists? They encourage people to fight ICE...but they think people who fight any federal goon in the rural areas should be shot.



I think anyone who shoots at a federal agent should be shot.  

But never mind that, peacefully resisting ICE and its oversteps is just like these assholes seizing federal property and shooting at federal agents. 

But again-  Getting off topic.  Let's not do that.


----------



## JoeB131

Flopper said:


> [
> *To say our immigration laws are impractical is an understatement.  They are absurd.  Why should it take a person form India up to 100 years to get a work permit and someone from Thailand, only a of couple years?  Why can't an H2-B visa holder start a business?  Why is a sponsor needed to immigrate when the government does nothing when the sponsor does not fulfill their obligation?  Under current laws, Immigration and Customs can't determine if a Visa holder is actually living in the US. The current law does not require a visa holder in the US to notify ICE of their address.  The federal government spent tens of millions of dollars developing the E-Verify system but the law doesn't require it's use.  ICE spends over 10 times as much money deporting people as it does selecting them for permanent residence and citizenship.
> 
> Our immigration courts are a mess because there're no laws backing up most of the regulations. Children as young as 3 or 4 years old are sometimes required to defend themselves in court.  Immigrants show up for hearings not speaking English well enough to plead their case and since the court doesn't provide interpreters the hearing is reschedule.  A backlog of over 250,000 cases means waits for hearings can be as long as 6 mos or even up to a year.  Most hearing are about requests for delaying departure.  The long waits for hearings often result in no shows by the petitioners because they have already left the country.  However since the court has no way of knowing that since ICE doesn't track departures the court issues an order of appearance or detention.  And so it goes..       *



All well said.  And it gets worse. Because ICE doesn't have facilities to hold the undocumented immigrants, they have to rely on local jails to hold them.  Except those agencies more often than not don't have the room or the budgets, and their facilities are not set up to hold women and children.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Nobody is interested in stopping immigration.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Ray seems to be.
> 
> In many discussions on immigration, I have found that most people that feel very strongly about illegal immigration feel exactly the same about legal immigration.  They simply don't won't foreigners in the country, polluting our culture with other languages, customs, and ideas.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And let's not forget taking our jobs, keeping wages down for the jobs they didn't take, and the crime they bring with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Contrary to popular beliefs, legal immigrants on balance create jobs because half of the fastest growing startups in the country which now employ millions, owe their existence to immigrants.  For example here are just a few of the thousands of large businesses founded by immigrants. :
> Tesla
> Employees 37,000
> 
> Pfizer
> Employees 116,000
> 
> Panda Express
> Employees 24,000
> 
> Zumba Fitness
> Employees 18,000
> 
> Capital One Banking and Financial Services
> Employees 45,000
> 
> Ebay
> Employees 11,000
> 
> Intel
> Employs 107,000
> 
> Google
> Employees 58,000
> 
> SpaceX
> Employees 18,000
> 
> Kohl's
> Employees 140,000
> 
> Yahoo
> Employees 11,000
> 
> It's estimated that there are over 1 million small business founded by immigrants with less than 50 employees employing over 10 million employees.  It's estimated that the 20 million immigrants over the last 18 years are responsible for over 30 million jobs.
> 
> Does Immigration Create Jobs?
> From Tesla to Pfizer: 14 major US companies founded by immigrants*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if you have a point here or not.  We'd be just fine with American innovation.  Now if you like, I can post all the problems immigration has caused us as well.  Theft, rape, murder, the billions of dollars it takes to give these people medical care, social services for their anchor babies, destruction of property and neighborhoods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And I can respond with proof to the contrary that legal immigrants commit less crimes than native born citizens.  It's not worth the time.  *
Click to expand...


According to FactCheck, there is no accurate data that separates legal from illegal.  

Steve King on 'Criminal Aliens' - FactCheck.org


----------



## koshergrl

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Nobody is interested in stopping immigration.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Ray seems to be.
> 
> In many discussions on immigration, I have found that most people that feel very strongly about illegal immigration feel exactly the same about legal immigration.  They simply don't won't foreigners in the country, polluting our culture with other languages, customs, and ideas.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And let's not forget taking our jobs, keeping wages down for the jobs they didn't take, and the crime they bring with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Contrary to popular beliefs, legal immigrants on balance create jobs because half of the fastest growing startups in the country which now employ millions, owe their existence to immigrants.  For example here are just a few of the thousands of large businesses founded by immigrants. :
> Tesla
> Employees 37,000
> 
> Pfizer
> Employees 116,000
> 
> Panda Express
> Employees 24,000
> 
> Zumba Fitness
> Employees 18,000
> 
> Capital One Banking and Financial Services
> Employees 45,000
> 
> Ebay
> Employees 11,000
> 
> Intel
> Employs 107,000
> 
> Google
> Employees 58,000
> 
> SpaceX
> Employees 18,000
> 
> Kohl's
> Employees 140,000
> 
> Yahoo
> Employees 11,000
> 
> It's estimated that there are over 1 million small business founded by immigrants with less than 50 employees employing over 10 million employees.  It's estimated that the 20 million immigrants over the last 18 years are responsible for over 30 million jobs.
> 
> Does Immigration Create Jobs?
> From Tesla to Pfizer: 14 major US companies founded by immigrants*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if you have a point here or not.  We'd be just fine with American innovation.  Now if you like, I can post all the problems immigration has caused us as well.  Theft, rape, murder, the billions of dollars it takes to give these people medical care, social services for their anchor babies, destruction of property and neighborhoods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And I can respond with proof to the contrary that legal immigrants commit less crimes than native born citizens.  It's not worth the time.  *
Click to expand...

Doesn't exist.


----------



## saveliberty

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​



What human cost is acceptable for illegal immigrants?


----------



## MaryL

I live with illegal aliens from Mexico. Mexicans could use massive birth control, first of all, that might be a solution. We have this neanderthal cave man third world overpopulated crap hole right next door. Mexico. Were I live was originally part of the Louisiana purchase,
a thousand miles from Mexico. It wasn't 'stolen' from Mexico. (Being that Mexico was a colony created by a European power, I am like SO?) Mexican invaders come here without due process of immigration law, ignore the preexisting culture, and won't a climate. Now that's a real head scratcher, why Americans don't like these creeps. It must be racism.  That's it! It can't possibly be because nobody likes being disrespected and treated like trash. Could it be that simple?


----------



## Coyote

saveliberty said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What human cost is acceptable for illegal immigrants?
Click to expand...

If the cost of staying in place is greater than the cost of fleeing.


----------



## Coyote

MaryL said:


> I live with illegal aliens from Mexico. Mexicans could use massive birth control, first of all, that might be a solution. We have this neanderthal cave man third world overpopulated crap hole right next door. Mexico. Were I live was originally part of the Louisiana purchase,
> a thousand miles from Mexico. It wasn't 'stolen' from Mexico. (Being that Mexico was a colony created by a European power, I am like SO?) Mexican invaders come here without due process of immigration law, ignore the preexisting culture, and won't a climate. Now that's a real head scratcher, why Americans don't like these creeps. It must be racism.  That's it! It can't possibly be because nobody likes being disrespected and treated like trash. Could it be that simple?


A lot of them are not Mexican.


----------



## MaryL

Coyote said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live with illegal aliens from Mexico. Mexicans could use massive birth control, first of all, that might be a solution. We have this neanderthal cave man third world overpopulated crap hole right next door. Mexico. Were I live was originally part of the Louisiana purchase,
> a thousand miles from Mexico. It wasn't 'stolen' from Mexico. (Being that Mexico was a colony created by a European power, I am like SO?) Mexican invaders come here without due process of immigration law, ignore the preexisting culture, and won't a climate. Now that's a real head scratcher, why Americans don't like these creeps. It must be racism.  That's it! It can't possibly be because nobody likes being disrespected and treated like trash. Could it be that simple?
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of them are not Mexican.
Click to expand...

Hmm. The majority was from Latin America countries. Who gave them this idea they could ignore American immigration laws? Like I said before:  Most Europeans  that immigrate here have to pay lawyers and get visas and prove they don't  have communicable diseases like    aids or Ebola  and stuff. Mexican illegals, well they are held to a different standard.  They even get sanctuary from such scrutiny other immigrants were held to. Isn't that great? ( that is me  being sarcastic)


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ray seems to be.
> 
> In many discussions on immigration, I have found that most people that feel very strongly about illegal immigration feel exactly the same about legal immigration.  They simply don't won't foreigners in the country, polluting our culture with other languages, customs, and ideas.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And let's not forget taking our jobs, keeping wages down for the jobs they didn't take, and the crime they bring with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Contrary to popular beliefs, legal immigrants on balance create jobs because half of the fastest growing startups in the country which now employ millions, owe their existence to immigrants.  For example here are just a few of the thousands of large businesses founded by immigrants. :
> Tesla
> Employees 37,000
> 
> Pfizer
> Employees 116,000
> 
> Panda Express
> Employees 24,000
> 
> Zumba Fitness
> Employees 18,000
> 
> Capital One Banking and Financial Services
> Employees 45,000
> 
> Ebay
> Employees 11,000
> 
> Intel
> Employs 107,000
> 
> Google
> Employees 58,000
> 
> SpaceX
> Employees 18,000
> 
> Kohl's
> Employees 140,000
> 
> Yahoo
> Employees 11,000
> 
> It's estimated that there are over 1 million small business founded by immigrants with less than 50 employees employing over 10 million employees.  It's estimated that the 20 million immigrants over the last 18 years are responsible for over 30 million jobs.
> 
> Does Immigration Create Jobs?
> From Tesla to Pfizer: 14 major US companies founded by immigrants*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if you have a point here or not.  We'd be just fine with American innovation.  Now if you like, I can post all the problems immigration has caused us as well.  Theft, rape, murder, the billions of dollars it takes to give these people medical care, social services for their anchor babies, destruction of property and neighborhoods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And I can respond with proof to the contrary that legal immigrants commit less crimes than native born citizens.  It's not worth the time.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to FactCheck, there is no accurate data that separates legal from illegal.
> 
> Steve King on 'Criminal Aliens' - FactCheck.org
Click to expand...

*Since people that are in the country illegally are undocumented and not about to declare themselves as such, you are correct there are no accurate statistics as to their numbers or activities.  However, there are some pretty good estimates from census data. We also have  fairly good data on the number of people overstaying visas but again it is an estimate.  We have excellent data on legal immigrants.*


----------



## saveliberty

Coyote said:


> If the cost of staying in place is greater than the cost of fleeing.



So being separated for a while is better than the violence and possible death they faced at home.  I will have to chalk the outrage up to faux then.


----------



## Redfish

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why doesn't he go to Thailand?
> 
> 
> 
> *Would you immigrate to Thailand and give up your US citizenship to work in another country.  It think not.
> 
> What he will probably do is return to India and setup his company there since his backers have agreed to fund him wherever he decides to go.  I just hate to see our nation lose someone that talented.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I hate to lose a nation because we are inviting so many immigrants here who are changing our language, culture and politics.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't want to see us as a single-party government forever because we fell into this Democrat trap.  Once they get unrestricted power, the great experiment will be over, and our success will only be known to our children in history books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *600,000 new immigrants (about .18% of the population) each year becoming citizens is not a lot and they're not getting control of the government.  Only 20% of naturalized Americans are coming from Latin America.
> 
> You lost the nation long ago to immigrants because most all of us are immigrants, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd generation. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we are, but we don't need immigrants any longer.  They are causing more problems for this country than we can handle.  I don't care what the percentage is.  But since you're so good at math,  what percentage of our population where the 15 hijackers that were responsible for 911?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Legal immigrants to the US are better educated, and more likely to start new businesses than native born Americans.  They tend to be risk takers and are far more likely to make the sacrifices needed to live the American dream than native born Americans.
> 
> In America, we seem to forget just how lucky we are to be born in a country where we are free to do whatever we choose with our lives.  Immigrants remind us of just how lucky we are and how we fail to take advantage of our freedoms.  Maybe that's why so many of us resent immigrants.
> 
> The day we stop immigration, is the day American goes into a downward spiral and become a second rate nation. It is new blood and new ideas that make America great.   *
Click to expand...



the key word here is LEGAL.  Come legally and you are welcomed, come illegally and you are a criminal.


----------



## WEATHER53

Redfish said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Would you immigrate to Thailand and give up your US citizenship to work in another country.  It think not.
> 
> What he will probably do is return to India and setup his company there since his backers have agreed to fund him wherever he decides to go.  I just hate to see our nation lose someone that talented.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I hate to lose a nation because we are inviting so many immigrants here who are changing our language, culture and politics.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't want to see us as a single-party government forever because we fell into this Democrat trap.  Once they get unrestricted power, the great experiment will be over, and our success will only be known to our children in history books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *600,000 new immigrants (about .18% of the population) each year becoming citizens is not a lot and they're not getting control of the government.  Only 20% of naturalized Americans are coming from Latin America.
> 
> You lost the nation long ago to immigrants because most all of us are immigrants, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd generation. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we are, but we don't need immigrants any longer.  They are causing more problems for this country than we can handle.  I don't care what the percentage is.  But since you're so good at math,  what percentage of our population where the 15 hijackers that were responsible for 911?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Legal immigrants to the US are better educated, and more likely to start new businesses than native born Americans.  They tend to be risk takers and are far more likely to make the sacrifices needed to live the American dream than native born Americans.
> 
> In America, we seem to forget just how lucky we are to be born in a country where we are free to do whatever we choose with our lives.  Immigrants remind us of just how lucky we are and how we fail to take advantage of our freedoms.  Maybe that's why so many of us resent immigrants.
> 
> The day we stop immigration, is the day American goes into a downward spiral and become a second rate nation. It is new blood and new ideas that make America great.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the key word here is LEGAL.  Come legally and you are welcomed, come illegally and you are a criminal.
Click to expand...

Way too factual to be processed by libbies.  Here come the but....buts


----------



## Flopper

Redfish said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Would you immigrate to Thailand and give up your US citizenship to work in another country.  It think not.
> 
> What he will probably do is return to India and setup his company there since his backers have agreed to fund him wherever he decides to go.  I just hate to see our nation lose someone that talented.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I hate to lose a nation because we are inviting so many immigrants here who are changing our language, culture and politics.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't want to see us as a single-party government forever because we fell into this Democrat trap.  Once they get unrestricted power, the great experiment will be over, and our success will only be known to our children in history books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *600,000 new immigrants (about .18% of the population) each year becoming citizens is not a lot and they're not getting control of the government.  Only 20% of naturalized Americans are coming from Latin America.
> 
> You lost the nation long ago to immigrants because most all of us are immigrants, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd generation. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we are, but we don't need immigrants any longer.  They are causing more problems for this country than we can handle.  I don't care what the percentage is.  But since you're so good at math,  what percentage of our population where the 15 hijackers that were responsible for 911?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Legal immigrants to the US are better educated, and more likely to start new businesses than native born Americans.  They tend to be risk takers and are far more likely to make the sacrifices needed to live the American dream than native born Americans.
> 
> In America, we seem to forget just how lucky we are to be born in a country where we are free to do whatever we choose with our lives.  Immigrants remind us of just how lucky we are and how we fail to take advantage of our freedoms.  Maybe that's why so many of us resent immigrants.
> 
> The day we stop immigration, is the day American goes into a downward spiral and become a second rate nation. It is new blood and new ideas that make America great.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the key word here is LEGAL.  Come legally and you are welcomed, come illegally and you are a criminal.
Click to expand...

*Agreed, however blindly following an immigration system that is badly broken is not the answer either.  People on both sides should be speaking out about creating a system that will actually make America a better place rather than opening or closing our borders to everyone.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And let's not forget taking our jobs, keeping wages down for the jobs they didn't take, and the crime they bring with them.
> 
> 
> 
> *Contrary to popular beliefs, legal immigrants on balance create jobs because half of the fastest growing startups in the country which now employ millions, owe their existence to immigrants.  For example here are just a few of the thousands of large businesses founded by immigrants. :
> Tesla
> Employees 37,000
> 
> Pfizer
> Employees 116,000
> 
> Panda Express
> Employees 24,000
> 
> Zumba Fitness
> Employees 18,000
> 
> Capital One Banking and Financial Services
> Employees 45,000
> 
> Ebay
> Employees 11,000
> 
> Intel
> Employs 107,000
> 
> Google
> Employees 58,000
> 
> SpaceX
> Employees 18,000
> 
> Kohl's
> Employees 140,000
> 
> Yahoo
> Employees 11,000
> 
> It's estimated that there are over 1 million small business founded by immigrants with less than 50 employees employing over 10 million employees.  It's estimated that the 20 million immigrants over the last 18 years are responsible for over 30 million jobs.
> 
> Does Immigration Create Jobs?
> From Tesla to Pfizer: 14 major US companies founded by immigrants*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if you have a point here or not.  We'd be just fine with American innovation.  Now if you like, I can post all the problems immigration has caused us as well.  Theft, rape, murder, the billions of dollars it takes to give these people medical care, social services for their anchor babies, destruction of property and neighborhoods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And I can respond with proof to the contrary that legal immigrants commit less crimes than native born citizens.  It's not worth the time.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to FactCheck, there is no accurate data that separates legal from illegal.
> 
> Steve King on 'Criminal Aliens' - FactCheck.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Since people that are in the country illegally are undocumented and not about to declare themselves as such, you are correct there are no accurate statistics as to their numbers or activities.  However, there are some pretty good estimates from census data. We also have  fairly good data on the number of people overstaying visas but again it is an estimate.  We have excellent data on legal immigrants.*
Click to expand...


Not according to factcheck because our prisons don't keep records of legal or illegal, just that a foreigner broke a law and was sentenced.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I hate to lose a nation because we are inviting so many immigrants here who are changing our language, culture and politics.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't want to see us as a single-party government forever because we fell into this Democrat trap.  Once they get unrestricted power, the great experiment will be over, and our success will only be known to our children in history books.
> 
> 
> 
> *600,000 new immigrants (about .18% of the population) each year becoming citizens is not a lot and they're not getting control of the government.  Only 20% of naturalized Americans are coming from Latin America.
> 
> You lost the nation long ago to immigrants because most all of us are immigrants, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd generation. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we are, but we don't need immigrants any longer.  They are causing more problems for this country than we can handle.  I don't care what the percentage is.  But since you're so good at math,  what percentage of our population where the 15 hijackers that were responsible for 911?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Legal immigrants to the US are better educated, and more likely to start new businesses than native born Americans.  They tend to be risk takers and are far more likely to make the sacrifices needed to live the American dream than native born Americans.
> 
> In America, we seem to forget just how lucky we are to be born in a country where we are free to do whatever we choose with our lives.  Immigrants remind us of just how lucky we are and how we fail to take advantage of our freedoms.  Maybe that's why so many of us resent immigrants.
> 
> The day we stop immigration, is the day American goes into a downward spiral and become a second rate nation. It is new blood and new ideas that make America great.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the key word here is LEGAL.  Come legally and you are welcomed, come illegally and you are a criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Agreed, however blindly following an immigration system that is badly broken is not the answer either.  People on both sides should be speaking out about creating a system that will actually make America a better place rather than opening or closing our borders to everyone.*
Click to expand...


There is nothing wrong with our immigration system.......nothing.  Again, we allow over 700,000 people a year to become members of our country, and that's  not counting work Visa's or green cards.  The only people that say our system is broken are those that don't want to follow by the rules or those politicians that will benefit from immigrants by voting.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Contrary to popular beliefs, legal immigrants on balance create jobs because half of the fastest growing startups in the country which now employ millions, owe their existence to immigrants.  For example here are just a few of the thousands of large businesses founded by immigrants. :
> Tesla
> Employees 37,000
> 
> Pfizer
> Employees 116,000
> 
> Panda Express
> Employees 24,000
> 
> Zumba Fitness
> Employees 18,000
> 
> Capital One Banking and Financial Services
> Employees 45,000
> 
> Ebay
> Employees 11,000
> 
> Intel
> Employs 107,000
> 
> Google
> Employees 58,000
> 
> SpaceX
> Employees 18,000
> 
> Kohl's
> Employees 140,000
> 
> Yahoo
> Employees 11,000
> 
> It's estimated that there are over 1 million small business founded by immigrants with less than 50 employees employing over 10 million employees.  It's estimated that the 20 million immigrants over the last 18 years are responsible for over 30 million jobs.
> 
> Does Immigration Create Jobs?
> From Tesla to Pfizer: 14 major US companies founded by immigrants*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if you have a point here or not.  We'd be just fine with American innovation.  Now if you like, I can post all the problems immigration has caused us as well.  Theft, rape, murder, the billions of dollars it takes to give these people medical care, social services for their anchor babies, destruction of property and neighborhoods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And I can respond with proof to the contrary that legal immigrants commit less crimes than native born citizens.  It's not worth the time.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to FactCheck, there is no accurate data that separates legal from illegal.
> 
> Steve King on 'Criminal Aliens' - FactCheck.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Since people that are in the country illegally are undocumented and not about to declare themselves as such, you are correct there are no accurate statistics as to their numbers or activities.  However, there are some pretty good estimates from census data. We also have  fairly good data on the number of people overstaying visas but again it is an estimate.  We have excellent data on legal immigrants.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to factcheck because our prisons don't keep records of legal or illegal, just that a foreigner broke a law and was sentenced.
Click to expand...




Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *600,000 new immigrants (about .18% of the population) each year becoming citizens is not a lot and they're not getting control of the government.  Only 20% of naturalized Americans are coming from Latin America.
> 
> You lost the nation long ago to immigrants because most all of us are immigrants, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd generation. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we are, but we don't need immigrants any longer.  They are causing more problems for this country than we can handle.  I don't care what the percentage is.  But since you're so good at math,  what percentage of our population where the 15 hijackers that were responsible for 911?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Legal immigrants to the US are better educated, and more likely to start new businesses than native born Americans.  They tend to be risk takers and are far more likely to make the sacrifices needed to live the American dream than native born Americans.
> 
> In America, we seem to forget just how lucky we are to be born in a country where we are free to do whatever we choose with our lives.  Immigrants remind us of just how lucky we are and how we fail to take advantage of our freedoms.  Maybe that's why so many of us resent immigrants.
> 
> The day we stop immigration, is the day American goes into a downward spiral and become a second rate nation. It is new blood and new ideas that make America great.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the key word here is LEGAL.  Come legally and you are welcomed, come illegally and you are a criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Agreed, however blindly following an immigration system that is badly broken is not the answer either.  People on both sides should be speaking out about creating a system that will actually make America a better place rather than opening or closing our borders to everyone.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with our immigration system.......nothing.  Again, we allow over 700,000 people a year to become members of our country, and that's  not counting work Visa's or green cards.  The only people that say our system is broken are those that don't want to follow by the rules or those politicians that will benefit from immigrants by voting.
Click to expand...

*The only people that think our immigration system isn't broken are those that know nothing about it. The backlog in immigration court is over 250,000 cases, due primarily to the hearing process and the number of immigration issues that require a court hearing.  A simple request for a 30 day visa extension generally takes two months for approval. The law allows unlimited delays of deportation. The jobs skills and education of the applicant is usually irrelevant in determining who is allowed to immigrate.  The major factor used to determine who is allowed to work in the country, is not occupations, skills, or education but rather who has family in the US.  We spent tens of millions of dollars on the E-Verify system and only certain government contractors are required to use it.  There are an estimated 7 million illegal immigrants working in the country, however the law is so weak, that only a few employers of illegals are ever brought to justice.  In 2014, out 417 companies sited for hiring illegals, only 3 were fined and no one went to prison. Privacy considerations in the law, prevent ICE from keeping accurate records of who is legally in the country.  Our immigration laws discourage professional people from immigrating to the US and the Visa process for critical technical skills is absolutely insane.  We waste billions dollars on detention when electronic ankle collars have proven 99.8% effective. Then there are quotas that have not been adjusted in decades, Dreamers that face deportation, and asylum seeks outside the US that the law requires they violate the law to petition for asylum.   

It you think there is nothing wrong with our immigration laws you either know nothing about them or you are so biased you won't admit it.*


----------



## Dale Smith

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if you have a point here or not.  We'd be just fine with American innovation.  Now if you like, I can post all the problems immigration has caused us as well.  Theft, rape, murder, the billions of dollars it takes to give these people medical care, social services for their anchor babies, destruction of property and neighborhoods.
> 
> 
> 
> *And I can respond with proof to the contrary that legal immigrants commit less crimes than native born citizens.  It's not worth the time.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to FactCheck, there is no accurate data that separates legal from illegal.
> 
> Steve King on 'Criminal Aliens' - FactCheck.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Since people that are in the country illegally are undocumented and not about to declare themselves as such, you are correct there are no accurate statistics as to their numbers or activities.  However, there are some pretty good estimates from census data. We also have  fairly good data on the number of people overstaying visas but again it is an estimate.  We have excellent data on legal immigrants.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to factcheck because our prisons don't keep records of legal or illegal, just that a foreigner broke a law and was sentenced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we are, but we don't need immigrants any longer.  They are causing more problems for this country than we can handle.  I don't care what the percentage is.  But since you're so good at math,  what percentage of our population where the 15 hijackers that were responsible for 911?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Legal immigrants to the US are better educated, and more likely to start new businesses than native born Americans.  They tend to be risk takers and are far more likely to make the sacrifices needed to live the American dream than native born Americans.
> 
> In America, we seem to forget just how lucky we are to be born in a country where we are free to do whatever we choose with our lives.  Immigrants remind us of just how lucky we are and how we fail to take advantage of our freedoms.  Maybe that's why so many of us resent immigrants.
> 
> The day we stop immigration, is the day American goes into a downward spiral and become a second rate nation. It is new blood and new ideas that make America great.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the key word here is LEGAL.  Come legally and you are welcomed, come illegally and you are a criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Agreed, however blindly following an immigration system that is badly broken is not the answer either.  People on both sides should be speaking out about creating a system that will actually make America a better place rather than opening or closing our borders to everyone.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with our immigration system.......nothing.  Again, we allow over 700,000 people a year to become members of our country, and that's  not counting work Visa's or green cards.  The only people that say our system is broken are those that don't want to follow by the rules or those politicians that will benefit from immigrants by voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The only people that think our immigration system isn't broken are those that know nothing about it. The backlog in immigration court is over 250,000 cases, due primarily to the hearing process and the number of immigration issues that require a court hearing.  A simple request for a 30 day visa extension generally takes two months for approval. The law allows unlimited delays of deportation. The jobs skills and education of the applicant is usually irrelevant in determining who is allowed to immigrate.  The major factor used to determine who is allowed to work in the country, is not occupations, skills, or education but rather who has family in the US.  We spent tens of millions of dollars on the E-Verify system and only certain government contractors are required to use it.  There are an estimated 7 million illegal immigrants working in the country, however the law is so weak, that only a few employers of illegals are ever brought to justice.  In 2014, out 417 companies sited for hiring illegals, only 3 were fined and no one went to prison. Privacy considerations in the law, prevent ICE from keeping accurate records of who is legally in the country.  Our immigration laws discourage professional people from immigrating to the US and the Visa process for critical technical skills is absolutely insane.  We waste billions dollars on detention when electronic ankle collars have proven 99.8% effective. Then there are quotas that have not been adjusted in decades, Dreamers that face deportation, and asylum seeks outside the US that the law requires they violate the law to petition for asylum.
> 
> It you think there is nothing wrong with our immigration laws you either know nothing about them or you are so biased you won't admit it.*
Click to expand...


The only thing "wrong" with our immigration laws is that they haven't been enforced.......


----------



## Flopper

Dale Smith said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And I can respond with proof to the contrary that legal immigrants commit less crimes than native born citizens.  It's not worth the time.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to FactCheck, there is no accurate data that separates legal from illegal.
> 
> Steve King on 'Criminal Aliens' - FactCheck.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Since people that are in the country illegally are undocumented and not about to declare themselves as such, you are correct there are no accurate statistics as to their numbers or activities.  However, there are some pretty good estimates from census data. We also have  fairly good data on the number of people overstaying visas but again it is an estimate.  We have excellent data on legal immigrants.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to factcheck because our prisons don't keep records of legal or illegal, just that a foreigner broke a law and was sentenced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Legal immigrants to the US are better educated, and more likely to start new businesses than native born Americans.  They tend to be risk takers and are far more likely to make the sacrifices needed to live the American dream than native born Americans.
> 
> In America, we seem to forget just how lucky we are to be born in a country where we are free to do whatever we choose with our lives.  Immigrants remind us of just how lucky we are and how we fail to take advantage of our freedoms.  Maybe that's why so many of us resent immigrants.
> 
> The day we stop immigration, is the day American goes into a downward spiral and become a second rate nation. It is new blood and new ideas that make America great.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the key word here is LEGAL.  Come legally and you are welcomed, come illegally and you are a criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Agreed, however blindly following an immigration system that is badly broken is not the answer either.  People on both sides should be speaking out about creating a system that will actually make America a better place rather than opening or closing our borders to everyone.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with our immigration system.......nothing.  Again, we allow over 700,000 people a year to become members of our country, and that's  not counting work Visa's or green cards.  The only people that say our system is broken are those that don't want to follow by the rules or those politicians that will benefit from immigrants by voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The only people that think our immigration system isn't broken are those that know nothing about it. The backlog in immigration court is over 250,000 cases, due primarily to the hearing process and the number of immigration issues that require a court hearing.  A simple request for a 30 day visa extension generally takes two months for approval. The law allows unlimited delays of deportation. The jobs skills and education of the applicant is usually irrelevant in determining who is allowed to immigrate.  The major factor used to determine who is allowed to work in the country, is not occupations, skills, or education but rather who has family in the US.  We spent tens of millions of dollars on the E-Verify system and only certain government contractors are required to use it.  There are an estimated 7 million illegal immigrants working in the country, however the law is so weak, that only a few employers of illegals are ever brought to justice.  In 2014, out 417 companies sited for hiring illegals, only 3 were fined and no one went to prison. Privacy considerations in the law, prevent ICE from keeping accurate records of who is legally in the country.  Our immigration laws discourage professional people from immigrating to the US and the Visa process for critical technical skills is absolutely insane.  We waste billions dollars on detention when electronic ankle collars have proven 99.8% effective. Then there are quotas that have not been adjusted in decades, Dreamers that face deportation, and asylum seeks outside the US that the law requires they violate the law to petition for asylum.
> 
> It you think there is nothing wrong with our immigration laws you either know nothing about them or you are so biased you won't admit it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing "wrong" with our immigration laws is that they haven't been enforced.......
Click to expand...

*Your statement shows how little you know about them. 

Laws that do have strong public support often do not have strong support by law enforcement and government. *


----------



## Dale Smith

Flopper said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to FactCheck, there is no accurate data that separates legal from illegal.
> 
> Steve King on 'Criminal Aliens' - FactCheck.org
> 
> 
> 
> *Since people that are in the country illegally are undocumented and not about to declare themselves as such, you are correct there are no accurate statistics as to their numbers or activities.  However, there are some pretty good estimates from census data. We also have  fairly good data on the number of people overstaying visas but again it is an estimate.  We have excellent data on legal immigrants.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to factcheck because our prisons don't keep records of legal or illegal, just that a foreigner broke a law and was sentenced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the key word here is LEGAL.  Come legally and you are welcomed, come illegally and you are a criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Agreed, however blindly following an immigration system that is badly broken is not the answer either.  People on both sides should be speaking out about creating a system that will actually make America a better place rather than opening or closing our borders to everyone.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with our immigration system.......nothing.  Again, we allow over 700,000 people a year to become members of our country, and that's  not counting work Visa's or green cards.  The only people that say our system is broken are those that don't want to follow by the rules or those politicians that will benefit from immigrants by voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The only people that think our immigration system isn't broken are those that know nothing about it. The backlog in immigration court is over 250,000 cases, due primarily to the hearing process and the number of immigration issues that require a court hearing.  A simple request for a 30 day visa extension generally takes two months for approval. The law allows unlimited delays of deportation. The jobs skills and education of the applicant is usually irrelevant in determining who is allowed to immigrate.  The major factor used to determine who is allowed to work in the country, is not occupations, skills, or education but rather who has family in the US.  We spent tens of millions of dollars on the E-Verify system and only certain government contractors are required to use it.  There are an estimated 7 million illegal immigrants working in the country, however the law is so weak, that only a few employers of illegals are ever brought to justice.  In 2014, out 417 companies sited for hiring illegals, only 3 were fined and no one went to prison. Privacy considerations in the law, prevent ICE from keeping accurate records of who is legally in the country.  Our immigration laws discourage professional people from immigrating to the US and the Visa process for critical technical skills is absolutely insane.  We waste billions dollars on detention when electronic ankle collars have proven 99.8% effective. Then there are quotas that have not been adjusted in decades, Dreamers that face deportation, and asylum seeks outside the US that the law requires they violate the law to petition for asylum.
> 
> It you think there is nothing wrong with our immigration laws you either know nothing about them or you are so biased you won't admit it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing "wrong" with our immigration laws is that they haven't been enforced.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Your statement shows how little you know about them.
> 
> Laws that do have strong public support often do have strong support by law enforcement. *
Click to expand...


Yeaaaah, you betcha...........you can't just come across the border and squat while bypassing the proper channels...of course leftards would LOVE for that to be the case because it's another underclass that they can cater to in exchange for their vote and undying devotion to the democratic communist party.


----------



## JoeB131

saveliberty said:


> So being separated for a while is better than the violence and possible death they faced at home. I will have to chalk the outrage up to faux then.



Um, no... trying to make coming here more awful than being in a war zone is just a bad reflection on us.  

Remember when America used to be a compassionate place.  You know, the kind of place my grandparents could come to when they fled the Nazis?  

Now we are becoming the Nazis....


----------



## JoeB131

Dale Smith said:


> The only thing "wrong" with our immigration laws is that they haven't been enforced.......



Or that they are unenforceable... 



Dale Smith said:


> Yeaaaah, you betcha...........you can't just come across the border and squat while bypassing the proper channels...of course leftards would LOVE for that to be the case because it's another underclass that they can cater to in exchange for their vote and undying devotion to the democratic communist party.



Guy, Republicans want these people to cross so they can exploit the cheap labor, they just don't want them voting... so who is worse here?


----------



## Redfish

Flopper said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to FactCheck, there is no accurate data that separates legal from illegal.
> 
> Steve King on 'Criminal Aliens' - FactCheck.org
> 
> 
> 
> *Since people that are in the country illegally are undocumented and not about to declare themselves as such, you are correct there are no accurate statistics as to their numbers or activities.  However, there are some pretty good estimates from census data. We also have  fairly good data on the number of people overstaying visas but again it is an estimate.  We have excellent data on legal immigrants.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to factcheck because our prisons don't keep records of legal or illegal, just that a foreigner broke a law and was sentenced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the key word here is LEGAL.  Come legally and you are welcomed, come illegally and you are a criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Agreed, however blindly following an immigration system that is badly broken is not the answer either.  People on both sides should be speaking out about creating a system that will actually make America a better place rather than opening or closing our borders to everyone.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with our immigration system.......nothing.  Again, we allow over 700,000 people a year to become members of our country, and that's  not counting work Visa's or green cards.  The only people that say our system is broken are those that don't want to follow by the rules or those politicians that will benefit from immigrants by voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The only people that think our immigration system isn't broken are those that know nothing about it. The backlog in immigration court is over 250,000 cases, due primarily to the hearing process and the number of immigration issues that require a court hearing.  A simple request for a 30 day visa extension generally takes two months for approval. The law allows unlimited delays of deportation. The jobs skills and education of the applicant is usually irrelevant in determining who is allowed to immigrate.  The major factor used to determine who is allowed to work in the country, is not occupations, skills, or education but rather who has family in the US.  We spent tens of millions of dollars on the E-Verify system and only certain government contractors are required to use it.  There are an estimated 7 million illegal immigrants working in the country, however the law is so weak, that only a few employers of illegals are ever brought to justice.  In 2014, out 417 companies sited for hiring illegals, only 3 were fined and no one went to prison. Privacy considerations in the law, prevent ICE from keeping accurate records of who is legally in the country.  Our immigration laws discourage professional people from immigrating to the US and the Visa process for critical technical skills is absolutely insane.  We waste billions dollars on detention when electronic ankle collars have proven 99.8% effective. Then there are quotas that have not been adjusted in decades, Dreamers that face deportation, and asylum seeks outside the US that the law requires they violate the law to petition for asylum.
> 
> It you think there is nothing wrong with our immigration laws you either know nothing about them or you are so biased you won't admit it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing "wrong" with our immigration laws is that they haven't been enforced.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Your statement shows how little you know about them.
> 
> Laws that do have strong public support often do not have strong support by law enforcement and government. *
Click to expand...



the vast majority of americans want our immigration laws enforced and our borders secured.


----------



## Flopper

JoeB131 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> So being separated for a while is better than the violence and possible death they faced at home. I will have to chalk the outrage up to faux then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no... trying to make coming here more awful than being in a war zone is just a bad reflection on us.
> 
> Remember when America used to be a compassionate place.  You know, the kind of place my grandparents could come to when they fled the Nazis?
> 
> Now we are becoming the Nazis....
Click to expand...

*Sad but that's seems to be America today.  I've been around a long time and have never seen such bitterness, hate, and fingerprinting.  Instead of looking for real solutions to problems we look for scapegoats, immigrants, socialist, liberals, conservatives, communists, the poor, the rich, the black, the Hispanics, the racists, the Christians, the Jews, the Muslims.....*


----------



## Flopper

Redfish said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Since people that are in the country illegally are undocumented and not about to declare themselves as such, you are correct there are no accurate statistics as to their numbers or activities.  However, there are some pretty good estimates from census data. We also have  fairly good data on the number of people overstaying visas but again it is an estimate.  We have excellent data on legal immigrants.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to factcheck because our prisons don't keep records of legal or illegal, just that a foreigner broke a law and was sentenced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Agreed, however blindly following an immigration system that is badly broken is not the answer either.  People on both sides should be speaking out about creating a system that will actually make America a better place rather than opening or closing our borders to everyone.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with our immigration system.......nothing.  Again, we allow over 700,000 people a year to become members of our country, and that's  not counting work Visa's or green cards.  The only people that say our system is broken are those that don't want to follow by the rules or those politicians that will benefit from immigrants by voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The only people that think our immigration system isn't broken are those that know nothing about it. The backlog in immigration court is over 250,000 cases, due primarily to the hearing process and the number of immigration issues that require a court hearing.  A simple request for a 30 day visa extension generally takes two months for approval. The law allows unlimited delays of deportation. The jobs skills and education of the applicant is usually irrelevant in determining who is allowed to immigrate.  The major factor used to determine who is allowed to work in the country, is not occupations, skills, or education but rather who has family in the US.  We spent tens of millions of dollars on the E-Verify system and only certain government contractors are required to use it.  There are an estimated 7 million illegal immigrants working in the country, however the law is so weak, that only a few employers of illegals are ever brought to justice.  In 2014, out 417 companies sited for hiring illegals, only 3 were fined and no one went to prison. Privacy considerations in the law, prevent ICE from keeping accurate records of who is legally in the country.  Our immigration laws discourage professional people from immigrating to the US and the Visa process for critical technical skills is absolutely insane.  We waste billions dollars on detention when electronic ankle collars have proven 99.8% effective. Then there are quotas that have not been adjusted in decades, Dreamers that face deportation, and asylum seeks outside the US that the law requires they violate the law to petition for asylum.
> 
> It you think there is nothing wrong with our immigration laws you either know nothing about them or you are so biased you won't admit it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing "wrong" with our immigration laws is that they haven't been enforced.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Your statement shows how little you know about them.
> 
> Laws that do have strong public support often do not have strong support by law enforcement and government. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the vast majority of americans want our immigration laws enforced and our borders secured.
Click to expand...

*Which is not going to happen until we fix our laws, enforce them fairly and consistently.   

If you ask Americans if they think our immigration laws should be enforced, the answer is going to be yes.  However, if you ask them if they oppose or favor the deportation all illegal immigrants, the majority (66% in a recent Gallup Poll) are in opposition.  If you ask them whether illegal immigrants help or hurt the nation, they are about equally divided. 

Illegally immigration is firmly rooted in America culture. Over the last 75 years we have had periods off and on enforcement and that will not change without changes in our laws.  The president, regulators, immigration judges, and immigration officers have a lot of discretion in enforcing the law.  As long as that exists, the future is going to look a lot like the past.*


----------



## Redfish

Flopper said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to factcheck because our prisons don't keep records of legal or illegal, just that a foreigner broke a law and was sentenced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with our immigration system.......nothing.  Again, we allow over 700,000 people a year to become members of our country, and that's  not counting work Visa's or green cards.  The only people that say our system is broken are those that don't want to follow by the rules or those politicians that will benefit from immigrants by voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The only people that think our immigration system isn't broken are those that know nothing about it. The backlog in immigration court is over 250,000 cases, due primarily to the hearing process and the number of immigration issues that require a court hearing.  A simple request for a 30 day visa extension generally takes two months for approval. The law allows unlimited delays of deportation. The jobs skills and education of the applicant is usually irrelevant in determining who is allowed to immigrate.  The major factor used to determine who is allowed to work in the country, is not occupations, skills, or education but rather who has family in the US.  We spent tens of millions of dollars on the E-Verify system and only certain government contractors are required to use it.  There are an estimated 7 million illegal immigrants working in the country, however the law is so weak, that only a few employers of illegals are ever brought to justice.  In 2014, out 417 companies sited for hiring illegals, only 3 were fined and no one went to prison. Privacy considerations in the law, prevent ICE from keeping accurate records of who is legally in the country.  Our immigration laws discourage professional people from immigrating to the US and the Visa process for critical technical skills is absolutely insane.  We waste billions dollars on detention when electronic ankle collars have proven 99.8% effective. Then there are quotas that have not been adjusted in decades, Dreamers that face deportation, and asylum seeks outside the US that the law requires they violate the law to petition for asylum.
> 
> It you think there is nothing wrong with our immigration laws you either know nothing about them or you are so biased you won't admit it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing "wrong" with our immigration laws is that they haven't been enforced.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Your statement shows how little you know about them.
> 
> Laws that do have strong public support often do not have strong support by law enforcement and government. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the vast majority of americans want our immigration laws enforced and our borders secured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Which is not going to happen until we fix our laws, enforce them fairly and consistently.
> 
> If you ask Americans if they think our immigration laws should be enforced, the answer is going to be yes.  However, if you ask them if they oppose or favor the deportation all illegal immigrants, the majority (66% in a recent Gallup Poll) are in opposition.  If you ask them whether illegal immigrants help or hurt the nation, they are about equally divided.
> 
> Illegally immigration is firmly rooted in America culture. Over the last 75 years we have had periods off and on enforcement and that will not change without changes in our laws.  The president, regulators, immigration judges, and immigration officers have a lot of discretion in enforcing the law.  As long as that exists, the future is going to look a lot like the past.*
Click to expand...



there is nothing wrong with our existing laws, except the lack of enforcement.   Stop playing word games, illegal is illegal.   As to the ones currently here, something needs to be done to put them at the end of the line for becoming citizens, but no benefits until they become citizens.


----------



## JoeB131

Redfish said:


> the vast majority of americans want our immigration laws enforced and our borders secured.



Immigration

Let's look at that. 

Please tell me whether you strongly favor, favor, oppose or strongly oppose each of the following proposals. Significantly expanding the construction of walls along the U.S.-Mexico border

41 % Favor 
57% Oppose

Please tell me whether you strongly favor, favor, oppose or strongly oppose each of the following proposals. Allowing immigrants, who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children, the chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time.

83% Favor
15% oppose


----------



## Coyote

'My son and I can stay together, right?': Separated parents unknowingly gave up reunification rights, lawyers say


In more than a dozen testimonies provided in court Wednesday, migrant parents separated from their children at the border said *they were pressured by immigration officials to sign forms waiving their reunification rights in a “coercive and misleading manner.”*

The testimonies were among more than 100 pages of personal declarations compiled by attorneys who have worked closely with detained parents who were directly affected by the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy it rolled out in early May.

The declarations detail several examples in which parents were not given enough time to make sound decisions, including having “only a few minutes to decide whether or not to leave their children in the U.S.,” a decision that one lawyer’s declaration said has been done in a room of up to 50 other people.


...“[This Guatemalan father] appears to understand very little of what is happening in his case and has expressed that he is very confused. … [immigration officials] asked him to sign a form that would allow his daughter to be released to family members in the United States. He has no idea what this paper said as he is completely illiterate, and the form was in English.” 

— Attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick said a Guatemalan man has talked with his 8-year-old daughter three times since they were separated at the border. Reichlin-Melnick wrote that the man’s Spanish is “quite limited” and speaks Akatek, an indigenous language. The attorney also noted: “Although language was a barrier when talking to him, this father was extremely clear that he wishes to be reunited with his daughter,” adding that the man was confused that he may have signed a paper that gave up his reunification rights.

“I met with five fathers who had been placed on this so-called ‘relinquishment list,’ but who told me that they did not understand the implications of what they were signing. All of the five fathers wish to be reunited with their children.”

— Attorney Luis Cruz is one of several attorneys who said in their declarations that parents who had waived reunification “in fact do want their kids back,” ACLU said in its filing. Cruz also wrote that all five detained fathers said they were not able to read or write in either Spanish or English. One said the process of signing the form lasted fewer than four minutes, and that he was not given the opportunity to talk with a lawyer beforehand. Another father said the process lasted fewer than three minutes and “said that he felt sad and intimidated during the process,” Cruz wrote...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> 'My son and I can stay together, right?': Separated parents unknowingly gave up reunification rights, lawyers say
> 
> 
> In more than a dozen testimonies provided in court Wednesday, migrant parents separated from their children at the border said *they were pressured by immigration officials to sign forms waiving their reunification rights in a “coercive and misleading manner.”*
> 
> The testimonies were among more than 100 pages of personal declarations compiled by attorneys who have worked closely with detained parents who were directly affected by the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy it rolled out in early May.
> 
> The declarations detail several examples in which parents were not given enough time to make sound decisions, including having “only a few minutes to decide whether or not to leave their children in the U.S.,” a decision that one lawyer’s declaration said has been done in a room of up to 50 other people.
> 
> 
> ...“[This Guatemalan father] appears to understand very little of what is happening in his case and has expressed that he is very confused. … [immigration officials] asked him to sign a form that would allow his daughter to be released to family members in the United States. He has no idea what this paper said as he is completely illiterate, and the form was in English.”
> 
> — Attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick said a Guatemalan man has talked with his 8-year-old daughter three times since they were separated at the border. Reichlin-Melnick wrote that the man’s Spanish is “quite limited” and speaks Akatek, an indigenous language. The attorney also noted: “Although language was a barrier when talking to him, this father was extremely clear that he wishes to be reunited with his daughter,” adding that the man was confused that he may have signed a paper that gave up his reunification rights.
> 
> “I met with five fathers who had been placed on this so-called ‘relinquishment list,’ but who told me that they did not understand the implications of what they were signing. All of the five fathers wish to be reunited with their children.”
> 
> — Attorney Luis Cruz is one of several attorneys who said in their declarations that parents who had waived reunification “in fact do want their kids back,” ACLU said in its filing. Cruz also wrote that all five detained fathers said they were not able to read or write in either Spanish or English. One said the process of signing the form lasted fewer than four minutes, and that he was not given the opportunity to talk with a lawyer beforehand. Another father said the process lasted fewer than three minutes and “said that he felt sad and intimidated during the process,” Cruz wrote...



Wow, they really should have stayed in their own country, should't they?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to factcheck because our prisons don't keep records of legal or illegal, just that a foreigner broke a law and was sentenced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with our immigration system.......nothing.  Again, we allow over 700,000 people a year to become members of our country, and that's  not counting work Visa's or green cards.  The only people that say our system is broken are those that don't want to follow by the rules or those politicians that will benefit from immigrants by voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The only people that think our immigration system isn't broken are those that know nothing about it. The backlog in immigration court is over 250,000 cases, due primarily to the hearing process and the number of immigration issues that require a court hearing.  A simple request for a 30 day visa extension generally takes two months for approval. The law allows unlimited delays of deportation. The jobs skills and education of the applicant is usually irrelevant in determining who is allowed to immigrate.  The major factor used to determine who is allowed to work in the country, is not occupations, skills, or education but rather who has family in the US.  We spent tens of millions of dollars on the E-Verify system and only certain government contractors are required to use it.  There are an estimated 7 million illegal immigrants working in the country, however the law is so weak, that only a few employers of illegals are ever brought to justice.  In 2014, out 417 companies sited for hiring illegals, only 3 were fined and no one went to prison. Privacy considerations in the law, prevent ICE from keeping accurate records of who is legally in the country.  Our immigration laws discourage professional people from immigrating to the US and the Visa process for critical technical skills is absolutely insane.  We waste billions dollars on detention when electronic ankle collars have proven 99.8% effective. Then there are quotas that have not been adjusted in decades, Dreamers that face deportation, and asylum seeks outside the US that the law requires they violate the law to petition for asylum.
> 
> It you think there is nothing wrong with our immigration laws you either know nothing about them or you are so biased you won't admit it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing "wrong" with our immigration laws is that they haven't been enforced.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Your statement shows how little you know about them.
> 
> Laws that do have strong public support often do not have strong support by law enforcement and government. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the vast majority of americans want our immigration laws enforced and our borders secured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Which is not going to happen until we fix our laws, enforce them fairly and consistently.
> 
> If you ask Americans if they think our immigration laws should be enforced, the answer is going to be yes.  However, if you ask them if they oppose or favor the deportation all illegal immigrants, the majority (66% in a recent Gallup Poll) are in opposition.  If you ask them whether illegal immigrants help or hurt the nation, they are about equally divided.
> 
> Illegally immigration is firmly rooted in America culture. Over the last 75 years we have had periods off and on enforcement and that will not change without changes in our laws.  The president, regulators, immigration judges, and immigration officers have a lot of discretion in enforcing the law.  As long as that exists, the future is going to look a lot like the past.*
Click to expand...


The one great thing about Trump is he doesn't preside according to screwed polls.  He rules on what he feels and believes in.


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The only people that think our immigration system isn't broken are those that know nothing about it. The backlog in immigration court is over 250,000 cases, due primarily to the hearing process and the number of immigration issues that require a court hearing.  A simple request for a 30 day visa extension generally takes two months for approval. The law allows unlimited delays of deportation. The jobs skills and education of the applicant is usually irrelevant in determining who is allowed to immigrate.  The major factor used to determine who is allowed to work in the country, is not occupations, skills, or education but rather who has family in the US.  We spent tens of millions of dollars on the E-Verify system and only certain government contractors are required to use it.  There are an estimated 7 million illegal immigrants working in the country, however the law is so weak, that only a few employers of illegals are ever brought to justice.  In 2014, out 417 companies sited for hiring illegals, only 3 were fined and no one went to prison. Privacy considerations in the law, prevent ICE from keeping accurate records of who is legally in the country.  Our immigration laws discourage professional people from immigrating to the US and the Visa process for critical technical skills is absolutely insane.  We waste billions dollars on detention when electronic ankle collars have proven 99.8% effective. Then there are quotas that have not been adjusted in decades, Dreamers that face deportation, and asylum seeks outside the US that the law requires they violate the law to petition for asylum.
> 
> It you think there is nothing wrong with our immigration laws you either know nothing about them or you are so biased you won't admit it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing "wrong" with our immigration laws is that they haven't been enforced.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Your statement shows how little you know about them.
> 
> Laws that do have strong public support often do not have strong support by law enforcement and government. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the vast majority of americans want our immigration laws enforced and our borders secured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Which is not going to happen until we fix our laws, enforce them fairly and consistently.
> 
> If you ask Americans if they think our immigration laws should be enforced, the answer is going to be yes.  However, if you ask them if they oppose or favor the deportation all illegal immigrants, the majority (66% in a recent Gallup Poll) are in opposition.  If you ask them whether illegal immigrants help or hurt the nation, they are about equally divided.
> 
> Illegally immigration is firmly rooted in America culture. Over the last 75 years we have had periods off and on enforcement and that will not change without changes in our laws.  The president, regulators, immigration judges, and immigration officers have a lot of discretion in enforcing the law.  As long as that exists, the future is going to look a lot like the past.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one great thing about Trump is he doesn't preside according to screwed polls.  He rules on what he feels and believes in.
Click to expand...

What his base wants.


----------



## Redfish

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing "wrong" with our immigration laws is that they haven't been enforced.......
> 
> 
> 
> *Your statement shows how little you know about them.
> 
> Laws that do have strong public support often do not have strong support by law enforcement and government. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the vast majority of americans want our immigration laws enforced and our borders secured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Which is not going to happen until we fix our laws, enforce them fairly and consistently.
> 
> If you ask Americans if they think our immigration laws should be enforced, the answer is going to be yes.  However, if you ask them if they oppose or favor the deportation all illegal immigrants, the majority (66% in a recent Gallup Poll) are in opposition.  If you ask them whether illegal immigrants help or hurt the nation, they are about equally divided.
> 
> Illegally immigration is firmly rooted in America culture. Over the last 75 years we have had periods off and on enforcement and that will not change without changes in our laws.  The president, regulators, immigration judges, and immigration officers have a lot of discretion in enforcing the law.  As long as that exists, the future is going to look a lot like the past.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one great thing about Trump is he doesn't preside according to screwed polls.  He rules on what he feels and believes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What his base wants.
Click to expand...



yep, and his base is most of America,  the left coast and the elite northeast snobs are NOT America.   He is doing exactly what we elected him to do------------fix the mess.  drain the swamp, expose the corruption of the establishment.


----------



## Redfish

Coyote said:


> 'My son and I can stay together, right?': Separated parents unknowingly gave up reunification rights, lawyers say
> 
> 
> In more than a dozen testimonies provided in court Wednesday, migrant parents separated from their children at the border said *they were pressured by immigration officials to sign forms waiving their reunification rights in a “coercive and misleading manner.”*
> 
> The testimonies were among more than 100 pages of personal declarations compiled by attorneys who have worked closely with detained parents who were directly affected by the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy it rolled out in early May.
> 
> The declarations detail several examples in which parents were not given enough time to make sound decisions, including having “only a few minutes to decide whether or not to leave their children in the U.S.,” a decision that one lawyer’s declaration said has been done in a room of up to 50 other people.
> 
> 
> ...“[This Guatemalan father] appears to understand very little of what is happening in his case and has expressed that he is very confused. … [immigration officials] asked him to sign a form that would allow his daughter to be released to family members in the United States. He has no idea what this paper said as he is completely illiterate, and the form was in English.”
> 
> — Attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick said a Guatemalan man has talked with his 8-year-old daughter three times since they were separated at the border. Reichlin-Melnick wrote that the man’s Spanish is “quite limited” and speaks Akatek, an indigenous language. The attorney also noted: “Although language was a barrier when talking to him, this father was extremely clear that he wishes to be reunited with his daughter,” adding that the man was confused that he may have signed a paper that gave up his reunification rights.
> 
> “I met with five fathers who had been placed on this so-called ‘relinquishment list,’ but who told me that they did not understand the implications of what they were signing. All of the five fathers wish to be reunited with their children.”
> 
> — Attorney Luis Cruz is one of several attorneys who said in their declarations that parents who had waived reunification “in fact do want their kids back,” ACLU said in its filing. Cruz also wrote that all five detained fathers said they were not able to read or write in either Spanish or English. One said the process of signing the form lasted fewer than four minutes, and that he was not given the opportunity to talk with a lawyer beforehand. Another father said the process lasted fewer than three minutes and “said that he felt sad and intimidated during the process,” Cruz wrote...




this started under Clinton and was continued by Bush and Obama,  why are you just now pissed about it?


----------



## Redfish

We, as a country, need to stop feeling sorry for people who enter our country illegally.   Liberal empathy is why we have such stupid immigration laws.    and BTW the 14th amendment was passed to cover the children of freed slaves, not everyone who decides to enter our country illegally and give birth.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing "wrong" with our immigration laws is that they haven't been enforced.......
> 
> 
> 
> *Your statement shows how little you know about them.
> 
> Laws that do have strong public support often do not have strong support by law enforcement and government. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the vast majority of americans want our immigration laws enforced and our borders secured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Which is not going to happen until we fix our laws, enforce them fairly and consistently.
> 
> If you ask Americans if they think our immigration laws should be enforced, the answer is going to be yes.  However, if you ask them if they oppose or favor the deportation all illegal immigrants, the majority (66% in a recent Gallup Poll) are in opposition.  If you ask them whether illegal immigrants help or hurt the nation, they are about equally divided.
> 
> Illegally immigration is firmly rooted in America culture. Over the last 75 years we have had periods off and on enforcement and that will not change without changes in our laws.  The president, regulators, immigration judges, and immigration officers have a lot of discretion in enforcing the law.  As long as that exists, the future is going to look a lot like the past.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one great thing about Trump is he doesn't preside according to screwed polls.  He rules on what he feels and believes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What his base wants.
Click to expand...


OMG, that's totally shocking!  Trump is the first politician EVER to think doing what his constituents elected him to do is important!  What a newsflash!  What a scandal!


----------



## Coyote

Redfish said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Since people that are in the country illegally are undocumented and not about to declare themselves as such, you are correct there are no accurate statistics as to their numbers or activities.  However, there are some pretty good estimates from census data. We also have  fairly good data on the number of people overstaying visas but again it is an estimate.  We have excellent data on legal immigrants.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to factcheck because our prisons don't keep records of legal or illegal, just that a foreigner broke a law and was sentenced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Agreed, however blindly following an immigration system that is badly broken is not the answer either.  People on both sides should be speaking out about creating a system that will actually make America a better place rather than opening or closing our borders to everyone.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with our immigration system.......nothing.  Again, we allow over 700,000 people a year to become members of our country, and that's  not counting work Visa's or green cards.  The only people that say our system is broken are those that don't want to follow by the rules or those politicians that will benefit from immigrants by voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The only people that think our immigration system isn't broken are those that know nothing about it. The backlog in immigration court is over 250,000 cases, due primarily to the hearing process and the number of immigration issues that require a court hearing.  A simple request for a 30 day visa extension generally takes two months for approval. The law allows unlimited delays of deportation. The jobs skills and education of the applicant is usually irrelevant in determining who is allowed to immigrate.  The major factor used to determine who is allowed to work in the country, is not occupations, skills, or education but rather who has family in the US.  We spent tens of millions of dollars on the E-Verify system and only certain government contractors are required to use it.  There are an estimated 7 million illegal immigrants working in the country, however the law is so weak, that only a few employers of illegals are ever brought to justice.  In 2014, out 417 companies sited for hiring illegals, only 3 were fined and no one went to prison. Privacy considerations in the law, prevent ICE from keeping accurate records of who is legally in the country.  Our immigration laws discourage professional people from immigrating to the US and the Visa process for critical technical skills is absolutely insane.  We waste billions dollars on detention when electronic ankle collars have proven 99.8% effective. Then there are quotas that have not been adjusted in decades, Dreamers that face deportation, and asylum seeks outside the US that the law requires they violate the law to petition for asylum.
> 
> It you think there is nothing wrong with our immigration laws you either know nothing about them or you are so biased you won't admit it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing "wrong" with our immigration laws is that they haven't been enforced.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Your statement shows how little you know about them.
> 
> Laws that do have strong public support often do not have strong support by law enforcement and government. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the vast majority of americans want our immigration laws enforced and our borders secured.
Click to expand...



And the vast majority do not agree with how Trump is handling it.


----------



## toobfreak

Coyote said:


> *What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration? *




Don't care so long as it is 100% every dirt-bag illegal that sneaks into this country before one American can be harmed.  Treat them just as Mexico treated Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi when they arrested and locked him up in prison for a year, tortured him, and almost drove him to suicide because he accidentally got caught in a lane that forced him to turn and cross the border into Mexico as he was moving with his life possessions.


Why Is a US Marine in a Mexican Jail? The Case of Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi | Boston.com


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The only people that think our immigration system isn't broken are those that know nothing about it. The backlog in immigration court is over 250,000 cases, due primarily to the hearing process and the number of immigration issues that require a court hearing.  A simple request for a 30 day visa extension generally takes two months for approval. The law allows unlimited delays of deportation. The jobs skills and education of the applicant is usually irrelevant in determining who is allowed to immigrate.  The major factor used to determine who is allowed to work in the country, is not occupations, skills, or education but rather who has family in the US.  We spent tens of millions of dollars on the E-Verify system and only certain government contractors are required to use it.  There are an estimated 7 million illegal immigrants working in the country, however the law is so weak, that only a few employers of illegals are ever brought to justice.  In 2014, out 417 companies sited for hiring illegals, only 3 were fined and no one went to prison. Privacy considerations in the law, prevent ICE from keeping accurate records of who is legally in the country.  Our immigration laws discourage professional people from immigrating to the US and the Visa process for critical technical skills is absolutely insane.  We waste billions dollars on detention when electronic ankle collars have proven 99.8% effective. Then there are quotas that have not been adjusted in decades, Dreamers that face deportation, and asylum seeks outside the US that the law requires they violate the law to petition for asylum.
> 
> It you think there is nothing wrong with our immigration laws you either know nothing about them or you are so biased you won't admit it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing "wrong" with our immigration laws is that they haven't been enforced.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Your statement shows how little you know about them.
> 
> Laws that do have strong public support often do not have strong support by law enforcement and government. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the vast majority of americans want our immigration laws enforced and our borders secured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Which is not going to happen until we fix our laws, enforce them fairly and consistently.
> 
> If you ask Americans if they think our immigration laws should be enforced, the answer is going to be yes.  However, if you ask them if they oppose or favor the deportation all illegal immigrants, the majority (66% in a recent Gallup Poll) are in opposition.  If you ask them whether illegal immigrants help or hurt the nation, they are about equally divided.
> 
> Illegally immigration is firmly rooted in America culture. Over the last 75 years we have had periods off and on enforcement and that will not change without changes in our laws.  The president, regulators, immigration judges, and immigration officers have a lot of discretion in enforcing the law.  As long as that exists, the future is going to look a lot like the past.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one great thing about Trump is he doesn't preside according to screwed polls.  He rules on what he feels and believes in.
Click to expand...

*Presidents don't rule, not even Trump.*


----------



## Redfish

Coyote said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to factcheck because our prisons don't keep records of legal or illegal, just that a foreigner broke a law and was sentenced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with our immigration system.......nothing.  Again, we allow over 700,000 people a year to become members of our country, and that's  not counting work Visa's or green cards.  The only people that say our system is broken are those that don't want to follow by the rules or those politicians that will benefit from immigrants by voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The only people that think our immigration system isn't broken are those that know nothing about it. The backlog in immigration court is over 250,000 cases, due primarily to the hearing process and the number of immigration issues that require a court hearing.  A simple request for a 30 day visa extension generally takes two months for approval. The law allows unlimited delays of deportation. The jobs skills and education of the applicant is usually irrelevant in determining who is allowed to immigrate.  The major factor used to determine who is allowed to work in the country, is not occupations, skills, or education but rather who has family in the US.  We spent tens of millions of dollars on the E-Verify system and only certain government contractors are required to use it.  There are an estimated 7 million illegal immigrants working in the country, however the law is so weak, that only a few employers of illegals are ever brought to justice.  In 2014, out 417 companies sited for hiring illegals, only 3 were fined and no one went to prison. Privacy considerations in the law, prevent ICE from keeping accurate records of who is legally in the country.  Our immigration laws discourage professional people from immigrating to the US and the Visa process for critical technical skills is absolutely insane.  We waste billions dollars on detention when electronic ankle collars have proven 99.8% effective. Then there are quotas that have not been adjusted in decades, Dreamers that face deportation, and asylum seeks outside the US that the law requires they violate the law to petition for asylum.
> 
> It you think there is nothing wrong with our immigration laws you either know nothing about them or you are so biased you won't admit it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing "wrong" with our immigration laws is that they haven't been enforced.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Your statement shows how little you know about them.
> 
> Laws that do have strong public support often do not have strong support by law enforcement and government. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the vast majority of americans want our immigration laws enforced and our borders secured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And the vast majority do not agree with how Trump is handling it.
Click to expand...


wrong, the lying media and the lying dems are filling your head with 

and for the record, you are not part of the vast majority, you are part of a tiny minority who actually think that socialism works.


----------



## Redfish

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing "wrong" with our immigration laws is that they haven't been enforced.......
> 
> 
> 
> *Your statement shows how little you know about them.
> 
> Laws that do have strong public support often do not have strong support by law enforcement and government. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the vast majority of americans want our immigration laws enforced and our borders secured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Which is not going to happen until we fix our laws, enforce them fairly and consistently.
> 
> If you ask Americans if they think our immigration laws should be enforced, the answer is going to be yes.  However, if you ask them if they oppose or favor the deportation all illegal immigrants, the majority (66% in a recent Gallup Poll) are in opposition.  If you ask them whether illegal immigrants help or hurt the nation, they are about equally divided.
> 
> Illegally immigration is firmly rooted in America culture. Over the last 75 years we have had periods off and on enforcement and that will not change without changes in our laws.  The president, regulators, immigration judges, and immigration officers have a lot of discretion in enforcing the law.  As long as that exists, the future is going to look a lot like the past.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one great thing about Trump is he doesn't preside according to screwed polls.  He rules on what he feels and believes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Presidents don't rule, not even Trump.*
Click to expand...



geez, grow up, rule = govern in modern parlance.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to factcheck because our prisons don't keep records of legal or illegal, just that a foreigner broke a law and was sentenced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with our immigration system.......nothing.  Again, we allow over 700,000 people a year to become members of our country, and that's  not counting work Visa's or green cards.  The only people that say our system is broken are those that don't want to follow by the rules or those politicians that will benefit from immigrants by voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The only people that think our immigration system isn't broken are those that know nothing about it. The backlog in immigration court is over 250,000 cases, due primarily to the hearing process and the number of immigration issues that require a court hearing.  A simple request for a 30 day visa extension generally takes two months for approval. The law allows unlimited delays of deportation. The jobs skills and education of the applicant is usually irrelevant in determining who is allowed to immigrate.  The major factor used to determine who is allowed to work in the country, is not occupations, skills, or education but rather who has family in the US.  We spent tens of millions of dollars on the E-Verify system and only certain government contractors are required to use it.  There are an estimated 7 million illegal immigrants working in the country, however the law is so weak, that only a few employers of illegals are ever brought to justice.  In 2014, out 417 companies sited for hiring illegals, only 3 were fined and no one went to prison. Privacy considerations in the law, prevent ICE from keeping accurate records of who is legally in the country.  Our immigration laws discourage professional people from immigrating to the US and the Visa process for critical technical skills is absolutely insane.  We waste billions dollars on detention when electronic ankle collars have proven 99.8% effective. Then there are quotas that have not been adjusted in decades, Dreamers that face deportation, and asylum seeks outside the US that the law requires they violate the law to petition for asylum.
> 
> It you think there is nothing wrong with our immigration laws you either know nothing about them or you are so biased you won't admit it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing "wrong" with our immigration laws is that they haven't been enforced.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Your statement shows how little you know about them.
> 
> Laws that do have strong public support often do not have strong support by law enforcement and government. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the vast majority of americans want our immigration laws enforced and our borders secured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And the vast majority do not agree with how Trump is handling it.
Click to expand...


Well, I guess we'll find out whether you're right in November, won't we?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing "wrong" with our immigration laws is that they haven't been enforced.......
> 
> 
> 
> *Your statement shows how little you know about them.
> 
> Laws that do have strong public support often do not have strong support by law enforcement and government. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the vast majority of americans want our immigration laws enforced and our borders secured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Which is not going to happen until we fix our laws, enforce them fairly and consistently.
> 
> If you ask Americans if they think our immigration laws should be enforced, the answer is going to be yes.  However, if you ask them if they oppose or favor the deportation all illegal immigrants, the majority (66% in a recent Gallup Poll) are in opposition.  If you ask them whether illegal immigrants help or hurt the nation, they are about equally divided.
> 
> Illegally immigration is firmly rooted in America culture. Over the last 75 years we have had periods off and on enforcement and that will not change without changes in our laws.  The president, regulators, immigration judges, and immigration officers have a lot of discretion in enforcing the law.  As long as that exists, the future is going to look a lot like the past.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one great thing about Trump is he doesn't preside according to screwed polls.  He rules on what he feels and believes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Presidents don't rule, not even Trump.*
Click to expand...


Rule as in make decisions.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing "wrong" with our immigration laws is that they haven't been enforced.......
> 
> 
> 
> *Your statement shows how little you know about them.
> 
> Laws that do have strong public support often do not have strong support by law enforcement and government. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the vast majority of americans want our immigration laws enforced and our borders secured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Which is not going to happen until we fix our laws, enforce them fairly and consistently.
> 
> If you ask Americans if they think our immigration laws should be enforced, the answer is going to be yes.  However, if you ask them if they oppose or favor the deportation all illegal immigrants, the majority (66% in a recent Gallup Poll) are in opposition.  If you ask them whether illegal immigrants help or hurt the nation, they are about equally divided.
> 
> Illegally immigration is firmly rooted in America culture. Over the last 75 years we have had periods off and on enforcement and that will not change without changes in our laws.  The president, regulators, immigration judges, and immigration officers have a lot of discretion in enforcing the law.  As long as that exists, the future is going to look a lot like the past.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one great thing about Trump is he doesn't preside according to screwed polls.  He rules on what he feels and believes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What his base wants.
Click to expand...


That too.


----------



## Staidhup

The law is the law regardless of what some may think. The only reason this has become an issue is the result as to whom sits in the oval office.


----------



## Flopper

Redfish said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your statement shows how little you know about them.
> 
> Laws that do have strong public support often do not have strong support by law enforcement and government. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the vast majority of americans want our immigration laws enforced and our borders secured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Which is not going to happen until we fix our laws, enforce them fairly and consistently.
> 
> If you ask Americans if they think our immigration laws should be enforced, the answer is going to be yes.  However, if you ask them if they oppose or favor the deportation all illegal immigrants, the majority (66% in a recent Gallup Poll) are in opposition.  If you ask them whether illegal immigrants help or hurt the nation, they are about equally divided.
> 
> Illegally immigration is firmly rooted in America culture. Over the last 75 years we have had periods off and on enforcement and that will not change without changes in our laws.  The president, regulators, immigration judges, and immigration officers have a lot of discretion in enforcing the law.  As long as that exists, the future is going to look a lot like the past.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one great thing about Trump is he doesn't preside according to screwed polls.  He rules on what he feels and believes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Presidents don't rule, not even Trump.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> geez, grow up, rule = govern in modern parlance.
Click to expand...

*Actually, a president does not rule, he serves.  Of course we will never hear that from Trump as he has never served anyone other than himself, not even his country.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the vast majority of americans want our immigration laws enforced and our borders secured.
> 
> 
> 
> *Which is not going to happen until we fix our laws, enforce them fairly and consistently.
> 
> If you ask Americans if they think our immigration laws should be enforced, the answer is going to be yes.  However, if you ask them if they oppose or favor the deportation all illegal immigrants, the majority (66% in a recent Gallup Poll) are in opposition.  If you ask them whether illegal immigrants help or hurt the nation, they are about equally divided.
> 
> Illegally immigration is firmly rooted in America culture. Over the last 75 years we have had periods off and on enforcement and that will not change without changes in our laws.  The president, regulators, immigration judges, and immigration officers have a lot of discretion in enforcing the law.  As long as that exists, the future is going to look a lot like the past.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one great thing about Trump is he doesn't preside according to screwed polls.  He rules on what he feels and believes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Presidents don't rule, not even Trump.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> geez, grow up, rule = govern in modern parlance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Actually, a president does not rule, he serves.  Of course we will never hear that from Trump as he has never served anyone other than himself, not even his country.*
Click to expand...


Kind of like Bill Clinton???????


----------



## JoeB131

toobfreak said:


> Don't care so long as it is 100% every dirt-bag illegal that sneaks into this country before one American can be harmed. Treat them just as Mexico treated Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi when they arrested and locked him up in prison for a year, tortured him, and almost drove him to suicide because he accidentally got caught in a lane that forced him to turn and cross the border into Mexico as he was moving with his life possessions.



Yeah, um, this is what they caught him with when he was trying to cross their border. 






If we caught a Mexican trying to cross our border with this much firepower, we'd lock his ass up, too.


----------



## Redfish

Flopper said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the vast majority of americans want our immigration laws enforced and our borders secured.
> 
> 
> 
> *Which is not going to happen until we fix our laws, enforce them fairly and consistently.
> 
> If you ask Americans if they think our immigration laws should be enforced, the answer is going to be yes.  However, if you ask them if they oppose or favor the deportation all illegal immigrants, the majority (66% in a recent Gallup Poll) are in opposition.  If you ask them whether illegal immigrants help or hurt the nation, they are about equally divided.
> 
> Illegally immigration is firmly rooted in America culture. Over the last 75 years we have had periods off and on enforcement and that will not change without changes in our laws.  The president, regulators, immigration judges, and immigration officers have a lot of discretion in enforcing the law.  As long as that exists, the future is going to look a lot like the past.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one great thing about Trump is he doesn't preside according to screwed polls.  He rules on what he feels and believes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Presidents don't rule, not even Trump.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> geez, grow up, rule = govern in modern parlance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Actually, a president does not rule, he serves.  Of course we will never hear that from Trump as he has never served anyone other than himself, not even his country.*
Click to expand...



you are FOS, Trump didn't need to put himself through all this shit.   He had everything a man could want, but he decided to try to help the country.

Now, if we are talking narcissists, lets discuss Obama and Bubba Clinton, and crooked Hillary.


----------



## toobfreak

JoeB131 said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't care so long as it is 100% every dirt-bag illegal that sneaks into this country before one American can be harmed. Treat them just as Mexico treated Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi when they arrested and locked him up in prison for a year, tortured him, and almost drove him to suicide because he accidentally got caught in a lane that forced him to turn and cross the border into Mexico as he was moving with his life possessions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, um, this is what they caught him with when he was trying to cross their border.
> 
> View attachment 208076
> 
> If we caught a Mexican trying to cross our border with this much firepower, we'd lock his ass up, too.
Click to expand...



Yeah, um, well dude, if they caught me traveling moving to a new home with my life possessions, they'd catch me with a hell of a lot more!  And, yeah, well, um, dude, he proved he entered by mistake and when he got there, it was him that initiated the contact going to authorities there and telling them of the traffic mistake and what he had in the back of his vehicle, why, and that he just wanted to turn around and go back to the USA.

BUT THEY LOCKED HIM UP, tortured him, stripped him naked, tied him to his bed spread-eagle, almost committed suicide, and OBAMA lifted not his phone or his pen to do a thing because he wasn't a black guy, and it took A year and private efforts and money to finally secure his release.

AND NOT ONE MEXICAN decried his circumstance.

So when you cry that illegals make a point to invade our country, sneak in here illegally, bringing kids with them and are merely separated into clean, well-fed facilities and cared for while the adults are processed through the courts, all I can say is:

  CRY ON SOMEONE ELSE'S SHOULDER!  Illegals ought to be arrested, stripped, water hosed and beaten, then starved, beaten some more and thrown back where they belong after performing hard labor to pay for the cost of their coming here.

PS:  Oh and um, well, BTW, when he got home and straightened out, (this was several years ago long before even running) Trump heard about it and sent the guy a nice big fat check to help him get back on his feet!   Obama?  Not even a phone call.  Not black enough.

Trump Writes $25K Check to Sgt. Tahmooressi

Just one of MANY cases where Trump has helped people out, and never sought publicity for it.


----------



## Redfish

Back to the OP.    What human cost is acceptable in enforcing immigration laws?   Whatever it takes to enforce those laws.

Simple, end of story.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the vast majority of americans want our immigration laws enforced and our borders secured.
> 
> 
> 
> *Which is not going to happen until we fix our laws, enforce them fairly and consistently.
> 
> If you ask Americans if they think our immigration laws should be enforced, the answer is going to be yes.  However, if you ask them if they oppose or favor the deportation all illegal immigrants, the majority (66% in a recent Gallup Poll) are in opposition.  If you ask them whether illegal immigrants help or hurt the nation, they are about equally divided.
> 
> Illegally immigration is firmly rooted in America culture. Over the last 75 years we have had periods off and on enforcement and that will not change without changes in our laws.  The president, regulators, immigration judges, and immigration officers have a lot of discretion in enforcing the law.  As long as that exists, the future is going to look a lot like the past.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one great thing about Trump is he doesn't preside according to screwed polls.  He rules on what he feels and believes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Presidents don't rule, not even Trump.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> geez, grow up, rule = govern in modern parlance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Actually, a president does not rule, he serves.  Of course we will never hear that from Trump as he has never served anyone other than himself, not even his country.*
Click to expand...


Yeah, I can remember what a "humble servant of the people" Obama was.


----------



## Claudette

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Which is not going to happen until we fix our laws, enforce them fairly and consistently.
> 
> If you ask Americans if they think our immigration laws should be enforced, the answer is going to be yes.  However, if you ask them if they oppose or favor the deportation all illegal immigrants, the majority (66% in a recent Gallup Poll) are in opposition.  If you ask them whether illegal immigrants help or hurt the nation, they are about equally divided.
> 
> Illegally immigration is firmly rooted in America culture. Over the last 75 years we have had periods off and on enforcement and that will not change without changes in our laws.  The president, regulators, immigration judges, and immigration officers have a lot of discretion in enforcing the law.  As long as that exists, the future is going to look a lot like the past.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one great thing about Trump is he doesn't preside according to screwed polls.  He rules on what he feels and believes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Presidents don't rule, not even Trump.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> geez, grow up, rule = govern in modern parlance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Actually, a president does not rule, he serves.  Of course we will never hear that from Trump as he has never served anyone other than himself, not even his country.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I can remember what a "humble servant of the people" Obama was.
Click to expand...


Oh yeah. The humblest of them all. LOL


----------



## Cecilie1200

Claudette said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one great thing about Trump is he doesn't preside according to screwed polls.  He rules on what he feels and believes in.
> 
> 
> 
> *Presidents don't rule, not even Trump.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> geez, grow up, rule = govern in modern parlance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Actually, a president does not rule, he serves.  Of course we will never hear that from Trump as he has never served anyone other than himself, not even his country.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I can remember what a "humble servant of the people" Obama was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah. The humblest of them all. LOL
Click to expand...


Which is not to say that Flopper is wrong about what the Presidency SHOULD be.  It's just that the idea that the President is some sort of ruler, held not only by politicians but by the regular people, started long before Trump came on the scene.


----------



## Flopper

Redfish said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Which is not going to happen until we fix our laws, enforce them fairly and consistently.
> 
> If you ask Americans if they think our immigration laws should be enforced, the answer is going to be yes.  However, if you ask them if they oppose or favor the deportation all illegal immigrants, the majority (66% in a recent Gallup Poll) are in opposition.  If you ask them whether illegal immigrants help or hurt the nation, they are about equally divided.
> 
> Illegally immigration is firmly rooted in America culture. Over the last 75 years we have had periods off and on enforcement and that will not change without changes in our laws.  The president, regulators, immigration judges, and immigration officers have a lot of discretion in enforcing the law.  As long as that exists, the future is going to look a lot like the past.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one great thing about Trump is he doesn't preside according to screwed polls.  He rules on what he feels and believes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Presidents don't rule, not even Trump.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> geez, grow up, rule = govern in modern parlance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Actually, a president does not rule, he serves.  Of course we will never hear that from Trump as he has never served anyone other than himself, not even his country.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you are FOS, Trump didn't need to put himself through all this shit.   He had everything a man could want, but he decided to try to help the country.
> 
> Now, if we are talking narcissists, lets discuss Obama and Bubba Clinton, and crooked Hillary.
Click to expand...

*Nonsense.  Trump ran for president for himself. He was looking for a challenge, a chance to be the center of attention. In 2015 he explained exactly why he was running for president.

Donald Trump had two reasons for why he decided to run for president which he state clearly in 2015.

“So it was really important that I do it, for myself … I mean I really considered it strongly last time. Before that I thought about it. But I never even had any staff. My secretary was my staff,” Trump said in an interview with Time published Thursday. “But the time I looked at it was [last] time. But I was very busy, I was doing tremendous developments which are now completed and very successful. Because we’re all over the world. And I had a signed contract with ‘The Apprentice.’ I would have had to break it.”

“The other reason,” Trump said, is that he “wanted to do this for myself. I didn’t want to look back in ten years and say I could have done that or I could have done that,” Trump said. “My family would look at me and say, ‘Ugh, stop.’ I had to do it for myself.”

Painting Trump as self sacrificing for the good of the country is just plain silly. He is probably one of the most self-centered men that has ever lived. Everything he does is for himself.   
*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one great thing about Trump is he doesn't preside according to screwed polls.  He rules on what he feels and believes in.
> 
> 
> 
> *Presidents don't rule, not even Trump.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> geez, grow up, rule = govern in modern parlance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Actually, a president does not rule, he serves.  Of course we will never hear that from Trump as he has never served anyone other than himself, not even his country.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you are FOS, Trump didn't need to put himself through all this shit.   He had everything a man could want, but he decided to try to help the country.
> 
> Now, if we are talking narcissists, lets discuss Obama and Bubba Clinton, and crooked Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nonsense.  Trump ran for president for himself. He was looking for a challenge, a chance to be the center of attention. In 2015 he explained exactly why he was running for president.
> 
> Donald Trump had two reasons for why he decided to run for president which he state clearly in 2015.
> 
> “So it was really important that I do it, for myself … I mean I really considered it strongly last time. Before that I thought about it. But I never even had any staff. My secretary was my staff,” Trump said in an interview with Time published Thursday. “But the time I looked at it was [last] time. But I was very busy, I was doing tremendous developments which are now completed and very successful. Because we’re all over the world. And I had a signed contract with ‘The Apprentice.’ I would have had to break it.”
> 
> “The other reason,” Trump said, is that he “wanted to do this for myself. I didn’t want to look back in ten years and say I could have done that or I could have done that,” Trump said. “My family would look at me and say, ‘Ugh, stop.’ I had to do it for myself.”
> 
> Painting Trump as self sacrificing for the good of the country is just plain silly. He is probably one of the most self-centered men that has ever lived. Everything he does is for himself.   *
Click to expand...


And by himself, you don't think he meant it would make him feel better if he could do positive things for the country?  

It's like my father always said about charity.  He said if he ever hit the lottery, nothing would make him feel better than to give the money to family and friends to make their life better.  The most rewarding feeling one could have is doing just that. 

Or is my 87 year old father only thinking about himself too?


----------



## JoeB131

toobfreak said:


> Yeah, um, well dude, if they caught me traveling moving to a new home with my life possessions, they'd catch me with a hell of a lot more!



I'm sure they would, but that wasn't the issue here. The Mexicans really thought he was gun smuggling.  Given 250,000 guns cross into Mexico every year, it's a real problem for them. 

But this is getting off topic.  

So you think it's perfectly fine to throw kids into concentration camps for trying to cross the border, but the Mexican Government locks up some guy who was smuggling weapons into their country, the government campaigns to get him out, and you complain they didn't try hard enough.


----------



## KissMy

Coyote said:


> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,"  ...The Trump administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._


Breaking up families is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE!!!


----------



## Unkotare

KissMy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,"  ...The Trump administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking up families is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE!!!
Click to expand...




So, parents putting their children in such circumstances is UNACCEPTABLE, right?


----------



## Redfish

KissMy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,"  ...The Trump administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking up families is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE!!!
Click to expand...



was it unacceptable when Clinton, bush, and Obama were doing it?    This didn't start with Trump.   Clinton signed it into law and he, bush, and Obama all followed it. 

your ignorance is making you stupid.


----------



## Redfish

Flopper said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one great thing about Trump is he doesn't preside according to screwed polls.  He rules on what he feels and believes in.
> 
> 
> 
> *Presidents don't rule, not even Trump.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> geez, grow up, rule = govern in modern parlance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Actually, a president does not rule, he serves.  Of course we will never hear that from Trump as he has never served anyone other than himself, not even his country.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you are FOS, Trump didn't need to put himself through all this shit.   He had everything a man could want, but he decided to try to help the country.
> 
> Now, if we are talking narcissists, lets discuss Obama and Bubba Clinton, and crooked Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nonsense.  Trump ran for president for himself. He was looking for a challenge, a chance to be the center of attention. In 2015 he explained exactly why he was running for president.
> 
> Donald Trump had two reasons for why he decided to run for president which he state clearly in 2015.
> 
> “So it was really important that I do it, for myself … I mean I really considered it strongly last time. Before that I thought about it. But I never even had any staff. My secretary was my staff,” Trump said in an interview with Time published Thursday. “But the time I looked at it was [last] time. But I was very busy, I was doing tremendous developments which are now completed and very successful. Because we’re all over the world. And I had a signed contract with ‘The Apprentice.’ I would have had to break it.”
> 
> “The other reason,” Trump said, is that he “wanted to do this for myself. I didn’t want to look back in ten years and say I could have done that or I could have done that,” Trump said. “My family would look at me and say, ‘Ugh, stop.’ I had to do it for myself.”
> 
> Painting Trump as self sacrificing for the good of the country is just plain silly. He is probably one of the most self-centered men that has ever lived. Everything he does is for himself.   *
Click to expand...



every politician in history has been a narcissist.   the difference is that Trump is getting things done.   Its fine if you don't like his personality, but you are stupid if you ignore the good he has done for our country.


----------



## Claudette

Redfish said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,"  ...The Trump administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking up families is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> was it unacceptable when Clinton, bush, and Obama were doing it?    This didn't start with Trump.   Clinton signed it into law and he, bush, and Obama all followed it.
> 
> your ignorance is making you stupid.
Click to expand...


Oh they don't want to hear that.

Hell this has been going on for a long time. Anyone remember any threads on this when Clinton and Barry were POTUS??

I sure don't and this has been going on for decades.

Its the law and its what has been done and is being done.

If these illegals weren't here then NONE of this law would be needed.


----------



## Coyote

Redfish said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,"  ...The Trump administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking up families is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> was it unacceptable when Clinton, bush, and Obama were doing it?    This didn't start with Trump.   Clinton signed it into law and he, bush, and Obama all followed it.
> 
> your ignorance is making you stupid.
Click to expand...


Speaking of ignorance...umh...yes.  It did start with Trump.  The Trump administration created a NEW POLICY of 100% seperation and prosecution.  They used existing laws to support the NEW POLICY.  

Please show us where Clinton, Bush or Obama seperated all families, including asylum seekers, at the border.  Otherwise - if you are going to support this policy, at least OWN it.


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Presidents don't rule, not even Trump.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geez, grow up, rule = govern in modern parlance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Actually, a president does not rule, he serves.  Of course we will never hear that from Trump as he has never served anyone other than himself, not even his country.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you are FOS, Trump didn't need to put himself through all this shit.   He had everything a man could want, but he decided to try to help the country.
> 
> Now, if we are talking narcissists, lets discuss Obama and Bubba Clinton, and crooked Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nonsense.  Trump ran for president for himself. He was looking for a challenge, a chance to be the center of attention. In 2015 he explained exactly why he was running for president.
> 
> Donald Trump had two reasons for why he decided to run for president which he state clearly in 2015.
> 
> “So it was really important that I do it, for myself … I mean I really considered it strongly last time. Before that I thought about it. But I never even had any staff. My secretary was my staff,” Trump said in an interview with Time published Thursday. “But the time I looked at it was [last] time. But I was very busy, I was doing tremendous developments which are now completed and very successful. Because we’re all over the world. And I had a signed contract with ‘The Apprentice.’ I would have had to break it.”
> 
> “The other reason,” Trump said, is that he “wanted to do this for myself. I didn’t want to look back in ten years and say I could have done that or I could have done that,” Trump said. “My family would look at me and say, ‘Ugh, stop.’ I had to do it for myself.”
> 
> Painting Trump as self sacrificing for the good of the country is just plain silly. He is probably one of the most self-centered men that has ever lived. Everything he does is for himself.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by himself, *you don't think he meant it would make him feel better if he could do positive things for the country?*
> 
> It's like my father always said about charity.  He said if he ever hit the lottery, nothing would make him feel better than to give the money to family and friends to make their life better.  The most rewarding feeling one could have is doing just that.
> 
> Or is my 87 year old father only thinking about himself too?
Click to expand...


No.  He has no interest in true public service nor any concept of what it means.  The presidency serves his business interests.


----------



## Coyote

Claudette said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,"  ...The Trump administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking up families is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> was it unacceptable when Clinton, bush, and Obama were doing it?    This didn't start with Trump.   Clinton signed it into law and he, bush, and Obama all followed it.
> 
> your ignorance is making you stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh they don't want to hear that.
> 
> Hell this has been going on for a long time. Anyone remember any threads on this when Clinton and Barry were POTUS??
> 
> I sure don't and this has been going on for decades.
> 
> Its the law and its what has been done and is being done.
> 
> If these illegals weren't here then NONE of this law would be needed.
Click to expand...


Got a link to show us this 100% policy was going prior to Trump?


----------



## Claudette

Got a link to show it wasn't??


----------



## Coyote

Claudette said:


> Got a link to show it wasn't??


 I asked you first.  I can find no reference of a 100% seperation policy prior to Trump.  Perhaps you can find it.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Presidents don't rule, not even Trump.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geez, grow up, rule = govern in modern parlance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Actually, a president does not rule, he serves.  Of course we will never hear that from Trump as he has never served anyone other than himself, not even his country.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you are FOS, Trump didn't need to put himself through all this shit.   He had everything a man could want, but he decided to try to help the country.
> 
> Now, if we are talking narcissists, lets discuss Obama and Bubba Clinton, and crooked Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nonsense.  Trump ran for president for himself. He was looking for a challenge, a chance to be the center of attention. In 2015 he explained exactly why he was running for president.
> 
> Donald Trump had two reasons for why he decided to run for president which he state clearly in 2015.
> 
> “So it was really important that I do it, for myself … I mean I really considered it strongly last time. Before that I thought about it. But I never even had any staff. My secretary was my staff,” Trump said in an interview with Time published Thursday. “But the time I looked at it was [last] time. But I was very busy, I was doing tremendous developments which are now completed and very successful. Because we’re all over the world. And I had a signed contract with ‘The Apprentice.’ I would have had to break it.”
> 
> “The other reason,” Trump said, is that he “wanted to do this for myself. I didn’t want to look back in ten years and say I could have done that or I could have done that,” Trump said. “My family would look at me and say, ‘Ugh, stop.’ I had to do it for myself.”
> 
> Painting Trump as self sacrificing for the good of the country is just plain silly. He is probably one of the most self-centered men that has ever lived. Everything he does is for himself.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by himself, you don't think he meant it would make him feel better if he could do positive things for the country?
> 
> It's like my father always said about charity.  He said if he ever hit the lottery, nothing would make him feel better than to give the money to family and friends to make their life better.  The most rewarding feeling one could have is doing just that.
> 
> Or is my 87 year old father only thinking about himself too?
Click to expand...

*Trump said over and over, "I wanted to do this for myself", not for the nation.  If you look at just about everything Trump has said and done up to the beginning of his campaign, it has been for himself.  One can say this about all presidents to some extent but for Trump it is his entire motivation in life as it has been his entire life.  He has never been motivated to act in the greater good of the nation or anything else.

What Trump followers don't seem to realize about his leadership is that it is totally and completely transaction orientated.  For example, Trump proclaimed, "NATO is obsolete." some months ago.  Then only a few weeks later in the East Room, Trump stood next to the NATO Secretary-General and announced NATO is "no longer obsolete." Had NATO changed so much in just a few weeks? Not really. What changed is that Trump wanted to display allies who support his missile strike against Syria.  NATO announced support for the missile strike and Trump made NATO no longer obsolete, a simple transaction.

Months late Trump implied that the US may back out of NATO prior to meeting with NATO because the allies are not paying their share.  At the meeting, it was suggested that European nations would be able to increase their contributions at a future date.  Trump takes this as a concession to his demand and declares a deal has been struck and US will remain committed to NATO.   

For Trump every interaction is a transaction, an opportunity to win at someone else's cost, so every achievement is a zero sum game of win/lose. This is the hallmark of an inveterate salesman and obviously a tactic that worked brilliantly in the election race, which is possibly the ultimate zero sum game. 

So what's wrong with this as president.  Basically just this.  Presidential leadership is not a zero sum game. It must be played as a win-win game. Everybody must feel like they are winning something or at least losing very little in the short term for longer term greater gain for any leader to hope to gain support.  Further, deals must be made within the context of policy, not very important in closing sales deals but of critical importance in the role of political leadership.

A transactional leader must be willing to shift policy to win the deal which in the long run creates distrust and confusion. Not a leader in congress nor any of our allies can honesty say they trust the president because he has proven that a commitment today becomes a bargaining chip tomorrow.  In the long run, this will be a loss for the president and the nation.   *


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Trump said over and over, "I wanted to do this for myself", not for the nation.



And he said not for the nation?  Have a link to that?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> geez, grow up, rule = govern in modern parlance.
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, a president does not rule, he serves.  Of course we will never hear that from Trump as he has never served anyone other than himself, not even his country.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you are FOS, Trump didn't need to put himself through all this shit.   He had everything a man could want, but he decided to try to help the country.
> 
> Now, if we are talking narcissists, lets discuss Obama and Bubba Clinton, and crooked Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nonsense.  Trump ran for president for himself. He was looking for a challenge, a chance to be the center of attention. In 2015 he explained exactly why he was running for president.
> 
> Donald Trump had two reasons for why he decided to run for president which he state clearly in 2015.
> 
> “So it was really important that I do it, for myself … I mean I really considered it strongly last time. Before that I thought about it. But I never even had any staff. My secretary was my staff,” Trump said in an interview with Time published Thursday. “But the time I looked at it was [last] time. But I was very busy, I was doing tremendous developments which are now completed and very successful. Because we’re all over the world. And I had a signed contract with ‘The Apprentice.’ I would have had to break it.”
> 
> “The other reason,” Trump said, is that he “wanted to do this for myself. I didn’t want to look back in ten years and say I could have done that or I could have done that,” Trump said. “My family would look at me and say, ‘Ugh, stop.’ I had to do it for myself.”
> 
> Painting Trump as self sacrificing for the good of the country is just plain silly. He is probably one of the most self-centered men that has ever lived. Everything he does is for himself.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by himself, *you don't think he meant it would make him feel better if he could do positive things for the country?*
> 
> It's like my father always said about charity.  He said if he ever hit the lottery, nothing would make him feel better than to give the money to family and friends to make their life better.  The most rewarding feeling one could have is doing just that.
> 
> Or is my 87 year old father only thinking about himself too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  He has no interest in true public service nor any concept of what it means.  The presidency serves his business interests.
Click to expand...


Sure it does.  The guy took a job that nocked him down couple of notches for business purposes. 

It's true what the right says about you people: If Trump found a cure for cancer, you on the left would be complaining that he just put more stress on Social Security and Medicare.


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, a president does not rule, he serves.  Of course we will never hear that from Trump as he has never served anyone other than himself, not even his country.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are FOS, Trump didn't need to put himself through all this shit.   He had everything a man could want, but he decided to try to help the country.
> 
> Now, if we are talking narcissists, lets discuss Obama and Bubba Clinton, and crooked Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nonsense.  Trump ran for president for himself. He was looking for a challenge, a chance to be the center of attention. In 2015 he explained exactly why he was running for president.
> 
> Donald Trump had two reasons for why he decided to run for president which he state clearly in 2015.
> 
> “So it was really important that I do it, for myself … I mean I really considered it strongly last time. Before that I thought about it. But I never even had any staff. My secretary was my staff,” Trump said in an interview with Time published Thursday. “But the time I looked at it was [last] time. But I was very busy, I was doing tremendous developments which are now completed and very successful. Because we’re all over the world. And I had a signed contract with ‘The Apprentice.’ I would have had to break it.”
> 
> “The other reason,” Trump said, is that he “wanted to do this for myself. I didn’t want to look back in ten years and say I could have done that or I could have done that,” Trump said. “My family would look at me and say, ‘Ugh, stop.’ I had to do it for myself.”
> 
> Painting Trump as self sacrificing for the good of the country is just plain silly. He is probably one of the most self-centered men that has ever lived. Everything he does is for himself.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by himself, *you don't think he meant it would make him feel better if he could do positive things for the country?*
> 
> It's like my father always said about charity.  He said if he ever hit the lottery, nothing would make him feel better than to give the money to family and friends to make their life better.  The most rewarding feeling one could have is doing just that.
> 
> Or is my 87 year old father only thinking about himself too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  He has no interest in true public service nor any concept of what it means.  The presidency serves his business interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it does.  The guy took a job that nocked him down couple of notches for business purposes.
> 
> It's true what the right says about you people: If Trump found a cure for cancer, you on the left would be complaining that he just put more stress on Social Security and Medicare.
Click to expand...


Uh no.  He's still has all his business'.  He more than doubled his rates for his Washington hotel and Miralago since becoming president.

He has no concept of civil service - he's out for Trump.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,"  ...The Trump administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking up families is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> was it unacceptable when Clinton, bush, and Obama were doing it?    This didn't start with Trump.   Clinton signed it into law and he, bush, and Obama all followed it.
> 
> your ignorance is making you stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of ignorance...umh...yes.  It did start with Trump.  The Trump administration created a NEW POLICY of 100% seperation and prosecution.  They used existing laws to support the NEW POLICY.
> 
> Please show us where Clinton, Bush or Obama seperated all families, including asylum seekers, at the border.  Otherwise - if you are going to support this policy, at least OWN it.
Click to expand...


No, Trump never had a policy of 100% separation.  For those who had a legitimate claim to apply for asylum, they were given the paperwork and process in which to apply and kept their children.

The Trump policy is anybody caught sneaking in is not eligible for asylum, nor are people that are coming here with a phony excuse for it.


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,"  ...The Trump administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking up families is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> was it unacceptable when Clinton, bush, and Obama were doing it?    This didn't start with Trump.   Clinton signed it into law and he, bush, and Obama all followed it.
> 
> your ignorance is making you stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of ignorance...umh...yes.  It did start with Trump.  The Trump administration created a NEW POLICY of 100% seperation and prosecution.  They used existing laws to support the NEW POLICY.
> 
> Please show us where Clinton, Bush or Obama seperated all families, including asylum seekers, at the border.  Otherwise - if you are going to support this policy, at least OWN it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Trump never had a policy of 100% separation.  For those who had a legitimate claim to apply for asylum, they were given the paperwork and process in which to apply and kept their children.
> 
> The Trump policy is anybody caught sneaking in is not eligible for asylum, nor are people that are coming here with a phony excuse for it.
Click to expand...


Yes.

He did.

Those claiming asylum have indeed been seperated.  Their legitimacy or eligibility is not determined UNTIL they go through a series of steps including an interview, which is not done spur of the moment.  It's simple to google for the info - asylum seekers have been seperated.  Google Trumps 100% policy.  It's no secret.  Quit pretending other presidents did the same thing.  They didn't.


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, a president does not rule, he serves.  Of course we will never hear that from Trump as he has never served anyone other than himself, not even his country.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are FOS, Trump didn't need to put himself through all this shit.   He had everything a man could want, but he decided to try to help the country.
> 
> Now, if we are talking narcissists, lets discuss Obama and Bubba Clinton, and crooked Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nonsense.  Trump ran for president for himself. He was looking for a challenge, a chance to be the center of attention. In 2015 he explained exactly why he was running for president.
> 
> Donald Trump had two reasons for why he decided to run for president which he state clearly in 2015.
> 
> “So it was really important that I do it, for myself … I mean I really considered it strongly last time. Before that I thought about it. But I never even had any staff. My secretary was my staff,” Trump said in an interview with Time published Thursday. “But the time I looked at it was [last] time. But I was very busy, I was doing tremendous developments which are now completed and very successful. Because we’re all over the world. And I had a signed contract with ‘The Apprentice.’ I would have had to break it.”
> 
> “The other reason,” Trump said, is that he “wanted to do this for myself. I didn’t want to look back in ten years and say I could have done that or I could have done that,” Trump said. “My family would look at me and say, ‘Ugh, stop.’ I had to do it for myself.”
> 
> Painting Trump as self sacrificing for the good of the country is just plain silly. He is probably one of the most self-centered men that has ever lived. Everything he does is for himself.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by himself, *you don't think he meant it would make him feel better if he could do positive things for the country?*
> 
> It's like my father always said about charity.  He said if he ever hit the lottery, nothing would make him feel better than to give the money to family and friends to make their life better.  The most rewarding feeling one could have is doing just that.
> 
> Or is my 87 year old father only thinking about himself too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  He has no interest in true public service nor any concept of what it means.  The presidency serves his business interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it does.  The guy took a job that nocked him down couple of notches for business purposes.
> 
> It's true what the right says about you people: *If Trump found a cure for cancer, you on the left would be complaining that he just put more stress on Social Security and Medicar*e.
Click to expand...


And if Trump decided to incarcerate children indefinately, you'd support it and blame the parents.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,"  ...The Trump administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking up families is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> was it unacceptable when Clinton, bush, and Obama were doing it?    This didn't start with Trump.   Clinton signed it into law and he, bush, and Obama all followed it.
> 
> your ignorance is making you stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of ignorance...umh...yes.  It did start with Trump.  The Trump administration created a NEW POLICY of 100% seperation and prosecution.  They used existing laws to support the NEW POLICY.
> 
> Please show us where Clinton, Bush or Obama seperated all families, including asylum seekers, at the border.  Otherwise - if you are going to support this policy, at least OWN it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Trump never had a policy of 100% separation.  For those who had a legitimate claim to apply for asylum, they were given the paperwork and process in which to apply and kept their children.
> 
> The Trump policy is anybody caught sneaking in is not eligible for asylum, nor are people that are coming here with a phony excuse for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> He did.
> 
> Those claiming asylum have indeed been seperated.  Their legitimacy or eligibility is not determined UNTIL they go through a series of steps including an interview, which is not done spur of the moment.  It's simple to google for the info - asylum seekers have been seperated.  Google Trumps 100% policy.  It's no secret.  Quit pretending other presidents did the same thing.  They didn't.
Click to expand...



Immigrant children: Here's what's happening with kids at the border, policywise


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking up families is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> was it unacceptable when Clinton, bush, and Obama were doing it?    This didn't start with Trump.   Clinton signed it into law and he, bush, and Obama all followed it.
> 
> your ignorance is making you stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of ignorance...umh...yes.  It did start with Trump.  The Trump administration created a NEW POLICY of 100% seperation and prosecution.  They used existing laws to support the NEW POLICY.
> 
> Please show us where Clinton, Bush or Obama seperated all families, including asylum seekers, at the border.  Otherwise - if you are going to support this policy, at least OWN it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Trump never had a policy of 100% separation.  For those who had a legitimate claim to apply for asylum, they were given the paperwork and process in which to apply and kept their children.
> 
> The Trump policy is anybody caught sneaking in is not eligible for asylum, nor are people that are coming here with a phony excuse for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> He did.
> 
> Those claiming asylum have indeed been seperated.  Their legitimacy or eligibility is not determined UNTIL they go through a series of steps including an interview, which is not done spur of the moment.  It's simple to google for the info - asylum seekers have been seperated.  Google Trumps 100% policy.  It's no secret.  Quit pretending other presidents did the same thing.  They didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Immigrant children: Here's what's happening with kids at the border, policywise
Click to expand...

That proves my point.  It is a new policy to criminally prosecute 100% and remove children 100%.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> was it unacceptable when Clinton, bush, and Obama were doing it?    This didn't start with Trump.   Clinton signed it into law and he, bush, and Obama all followed it.
> 
> your ignorance is making you stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of ignorance...umh...yes.  It did start with Trump.  The Trump administration created a NEW POLICY of 100% seperation and prosecution.  They used existing laws to support the NEW POLICY.
> 
> Please show us where Clinton, Bush or Obama seperated all families, including asylum seekers, at the border.  Otherwise - if you are going to support this policy, at least OWN it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Trump never had a policy of 100% separation.  For those who had a legitimate claim to apply for asylum, they were given the paperwork and process in which to apply and kept their children.
> 
> The Trump policy is anybody caught sneaking in is not eligible for asylum, nor are people that are coming here with a phony excuse for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> He did.
> 
> Those claiming asylum have indeed been seperated.  Their legitimacy or eligibility is not determined UNTIL they go through a series of steps including an interview, which is not done spur of the moment.  It's simple to google for the info - asylum seekers have been seperated.  Google Trumps 100% policy.  It's no secret.  Quit pretending other presidents did the same thing.  They didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Immigrant children: Here's what's happening with kids at the border, policywise
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That proves my point.  It is a new policy to criminally prosecute 100% and remove children 100%.
Click to expand...


So I take it you didn't even bother reading the article?


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump said over and over, "I wanted to do this for myself", not for the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And he said not for the nation?  Have a link to that?
Click to expand...

*"not for the nation" was my comment.  I doubt you will find any comment from Trump indicating that his reason for running for president was anything other than he was doing it for himself just like everything he has ever done.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump said over and over, "I wanted to do this for myself", not for the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And he said not for the nation?  Have a link to that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"not for the nation" was my comment.  I doubt you will find any comment from Trump indicating that his reason for running for president was anything other than he was doing it for himself just like everything he has ever done.*
Click to expand...


His life is much worse than it was before, and he knew that getting in: being followed everywhere by the SS, living that way for the rest of his life, enemies possibly targeting him for execution.

What person other than one that loves his country so much would make such sacrifices given the life he had before becoming President? 

You people can't give this guy any credit no matter what he does.  It's senseless to discuss it with your preconceived opinion about him.  It doesn't matter what he says or does.  He's even given up every paycheck since taking the job, and you can't even give him credit for that. 

Hate brings out the worst in people, that's one thing we've learned from liberals in this country.


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump said over and over, "I wanted to do this for myself", not for the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And he said not for the nation?  Have a link to that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"not for the nation" was my comment.  I doubt you will find any comment from Trump indicating that his reason for running for president was anything other than he was doing it for himself just like everything he has ever done.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His life is much worse than it was before, and he knew that getting in: being followed everywhere by the SS, living that way for the rest of his life, enemies possibly targeting him for execution.
> 
> *What person other than one that loves his country so much would make such sacrifices given the life he had before becoming President? *
> 
> *You people can't give this guy any credit no matter what he does. * It's senseless to discuss it with your preconceived opinion about him.  It doesn't matter what he says or does.  He's even given up every paycheck since taking the job, and you can't even give him credit for that.
> 
> Hate brings out the worst in people, that's one thing we've learned from liberals in this country.
Click to expand...


1.  An egomaniac?

2. Obama ring a bell?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump said over and over, "I wanted to do this for myself", not for the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And he said not for the nation?  Have a link to that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"not for the nation" was my comment.  I doubt you will find any comment from Trump indicating that his reason for running for president was anything other than he was doing it for himself just like everything he has ever done.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His life is much worse than it was before, and he knew that getting in: being followed everywhere by the SS, living that way for the rest of his life, enemies possibly targeting him for execution.
> 
> *What person other than one that loves his country so much would make such sacrifices given the life he had before becoming President? *
> 
> *You people can't give this guy any credit no matter what he does. * It's senseless to discuss it with your preconceived opinion about him.  It doesn't matter what he says or does.  He's even given up every paycheck since taking the job, and you can't even give him credit for that.
> 
> Hate brings out the worst in people, that's one thing we've learned from liberals in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  An egomaniac?
> 
> 2. Obama ring a bell?
Click to expand...


For DumBama, going to the White House was a step up in life as it is for most professional politicians.  He wasn't rich and most never even heard his name before; the opposite after he left. 

Even the Clinton's claimed they were completely broke when they left the White House, but because of their notoriety, they became wealthy very quickly and again, nearly every American knew who they were.  Hillary stayed in the circuit to keep those 400K speeches coming along as the donors were expecting something in return if she ever made it to the White House.

The Bush's were wealthy, but professional politicians looking to make history as a monarch.  

Everybody knew Trump before he even thought of running.  He was a household name. He was a billionaire real estate guy, an entertainer, and has been around for a long time.  He's been with the most beautiful women in the world, the most powerful business people, and flew around in his private jet, a life that would easily satisfy any egomaniac.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Everybody knew Trump before he even thought of running. He was a household name. He was a billionaire real estate guy, an entertainer, and has been around for a long time. He's been with the most beautiful women in the world, the most powerful business people, and flew around in his private jet, a life that would easily satisfy any egomaniac.



But that's the problem.  Most of those other guys you whine about become politicians because on some level, they want to make things better for people. Trump's entire marketing campaign seems to be about satisfying is own ego. the man is a textbook narcissist.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody knew Trump before he even thought of running. He was a household name. He was a billionaire real estate guy, an entertainer, and has been around for a long time. He's been with the most beautiful women in the world, the most powerful business people, and flew around in his private jet, a life that would easily satisfy any egomaniac.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's the problem.  Most of those other guys you whine about become politicians because on some level, they want to make things better for people. Trump's entire marketing campaign seems to be about satisfying is own ego. the man is a textbook narcissist.
Click to expand...


What kind of narcissist would give up a life of luxury for the job of President?  For him, doing the job was a step down--not a step up.  For others, becoming President is to make their own life better, not anybody else's.  

It's like if a CEO went down into the shop and started to run a drill press.  It's something he didn't need and certainly didn't pay the money he was making before.  

So you think Trump is so stupid that he didn't know getting into politics would mean non-stop criticism of him from the left?  Prior to that, the only things you heard or read about Trump were positive.  Now it's Trump bashing by the MSM 24/7.  He knew that, so what kind of narcissist or egomaniac would get into a ring like that?  The opinions of you and Coyote don't make any sense whatsoever.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> What kind of narcissist would give up a life of luxury for the job of President? For him, doing the job was a step down--not a step up. For others, becoming President is to make their own life better, not anybody else's.



Only a Narcissist would think the presidency is a step down. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> It's like if a CEO went down into the shop and started to run a drill press. It's something he didn't need and certainly didn't pay the money he was making before.



again, guy, Trump's entire life, like most Narcissists, is one of validation. Yeah, he's got a shitload of inherited money, but he's never had the respect a Gates or a Jeff Bezos gets of someone who actually built something. Being president fills a void in his life that the biggest letters in the universe won't fill. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> So you think Trump is so stupid that he didn't know getting into politics would mean non-stop criticism of him from the left?




Um, yeah, I think Trump is all kinds of stupid.  I also think he never expected to win, and doesn't understand the basic requirements of his job. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Prior to that, the only things you heard or read about Trump were positive.



Not really. Most people thought he was a blown up fraud before that. The problem is, he learned to market himself to the bigots, and too many otherwise decent people went along with it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Only a Narcissist would think the presidency is a step down.



Then I and millions like me must be narcissists because most think it was a step down.  You can't go any higher in life than where he was before taking office. 



JoeB131 said:


> again, guy, Trump's entire life, like most Narcissists, is one of validation. Yeah, he's got a shitload of inherited money, but he's never had the respect a Gates or a Jeff Bezos gets of someone who actually built something. Being president fills a void in his life that the biggest letters in the universe won't fill.



There was no void in his life.  What void? The guy had everything and then some.  You won't find many Americans that wouldn't trade their life for his any day of the week. 



JoeB131 said:


> Um, yeah, I think Trump is all kinds of stupid. I also think he never expected to win, and doesn't understand the basic requirements of his job.



Sure he understands the basic requirements of the job; most of us do.  It's written in this document called the US Constitution.  You should read it sometime.  Maybe it will make you understand what this country is all about.



JoeB131 said:


> Not really. Most people thought he was a blown up fraud before that. The problem is, he learned to market himself to the bigots, and too many otherwise decent people went along with it.



Right, because only to a self-hating white does securing our borders make you a bigot.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Then I and millions like me must be narcissists because most think it was a step down. You can't go any higher in life than where he was before taking office.



No, man, you are just a rube who fell for a con. 






Ooops. That's October's Avi.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> There was no void in his life. What void? The guy had everything and then some. You won't find many Americans that wouldn't trade their life for his any day of the week.



I wouldn't... Frankly, most people aren't that greedy.  Trump takes greed to mental illness level.


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody knew Trump before he even thought of running. He was a household name. He was a billionaire real estate guy, an entertainer, and has been around for a long time. He's been with the most beautiful women in the world, the most powerful business people, and flew around in his private jet, a life that would easily satisfy any egomaniac.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's the problem.  Most of those other guys you whine about become politicians because on some level, they want to make things better for people. Trump's entire marketing campaign seems to be about satisfying is own ego. the man is a textbook narcissist.
Click to expand...

/———/ Seems to be?   Care to back that tripe up with evidence?


----------



## JoeB131

Cellblock2429 said:


> /———/ Seems to be? Care to back that tripe up with evidence?



What kind of person needs to see his name in 20 foot letters?


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /———/ Seems to be? Care to back that tripe up with evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of person needs to see his name in 20 foot letters?
Click to expand...

/——-/ Someone who is promoting his brand.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump said over and over, "I wanted to do this for myself", not for the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And he said not for the nation?  Have a link to that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"not for the nation" was my comment.  I doubt you will find any comment from Trump indicating that his reason for running for president was anything other than he was doing it for himself just like everything he has ever done.*
Click to expand...

/——/ He didn’t need to run for president for his own ego. He had power and money. Everything he has done as president has been to make America great. And your pathetic attempt to separate Trump from his supporters is a gigantic fail.


----------



## Redfish

Coyote said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,"  ...The Trump administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking up families is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> was it unacceptable when Clinton, bush, and Obama were doing it?    This didn't start with Trump.   Clinton signed it into law and he, bush, and Obama all followed it.
> 
> your ignorance is making you stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of ignorance...umh...yes.  It did start with Trump.  The Trump administration created a NEW POLICY of 100% seperation and prosecution.  They used existing laws to support the NEW POLICY.
> 
> Please show us where Clinton, Bush or Obama seperated all families, including asylum seekers, at the border.  Otherwise - if you are going to support this policy, at least OWN it.
Click to expand...



If you don't want to be separated from your kids, don't enter our country illegally.  Its really quite simple.  If you are claiming asylum we need to verfy who you are and whether your asylum claim is valid.  that may entail a temporary separation from your kids.  Tough, that's just the way it is.   If you send your kids alone, they will be put into protective custody to protect them from sexual perverts and child predators.  

there is nothing wrong with any of this.  

Why do you want the USA to open its borders to the entire world?


----------



## JoeB131

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——/ He didn’t need to run for president for his own ego. He had power and money. Everything he has done as president has been to make America great. And your pathetic attempt to separate Trump from his supporters is a gigantic fail.



Well, yeah, he kind of did.  He only ran after Obama publicly humiliated him at the WHCD.


----------



## Redfish

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,"  ...The Trump administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking up families is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> was it unacceptable when Clinton, bush, and Obama were doing it?    This didn't start with Trump.   Clinton signed it into law and he, bush, and Obama all followed it.
> 
> your ignorance is making you stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of ignorance...umh...yes.  It did start with Trump.  The Trump administration created a NEW POLICY of 100% seperation and prosecution.  They used existing laws to support the NEW POLICY.
> 
> Please show us where Clinton, Bush or Obama seperated all families, including asylum seekers, at the border.  Otherwise - if you are going to support this policy, at least OWN it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Trump never had a policy of 100% separation.  For those who had a legitimate claim to apply for asylum, they were given the paperwork and process in which to apply and kept their children.
> 
> The Trump policy is anybody caught sneaking in is not eligible for asylum, nor are people that are coming here with a phony excuse for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> He did.
> 
> Those claiming asylum have indeed been seperated.  Their legitimacy or eligibility is not determined UNTIL they go through a series of steps including an interview, which is not done spur of the moment.  It's simple to google for the info - asylum seekers have been seperated.  Google Trumps 100% policy.  It's no secret.  Quit pretending other presidents did the same thing.  They didn't.
Click to expand...



the law that created this situation was signed by Clinton, was not overturned by Bush or Obama, and is being followed today.  Its tough, but its necessary.  The separations are temporary and the kids are well cared for.  

this entire issue is nothing but another fake news creation to try to smear Trump.   But like all the others, it only works on the ignorant and blind like you.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Redfish said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,"  ...The Trump administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking up families is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> was it unacceptable when Clinton, bush, and Obama were doing it?    This didn't start with Trump.   Clinton signed it into law and he, bush, and Obama all followed it.
> 
> your ignorance is making you stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of ignorance...umh...yes.  It did start with Trump.  The Trump administration created a NEW POLICY of 100% seperation and prosecution.  They used existing laws to support the NEW POLICY.
> 
> Please show us where Clinton, Bush or Obama seperated all families, including asylum seekers, at the border.  Otherwise - if you are going to support this policy, at least OWN it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to be separated from your kids, don't enter our country illegally.  Its really quite simple.  If you are claiming asylum we need to verfy who you are and whether your asylum claim is valid.  that may entail a temporary separation from your kids.  Tough, that's just the way it is.   If you send your kids alone, they will be put into protective custody to protect them from sexual perverts and child predators.
> 
> there is nothing wrong with any of this.
> 
> Why do you want the USA to open its borders to the entire world?
Click to expand...


I asked her several times: we have over 7.5 billion people on this planet, most of those places nowhere near as great as the US. So how many of those 7.5 billion should we allow in?


----------



## Redfish

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump said over and over, "I wanted to do this for myself", not for the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And he said not for the nation?  Have a link to that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"not for the nation" was my comment.  I doubt you will find any comment from Trump indicating that his reason for running for president was anything other than he was doing it for himself just like everything he has ever done.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His life is much worse than it was before, and he knew that getting in: being followed everywhere by the SS, living that way for the rest of his life, enemies possibly targeting him for execution.
> 
> *What person other than one that loves his country so much would make such sacrifices given the life he had before becoming President? *
> 
> *You people can't give this guy any credit no matter what he does. * It's senseless to discuss it with your preconceived opinion about him.  It doesn't matter what he says or does.  He's even given up every paycheck since taking the job, and you can't even give him credit for that.
> 
> Hate brings out the worst in people, that's one thing we've learned from liberals in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  An egomaniac?
> 
> 2. Obama ring a bell?
Click to expand...



name one president in history who was not an egomaniac, or any politician for that matter.  Narcissism and politics are synonomous.

Obama tried to destroy our country, he succeeded in dividing us like never before.  and still he was not treated the way Trump has been treated.

you lefties just cannot get over the FACT that you are out of touch with the majority of americans and that your heroes Obama and Clinton are liars, cheaters, and frauds.


----------



## Redfish

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,"  ...The Trump administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking up families is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> was it unacceptable when Clinton, bush, and Obama were doing it?    This didn't start with Trump.   Clinton signed it into law and he, bush, and Obama all followed it.
> 
> your ignorance is making you stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of ignorance...umh...yes.  It did start with Trump.  The Trump administration created a NEW POLICY of 100% seperation and prosecution.  They used existing laws to support the NEW POLICY.
> 
> Please show us where Clinton, Bush or Obama seperated all families, including asylum seekers, at the border.  Otherwise - if you are going to support this policy, at least OWN it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to be separated from your kids, don't enter our country illegally.  Its really quite simple.  If you are claiming asylum we need to verfy who you are and whether your asylum claim is valid.  that may entail a temporary separation from your kids.  Tough, that's just the way it is.   If you send your kids alone, they will be put into protective custody to protect them from sexual perverts and child predators.
> 
> there is nothing wrong with any of this.
> 
> Why do you want the USA to open its borders to the entire world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked her several times: we have over 7.5 billion people on this planet, most of those places nowhere near as great as the US. So how many of those 7.5 billion should we allow in?
Click to expand...



like all libs, she will run now since she has been defeated by truth, logic, facts, and common sense.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Redfish said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking up families is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> was it unacceptable when Clinton, bush, and Obama were doing it?    This didn't start with Trump.   Clinton signed it into law and he, bush, and Obama all followed it.
> 
> your ignorance is making you stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of ignorance...umh...yes.  It did start with Trump.  The Trump administration created a NEW POLICY of 100% seperation and prosecution.  They used existing laws to support the NEW POLICY.
> 
> Please show us where Clinton, Bush or Obama seperated all families, including asylum seekers, at the border.  Otherwise - if you are going to support this policy, at least OWN it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to be separated from your kids, don't enter our country illegally.  Its really quite simple.  If you are claiming asylum we need to verfy who you are and whether your asylum claim is valid.  that may entail a temporary separation from your kids.  Tough, that's just the way it is.   If you send your kids alone, they will be put into protective custody to protect them from sexual perverts and child predators.
> 
> there is nothing wrong with any of this.
> 
> Why do you want the USA to open its borders to the entire world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked her several times: we have over 7.5 billion people on this planet, most of those places nowhere near as great as the US. So how many of those 7.5 billion should we allow in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> like all libs, she will run now since she has been defeated by truth, logic, facts, and common sense.
Click to expand...


Well......that's how libs roll.  We on the right believe in teaching a man how to fish, and on the left, they believe in giving a man a fish. 

How are the people of these other countries ever going to make things better if they have a place they can run away to?  Nobody likes to fight, but sometimes it's the only way to improve your situation.  And if we keep taking them in, when will it stop?  Will it ever stop?  As bad as things are supposedly, they keep bringing kids into that world and expect us to give them our empathy and country.  Sorry, but I'm not a supporter of that.  And if you do come here, then you will be treated the way we want to treat you.


----------



## Cellblock2429

JoeB131 said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ He didn’t need to run for president for his own ego. He had power and money. Everything he has done as president has been to make America great. And your pathetic attempt to separate Trump from his supporters is a gigantic fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yeah, he kind of did.  He only ran after Obama publicly humiliated him at the WHCD.
Click to expand...

/——-/ OK Spanky, you run with that logic. Funny no one else had said that in 2 years. Bwhahahaha Bwhahahaha


----------



## Coyote

Redfish said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking up families is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> was it unacceptable when Clinton, bush, and Obama were doing it?    This didn't start with Trump.   Clinton signed it into law and he, bush, and Obama all followed it.
> 
> your ignorance is making you stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of ignorance...umh...yes.  It did start with Trump.  The Trump administration created a NEW POLICY of 100% seperation and prosecution.  They used existing laws to support the NEW POLICY.
> 
> Please show us where Clinton, Bush or Obama seperated all families, including asylum seekers, at the border.  Otherwise - if you are going to support this policy, at least OWN it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Trump never had a policy of 100% separation.  For those who had a legitimate claim to apply for asylum, they were given the paperwork and process in which to apply and kept their children.
> 
> The Trump policy is anybody caught sneaking in is not eligible for asylum, nor are people that are coming here with a phony excuse for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> He did.
> 
> Those claiming asylum have indeed been seperated.  Their legitimacy or eligibility is not determined UNTIL they go through a series of steps including an interview, which is not done spur of the moment.  It's simple to google for the info - asylum seekers have been seperated.  Google Trumps 100% policy.  It's no secret.  Quit pretending other presidents did the same thing.  They didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the law that created this situation was signed by Clinton, was not overturned by Bush or Obama, and is being followed today.  Its tough, but its necessary.  The separations are temporary and the kids are well cared for.
> 
> this entire issue is nothing but another fake news creation to try to smear Trump.   But like all the others, it only works on the ignorant and blind like you.
Click to expand...

No.  That law did not create the situation.  Trump’s policy did.  You support it but are too cowardly to own it.

Let’s talk about temporary.  Like the hundreds of kids who’s parents were already deported.  As the judge said, if the government can not find the parents, they have created hundreds of orphans.  Does that sound temporary to you?

It’s your policy.


----------



## Coyote

Redfish said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,"  ...The Trump administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking up families is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> was it unacceptable when Clinton, bush, and Obama were doing it?    This didn't start with Trump.   Clinton signed it into law and he, bush, and Obama all followed it.
> 
> your ignorance is making you stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of ignorance...umh...yes.  It did start with Trump.  The Trump administration created a NEW POLICY of 100% seperation and prosecution.  They used existing laws to support the NEW POLICY.
> 
> Please show us where Clinton, Bush or Obama seperated all families, including asylum seekers, at the border.  Otherwise - if you are going to support this policy, at least OWN it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to be separated from your kids, don't enter our country illegally.  Its really quite simple.  If you are claiming asylum we need to verfy who you are and whether your asylum claim is valid.  that may entail a temporary separation from your kids.  Tough, that's just the way it is.   If you send your kids alone, they will be put into protective custody to protect them from sexual perverts and child predators.
> 
> there is nothing wrong with any of this.
> 
> Why do you want the USA to open its borders to the entire world?
Click to expand...


Paragraph 1:  we did not have to do this before and most asylum seekers show up for their hearing.  In addition we have always separated children when there is reasonable cause to suspect trafficking, our people are trained to look for it.  Lastly, do to the huge number of kids YOUR POLICY has thrown into the system, with no preparation or thought, they are now being exposed to the very predators you claim to want to protect them from.  

Paragraph 2:  then why won’t you own your policy?

Paragraph 3:  are you trying to say that the only way to protect our borders is this?  And if not this, then it is completely open borders?  There are no other solutions?


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,"  ...The Trump administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking up families is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> was it unacceptable when Clinton, bush, and Obama were doing it?    This didn't start with Trump.   Clinton signed it into law and he, bush, and Obama all followed it.
> 
> your ignorance is making you stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of ignorance...umh...yes.  It did start with Trump.  The Trump administration created a NEW POLICY of 100% seperation and prosecution.  They used existing laws to support the NEW POLICY.
> 
> Please show us where Clinton, Bush or Obama seperated all families, including asylum seekers, at the border.  Otherwise - if you are going to support this policy, at least OWN it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to be separated from your kids, don't enter our country illegally.  Its really quite simple.  If you are claiming asylum we need to verfy who you are and whether your asylum claim is valid.  that may entail a temporary separation from your kids.  Tough, that's just the way it is.   If you send your kids alone, they will be put into protective custody to protect them from sexual perverts and child predators.
> 
> there is nothing wrong with any of this.
> 
> Why do you want the USA to open its borders to the entire world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked her several times: we have over 7.5 billion people on this planet, most of those places nowhere near as great as the US. So how many of those 7.5 billion should we allow in?
Click to expand...


See my response to Redfish.

Is this policy the only acceptable solution?


----------



## Coyote

Redfish said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking up families is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> was it unacceptable when Clinton, bush, and Obama were doing it?    This didn't start with Trump.   Clinton signed it into law and he, bush, and Obama all followed it.
> 
> your ignorance is making you stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of ignorance...umh...yes.  It did start with Trump.  The Trump administration created a NEW POLICY of 100% seperation and prosecution.  They used existing laws to support the NEW POLICY.
> 
> Please show us where Clinton, Bush or Obama seperated all families, including asylum seekers, at the border.  Otherwise - if you are going to support this policy, at least OWN it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to be separated from your kids, don't enter our country illegally.  Its really quite simple.  If you are claiming asylum we need to verfy who you are and whether your asylum claim is valid.  that may entail a temporary separation from your kids.  Tough, that's just the way it is.   If you send your kids alone, they will be put into protective custody to protect them from sexual perverts and child predators.
> 
> there is nothing wrong with any of this.
> 
> Why do you want the USA to open its borders to the entire world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked her several times: we have over 7.5 billion people on this planet, most of those places nowhere near as great as the US. So how many of those 7.5 billion should we allow in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> like all libs, she will run now since she has been defeated by truth, logic, facts, and common sense.
Click to expand...


You have failed to produce anything resembling truth, logic, facts or common sense.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking up families is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> was it unacceptable when Clinton, bush, and Obama were doing it?    This didn't start with Trump.   Clinton signed it into law and he, bush, and Obama all followed it.
> 
> your ignorance is making you stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of ignorance...umh...yes.  It did start with Trump.  The Trump administration created a NEW POLICY of 100% seperation and prosecution.  They used existing laws to support the NEW POLICY.
> 
> Please show us where Clinton, Bush or Obama seperated all families, including asylum seekers, at the border.  Otherwise - if you are going to support this policy, at least OWN it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to be separated from your kids, don't enter our country illegally.  Its really quite simple.  If you are claiming asylum we need to verfy who you are and whether your asylum claim is valid.  that may entail a temporary separation from your kids.  Tough, that's just the way it is.   If you send your kids alone, they will be put into protective custody to protect them from sexual perverts and child predators.
> 
> there is nothing wrong with any of this.
> 
> Why do you want the USA to open its borders to the entire world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked her several times: we have over 7.5 billion people on this planet, most of those places nowhere near as great as the US. So how many of those 7.5 billion should we allow in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See my response to Redfish.
> 
> Is this policy the only acceptable solution?
Click to expand...


The solution is to close the borders and let nobody in.  But nobody will even go there unfortunately.


----------



## KissMy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The solution is to close the borders and let nobody in.  But nobody will even go there unfortunately.


You Lie as much a Trump! We gave Trump 4 times more money than the $2 billion he said it would take him to build the wall. Now he wants 35 times more for PC swamp political pay-offs. Screw that SWAMP!!!!!!


----------



## Redfish

Coyote said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,"  ...The Trump administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking up families is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> was it unacceptable when Clinton, bush, and Obama were doing it?    This didn't start with Trump.   Clinton signed it into law and he, bush, and Obama all followed it.
> 
> your ignorance is making you stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of ignorance...umh...yes.  It did start with Trump.  The Trump administration created a NEW POLICY of 100% seperation and prosecution.  They used existing laws to support the NEW POLICY.
> 
> Please show us where Clinton, Bush or Obama seperated all families, including asylum seekers, at the border.  Otherwise - if you are going to support this policy, at least OWN it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to be separated from your kids, don't enter our country illegally.  Its really quite simple.  If you are claiming asylum we need to verfy who you are and whether your asylum claim is valid.  that may entail a temporary separation from your kids.  Tough, that's just the way it is.   If you send your kids alone, they will be put into protective custody to protect them from sexual perverts and child predators.
> 
> there is nothing wrong with any of this.
> 
> Why do you want the USA to open its borders to the entire world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paragraph 1:  we did not have to do this before and most asylum seekers show up for their hearing.  In addition we have always separated children when there is reasonable cause to suspect trafficking, our people are trained to look for it.  Lastly, do to the huge number of kids YOUR POLICY has thrown into the system, with no preparation or thought, they are now being exposed to the very predators you claim to want to protect them from.
> 
> Paragraph 2:  then why won’t you own your policy?
> 
> Paragraph 3:  are you trying to say that the only way to protect our borders is this?  And if not this, then it is completely open borders?  There are no other solutions?
Click to expand...



what is your solution?    be specific.

when a family crosses our border illegally, what specifically would you do to/with them?   There are only a few options:   1. send them all back,  2. hold them all in a secure facility until they can be vetted,   3. let them all in with no strings attached.

What would you do?   Instead of bitching, give us some answers.


----------



## Redfish

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> was it unacceptable when Clinton, bush, and Obama were doing it?    This didn't start with Trump.   Clinton signed it into law and he, bush, and Obama all followed it.
> 
> your ignorance is making you stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of ignorance...umh...yes.  It did start with Trump.  The Trump administration created a NEW POLICY of 100% seperation and prosecution.  They used existing laws to support the NEW POLICY.
> 
> Please show us where Clinton, Bush or Obama seperated all families, including asylum seekers, at the border.  Otherwise - if you are going to support this policy, at least OWN it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to be separated from your kids, don't enter our country illegally.  Its really quite simple.  If you are claiming asylum we need to verfy who you are and whether your asylum claim is valid.  that may entail a temporary separation from your kids.  Tough, that's just the way it is.   If you send your kids alone, they will be put into protective custody to protect them from sexual perverts and child predators.
> 
> there is nothing wrong with any of this.
> 
> Why do you want the USA to open its borders to the entire world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked her several times: we have over 7.5 billion people on this planet, most of those places nowhere near as great as the US. So how many of those 7.5 billion should we allow in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See my response to Redfish.
> 
> Is this policy the only acceptable solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The solution is to close the borders and let nobody in.  But nobody will even go there unfortunately.
Click to expand...



it was done in the 1920s,  in order to give recent immigrants (legal ones) time to assimilate and become americans.  It worked.


----------



## Redfish

KissMy said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The solution is to close the borders and let nobody in.  But nobody will even go there unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> You Lie as much a Trump! We gave Trump 4 times more money than the $2 billion he said it would take him to build the wall. Now he wants 35 times more for PC swamp political pay-offs. Screw that SWAMP!!!!!!
Click to expand...



with each new post, you confirm your ignorance, stupidity, and partisan BS.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Redfish said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of ignorance...umh...yes.  It did start with Trump.  The Trump administration created a NEW POLICY of 100% seperation and prosecution.  They used existing laws to support the NEW POLICY.
> 
> Please show us where Clinton, Bush or Obama seperated all families, including asylum seekers, at the border.  Otherwise - if you are going to support this policy, at least OWN it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to be separated from your kids, don't enter our country illegally.  Its really quite simple.  If you are claiming asylum we need to verfy who you are and whether your asylum claim is valid.  that may entail a temporary separation from your kids.  Tough, that's just the way it is.   If you send your kids alone, they will be put into protective custody to protect them from sexual perverts and child predators.
> 
> there is nothing wrong with any of this.
> 
> Why do you want the USA to open its borders to the entire world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked her several times: we have over 7.5 billion people on this planet, most of those places nowhere near as great as the US. So how many of those 7.5 billion should we allow in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See my response to Redfish.
> 
> Is this policy the only acceptable solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The solution is to close the borders and let nobody in.  But nobody will even go there unfortunately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it was done in the 1920s,  in order to give recent immigrants (legal ones) time to assimilate and become americans.  It worked.
Click to expand...


Exactly, but now we must carter to them by creating bilingual signs, bilingual voting ballots, choice of language over the phone, and some jobs now require being bilingual to take on jobs that deal with the public. They are not assimilating like people used to.  And mind you learning a language couldn't be simpler with the internet, CD's and video's they have today unlike the 1920's.  The problem today is liberals have sent out the message that they don't need to put any effort into becoming part of this country.  Don't worry, if you are too lazy to change for us--we'll change for you.  It needs to be stopped.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KissMy said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The solution is to close the borders and let nobody in.  But nobody will even go there unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> You Lie as much a Trump! We gave Trump 4 times more money than the $2 billion he said it would take him to build the wall. Now he wants 35 times more for PC swamp political pay-offs. Screw that SWAMP!!!!!!
Click to expand...


WTF did Trump ever say it would cost two billion dollars?  And when did anybody give him eight? 

Trump recent.y asked for 25 billion, so it's not 35 times more.  35X2=70 public school victim.


----------



## danielpalos

koshergrl said:


> Here in Oregon, I would rather meet up with an immigrant in the woods than a federal goon..the Bundys felt the same and for the same reasons. Immigrants feel the same about us.
> 
> You know how you know joeb and the pigs like him are anti-American marxists? They encourage people to fight ICE...but they think people who fight any federal goon in the rural areas should be shot.


"They got Gunther".


----------



## Unkotare

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to be separated from your kids, don't enter our country illegally.  Its really quite simple.  If you are claiming asylum we need to verfy who you are and whether your asylum claim is valid.  that may entail a temporary separation from your kids.  Tough, that's just the way it is.   If you send your kids alone, they will be put into protective custody to protect them from sexual perverts and child predators.
> 
> there is nothing wrong with any of this.
> 
> Why do you want the USA to open its borders to the entire world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked her several times: we have over 7.5 billion people on this planet, most of those places nowhere near as great as the US. So how many of those 7.5 billion should we allow in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See my response to Redfish.
> 
> Is this policy the only acceptable solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The solution is to close the borders and let nobody in.  But nobody will even go there unfortunately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it was done in the 1920s,  in order to give recent immigrants (legal ones) time to assimilate and become americans.  It worked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly, but now we must carter to them by creating bilingual signs, bilingual voting ballots, choice of language over the phone, and some jobs now require being bilingual to take on jobs that deal with the public. They are not assimilating like people used to.  And mind you learning a language couldn't be simpler with the internet, CD's and video's they have today unlike the 1920's.  The problem today is liberals have sent out the message that they don't need to put any effort into becoming part of this country.  Don't worry, if you are too lazy to change for us--we'll change for you.  It needs to be stopped.
Click to expand...






 Today’s immigrants are assimilating and learning the language if anything faster and more completely than those of generations past. scared little children today are the same as scared little children back in the time of the know nothing party. Pathetic. 

Hysterical idiots who have a full blown mental break down at the thought of pressing a button on the phone are beyond ridiculous.


----------



## Redfish

Redfish said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking up families is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> was it unacceptable when Clinton, bush, and Obama were doing it?    This didn't start with Trump.   Clinton signed it into law and he, bush, and Obama all followed it.
> 
> your ignorance is making you stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of ignorance...umh...yes.  It did start with Trump.  The Trump administration created a NEW POLICY of 100% seperation and prosecution.  They used existing laws to support the NEW POLICY.
> 
> Please show us where Clinton, Bush or Obama seperated all families, including asylum seekers, at the border.  Otherwise - if you are going to support this policy, at least OWN it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to be separated from your kids, don't enter our country illegally.  Its really quite simple.  If you are claiming asylum we need to verfy who you are and whether your asylum claim is valid.  that may entail a temporary separation from your kids.  Tough, that's just the way it is.   If you send your kids alone, they will be put into protective custody to protect them from sexual perverts and child predators.
> 
> there is nothing wrong with any of this.
> 
> Why do you want the USA to open its borders to the entire world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paragraph 1:  we did not have to do this before and most asylum seekers show up for their hearing.  In addition we have always separated children when there is reasonable cause to suspect trafficking, our people are trained to look for it.  Lastly, do to the huge number of kids YOUR POLICY has thrown into the system, with no preparation or thought, they are now being exposed to the very predators you claim to want to protect them from.
> 
> Paragraph 2:  then why won’t you own your policy?
> 
> Paragraph 3:  are you trying to say that the only way to protect our borders is this?  And if not this, then it is completely open borders?  There are no other solutions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what is your solution?    be specific.
> 
> when a family crosses our border illegally, what specifically would you do to/with them?   There are only a few options:   1. send them all back,  2. hold them all in a secure facility until they can be vetted,   3. let them all in with no strings attached.
> 
> What would you do?   Instead of bitching, give us some answers.
Click to expand...


waiting for your answer, coyote.   Where did you run off to?   Got no answer?   no surprise, you libs never do.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Unkotare said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked her several times: we have over 7.5 billion people on this planet, most of those places nowhere near as great as the US. So how many of those 7.5 billion should we allow in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my response to Redfish.
> 
> Is this policy the only acceptable solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The solution is to close the borders and let nobody in.  But nobody will even go there unfortunately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it was done in the 1920s,  in order to give recent immigrants (legal ones) time to assimilate and become americans.  It worked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly, but now we must carter to them by creating bilingual signs, bilingual voting ballots, choice of language over the phone, and some jobs now require being bilingual to take on jobs that deal with the public. They are not assimilating like people used to.  And mind you learning a language couldn't be simpler with the internet, CD's and video's they have today unlike the 1920's.  The problem today is liberals have sent out the message that they don't need to put any effort into becoming part of this country.  Don't worry, if you are too lazy to change for us--we'll change for you.  It needs to be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today’s immigrants are assimilating and learning the language if anything faster and more completely than those of generations past. scared little children today are the same as scared little children back in the time of the know nothing party. Pathetic.
> 
> Hysterical idiots who have a full blown mental break down at the thought of pressing a button on the phone are beyond ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Who is having a mental breakdown?  I'm just saying it goes to show people are not assimilating,  and until we no longer need signs and bilingual answering machines, keep the border closed.


----------



## Coyote

Redfish said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> was it unacceptable when Clinton, bush, and Obama were doing it?    This didn't start with Trump.   Clinton signed it into law and he, bush, and Obama all followed it.
> 
> your ignorance is making you stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of ignorance...umh...yes.  It did start with Trump.  The Trump administration created a NEW POLICY of 100% seperation and prosecution.  They used existing laws to support the NEW POLICY.
> 
> Please show us where Clinton, Bush or Obama seperated all families, including asylum seekers, at the border.  Otherwise - if you are going to support this policy, at least OWN it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to be separated from your kids, don't enter our country illegally.  Its really quite simple.  If you are claiming asylum we need to verfy who you are and whether your asylum claim is valid.  that may entail a temporary separation from your kids.  Tough, that's just the way it is.   If you send your kids alone, they will be put into protective custody to protect them from sexual perverts and child predators.
> 
> there is nothing wrong with any of this.
> 
> Why do you want the USA to open its borders to the entire world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paragraph 1:  we did not have to do this before and most asylum seekers show up for their hearing.  In addition we have always separated children when there is reasonable cause to suspect trafficking, our people are trained to look for it.  Lastly, do to the huge number of kids YOUR POLICY has thrown into the system, with no preparation or thought, they are now being exposed to the very predators you claim to want to protect them from.
> 
> Paragraph 2:  then why won’t you own your policy?
> 
> Paragraph 3:  are you trying to say that the only way to protect our borders is this?  And if not this, then it is completely open borders?  There are no other solutions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what is your solution?    be specific.
> 
> when a family crosses our border illegally, what specifically would you do to/with them?   There are only a few options:   1. send them all back,  2. hold them all in a secure facility until they can be vetted,   3. let them all in with no strings attached.
> 
> What would you do?   Instead of bitching, give us some answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> waiting for your answer, coyote.   Where did you run off to?   Got no answer?   no surprise, you libs never do.
Click to expand...

I have a real life.  Apparently you don’t.

I answered your initial questions.  It is your turn to answer mine.  

Or run away.


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> was it unacceptable when Clinton, bush, and Obama were doing it?    This didn't start with Trump.   Clinton signed it into law and he, bush, and Obama all followed it.
> 
> your ignorance is making you stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of ignorance...umh...yes.  It did start with Trump.  The Trump administration created a NEW POLICY of 100% seperation and prosecution.  They used existing laws to support the NEW POLICY.
> 
> Please show us where Clinton, Bush or Obama seperated all families, including asylum seekers, at the border.  Otherwise - if you are going to support this policy, at least OWN it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to be separated from your kids, don't enter our country illegally.  Its really quite simple.  If you are claiming asylum we need to verfy who you are and whether your asylum claim is valid.  that may entail a temporary separation from your kids.  Tough, that's just the way it is.   If you send your kids alone, they will be put into protective custody to protect them from sexual perverts and child predators.
> 
> there is nothing wrong with any of this.
> 
> Why do you want the USA to open its borders to the entire world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked her several times: we have over 7.5 billion people on this planet, most of those places nowhere near as great as the US. So how many of those 7.5 billion should we allow in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See my response to Redfish.
> 
> Is this policy the only acceptable solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The solution is to close the borders and let nobody in.  But nobody will even go there unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Fortunately.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump said over and over, "I wanted to do this for myself", not for the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And he said not for the nation?  Have a link to that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"not for the nation" was my comment.  I doubt you will find any comment from Trump indicating that his reason for running for president was anything other than he was doing it for himself just like everything he has ever done.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His life is much worse than it was before, and he knew that getting in: being followed everywhere by the SS, living that way for the rest of his life, enemies possibly targeting him for execution.
> 
> What person other than one that loves his country so much would make such sacrifices given the life he had before becoming President?
> 
> You people can't give this guy any credit no matter what he does.  It's senseless to discuss it with your preconceived opinion about him.  It doesn't matter what he says or does.  He's even given up every paycheck since taking the job, and you can't even give him credit for that.
> 
> Hate brings out the worst in people, that's one thing we've learned from liberals in this country.
Click to expand...

*Worse.  I doubt that. He is making money as never before.  Trump in his own words says he lives for the fight.  He sees himself as a gladiator, fighting not the for the nation but for himself, something he has been doing for many years before he ran for president. 

The Presidency has just given him a bigger platform and more clout.  Presidents typically ignore most criticism from other politician and the media, refusing to stoop to petty name calling and personal attacks, but not Trump.  Go low, and Trump will go lower.*


----------



## MaryL

Coyote said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of ignorance...umh...yes.  It did start with Trump.  The Trump administration created a NEW POLICY of 100% seperation and prosecution.  They used existing laws to support the NEW POLICY.
> 
> Please show us where Clinton, Bush or Obama seperated all families, including asylum seekers, at the border.  Otherwise - if you are going to support this policy, at least OWN it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to be separated from your kids, don't enter our country illegally.  Its really quite simple.  If you are claiming asylum we need to verfy who you are and whether your asylum claim is valid.  that may entail a temporary separation from your kids.  Tough, that's just the way it is.   If you send your kids alone, they will be put into protective custody to protect them from sexual perverts and child predators.
> 
> there is nothing wrong with any of this.
> 
> Why do you want the USA to open its borders to the entire world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paragraph 1:  we did not have to do this before and most asylum seekers show up for their hearing.  In addition we have always separated children when there is reasonable cause to suspect trafficking, our people are trained to look for it.  Lastly, do to the huge number of kids YOUR POLICY has thrown into the system, with no preparation or thought, they are now being exposed to the very predators you claim to want to protect them from.
> 
> Paragraph 2:  then why won’t you own your policy?
> 
> Paragraph 3:  are you trying to say that the only way to protect our borders is this?  And if not this, then it is completely open borders?  There are no other solutions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what is your solution?    be specific.
> 
> when a family crosses our border illegally, what specifically would you do to/with them?   There are only a few options:   1. send them all back,  2. hold them all in a secure facility until they can be vetted,   3. let them all in with no strings attached.
> 
> What would you do?   Instead of bitching, give us some answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> waiting for your answer, coyote.   Where did you run off to?   Got no answer?   no surprise, you libs never do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a real life.  Apparently you don’t.
> 
> I answered your initial questions.  It is your turn to answer mine.
> 
> Or run away.
Click to expand...

We lose our cultural identity and millions of jobs to an abstraction, that is real as death. So given all the generations that have immigrated here before LEGALLY, which all were human and wanted a better life too. What makes Mexican illegals so much more better than previous immigrants that fought and struggled legally to attain their dreams? And did so and respected and observed American culture and immigration law? What makes Mexicans so so special they don't? That's the question of the day. 


kes Mexicans immune from immigration laws? They are ...drum roll here, ladies and gents


----------



## MaryL

Coyote said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of ignorance...umh...yes.  It did start with Trump.  The Trump administration created a NEW POLICY of 100% seperation and prosecution.  They used existing laws to support the NEW POLICY.
> 
> Please show us where Clinton, Bush or Obama seperated all families, including asylum seekers, at the border.  Otherwise - if you are going to support this policy, at least OWN it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to be separated from your kids, don't enter our country illegally.  Its really quite simple.  If you are claiming asylum we need to verfy who you are and whether your asylum claim is valid.  that may entail a temporary separation from your kids.  Tough, that's just the way it is.   If you send your kids alone, they will be put into protective custody to protect them from sexual perverts and child predators.
> 
> there is nothing wrong with any of this.
> 
> Why do you want the USA to open its borders to the entire world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paragraph 1:  we did not have to do this before and most asylum seekers show up for their hearing.  In addition we have always separated children when there is reasonable cause to suspect trafficking, our people are trained to look for it.  Lastly, do to the huge number of kids YOUR POLICY has thrown into the system, with no preparation or thought, they are now being exposed to the very predators you claim to want to protect them from.
> 
> Paragraph 2:  then why won’t you own your policy?
> 
> Paragraph 3:  are you trying to say that the only way to protect our borders is this?  And if not this, then it is completely open borders?  There are no other solutions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what is your solution?    be specific.
> 
> when a family crosses our border illegally, what specifically would you do to/with them?   There are only a few options:   1. send them all back,  2. hold them all in a secure facility until they can be vetted,   3. let them all in with no strings attached.
> 
> What would you do?   Instead of bitching, give us some answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> waiting for your answer, coyote.   Where did you run off to?   Got no answer?   no surprise, you libs never do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a real life.  Apparently you don’t.
> 
> I answered your initial questions.  It is your turn to answer mine.
> 
> Or run away.
Click to expand...

We lose our cultural identity and millions of jobs to an abstraction, that is real as death. So given all the generations that have immigrated here before LEGALLY, which all were human and wanted a better life too. What makes Mexican illegals so much more better than previous immigrants that fought and struggled legally to attain their dreams? And did so and respected and observed American culture and immigration law? What makes Mexicans so so special they don't? That's the question of the day. What makes  Mexicans immune from immigration laws?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump said over and over, "I wanted to do this for myself", not for the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And he said not for the nation?  Have a link to that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"not for the nation" was my comment.  I doubt you will find any comment from Trump indicating that his reason for running for president was anything other than he was doing it for himself just like everything he has ever done.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His life is much worse than it was before, and he knew that getting in: being followed everywhere by the SS, living that way for the rest of his life, enemies possibly targeting him for execution.
> 
> What person other than one that loves his country so much would make such sacrifices given the life he had before becoming President?
> 
> You people can't give this guy any credit no matter what he does.  It's senseless to discuss it with your preconceived opinion about him.  It doesn't matter what he says or does.  He's even given up every paycheck since taking the job, and you can't even give him credit for that.
> 
> Hate brings out the worst in people, that's one thing we've learned from liberals in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Worse.  I doubt that. He is making money as never before.  Trump in his own words says he lives for the fight.  He sees himself as a gladiator, fighting not the for the nation but for himself, something he has been doing for many years before he ran for president.
> 
> The Presidency has just given him a bigger platform and more clout.  Presidents typically ignore most criticism from other politician and the media, refusing to stoop to petty name calling and personal attacks, but not Trump.  Go low, and Trump will go lower.*
Click to expand...


And we love it.  It's about time somebody put the media and critics in their place.  If it's one thing that always bothered me about Republican politicians, it's that they never fought back like Trump does.  They just kept getting hit and saying "Thank you sir may I have another."  Sickening already.  

And Trump never needed to be President for any reason.  He had anything and everything any man could ask for on this earth.  He gave that up and more to take this job, and yes, it's a job.  If you and your ilk could be honest with yourselves (and I doubt you will) do you think Trump has a better life today than three years ago or worse?


----------



## Coyote

MaryL said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to be separated from your kids, don't enter our country illegally.  Its really quite simple.  If you are claiming asylum we need to verfy who you are and whether your asylum claim is valid.  that may entail a temporary separation from your kids.  Tough, that's just the way it is.   If you send your kids alone, they will be put into protective custody to protect them from sexual perverts and child predators.
> 
> there is nothing wrong with any of this.
> 
> Why do you want the USA to open its borders to the entire world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paragraph 1:  we did not have to do this before and most asylum seekers show up for their hearing.  In addition we have always separated children when there is reasonable cause to suspect trafficking, our people are trained to look for it.  Lastly, do to the huge number of kids YOUR POLICY has thrown into the system, with no preparation or thought, they are now being exposed to the very predators you claim to want to protect them from.
> 
> Paragraph 2:  then why won’t you own your policy?
> 
> Paragraph 3:  are you trying to say that the only way to protect our borders is this?  And if not this, then it is completely open borders?  There are no other solutions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what is your solution?    be specific.
> 
> when a family crosses our border illegally, what specifically would you do to/with them?   There are only a few options:   1. send them all back,  2. hold them all in a secure facility until they can be vetted,   3. let them all in with no strings attached.
> 
> What would you do?   Instead of bitching, give us some answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> waiting for your answer, coyote.   Where did you run off to?   Got no answer?   no surprise, you libs never do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a real life.  Apparently you don’t.
> 
> I answered your initial questions.  It is your turn to answer mine.
> 
> Or run away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We lose our cultural identity and millions of jobs to an abstraction, that is real as death. So given all the generations that have immigrated here before LEGALLY, which all were human and wanted a better life too. What makes Mexican illegals so much more better than previous immigrants that fought and struggled legally to attain their dreams? And did so and respected and observed American culture and immigration law? What makes Mexicans so so special they don't? That's the question of the day. What makes  Mexicans immune from immigration laws?
Click to expand...


I don’t know about Mexicans, the vast majority of illegal crossings righ now seem to be from Central American countries.


----------



## Flopper

Cellblock2429 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump said over and over, "I wanted to do this for myself", not for the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And he said not for the nation?  Have a link to that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"not for the nation" was my comment.  I doubt you will find any comment from Trump indicating that his reason for running for president was anything other than he was doing it for himself just like everything he has ever done.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ He didn’t need to run for president for his own ego. He had power and money. Everything he has done as president has been to make America great. And your pathetic attempt to separate Trump from his supporters is a gigantic fail.
Click to expand...

*What Donald Trump sought was power to command the media, to be regarded as the most powerful man in the world, a man no one could snub without consequences. Becoming president was the ultimate revenge upon anyone who had disparaged him or ridiculed him.  When Donald Trump spoke, the world would listen.  As president, he would always have the last word so he would never have to endure the ridicule Obama dumped on him in 2011.*


----------



## Cellblock2429

Flopper said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump said over and over, "I wanted to do this for myself", not for the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And he said not for the nation?  Have a link to that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"not for the nation" was my comment.  I doubt you will find any comment from Trump indicating that his reason for running for president was anything other than he was doing it for himself just like everything he has ever done.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ He didn’t need to run for president for his own ego. He had power and money. Everything he has done as president has been to make America great. And your pathetic attempt to separate Trump from his supporters is a gigantic fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What Donald Trump sought was power to command the media, to be regarded as the most powerful man in the world, a man no one could snub without consequences. Becoming president was the ultimate revenge upon anyone who had disparaged him or ridiculed him.  When Donald Trump spoke, the world would listen.  As president, he would always have the last word so he would never have to endure the ridicule Obama dumped on him in 2011.*
Click to expand...

/——— That is only your opinion. The only way you can sleep at night is to convince yourself that Trumps motives are purely self serving. I could create the same narrative about Obozo and Hildabeast.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Cellblock2429 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump said over and over, "I wanted to do this for myself", not for the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And he said not for the nation?  Have a link to that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"not for the nation" was my comment.  I doubt you will find any comment from Trump indicating that his reason for running for president was anything other than he was doing it for himself just like everything he has ever done.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ He didn’t need to run for president for his own ego. He had power and money. Everything he has done as president has been to make America great. And your pathetic attempt to separate Trump from his supporters is a gigantic fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What Donald Trump sought was power to command the media, to be regarded as the most powerful man in the world, a man no one could snub without consequences. Becoming president was the ultimate revenge upon anyone who had disparaged him or ridiculed him.  When Donald Trump spoke, the world would listen.  As president, he would always have the last word so he would never have to endure the ridicule Obama dumped on him in 2011.*
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——— That is only your opinion. The only way you can sleep at night is to convince yourself that Trumps motives are purely self serving. I could create the same narrative about Obozo and Hildabeast.
Click to expand...


Trump Derangement Syndrome.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump said over and over, "I wanted to do this for myself", not for the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And he said not for the nation?  Have a link to that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"not for the nation" was my comment.  I doubt you will find any comment from Trump indicating that his reason for running for president was anything other than he was doing it for himself just like everything he has ever done.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His life is much worse than it was before, and he knew that getting in: being followed everywhere by the SS, living that way for the rest of his life, enemies possibly targeting him for execution.
> 
> What person other than one that loves his country so much would make such sacrifices given the life he had before becoming President?
> 
> You people can't give this guy any credit no matter what he does.  It's senseless to discuss it with your preconceived opinion about him.  It doesn't matter what he says or does.  He's even given up every paycheck since taking the job, and you can't even give him credit for that.
> 
> Hate brings out the worst in people, that's one thing we've learned from liberals in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Worse.  I doubt that. He is making money as never before.  Trump in his own words says he lives for the fight.  He sees himself as a gladiator, fighting not the for the nation but for himself, something he has been doing for many years before he ran for president.
> 
> The Presidency has just given him a bigger platform and more clout.  Presidents typically ignore most criticism from other politician and the media, refusing to stoop to petty name calling and personal attacks, but not Trump.  Go low, and Trump will go lower.*
Click to expand...

/——-/ Yeah, we see how you libtards take the high road when referencing President Trump. Calling him Hitler and Orange Clown 24/7 is very uplifting. Trouble is, someone hits Trump - he hits back. You prefer the old days when Republicans just rolled over and played dead.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Cellblock2429 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump said over and over, "I wanted to do this for myself", not for the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And he said not for the nation?  Have a link to that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"not for the nation" was my comment.  I doubt you will find any comment from Trump indicating that his reason for running for president was anything other than he was doing it for himself just like everything he has ever done.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His life is much worse than it was before, and he knew that getting in: being followed everywhere by the SS, living that way for the rest of his life, enemies possibly targeting him for execution.
> 
> What person other than one that loves his country so much would make such sacrifices given the life he had before becoming President?
> 
> You people can't give this guy any credit no matter what he does.  It's senseless to discuss it with your preconceived opinion about him.  It doesn't matter what he says or does.  He's even given up every paycheck since taking the job, and you can't even give him credit for that.
> 
> Hate brings out the worst in people, that's one thing we've learned from liberals in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Worse.  I doubt that. He is making money as never before.  Trump in his own words says he lives for the fight.  He sees himself as a gladiator, fighting not the for the nation but for himself, something he has been doing for many years before he ran for president.
> 
> The Presidency has just given him a bigger platform and more clout.  Presidents typically ignore most criticism from other politician and the media, refusing to stoop to petty name calling and personal attacks, but not Trump.  Go low, and Trump will go lower.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ Yeah, we see how you libtards take the high road when referencing President Trump. Calling him Hitler and Orange Clown 24/7 is very uplifting. Trouble is, someone hits Trump - he hits back. You prefer the old days when Republicans just rolled over and played dead.
Click to expand...


And what really drives them nuts is not only do we voters approve of it, we encourage it.


----------



## Flopper

Cellblock2429 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump said over and over, "I wanted to do this for myself", not for the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And he said not for the nation?  Have a link to that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"not for the nation" was my comment.  I doubt you will find any comment from Trump indicating that his reason for running for president was anything other than he was doing it for himself just like everything he has ever done.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His life is much worse than it was before, and he knew that getting in: being followed everywhere by the SS, living that way for the rest of his life, enemies possibly targeting him for execution.
> 
> What person other than one that loves his country so much would make such sacrifices given the life he had before becoming President?
> 
> You people can't give this guy any credit no matter what he does.  It's senseless to discuss it with your preconceived opinion about him.  It doesn't matter what he says or does.  He's even given up every paycheck since taking the job, and you can't even give him credit for that.
> 
> Hate brings out the worst in people, that's one thing we've learned from liberals in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Worse.  I doubt that. He is making money as never before.  Trump in his own words says he lives for the fight.  He sees himself as a gladiator, fighting not the for the nation but for himself, something he has been doing for many years before he ran for president.
> 
> The Presidency has just given him a bigger platform and more clout.  Presidents typically ignore most criticism from other politician and the media, refusing to stoop to petty name calling and personal attacks, but not Trump.  Go low, and Trump will go lower.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ Yeah, we see how you libtards take the high road when referencing President Trump. Calling him Hitler and Orange Clown 24/7 is very uplifting. Trouble is, someone hits Trump - he hits back. You prefer the old days when Republicans just rolled over and played dead.
Click to expand...

*I certainly have no objection to a president defending his policies when they are attacked.  In fact, I expect it. 

However, what Trump is doing is launching personal attacks in answer to criticism of his policy and his actions as president.  By not defending his actions and resorting to mean spirited personal attacks he makes himself and the presidency look inept and weak. 

Trump supporters love to see the president fight back because they see it as an act of courage but in reality it's Trump trivializing the presidency.  One of the hardest things for a president is to keep his mouth shut and ignore taunts and focus on what is really important. 

Trump has looked for conflict where it is not, created it where it does not exist. No target is too small, petty or unpresidential.  Where most leaders take to heart Teddy Roosevelt quote, "Speak softly and carry a big stick', Trump seems to be totally oblivious.*


----------



## toobfreak

BrokeLoser said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn’t it time that bleeding heart suckers add some credibility to this whining by starting with the condemnation of the piece of shit criminal wetback parents first?
> Whatta ya say...seem like rudimentary logic to you?
Click to expand...



I have a plan to build the border wall quickly and cheaply:

1).  Our Army invades Mexico and steals all the materials and resources needed to make it while killing any drug lords or Federales they see.
2).  Take all the illegal aliens arrested at the border and elsewhere and put them to work building the wall as repayment for their crime.
3).  When finished, deport them back to Mexico free people, their crimes served.
4).  Cut off all ties and end all trade with Mexico and tell them they can keep their money, people and trade now.  They don't owe us a thing.


----------



## BrokeLoser

toobfreak said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn’t it time that bleeding heart suckers add some credibility to this whining by starting with the condemnation of the piece of shit criminal wetback parents first?
> Whatta ya say...seem like rudimentary logic to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have a plan to build the border wall quickly and cheaply:
> 
> 1).  Our Army invades Mexico and steals all the materials and resources needed to make it while killing any drug lords or Federales they see.
> 2).  Take all the illegal aliens arrested at the border and elsewhere and put them to work building the wall as repayment for their crime.
> 3).  When finished, deport them back to Mexico free people, their crimes served.
> 4).  Cut off all ties and end all trade with Mexico and tell them they can keep their money, people and trade.  They don't owe us a thing.
Click to expand...


Excellent ideas.
I pretty sure all good Americans that matter will fall in behind that movement.


----------



## Flopper

toobfreak said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn’t it time that bleeding heart suckers add some credibility to this whining by starting with the condemnation of the piece of shit criminal wetback parents first?
> Whatta ya say...seem like rudimentary logic to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have a plan to build the border wall quickly and cheaply:
> 
> 1).  Our Army invades Mexico and steals all the materials and resources needed to make it while killing any drug lords or Federales they see.
> 2).  Take all the illegal aliens arrested at the border and elsewhere and put them to work building the wall as repayment for their crime.
> 3).  When finished, deport them back to Mexico free people, their crimes served.
> 4).  Cut off all ties and end all trade with Mexico and tell them they can keep their money, people and trade now.  They don't owe us a thing.
Click to expand...

*I thought that was Trump's plan.  It sure sounds his ideas.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And he said not for the nation?  Have a link to that?
> 
> 
> 
> *"not for the nation" was my comment.  I doubt you will find any comment from Trump indicating that his reason for running for president was anything other than he was doing it for himself just like everything he has ever done.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His life is much worse than it was before, and he knew that getting in: being followed everywhere by the SS, living that way for the rest of his life, enemies possibly targeting him for execution.
> 
> What person other than one that loves his country so much would make such sacrifices given the life he had before becoming President?
> 
> You people can't give this guy any credit no matter what he does.  It's senseless to discuss it with your preconceived opinion about him.  It doesn't matter what he says or does.  He's even given up every paycheck since taking the job, and you can't even give him credit for that.
> 
> Hate brings out the worst in people, that's one thing we've learned from liberals in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Worse.  I doubt that. He is making money as never before.  Trump in his own words says he lives for the fight.  He sees himself as a gladiator, fighting not the for the nation but for himself, something he has been doing for many years before he ran for president.
> 
> The Presidency has just given him a bigger platform and more clout.  Presidents typically ignore most criticism from other politician and the media, refusing to stoop to petty name calling and personal attacks, but not Trump.  Go low, and Trump will go lower.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ Yeah, we see how you libtards take the high road when referencing President Trump. Calling him Hitler and Orange Clown 24/7 is very uplifting. Trouble is, someone hits Trump - he hits back. You prefer the old days when Republicans just rolled over and played dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I certainly have no objection to a president defending his policies when they are attacked.  In fact, I expect it.
> 
> However, what Trump is doing is launching personal attacks in answer to criticism of his policy and his actions as president.  By not defending his actions and resorting to mean spirited personal attacks he makes himself and the presidency look inept and weak.
> 
> Trump supporters love to see the president fight back because they see it as an act of courage but in reality it's Trump trivializing the presidency.  One of the hardest things for a president is to keep his mouth shut and ignore taunts and focus on what is really important.
> 
> Trump has looked for conflict where it is not, created it where it does not exist. No target is too small, petty or unpresidential.  Where most leaders take to heart Teddy Roosevelt quote, "Speak softly and carry a big stick', Trump seems to be totally oblivious.*
Click to expand...


And that's what we love about him.  That's besides the fact that if you leave Trump alone, chances are he'll leave you alone.  Hit Trump, and he hits back only harder.


----------



## Cellblock2429

toobfreak said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn’t it time that bleeding heart suckers add some credibility to this whining by starting with the condemnation of the piece of shit criminal wetback parents first?
> Whatta ya say...seem like rudimentary logic to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have a plan to build the border wall quickly and cheaply:
> 
> 1).  Our Army invades Mexico and steals all the materials and resources needed to make it while killing any drug lords or Federales they see.
> 2).  Take all the illegal aliens arrested at the border and elsewhere and put them to work building the wall as repayment for their crime.
> 3).  When finished, deport them back to Mexico free people, their crimes served.
> 4).  Cut off all ties and end all trade with Mexico and tell them they can keep their money, people and trade now.  They don't owe us a thing.
Click to expand...

/——-/ Trump should just buy Mexico, turn it into a giant set of golf course, tear everything down except the best hotels and restaurants then hire the Mexicans to work there.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"not for the nation" was my comment.  I doubt you will find any comment from Trump indicating that his reason for running for president was anything other than he was doing it for himself just like everything he has ever done.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His life is much worse than it was before, and he knew that getting in: being followed everywhere by the SS, living that way for the rest of his life, enemies possibly targeting him for execution.
> 
> What person other than one that loves his country so much would make such sacrifices given the life he had before becoming President?
> 
> You people can't give this guy any credit no matter what he does.  It's senseless to discuss it with your preconceived opinion about him.  It doesn't matter what he says or does.  He's even given up every paycheck since taking the job, and you can't even give him credit for that.
> 
> Hate brings out the worst in people, that's one thing we've learned from liberals in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Worse.  I doubt that. He is making money as never before.  Trump in his own words says he lives for the fight.  He sees himself as a gladiator, fighting not the for the nation but for himself, something he has been doing for many years before he ran for president.
> 
> The Presidency has just given him a bigger platform and more clout.  Presidents typically ignore most criticism from other politician and the media, refusing to stoop to petty name calling and personal attacks, but not Trump.  Go low, and Trump will go lower.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ Yeah, we see how you libtards take the high road when referencing President Trump. Calling him Hitler and Orange Clown 24/7 is very uplifting. Trouble is, someone hits Trump - he hits back. You prefer the old days when Republicans just rolled over and played dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I certainly have no objection to a president defending his policies when they are attacked.  In fact, I expect it.
> 
> However, what Trump is doing is launching personal attacks in answer to criticism of his policy and his actions as president.  By not defending his actions and resorting to mean spirited personal attacks he makes himself and the presidency look inept and weak.
> 
> Trump supporters love to see the president fight back because they see it as an act of courage but in reality it's Trump trivializing the presidency.  One of the hardest things for a president is to keep his mouth shut and ignore taunts and focus on what is really important.
> 
> Trump has looked for conflict where it is not, created it where it does not exist. No target is too small, petty or unpresidential.  Where most leaders take to heart Teddy Roosevelt quote, "Speak softly and carry a big stick', Trump seems to be totally oblivious.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's what we love about him.  That's besides the fact that if you leave Trump alone, chances are he'll leave you alone.  Hit Trump, and he hits back only harder.
Click to expand...

*Hitting back and hitting back harder can certainly work in a campaign but it's not the way to win as president.  Sure, it will get the oohs and ahhs of supporters with blood in their eyes for all that oppose their man, but it will work against the president the longer he is office.

Donald Trump lives by the advice he dispensed in his best-selling business book The Art of the Deal: “Fight Back — always hit back against critics and adversaries, even if it looks bad.” He has run his campaign under the banner of “You hit me, I hit you back twice as hard.” But how well does that work as president?

Trump's philosophy works quite well when making real estate deals with people he will never have to deal with again and celebrates who he chooses not to work with.  However, the president does not have those options.  The very people he insults today will be the people he has to work with tomorrow.  Does anyone believe John McCain is not going to do everything he can, even from his death bed to get back at Trump, or "Rocket Man", who has an ego as big Trump's and no tolerance for ridicule is not going stab Trump and the US in back at first opportunity.   

Successful political deals depend on all parties walking away feeling they are winners or at least they have won something.  However, that is not the Trump philosophy which explains why he's unable to strike deals with congressional leaders.

Trump claimed he had an agreement with North Korea, NATO, Canada, France etc when there was no deal at all. Trump is totally out of his depth in negotiating  international political deals because they are never zero sum deals, depend on faith and trust the in the deal maker, and there is a clear understanding how each side benefits.*


----------



## Cellblock2429

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> His life is much worse than it was before, and he knew that getting in: being followed everywhere by the SS, living that way for the rest of his life, enemies possibly targeting him for execution.
> 
> What person other than one that loves his country so much would make such sacrifices given the life he had before becoming President?
> 
> You people can't give this guy any credit no matter what he does.  It's senseless to discuss it with your preconceived opinion about him.  It doesn't matter what he says or does.  He's even given up every paycheck since taking the job, and you can't even give him credit for that.
> 
> Hate brings out the worst in people, that's one thing we've learned from liberals in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> *Worse.  I doubt that. He is making money as never before.  Trump in his own words says he lives for the fight.  He sees himself as a gladiator, fighting not the for the nation but for himself, something he has been doing for many years before he ran for president.
> 
> The Presidency has just given him a bigger platform and more clout.  Presidents typically ignore most criticism from other politician and the media, refusing to stoop to petty name calling and personal attacks, but not Trump.  Go low, and Trump will go lower.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ Yeah, we see how you libtards take the high road when referencing President Trump. Calling him Hitler and Orange Clown 24/7 is very uplifting. Trouble is, someone hits Trump - he hits back. You prefer the old days when Republicans just rolled over and played dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I certainly have no objection to a president defending his policies when they are attacked.  In fact, I expect it.
> 
> However, what Trump is doing is launching personal attacks in answer to criticism of his policy and his actions as president.  By not defending his actions and resorting to mean spirited personal attacks he makes himself and the presidency look inept and weak.
> 
> Trump supporters love to see the president fight back because they see it as an act of courage but in reality it's Trump trivializing the presidency.  One of the hardest things for a president is to keep his mouth shut and ignore taunts and focus on what is really important.
> 
> Trump has looked for conflict where it is not, created it where it does not exist. No target is too small, petty or unpresidential.  Where most leaders take to heart Teddy Roosevelt quote, "Speak softly and carry a big stick', Trump seems to be totally oblivious.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's what we love about him.  That's besides the fact that if you leave Trump alone, chances are he'll leave you alone.  Hit Trump, and he hits back only harder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Hitting back and hitting back harder can certainly work in a campaign but it's not the way to win as president.  Sure, it will get the oohs and ahhs of supporters with blood in their eyes for all that oppose their man, but it will work against the president the longer he is office.
> 
> Donald Trump lives by the advice he dispensed in his best-selling business book The Art of the Deal: “Fight Back — always hit back against critics and adversaries, even if it looks bad.” He has run his campaign under the banner of “You hit me, I hit you back twice as hard.” But how well does that work as president?
> 
> Trump's philosophy works quite well when making real estate deals with people he will never have to deal with again and celebrates who he chooses not to work with.  However, the president does not have those options.  The very people he insults today will be the people he has to work with tomorrow.  Does anyone believe John McCain is not going to do everything he can, even from his death bed to get back at Trump, or "Rocket Man", who has an ego as big Trump's and no tolerance for ridicule is not going stab Trump and the US in back at first opportunity.
> 
> Successful political deals depend on all parties walking away feeling they are winners or at least they have won something.  However, that is not the Trump philosophy which explains why he's unable to strike deals with congressional leaders.
> 
> Trump claimed he had an agreement with North Korea, NATO, Canada, France etc when there was no deal at all. Trump is totally out of his depth in negotiating  international political deals because they are never zero sum deals, depend on faith and trust the in the deal maker, and there is a clear understanding how each side benefits.*
Click to expand...

/——/ How can you declare those deals are dead? Let the man finish negotiating before you pick and choose winners and losers


----------



## JoeB131

toobfreak said:


> I have a plan to build the border wall quickly and cheaply:
> 
> 1). Our Army invades Mexico and steals all the materials and resources needed to make it while killing any drug lords or Federales they see.
> 2). Take all the illegal aliens arrested at the border and elsewhere and put them to work building the wall as repayment for their crime.
> 3). When finished, deport them back to Mexico free people, their crimes served.
> 4). Cut off all ties and end all trade with Mexico and tell them they can keep their money, people and trade now. They don't owe us a thing.



5.) Germany gets to announce, "We aren't the world's most despised nation anymore!  Yeah!!!!"  

The sad thing isn't what Trump does, it's the unnecessary anger of his supporters.


----------



## Kondor3

I don't want us shooting women and children coming across the border illegally, but...

Barring that...

Damned-near anything goes, as an 'acceptable cost', in controlling Illegal Immigration...

Controlling our own borders and the nature and quantity of the people coming-in, in this Post-Large-Scale-Immigration Age, are existential matters.

I choose myself, and my family, and my fellow countrymen, and their culture, and their future, over uncontrolled tidal waves of Illegal Aliens trespassing upon our soil.


----------



## JoeB131

Kondor3 said:


> I don't want us shooting women and children coming across the border illegally, but...
> 
> Barring that...
> 
> Damned-near anything goes, as an 'acceptable cost', in controlling Illegal Immigration...
> 
> Controlling our own borders and the nature and quantity of the people coming-in, in this Post-Large-Scale-Immigration Age, are existential matters.



Guy, if our existence is threatened by the 3% of the population that is undocumented, then our shit was pretty weak to start with. 

The reason why we have undocumented workers is because we as a society WANT them to do the unpleasant jobs Americans don't want to do. 



Kondor3 said:


> I choose myself, and my family, and my fellow countrymen, over uncontrolled tidal waves of Illegal Aliens trespassing upon our soil.



again, not seeing the threat to you, your family or your countrymen presented by undocumented laborers...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, if our existence is threatened by the 3% of the population that is undocumented, then our shit was pretty weak to start with.
> 
> The reason why we have undocumented workers is because we as a society WANT them to do the unpleasant jobs Americans don't want to do.



Americans will do anything for the right price.  You bought that bullshit hook, line, and sinker.  



JoeB131 said:


> again, not seeing the threat to you, your family or your countrymen presented by undocumented laborers...



They keep pay scales lower.  As long as industry can find cheap labor, there is no reason to make better offers to Americans.


----------



## Kondor3

JoeB131 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want us shooting women and children coming across the border illegally, but...
> 
> Barring that...
> 
> Damned-near anything goes, as an 'acceptable cost', in controlling Illegal Immigration...
> 
> Controlling our own borders and the nature and quantity of the people coming-in, in this Post-Large-Scale-Immigration Age, are existential matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, if our existence is threatened by the 3% of the population that is undocumented, then our shit was pretty weak to start with.
> 
> The reason why we have undocumented workers is because we as a society WANT them to do the unpleasant jobs Americans don't want to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I choose myself, and my family, and my fellow countrymen, over uncontrolled tidal waves of Illegal Aliens trespassing upon our soil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again, not seeing the threat to you, your family or your countrymen presented by undocumented laborers...
Click to expand...

Yes... it is quite obvious that you not see the threat... leave that to others... your bunch is on the sidelines now for a while.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> His life is much worse than it was before, and he knew that getting in: being followed everywhere by the SS, living that way for the rest of his life, enemies possibly targeting him for execution.
> 
> What person other than one that loves his country so much would make such sacrifices given the life he had before becoming President?
> 
> You people can't give this guy any credit no matter what he does.  It's senseless to discuss it with your preconceived opinion about him.  It doesn't matter what he says or does.  He's even given up every paycheck since taking the job, and you can't even give him credit for that.
> 
> Hate brings out the worst in people, that's one thing we've learned from liberals in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> *Worse.  I doubt that. He is making money as never before.  Trump in his own words says he lives for the fight.  He sees himself as a gladiator, fighting not the for the nation but for himself, something he has been doing for many years before he ran for president.
> 
> The Presidency has just given him a bigger platform and more clout.  Presidents typically ignore most criticism from other politician and the media, refusing to stoop to petty name calling and personal attacks, but not Trump.  Go low, and Trump will go lower.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ Yeah, we see how you libtards take the high road when referencing President Trump. Calling him Hitler and Orange Clown 24/7 is very uplifting. Trouble is, someone hits Trump - he hits back. You prefer the old days when Republicans just rolled over and played dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I certainly have no objection to a president defending his policies when they are attacked.  In fact, I expect it.
> 
> However, what Trump is doing is launching personal attacks in answer to criticism of his policy and his actions as president.  By not defending his actions and resorting to mean spirited personal attacks he makes himself and the presidency look inept and weak.
> 
> Trump supporters love to see the president fight back because they see it as an act of courage but in reality it's Trump trivializing the presidency.  One of the hardest things for a president is to keep his mouth shut and ignore taunts and focus on what is really important.
> 
> Trump has looked for conflict where it is not, created it where it does not exist. No target is too small, petty or unpresidential.  Where most leaders take to heart Teddy Roosevelt quote, "Speak softly and carry a big stick', Trump seems to be totally oblivious.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's what we love about him.  That's besides the fact that if you leave Trump alone, chances are he'll leave you alone.  Hit Trump, and he hits back only harder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Hitting back and hitting back harder can certainly work in a campaign but it's not the way to win as president.  Sure, it will get the oohs and ahhs of supporters with blood in their eyes for all that oppose their man, but it will work against the president the longer he is office.
> 
> Donald Trump lives by the advice he dispensed in his best-selling business book The Art of the Deal: “Fight Back — always hit back against critics and adversaries, even if it looks bad.” He has run his campaign under the banner of “You hit me, I hit you back twice as hard.” But how well does that work as president?
> 
> Trump's philosophy works quite well when making real estate deals with people he will never have to deal with again and celebrates who he chooses not to work with.  However, the president does not have those options.  The very people he insults today will be the people he has to work with tomorrow.  Does anyone believe John McCain is not going to do everything he can, even from his death bed to get back at Trump, or "Rocket Man", who has an ego as big Trump's and no tolerance for ridicule is not going stab Trump and the US in back at first opportunity.
> 
> Successful political deals depend on all parties walking away feeling they are winners or at least they have won something.  However, that is not the Trump philosophy which explains why he's unable to strike deals with congressional leaders.
> 
> Trump claimed he had an agreement with North Korea, NATO, Canada, France etc when there was no deal at all. Trump is totally out of his depth in negotiating  international political deals because they are never zero sum deals, depend on faith and trust the in the deal maker, and there is a clear understanding how each side benefits.*
Click to expand...


Trump is doing fine internationally even with his vengeance.  Our foes look back and say "He's not like Ears, he's nobody to F with."  

Congress and actually our entire federal government is like a private club membership only.  Somebody walked into the club uninvited and not only took a seat, but the best seat in the establishment.  It's not supposed to work that way.  It's supposed to work like you start from the bottom, work your way up, make dirty deals along the way, and maybe we'll let you into the club and show you how it all works.  

The people who hate Trump will hate him no matter what he does, and the people that think he's onto something will support him all the way.  It's my hope that the RNC is playing close attention to the kind of party we would like to see; one where guts matters and bullshit walks; one where you get the things done (or attempt to get the things done) that you promised; one that tells the media where to shove it because they think they are the rulers of the land.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Americans will do anything for the right price. You bought that bullshit hook, line, and sinker.



I would consider most of that work beneath me, no matter what you offered. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> They keep pay scales lower. As long as industry can find cheap labor, there is no reason to make better offers to Americans.



You mean other than they can follow instructions better.  

Here's the thing.  I've worked in manufacturing.  ON the assembly lines, three different companies, all I saw was immigrants (documented).  White guys were just not lining up for those jobs. In fact, the only white guy I ever saw on the line was a kind of a creepy guy and after they fire him, they put security locks up everywhere so he couldn't get back in.


----------



## JoeB131

Kondor3 said:


> Yes... it is quite obvious that you not see the threat... leave that to others... your bunch is on the sidelines now for a while.



Guy, you can't keep cheating your way into office...  You actually have to get a majority to vote for you at some point if you want to keep policy making today. 

Trump's a fraud, which is why he's getting nothing done.


----------



## Kondor3

JoeB131 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... it is quite obvious that you not see the threat... leave that to others... your bunch is on the sidelines now for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you can't keep cheating your way into office...  You actually have to get a majority to vote for you at some point if you want to keep policy making today.
> 
> Trump's a fraud, which is why he's getting nothing done.
Click to expand...

Oh, Trump's a fraud, alright, and talks out of both sides of his mouth... but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the threat posed by 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> You mean other than they can follow instructions better.
> 
> Here's the thing. I've worked in manufacturing. ON the assembly lines, three different companies, all I saw was immigrants (documented). White guys were just not lining up for those jobs. In fact, the only white guy I ever saw on the line was a kind of a creepy guy and after they fire him, they put security locks up everywhere so he couldn't get back in.



Oh, well that settles it.  You knew one guy........

Let me tell you, when getting loaded or unloaded at a busy company, we drivers often have BS sessions.  The subject of foreign drivers always makes it to the table.  These guys are terrible drivers, dangerous, and irritating to boot.  We laugh at how many times we are approached by some stupid foreigner because he doesn't know how to back in a trailer, and is begging for help. 

I have no idea HTF these guys got here or how they passed a CDL test to get their license, but they are here, and they are working for peanuts which is why their employer doesn't care how long it takes them. 

As long as they can pull these people right off the boat and give them work, there is no reason to hire good quality American drivers that understand the Fn language and can drive safely because they can read highway signs.


----------



## Flopper

Cellblock2429 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Worse.  I doubt that. He is making money as never before.  Trump in his own words says he lives for the fight.  He sees himself as a gladiator, fighting not the for the nation but for himself, something he has been doing for many years before he ran for president.
> 
> The Presidency has just given him a bigger platform and more clout.  Presidents typically ignore most criticism from other politician and the media, refusing to stoop to petty name calling and personal attacks, but not Trump.  Go low, and Trump will go lower.*
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/ Yeah, we see how you libtards take the high road when referencing President Trump. Calling him Hitler and Orange Clown 24/7 is very uplifting. Trouble is, someone hits Trump - he hits back. You prefer the old days when Republicans just rolled over and played dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I certainly have no objection to a president defending his policies when they are attacked.  In fact, I expect it.
> 
> However, what Trump is doing is launching personal attacks in answer to criticism of his policy and his actions as president.  By not defending his actions and resorting to mean spirited personal attacks he makes himself and the presidency look inept and weak.
> 
> Trump supporters love to see the president fight back because they see it as an act of courage but in reality it's Trump trivializing the presidency.  One of the hardest things for a president is to keep his mouth shut and ignore taunts and focus on what is really important.
> 
> Trump has looked for conflict where it is not, created it where it does not exist. No target is too small, petty or unpresidential.  Where most leaders take to heart Teddy Roosevelt quote, "Speak softly and carry a big stick', Trump seems to be totally oblivious.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's what we love about him.  That's besides the fact that if you leave Trump alone, chances are he'll leave you alone.  Hit Trump, and he hits back only harder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Hitting back and hitting back harder can certainly work in a campaign but it's not the way to win as president.  Sure, it will get the oohs and ahhs of supporters with blood in their eyes for all that oppose their man, but it will work against the president the longer he is office.
> 
> Donald Trump lives by the advice he dispensed in his best-selling business book The Art of the Deal: “Fight Back — always hit back against critics and adversaries, even if it looks bad.” He has run his campaign under the banner of “You hit me, I hit you back twice as hard.” But how well does that work as president?
> 
> Trump's philosophy works quite well when making real estate deals with people he will never have to deal with again and celebrates who he chooses not to work with.  However, the president does not have those options.  The very people he insults today will be the people he has to work with tomorrow.  Does anyone believe John McCain is not going to do everything he can, even from his death bed to get back at Trump, or "Rocket Man", who has an ego as big Trump's and no tolerance for ridicule is not going stab Trump and the US in back at first opportunity.
> 
> Successful political deals depend on all parties walking away feeling they are winners or at least they have won something.  However, that is not the Trump philosophy which explains why he's unable to strike deals with congressional leaders.
> 
> Trump claimed he had an agreement with North Korea, NATO, Canada, France etc when there was no deal at all. Trump is totally out of his depth in negotiating  international political deals because they are never zero sum deals, depend on faith and trust the in the deal maker, and there is a clear understanding how each side benefits.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ How can you declare those deals are dead? Let the man finish negotiating before you pick and choose winners and losers
Click to expand...

*He's not negotiating anything because he doesn't understand the issues much less the geopolitical factors, the cultures, and goals of all the players. The Trump roll in negotiations will be exactly what you saw in the NK talks, two heads of state speaking in generalities and making polite overtures, leaving the negotiations to professions who hopefully know what they're doing. *


----------



## Flopper

Kondor3 said:


> I don't want us shooting women and children coming across the border illegally, but...
> 
> Barring that...
> 
> Damned-near anything goes, as an 'acceptable cost', in controlling Illegal Immigration...
> 
> Controlling our own borders and the nature and quantity of the people coming-in, in this Post-Large-Scale-Immigration Age, are existential matters.
> 
> I choose myself, and my family, and my fellow countrymen, and their culture, and their future, over uncontrolled tidal waves of Illegal Aliens trespassing upon our soil.


*Despite all Trump's praises of how well he's doing catching illegal immigrants at our southern border, the Homeland Security Data tells a different story.

From October 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 there were 286,290 apprehensions or 429,432 for 12 mos. at the southern border, all well below the apprehensions in Obama's last 4 years in office. 
2016 563,204
2015 444,825
2014 569,237
2013 489,498

Considering all the Hoopla about border apprehensions, I was expecting a huge increase but maybe the estimates of decreased illegal crossing are correct.  Trump is sure pushing hard for more arrests but you can't arrest what isn't there.
Southwest Border Migration FY2018 | U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Southwest Border Migration FY2017 | U.S. Customs and Border Protection
*


----------



## toobfreak

JoeB131 said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a plan to build the border wall quickly and cheaply:
> 
> 1). Our Army invades Mexico and steals all the materials and resources needed to make it while killing any drug lords or Federales they see.
> 2). Take all the illegal aliens arrested at the border and elsewhere and put them to work building the wall as repayment for their crime.
> 3). When finished, deport them back to Mexico free people, their crimes served.
> 4). Cut off all ties and end all trade with Mexico and tell them they can keep their money, people and trade now. They don't owe us a thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.) Germany gets to announce, "We aren't the world's most despised nation anymore!  Yeah!!!!"
Click to expand...


The WORLD has always envied America, but only the pathetic, deplorable American Left despise their own country and try to hurt and obstruct it at every turn to be more like the very countries we fought and died for to be different and get away from!  The American Left, to the body of America what the appendix is to our bodies!


----------



## JoeB131

Kondor3 said:


> Oh, Trump's a fraud, alright, and talks out of both sides of his mouth... but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the threat posed by 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens.



You are right. They might actually do unpleasent jobs Americans don't want to do.. GASP!!!


----------



## JoeB131

toobfreak said:


> The WORLD has always envied America, but only the pathetic, deplorable American Left despise their own country and try to hurt and obstruct it at every turn to be more like the very countries we fought and died for to be different and get away from! The American Left, to the body of America what the appendix is to our bodies!



Yeah, guy, the reason why you enjoy a middle class lifestyle is because of the American Left.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Oh, well that settles it. You knew one guy........
> 
> Let me tell you, when getting loaded or unloaded at a busy company, we drivers often have BS sessions. The subject of foreign drivers always makes it to the table. These guys are terrible drivers, dangerous, and irritating to boot. We laugh at how many times we are approached by some stupid foreigner because he doesn't know how to back in a trailer, and is begging for help.
> 
> I have no idea HTF these guys got here or how they passed a CDL test to get their license, but they are here, and they are working for peanuts which is why their employer doesn't care how long it takes them.
> 
> As long as they can pull these people right off the boat and give them work, there is no reason to hire good quality American drivers that understand the Fn language and can drive safely because they can read highway signs.



again, guy, I'm sorry that after 50 years, you've developed no real job skills, and can easily be replaced by a foreigner right off the boat. 

But since "Driving in a straight line" isn't a really complicated skill, that's kind of not my problem. 

Fact is, we've always had immigrant labor in the lower rungs of the job market and always will.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Flopper said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/ Yeah, we see how you libtards take the high road when referencing President Trump. Calling him Hitler and Orange Clown 24/7 is very uplifting. Trouble is, someone hits Trump - he hits back. You prefer the old days when Republicans just rolled over and played dead.
> 
> 
> 
> *I certainly have no objection to a president defending his policies when they are attacked.  In fact, I expect it.
> 
> However, what Trump is doing is launching personal attacks in answer to criticism of his policy and his actions as president.  By not defending his actions and resorting to mean spirited personal attacks he makes himself and the presidency look inept and weak.
> 
> Trump supporters love to see the president fight back because they see it as an act of courage but in reality it's Trump trivializing the presidency.  One of the hardest things for a president is to keep his mouth shut and ignore taunts and focus on what is really important.
> 
> Trump has looked for conflict where it is not, created it where it does not exist. No target is too small, petty or unpresidential.  Where most leaders take to heart Teddy Roosevelt quote, "Speak softly and carry a big stick', Trump seems to be totally oblivious.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's what we love about him.  That's besides the fact that if you leave Trump alone, chances are he'll leave you alone.  Hit Trump, and he hits back only harder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Hitting back and hitting back harder can certainly work in a campaign but it's not the way to win as president.  Sure, it will get the oohs and ahhs of supporters with blood in their eyes for all that oppose their man, but it will work against the president the longer he is office.
> 
> Donald Trump lives by the advice he dispensed in his best-selling business book The Art of the Deal: “Fight Back — always hit back against critics and adversaries, even if it looks bad.” He has run his campaign under the banner of “You hit me, I hit you back twice as hard.” But how well does that work as president?
> 
> Trump's philosophy works quite well when making real estate deals with people he will never have to deal with again and celebrates who he chooses not to work with.  However, the president does not have those options.  The very people he insults today will be the people he has to work with tomorrow.  Does anyone believe John McCain is not going to do everything he can, even from his death bed to get back at Trump, or "Rocket Man", who has an ego as big Trump's and no tolerance for ridicule is not going stab Trump and the US in back at first opportunity.
> 
> Successful political deals depend on all parties walking away feeling they are winners or at least they have won something.  However, that is not the Trump philosophy which explains why he's unable to strike deals with congressional leaders.
> 
> Trump claimed he had an agreement with North Korea, NATO, Canada, France etc when there was no deal at all. Trump is totally out of his depth in negotiating  international political deals because they are never zero sum deals, depend on faith and trust the in the deal maker, and there is a clear understanding how each side benefits.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ How can you declare those deals are dead? Let the man finish negotiating before you pick and choose winners and losers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *He's not negotiating anything because he doesn't understand the issues much less the geopolitical factors, the cultures, and goals of all the players. The Trump roll in negotiations will be exactly what you saw in the NK talks, two heads of state speaking in generalities and making polite overtures, leaving the negotiations to professions who hopefully know what they're doing. *
Click to expand...

/——-/ Enlighten is on what went on behind closed doors. TIA


----------



## Kondor3

Flopper said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want us shooting women and children coming across the border illegally, but...
> 
> Barring that...
> 
> Damned-near anything goes, as an 'acceptable cost', in controlling Illegal Immigration...
> 
> Controlling our own borders and the nature and quantity of the people coming-in, in this Post-Large-Scale-Immigration Age, are existential matters.
> 
> I choose myself, and my family, and my fellow countrymen, and their culture, and their future, over uncontrolled tidal waves of Illegal Aliens trespassing upon our soil.
> 
> 
> 
> *Despite all Trump's praises of how well he's doing catching illegal immigrants at our southern border, the Homeland Security Data tells a different story.
> 
> From October 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 there were 286,290 apprehensions or 429,432 for 12 mos. at the southern border, all well below the apprehensions in Obama's last 4 years in office.
> 2016 563,204
> 2015 444,825
> 2014 569,237
> 2013 489,498
> 
> Considering all the Hoopla about border apprehensions, I was expecting a huge increase but maybe the estimates of decreased illegal crossing are correct.  Trump is sure pushing hard for more arrests but you can't arrest what isn't there.
> Southwest Border Migration FY2018 | U.S. Customs and Border Protection
> Southwest Border Migration FY2017 | U.S. Customs and Border Protection*
Click to expand...

So, apprehensions are down, because Illegal crossings are down?

Great.

Wake us up when we're down to zero.

Meanwhile, even a reduced-number Quarter-Million of these critters is sufficient to warrant our continued focus upon Zero Tolerance for trespassers.


----------



## Kondor3

JoeB131 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Trump's a fraud, alright, and talks out of both sides of his mouth... but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the threat posed by 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are right. They might actually do unpleasent jobs Americans don't want to do.. GASP!!!
Click to expand...

Nope... they've depressed wages in multiple trades and job-categories already and that needs to come to an end.

Heaven forbid, employers be obligated to offer a Living Wage to their worker-bees rather than exploiting Alien Near-Slave Labor.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, well that settles it. You knew one guy........
> 
> Let me tell you, when getting loaded or unloaded at a busy company, we drivers often have BS sessions. The subject of foreign drivers always makes it to the table. These guys are terrible drivers, dangerous, and irritating to boot. We laugh at how many times we are approached by some stupid foreigner because he doesn't know how to back in a trailer, and is begging for help.
> 
> I have no idea HTF these guys got here or how they passed a CDL test to get their license, but they are here, and they are working for peanuts which is why their employer doesn't care how long it takes them.
> 
> As long as they can pull these people right off the boat and give them work, there is no reason to hire good quality American drivers that understand the Fn language and can drive safely because they can read highway signs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, guy, I'm sorry that after 50 years, you've developed no real job skills, and can easily be replaced by a foreigner right off the boat.
> 
> But since "Driving in a straight line" isn't a really complicated skill, that's kind of not my problem.
> 
> Fact is, we've always had immigrant labor in the lower rungs of the job market and always will.
Click to expand...


Driving is a skill which is why you can't find people to do the job any longer.  Some have DUI's, some have too many points, some get into the field but constantly get in accidents or accumulating too many CSA or license points.  It's not something everybody can do (including you) for any length of time.

So these foreigners come here, drive until they run into too many problems, take their American dollars and go back to their own country.  In the meantime it relieves employers from having to pay quality money for quality American drivers. 

I drive more miles in a month than you will in a years time.  But even though I'm ten times more likely to get tickets, fifty times more likely to get into accidents, I'd put my driving record against yours any day of the week.  I know how liberals drive. The worst drivers I see always have their old Obama sticker on their bumper.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want us shooting women and children coming across the border illegally, but...
> 
> Barring that...
> 
> Damned-near anything goes, as an 'acceptable cost', in controlling Illegal Immigration...
> 
> Controlling our own borders and the nature and quantity of the people coming-in, in this Post-Large-Scale-Immigration Age, are existential matters.
> 
> I choose myself, and my family, and my fellow countrymen, and their culture, and their future, over uncontrolled tidal waves of Illegal Aliens trespassing upon our soil.
> 
> 
> 
> *Despite all Trump's praises of how well he's doing catching illegal immigrants at our southern border, the Homeland Security Data tells a different story.
> 
> From October 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 there were 286,290 apprehensions or 429,432 for 12 mos. at the southern border, all well below the apprehensions in Obama's last 4 years in office.
> 2016 563,204
> 2015 444,825
> 2014 569,237
> 2013 489,498
> 
> Considering all the Hoopla about border apprehensions, I was expecting a huge increase but maybe the estimates of decreased illegal crossing are correct.  Trump is sure pushing hard for more arrests but you can't arrest what isn't there.
> Southwest Border Migration FY2018 | U.S. Customs and Border Protection
> Southwest Border Migration FY2017 | U.S. Customs and Border Protection*
Click to expand...


And do you know why that is? It's because people are more scared to come here illegally.  This article from a year ago: 

_*Over the last six months the Trump administration has made good on its promise to enhance border security and enforce our immigration laws.  In the first half of 2017, illegal border crossings fell by an estimated 70 percent.*_

Reps. McCaul, Goodlatte: Better border security and immigration enforcement is on the way


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want us shooting women and children coming across the border illegally, but...
> 
> Barring that...
> 
> Damned-near anything goes, as an 'acceptable cost', in controlling Illegal Immigration...
> 
> Controlling our own borders and the nature and quantity of the people coming-in, in this Post-Large-Scale-Immigration Age, are existential matters.
> 
> I choose myself, and my family, and my fellow countrymen, and their culture, and their future, over uncontrolled tidal waves of Illegal Aliens trespassing upon our soil.
> 
> 
> 
> *Despite all Trump's praises of how well he's doing catching illegal immigrants at our southern border, the Homeland Security Data tells a different story.
> 
> From October 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 there were 286,290 apprehensions or 429,432 for 12 mos. at the southern border, all well below the apprehensions in Obama's last 4 years in office.
> 2016 563,204
> 2015 444,825
> 2014 569,237
> 2013 489,498
> 
> Considering all the Hoopla about border apprehensions, I was expecting a huge increase but maybe the estimates of decreased illegal crossing are correct.  Trump is sure pushing hard for more arrests but you can't arrest what isn't there.
> Southwest Border Migration FY2018 | U.S. Customs and Border Protection
> Southwest Border Migration FY2017 | U.S. Customs and Border Protection*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And do you know why that is? It's because people are more scared to come here illegally.  This article from a year ago:
> 
> _*Over the last six months the Trump administration has made good on its promise to enhance border security and enforce our immigration laws.  In the first half of 2017, illegal border crossings fell by an estimated 70 percent.*_
> 
> Reps. McCaul, Goodlatte: Better border security and immigration enforcement is on the way
Click to expand...

*The only problem with your argument is illegal immigration started going down long before Trump became president.  Illegal immigration has been falling since 2000 when illegal crossings were at 1.6 million. 2017 was  the lowest year for illegal border crossing in 43 years.

Greatly enhanced border security that started in 90's but really got going after 911 and has continued to improve to this day has been a primary reason.







A growing shortage of workers in Mexico coupled with higher wages makes illegal border crossings much less attractive.

The problem Trump has is that illegal immigration at the southern border is being feed by illegals crossing the Mexico's southern border.  In the past, Mexico welcomed those migrants because they brought money into the economy of southern Mexico.  Today they come in ever increasing number with little money and no intention of leaving.  About half of the them head tor the US border.  The rest remain in southern Mexico causing problem.  It's only going to be a question of time before Mexico's new president puts an end to the open southern border.  When that happens, illegal immigration will be a trickle and you can kiss Trump's big beautiful wall goodbye.    *


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want us shooting women and children coming across the border illegally, but...
> 
> Barring that...
> 
> Damned-near anything goes, as an 'acceptable cost', in controlling Illegal Immigration...
> 
> Controlling our own borders and the nature and quantity of the people coming-in, in this Post-Large-Scale-Immigration Age, are existential matters.
> 
> I choose myself, and my family, and my fellow countrymen, and their culture, and their future, over uncontrolled tidal waves of Illegal Aliens trespassing upon our soil.
> 
> 
> 
> *Despite all Trump's praises of how well he's doing catching illegal immigrants at our southern border, the Homeland Security Data tells a different story.
> 
> From October 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 there were 286,290 apprehensions or 429,432 for 12 mos. at the southern border, all well below the apprehensions in Obama's last 4 years in office.
> 2016 563,204
> 2015 444,825
> 2014 569,237
> 2013 489,498
> 
> Considering all the Hoopla about border apprehensions, I was expecting a huge increase but maybe the estimates of decreased illegal crossing are correct.  Trump is sure pushing hard for more arrests but you can't arrest what isn't there.
> Southwest Border Migration FY2018 | U.S. Customs and Border Protection
> Southwest Border Migration FY2017 | U.S. Customs and Border Protection*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And do you know why that is? It's because people are more scared to come here illegally.  This article from a year ago:
> 
> _*Over the last six months the Trump administration has made good on its promise to enhance border security and enforce our immigration laws.  In the first half of 2017, illegal border crossings fell by an estimated 70 percent.*_
> 
> Reps. McCaul, Goodlatte: Better border security and immigration enforcement is on the way
Click to expand...

*Increasing border security is a good thing but there's  an interesting problem that occurs with increased security.  The more security you put on the border, the fewer people enter but also fewer people leave.  The increased security has made it more dangerous for people to leave by going through border crossing or crossing illegally so they stay much longer.  There was a time when people would come across the border for a few weeks to work in the fields and return home.  Today when they come, they stay.   *


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want us shooting women and children coming across the border illegally, but...
> 
> Barring that...
> 
> Damned-near anything goes, as an 'acceptable cost', in controlling Illegal Immigration...
> 
> Controlling our own borders and the nature and quantity of the people coming-in, in this Post-Large-Scale-Immigration Age, are existential matters.
> 
> I choose myself, and my family, and my fellow countrymen, and their culture, and their future, over uncontrolled tidal waves of Illegal Aliens trespassing upon our soil.
> 
> 
> 
> *Despite all Trump's praises of how well he's doing catching illegal immigrants at our southern border, the Homeland Security Data tells a different story.
> 
> From October 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 there were 286,290 apprehensions or 429,432 for 12 mos. at the southern border, all well below the apprehensions in Obama's last 4 years in office.
> 2016 563,204
> 2015 444,825
> 2014 569,237
> 2013 489,498
> 
> Considering all the Hoopla about border apprehensions, I was expecting a huge increase but maybe the estimates of decreased illegal crossing are correct.  Trump is sure pushing hard for more arrests but you can't arrest what isn't there.
> Southwest Border Migration FY2018 | U.S. Customs and Border Protection
> Southwest Border Migration FY2017 | U.S. Customs and Border Protection*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And do you know why that is? It's because people are more scared to come here illegally.  This article from a year ago:
> 
> _*Over the last six months the Trump administration has made good on its promise to enhance border security and enforce our immigration laws.  In the first half of 2017, illegal border crossings fell by an estimated 70 percent.*_
> 
> Reps. McCaul, Goodlatte: Better border security and immigration enforcement is on the way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The only problem with your argument is illegal immigration started going down long before Trump became president.  Illegal immigration has been falling since 2000 when illegal crossings were at 1.6 million. 2017 was  the lowest year for illegal border crossing in 43 years.
> 
> Greatly enhanced border security that started in 90's but really got going after 911 and has continued to improve to this day has been a primary reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A growing shortage of workers in Mexico coupled with higher wages makes illegal border crossings much less attractive.
> 
> The problem Trump has is that illegal immigration at the southern border is being feed by illegals crossing the Mexico's southern border.  In the past, Mexico welcomed those migrants because they brought money into the economy of southern Mexico.  Today they come in ever increasing number with little money and no intention of leaving.  About half of the them head tor the US border.  The rest remain in southern Mexico causing problem.  It's only going to be a question of time before Mexico's new president puts an end to the open southern border.  When that happens, illegal immigration will be a trickle and you can kiss Trump's big beautiful wall goodbye.    *
Click to expand...


Border arrests are not exactly proportional to border crossings.  As Fox reported, there has been a 70% decrease in crossings--not arrests.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want us shooting women and children coming across the border illegally, but...
> 
> Barring that...
> 
> Damned-near anything goes, as an 'acceptable cost', in controlling Illegal Immigration...
> 
> Controlling our own borders and the nature and quantity of the people coming-in, in this Post-Large-Scale-Immigration Age, are existential matters.
> 
> I choose myself, and my family, and my fellow countrymen, and their culture, and their future, over uncontrolled tidal waves of Illegal Aliens trespassing upon our soil.
> 
> 
> 
> *Despite all Trump's praises of how well he's doing catching illegal immigrants at our southern border, the Homeland Security Data tells a different story.
> 
> From October 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 there were 286,290 apprehensions or 429,432 for 12 mos. at the southern border, all well below the apprehensions in Obama's last 4 years in office.
> 2016 563,204
> 2015 444,825
> 2014 569,237
> 2013 489,498
> 
> Considering all the Hoopla about border apprehensions, I was expecting a huge increase but maybe the estimates of decreased illegal crossing are correct.  Trump is sure pushing hard for more arrests but you can't arrest what isn't there.
> Southwest Border Migration FY2018 | U.S. Customs and Border Protection
> Southwest Border Migration FY2017 | U.S. Customs and Border Protection*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And do you know why that is? It's because people are more scared to come here illegally.  This article from a year ago:
> 
> _*Over the last six months the Trump administration has made good on its promise to enhance border security and enforce our immigration laws.  In the first half of 2017, illegal border crossings fell by an estimated 70 percent.*_
> 
> Reps. McCaul, Goodlatte: Better border security and immigration enforcement is on the way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Increasing border security is a good thing but there's  an interesting problem that occurs with increased security.  The more security you put on the border, the fewer people enter but also fewer people leave.  The increased security has made it more dangerous for people to leave by going through border crossing or crossing illegally so they stay much longer.  There was a time when people would come across the border for a few weeks to work in the fields and return home.  Today when they come, they stay.   *
Click to expand...



Riddle me this: 

So somebody successfully comes here illegally by whatever means.  Now they are here, but for some reason, can't use the same system to return to Mexico.  

So what happens to an illegal who just goes over customs and is a Mexican or CA citizen even though here illegally?  What do they do, tell them to remain in the US illegally?  Arrest them and have the US imprison them?  After all, we don't do that here.  We cater to them. We have sanctuary cities, we give them drivers licenses, our banks gives them loans and our landlords give them rent, their children freely attend our schools, they have anchor babies.  But because they are trying to return home, now they are in trouble?  

Your claim here holds no water.


----------



## JoeB131

Kondor3 said:


> Nope... they've depressed wages in multiple trades and job-categories already and that needs to come to an end.
> 
> Heaven forbid, employers be obligated to offer a Living Wage to their worker-bees rather than exploiting Alien Near-Slave Labor.



Maybe you need to talk to the white folks who hire the Hispanic Nanny who is just like a member of the family or the guy who picks up a truckload of Day Laborers at the Home Depot when his DIY project turns out to be harder than HGTV made it look. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Driving is a skill which is why you can't find people to do the job any longer. Some have DUI's, some have too many points, some get into the field but constantly get in accidents or accumulating too many CSA or license points. It's not something everybody can do (including you) for any length of time.
> 
> So these foreigners come here, drive until they run into too many problems, take their American dollars and go back to their own country. In the meantime it relieves employers from having to pay quality money for quality American drivers.



so essentially, they can easily replace you. Got it.  

Too bad you didn't get a skill that can't be easily replaced.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> so essentially, they can easily replace you. Got it.
> 
> Too bad you didn't get a skill that can't be easily replaced.



Yeah, a skill, like writing resumes?  

You're a laugh a minute Joe.  The truth is they are in all kinds of manual labor including construction doing work union guys used to do for five times the wage because they were considered skilled workers.  The ones that come here legally would make your way of living look like child's play because they do have the education you don't.

But keep ragging on truck drivers.  We know how anti-worker you leftists are along with your party.  It's why your party keeps sinking further and further in the hole and how we took over.  We WORKING Americans have come to realize that the Democrat party is about destroying the American worker.  Oh, and next time you go grocery shopping, don't forget to thank one of us truck drivers for bringing in all those goodies you're buying, because without us, you would Fn starve to death.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yeah, a skill, like writing resumes?



Something you could benefit from, given you are in an awful job and can't get a better one with 3.9% unemployment... 

You could start by not writing one in crayon, that helps.  

But the fact that an immigrant can get a job in your field, with no problem, tells me it isn't that complicated of a skill. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> You're a laugh a minute Joe. The truth is they are in all kinds of manual labor including construction doing work union guys used to do for five times the wage because they were considered skilled workers. The ones that come here legally would make your way of living look like child's play because they do have the education you don't.



And that's the problem, dummy. Who destroyed the unions? It wasn't "immigrants", it was big corporations passing "right to work" laws and "at will" employment. and you clowns keep voting for more. 








Ray From Cleveland said:


> But keep ragging on truck drivers. We know how anti-worker you leftists are along with your party. It's why your party keeps sinking further and further in the hole and how we took over. We WORKING Americans have come to realize that the Democrat party is about destroying the American worker. Oh, and next time you go grocery shopping, don't forget to thank one of us truck drivers for bringing in all those goodies you're buying, because without us, you would Fn starve to death.



Guy, most truck drivers are okay guys... in fact, I've done resumes for a few of them and they got better jobs.   Funny how that works. 

The thing is, other working folks who weren't born here aren't your enemy, it's the rich guys who keep taking away your rights that your grandfathers all risked life and limb to win on picket lines and strikes.  and yet you run down the unions guys and call them lazy, and claim to be a friend to the worker supporting a Billionaire who hired illegal aliens instead of union guys.  

Got it.


----------



## Kondor3

JoeB131 said:


> ...Maybe you need to talk to the white folks who hire the Hispanic Nanny...


Yep... they do, indeed, need to be 'talked to', at-law.



> ...who is just like a member of the family...


Yep... sing me another chorus of 'Mammy', eh?

Dee House Nigra Mammies (and Mamacitas) be jus' lake fambly an' gits all dee breaks and dasn't haffta stay in dee fiels wiff dee resta dee hans.



> ...or the guy who picks up a truckload of Day Laborers at the Home Depot when his DIY project turns out to be harder than HGTV made it look...


Yep... he does, indeed, need to be 'talked to', at-law. Along with the Home Depot manager who knowingly allows Illegal Aliens to gather on premises that he manages.



> ...Too bad you didn't get a skill that can't be easily replaced.


The Ruling-Elitist Mindset that lost the November 8, 2016 general election for the Democrats... honest-to-Christ, you jokers just don't get it, do you?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Cellblock2429 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump said over and over, "I wanted to do this for myself", not for the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And he said not for the nation?  Have a link to that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"not for the nation" was my comment.  I doubt you will find any comment from Trump indicating that his reason for running for president was anything other than he was doing it for himself just like everything he has ever done.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ He didn’t need to run for president for his own ego. He had power and money. Everything he has done as president has been to make America great. And your pathetic attempt to separate Trump from his supporters is a gigantic fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What Donald Trump sought was power to command the media, to be regarded as the most powerful man in the world, a man no one could snub without consequences. Becoming president was the ultimate revenge upon anyone who had disparaged him or ridiculed him.  When Donald Trump spoke, the world would listen.  As president, he would always have the last word so he would never have to endure the ridicule Obama dumped on him in 2011.*
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——— That is only your opinion. The only way you can sleep at night is to convince yourself that Trumps motives are purely self serving. I could create the same narrative about Obozo and Hildabeast.
Click to expand...


Hate to break it to people, but as long as the country runs properly and moves in the right direction, I'm not overly concerned about the President's personal motivations.  I'm his constituent, not his psychiatrist or his minister.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want us shooting women and children coming across the border illegally, but...
> 
> Barring that...
> 
> Damned-near anything goes, as an 'acceptable cost', in controlling Illegal Immigration...
> 
> Controlling our own borders and the nature and quantity of the people coming-in, in this Post-Large-Scale-Immigration Age, are existential matters.
> 
> I choose myself, and my family, and my fellow countrymen, and their culture, and their future, over uncontrolled tidal waves of Illegal Aliens trespassing upon our soil.
> 
> 
> 
> *Despite all Trump's praises of how well he's doing catching illegal immigrants at our southern border, the Homeland Security Data tells a different story.
> 
> From October 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 there were 286,290 apprehensions or 429,432 for 12 mos. at the southern border, all well below the apprehensions in Obama's last 4 years in office.
> 2016 563,204
> 2015 444,825
> 2014 569,237
> 2013 489,498
> 
> Considering all the Hoopla about border apprehensions, I was expecting a huge increase but maybe the estimates of decreased illegal crossing are correct.  Trump is sure pushing hard for more arrests but you can't arrest what isn't there.
> Southwest Border Migration FY2018 | U.S. Customs and Border Protection
> Southwest Border Migration FY2017 | U.S. Customs and Border Protection*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And do you know why that is? It's because people are more scared to come here illegally.  This article from a year ago:
> 
> _*Over the last six months the Trump administration has made good on its promise to enhance border security and enforce our immigration laws.  In the first half of 2017, illegal border crossings fell by an estimated 70 percent.*_
> 
> Reps. McCaul, Goodlatte: Better border security and immigration enforcement is on the way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The only problem with your argument is illegal immigration started going down long before Trump became president.  Illegal immigration has been falling since 2000 when illegal crossings were at 1.6 million. 2017 was  the lowest year for illegal border crossing in 43 years.
> 
> Greatly enhanced border security that started in 90's but really got going after 911 and has continued to improve to this day has been a primary reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A growing shortage of workers in Mexico coupled with higher wages makes illegal border crossings much less attractive.
> 
> The problem Trump has is that illegal immigration at the southern border is being feed by illegals crossing the Mexico's southern border.  In the past, Mexico welcomed those migrants because they brought money into the economy of southern Mexico.  Today they come in ever increasing number with little money and no intention of leaving.  About half of the them head tor the US border.  The rest remain in southern Mexico causing problem.  It's only going to be a question of time before Mexico's new president puts an end to the open southern border.  When that happens, illegal immigration will be a trickle and you can kiss Trump's big beautiful wall goodbye.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border arrests are not exactly proportional to border crossings.  As Fox reported, there has been a 70% decrease in crossings--not arrests.
Click to expand...

*I think it's being a bit naive to believe the number of arrests are not related to the number of crimes.  A reduction in arrests from 1.6 million to 300,000 certainly points to a lot less people crossing, particular since the border security has increased significantly during the period.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Something you could benefit from, given you are in an awful job and can't get a better one with 3.9% unemployment...
> 
> You could start by not writing one in crayon, that helps.
> 
> But the fact that an immigrant can get a job in your field, with no problem, tells me it isn't that complicated of a skill.



A high school kid can do your job.  He can't do mine.  The problem is these illegals can't do my job either; and least not in any safe way.  More and more companies are creating regulations that the driver must remain inside while getting unloaded.  Why was it not like that years ago?  Because we didn't have a rash of Fn foreigners driving away from the dock while still getting unloaded.  People have gotten severely maimed, disabled for life, or killed because these stupid MF's are too lazy to get out of the truck to make sure nobody is still going on it.  These people have the IQ of a liberal and total lack of common sense.

So no, they can't do my job, at least for any length of time.  Like I said, when they get into trouble, back over the border or back on the ship they go. 



JoeB131 said:


> And that's the problem, dummy. Who destroyed the unions? It wasn't "immigrants", it was big corporations passing "right to work" laws and "at will" employment. and you clowns keep voting for more.



Who destroyed the unions?  The unions destroyed themselves.  They made it impractical for a business to continue.  They virtually took over companies telling them how to run their business from who gets hired to who gets fired.  In between, they told the companies who they are going to promote because unions promoted idiots to a next level of production based on how long they've been in the union instead of who is the most capable of handling the more complicated jobs. 

This was especially true of the UAW.  They were the worst.  People that thought they had so much power they didn't give a rats ass how bad of a job they were doing.  The union says as long as you're moving and breathing, nobody could fire you. 

That's why unions disappeared.



JoeB131 said:


> Guy, most truck drivers are okay guys... in fact, I've done resumes for a few of them and they got better jobs. Funny how that works.
> 
> The thing is, other working folks who weren't born here aren't your enemy, it's the rich guys who keep taking away your rights that your grandfathers all risked life and limb to win on picket lines and strikes. and yet you run down the unions guys and call them lazy, and claim to be a friend to the worker supporting a Billionaire who hired illegal aliens instead of union guys.
> 
> Got it.



They are all at fault but you refuse to come to terms with that.  Your wealth envy and jealousy leaves you too myopic to understand the entire situation.  So yes, when people come here taking American jobs, they are my enemy, and they should be an enemy to any real working American.


----------



## JoeB131

Kondor3 said:


> The Ruling-Elitist Mindset that lost the November 8, 2016 general election for the Democrats... honest-to-Christ, you jokers just don't get it, do you?



Naw, man, we just realize that Russians can't stop stealing elections for you forever...  YOu guys are done, starting in NOvember.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> A high school kid can do your job. He can't do mine.



Sure he can... it's one of the few jobs you can get these days without college.
I actually had a whole elaborate refutation to Ray, but that's off topic, so i'm not going to bother.  

Point is, the immigrant isn't your enemy.  If you can't keep your personal brand valuable where some guy off the boat replaces you, then that's on you, man.


----------



## Kondor3

JoeB131 said:


> ...Point is, the immigrant isn't your enemy...


Depends.

For Legal Immigrants, you're right... they are not 'enemies'.

For Illegal Aliens, you're dead wrong... they are, indeed, the enemy; an economic and political enemy.



> ...If you can't keep your personal brand valuable where some guy off the boat replaces you, then that's on you, man.


No, it's about higher labor marketplace saturation and lowered compensation rates triggered by a tidal wave of Illegal Aliens.

It's about watching out for the American Working Man (and Woman), not those here Illegally.

Imagine just how despised the Democratic Party has become, to lose White Straight Christian Blue-Collar America; their historical mainstay.


----------



## JoeB131

Kondor3 said:


> Depends.
> 
> For Legal Immigrants, you're right... they are not 'enemies'.
> 
> For Illegal Aliens, you're dead wrong... they are, indeed, the enemy; an economic and political enemy.



Ray wants to end all immigration, not just undocumented immigration. 



Kondor3 said:


> No, it's about higher labor marketplace saturation and lowered compensation rates triggered by a tidal wave of Illegal Aliens.
> 
> It's about watching out for the American Working Man (and Woman), not those here Illegally.



again, the average working man doesn't want to do the jobs that undocumented workers want to do.  



Kondor3 said:


> Imagine just how despised the Democratic Party has become, to lose White Straight Christian Blue-Collar America; their historical mainstay.



I think you are a little confused here, buddy.  The last time the Democrats won a majority of White People was 1964.  

The GOP and their corporate owners have done a very, very good job of appealing to your racism, as well as your sexual and religious fears to get you to keep voting against your own economic interests.  Which is why the GOP won every election between 1968 and 1988.  It's also why during that period, the White Working middle class got ABSOLUTELY GUTTED by union busting, right to work, at-will employment... as well as the inevitable gravity of automation and globalization, which everyone in the world has had to deal with. 

But then after 1992, enough minorities and right minded white folks had it with the GOP, and if we actually, you know, let the people pick presidents instead of corporations, they won every presidential election after 1992 despite the rich pouring tons of money into clowns like Bush and Trump.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> But then after 1992, enough minorities and right minded white folks had it with the GOP, and if we actually, you know, let the people pick presidents instead of corporations, they won every presidential election after 1992 despite the rich pouring tons of money into clowns like Bush and Trump.



If money is what wins elections, why isn't Hil-Liar President now?  She outspent Trump three to one. 

I don't know if you noticed this or not, but the GOP owns the Senate, owns the Congress, owns the White House, and owns 2/3 of the Governorships across the country. 

The momentum seems to be on our side--not yours.  Why?  Because we had a helping of Socialism, and it left a bad taste in our mouths.  Under Ears, we were fined for not complying with government demands, our children were forced to eat food they didn't want to eat, our daughters in school were in fear that weirdos in dresses would be able to invade their space in bathrooms and showers.  

No Thank You said America.  We said we want a wall, immigration control, and normal people running the country instead of every kind of new flake the Democrats come up with.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> A high school kid can do your job. He can't do mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure he can... it's one of the few jobs you can get these days without college.
> I actually had a whole elaborate refutation to Ray, but that's off topic, so i'm not going to bother.
> 
> Point is, the immigrant isn't your enemy.  If you can't keep your personal brand valuable where some guy off the boat replaces you, then that's on you, man.
Click to expand...


Yes, it is on me, and as an American, I'm going to fight and support any politician that's going to keep lowlifes from other countries taking our jobs, lowering our pay scale, changing our language and culture.  I'm going to do whatever I can to secure our country from the invaders.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want us shooting women and children coming across the border illegally, but...
> 
> Barring that...
> 
> Damned-near anything goes, as an 'acceptable cost', in controlling Illegal Immigration...
> 
> Controlling our own borders and the nature and quantity of the people coming-in, in this Post-Large-Scale-Immigration Age, are existential matters.
> 
> I choose myself, and my family, and my fellow countrymen, and their culture, and their future, over uncontrolled tidal waves of Illegal Aliens trespassing upon our soil.
> 
> 
> 
> *Despite all Trump's praises of how well he's doing catching illegal immigrants at our southern border, the Homeland Security Data tells a different story.
> 
> From October 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 there were 286,290 apprehensions or 429,432 for 12 mos. at the southern border, all well below the apprehensions in Obama's last 4 years in office.
> 2016 563,204
> 2015 444,825
> 2014 569,237
> 2013 489,498
> 
> Considering all the Hoopla about border apprehensions, I was expecting a huge increase but maybe the estimates of decreased illegal crossing are correct.  Trump is sure pushing hard for more arrests but you can't arrest what isn't there.
> Southwest Border Migration FY2018 | U.S. Customs and Border Protection
> Southwest Border Migration FY2017 | U.S. Customs and Border Protection*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And do you know why that is? It's because people are more scared to come here illegally.  This article from a year ago:
> 
> _*Over the last six months the Trump administration has made good on its promise to enhance border security and enforce our immigration laws.  In the first half of 2017, illegal border crossings fell by an estimated 70 percent.*_
> 
> Reps. McCaul, Goodlatte: Better border security and immigration enforcement is on the way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The only problem with your argument is illegal immigration started going down long before Trump became president.  Illegal immigration has been falling since 2000 when illegal crossings were at 1.6 million. 2017 was  the lowest year for illegal border crossing in 43 years.
> 
> Greatly enhanced border security that started in 90's but really got going after 911 and has continued to improve to this day has been a primary reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A growing shortage of workers in Mexico coupled with higher wages makes illegal border crossings much less attractive.
> 
> The problem Trump has is that illegal immigration at the southern border is being feed by illegals crossing the Mexico's southern border.  In the past, Mexico welcomed those migrants because they brought money into the economy of southern Mexico.  Today they come in ever increasing number with little money and no intention of leaving.  About half of the them head tor the US border.  The rest remain in southern Mexico causing problem.  It's only going to be a question of time before Mexico's new president puts an end to the open southern border.  When that happens, illegal immigration will be a trickle and you can kiss Trump's big beautiful wall goodbye.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border arrests are not exactly proportional to border crossings.  As Fox reported, there has been a 70% decrease in crossings--not arrests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I think it's being a bit naive to believe the number of arrests are not related to the number of crimes.  A reduction in arrests from 1.6 million to 300,000 certainly points to a lot less people crossing, particular since the border security has increased significantly during the period.*
Click to expand...


You don't get arrested just for committing crimes.  If you are caught here crossing our border illegally, they arrest you.  So lower arrests means less people crossing our borders.  Trump is doing a kick ass job at that along with giving invaders something to fear.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> If money is what wins elections, why isn't Hil-Liar President now? She outspent Trump three to one.



um, no, she didn't... but you do go on with your myths. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> I don't know if you noticed this or not, but the GOP owns the Senate, owns the Congress, owns the White House, and owns 2/3 of the Governorships across the country.



Not for long... 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> The momentum seems to be on our side--not yours.



No, it isn't.  You guys haven't won a national popular vote since 1988 without scaring the shit out of people. You use Gerrymandering and voter suppression and all sorts of other stuff, and you STILL have to get the Russians to rig elections for you. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes, it is on me, and as an American, I'm going to fight and support any politician that's going to keep lowlifes from other countries taking our jobs, lowering our pay scale, changing our language and culture. I'm going to do whatever I can to secure our country from the invaders.



again, the Rich have used useful idiots like you throughout history... 150 years ago it was the Irish, 100 years ago the Germans and 50 years ago the Poles... and you really couldn't keep them out.  

Because the Rich who get you all upset and looking for scapegoats are the ones who invited them in to take the jobs you think are beneath you.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> No, it isn't. You guys haven't won a national popular vote since 1988 without scaring the shit out of people. You use Gerrymandering and voter suppression and all sorts of other stuff, and you STILL have to get the Russians to rig elections for you.



The Democrats love people like you.  Just feed people like you a load of BS and you'll believe anything.  You are too blind to understand that the Democrats need to keep telling you that liberals are the future, it's just that Republicans always find a way to cheat somehow, even in Democrat owned states and districts.

Of course this has been going on for about 30 years or more.  So when DumBama won, it was told by the left Democrats fixed all the problems that allowed us to cheat the elections, and you probably believed that too. 

But I guess that's okay because you and your ilk would be suicidal if you ever learned the truth which is conservatism is far from dead.  It's spreading because conservatism is pragmatic and not theatrical like you are used to with your party. 



JoeB131 said:


> again, the Rich have used useful idiots like you throughout history... 150 years ago it was the Irish, 100 years ago the Germans and 50 years ago the Poles... and you really couldn't keep them out.
> 
> Because the Rich who get you all upset and looking for scapegoats are the ones who invited them in to take the jobs you think are beneath you.



The rich can't hire people that are not here.  They must hire people who are here.  The rich are the angels compared to your filthy power hungry Democrat party that's selling out our country.  But that's how brainwashing works with weak minds _"Rich people are bad, illegals are good"_ and they keep repeating it over and over again turning you into zombies one by one.  You can't explain or debate it, only repeat what you are programmed to repeat.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The Democrats love people like you. Just feed people like you a load of BS and you'll believe anything. You are too blind to understand that the Democrats need to keep telling you that liberals are the future, it's just that Republicans always find a way to cheat somehow, even in Democrat owned states and districts.



Quite the contrary, you guys keep pushing for laws to make it harder for people of color to vote and have done so since the 1960's... 

Yet every year, you guys get less and less and the capitalists take more and more, and you keep voting or more of that shit. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Of course this has been going on for about 30 years or more. So when DumBama won, it was told by the left Democrats fixed all the problems that allowed us to cheat the elections, and you probably believed that too.



Oh, I don't believe that for a minute. The only reason why Obama won was because Bush fucked up everything so badly that all the cheating in the world couldn't save the GOP in 2008, but you guys went right back to the same nonsense. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> But I guess that's okay because you and your ilk would be suicidal if you ever learned the truth which is conservatism is far from dead. It's spreading because conservatism is pragmatic and not theatrical like you are used to with your party.



Actually, conservatism died the minute you guys elected Trump. There is no GOP, there is no Conservative Movement... there is only the "Cult of Trump"... and you are happily drinking the Koolaid as you abandon every principle you ever claimed to have. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> The rich can't hire people that are not here. They must hire people who are here. .



This is where you are deluded... 

When was the last time you applied for a lettuce picking job? Or a toilet cleaning job?  The reason why illegals are here taking these jobs is because white people don't want to do them.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> The rich are the angels compared to your filthy power hungry Democrat party that's selling out our country. But that's how brainwashing works with weak minds _"Rich people are bad, illegals are good"_ and they keep repeating it over and over again turning you into zombies one by one. You can't explain or debate it, only repeat what you are programmed to repeat.



Naw, man, brainwashing is how the rich get you to hate people of color who are pretty much in the same boat you are in.  when that rich person would burn you in a heartbeat to put an extra zero on a profit check.  

Of course, given you haven't learned a new job skill in 30 years, and keep bending over for a boss who cancelled your insurance, that's probably easier for you than taking responsibility for your own life and doing something about it.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then after 1992, enough minorities and right minded white folks had it with the GOP, and if we actually, you know, let the people pick presidents instead of corporations, they won every presidential election after 1992 despite the rich pouring tons of money into clowns like Bush and Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If money is what wins elections, why isn't Hil-Liar President now?  She outspent Trump three to one.
> 
> I don't know if you noticed this or not, but the GOP owns the Senate, owns the Congress, owns the White House, and owns 2/3 of the Governorships across the country.
> 
> The momentum seems to be on our side--not yours.  Why?  Because we had a helping of Socialism, and it left a bad taste in our mouths.  Under Ears, we were fined for not complying with government demands, our children were forced to eat food they didn't want to eat, our daughters in school were in fear that weirdos in dresses would be able to invade their space in bathrooms and showers.
> 
> No Thank You said America.  We said we want a wall, immigration control, and normal people running the country instead of every kind of new flake the Democrats come up with.
Click to expand...

*And in spite of owning the House, Senate, Presidency, and most of the governorships, they can't get shit done.  After nearly two years of total control of government in Washington, there still is no funds to build the wall, Obamacare hasn't been overturned as promised, most of the people don't approve of the president, there is no middle class tax cut, no immigration bill, no progress on infrastructure spending, no plan to deal with the opioid crisis, a trade war and no new trade agreements, and now the president is planning on shutting down the government.  *


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then after 1992, enough minorities and right minded white folks had it with the GOP, and if we actually, you know, let the people pick presidents instead of corporations, they won every presidential election after 1992 despite the rich pouring tons of money into clowns like Bush and Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If money is what wins elections, why isn't Hil-Liar President now?  She outspent Trump three to one.
> 
> I don't know if you noticed this or not, but the GOP owns the Senate, owns the Congress, owns the White House, and owns 2/3 of the Governorships across the country.
> 
> The momentum seems to be on our side--not yours.  Why?  Because we had a helping of Socialism, and it left a bad taste in our mouths.  Under Ears, we were fined for not complying with government demands, our children were forced to eat food they didn't want to eat, our daughters in school were in fear that weirdos in dresses would be able to invade their space in bathrooms and showers.
> 
> No Thank You said America.  We said we want a wall, immigration control, and normal people running the country instead of every kind of new flake the Democrats come up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And in spite of owning the House, Senate, Presidency, and most of the governorships, they can't get shit done.  After nearly two years of total control of government in Washington, there still is no funds to build the wall, Obamacare hasn't been overturned as promised, most of the people don't approve of the president, there is no middle class tax cut, no immigration bill, no progress on infrastructure spending, no plan to deal with the opioid crisis, a trade war and no new trade agreements, and now the president is planning on shutting down the government.  *
Click to expand...


First in your list of complaints you brought up the wall not being funded then later complain about Trump shutting down the government because of the wall? 

I must not be middle-class because I got a tax break and according to my tax preparer, I'm in for a windfall when I file my 2018 returns. 

Commie Care will fizzle on it's own now that we are not being forced to payoff the government for not having policies.  

And no, you really don't have total control over the government unless you have at least 60 people in your party on the Senate since many times it takes 60 votes to get something passed.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Quite the contrary, you guys keep pushing for laws to make it harder for people of color to vote and have done so since the 1960's...
> 
> Yet every year, you guys get less and less and the capitalists take more and more, and you keep voting or more of that shit.



Nobody is making it harder to vote for anybody.  We all vote by the same standards and rules.  Again, it's how brainwashing works. Democrats know damn well their constituency has a lot of lazy welfare people in it, and they won't take the time to get an ID because it would require a little effort.  But they can't tell you people that.  Instead, make up some race garbage that doesn't make a lick of sense, and you just stare out into space nodding your head up and down.  



JoeB131 said:


> Oh, I don't believe that for a minute. The only reason why Obama won was because Bush fucked up everything so badly that all the cheating in the world couldn't save the GOP in 2008, but you guys went right back to the same nonsense.



Of course, that must be it.  



JoeB131 said:


> This is where you are deluded...
> 
> When was the last time you applied for a lettuce picking job? Or a toilet cleaning job? The reason why illegals are here taking these jobs is because white people don't want to do them.



White people will do any job for the right money.  But you can't pay them three bucks an hour to do that work; you need illegals to pay that low of a wage.  That's why they're here. 



JoeB131 said:


> Naw, man, brainwashing is how the rich get you to hate people of color who are pretty much in the same boat you are in. when that rich person would burn you in a heartbeat to put an extra zero on a profit check.
> 
> Of course, given you haven't learned a new job skill in 30 years, and keep bending over for a boss who cancelled your insurance, that's probably easier for you than taking responsibility for your own life and doing something about it.



Yeah, like the responsibility you took getting a qualified psychiatrist to treat your mental disorders?


----------



## Coyote

You all can stop pretending Trump is only against illegal immigration. Fuck him and his greedy, corrupt, elitist administration.

Proposed Trump rule change could put millions of legal immigrants at risk of deportation


----------



## danielpalos

...we should be Making money not Losing money.  Every good capitalists knows this.  Only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> You all can stop pretending Trump is only against illegal immigration. Fuck him and his greedy, corrupt, elitist administration.
> 
> Proposed Trump rule change could put millions of legal immigrants at risk of deportation



_*In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.

Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.

A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.

Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).*_

Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children

_*A key part of the Affordable Care Act is Medicaid expansion for those with low incomes.1 A new analysis of government data by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under age 18) have been among the primary beneficiaries of Medicaid growth.2 The data show that immigrants and their children accounted for 42 percent of the growth in Medicaid enrollment from 2011 to 2013. Immigrants benefited more from Medicaid expansion than natives because a much larger share of immigrants are poor and uninsured. It seems almost certain that immigrants and their children will continue to benefit disproportionately from Obamacare, as they remain much more likely than natives to be uninsured or poor.3 The available evidence indicates that Medicaid growth associated with immigrants is largely among those legally in the country.*_

Immigrant Families Benefit  Significantly from Obamacare

So these people come here with no education, nothing to offer the US, and end up on are already exhausted social programs.  You're mad because Trump is trying to do something about it?


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> First in your list of complaints you brought up the wall not being funded then later complain about Trump shutting down the government because of the wall?
> 
> I must not be middle-class because I got a tax break and according to my tax preparer, I'm in for a windfall when I file my 2018 returns.



Hey, Dummy, wait until you file your forms, and find out that your state income tax and property taxes aren't deductable anymore... that will pretty much eat up any tax break you got during the year. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Commie Care will fizzle on it's own now that we are not being forced to payoff the government for not having policies.



Meh, not really.  It just means the useless who are too lazy to buy policies won't be covered.  The people who have access will keep getting it, and the insurance companies can't keep cheating people, but we are getting off topic here. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Nobody is making it harder to vote for anybody. We all vote by the same standards and rules. Again, it's how brainwashing works. Democrats know damn well their constituency has a lot of lazy welfare people in it, and they won't take the time to get an ID because it would require a little effort. But they can't tell you people that. Instead, make up some race garbage that doesn't make a lick of sense, and you just stare out into space nodding your head up and down.



I bet you think you need an ID to buy groceries... The reality of ID Laws is that they are meant to suppress minority votes. 

Nobody cards white people in these states. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> White people will do any job for the right money. But you can't pay them three bucks an hour to do that work; you need illegals to pay that low of a wage. That's why they're here.



Then the simple solution is to impose a living wage of $15.00, no exceptions. Then there would be no impetus to hire illegals, right? 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yeah, like the responsibility you took getting a qualified psychiatrist to treat your mental disorders?



Naw, man, taking responsibility is learning new jobs skills, which is what I've done throughout my career.  So I don't have to do the things i did 30 years ago that i'm really not physically capable of at my age today.


----------



## protectionist

JoeB131 said:


> I bet you think you need an ID to buy groceries... The reality of ID Laws is that they are meant to suppress minority votes.


 So you would oppose having an ID law requiring proof of citizenship ?  To keep aliens from voting ?  Sure you would.     Forget the word "because".  We all know your game.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Hey, Dummy, wait until you file your forms, and find out that your state income tax and property taxes aren't deductable anymore... that will pretty much eat up any tax break you got during the year.



Nope, those restrictions only apply to wealthy people; you know, the people you say we should tax all the time?  Well now that we are, you're still complaining like the rest of your leftist friends.  



JoeB131 said:


> Meh, not really. It just means the useless who are too lazy to buy policies won't be covered. The people who have access will keep getting it, and the insurance companies can't keep cheating people, but we are getting off topic here.



Where do you think Commie Care was getting a good share if it's money from?  That's right, young healthy people.  Now that they don't have to have insurance, they will drop out if they already haven't and it will become unaffordable to everybody instead of just us working middle-class 



JoeB131 said:


> I bet you think you need an ID to buy groceries... The reality of ID Laws is that they are meant to suppress minority votes.
> 
> Nobody cards white people in these states.



You're so FOS I can smell you all the way here in Cleveland.  You need an ID to survive in this country: you need an ID to cash a check, you need an ID to board a plane, you need an ID to rent an apartment or buy a house, you need an ID to purchase tobacco or alcohol products, you need an ID to order a drink at a bar, you need an ID to get a passport to go into Canada.  You need an ID for everything.  

Instead of being told what to think, why don't you try doing it yourself for a change?  



JoeB131 said:


> Then the simple solution is to impose a living wage of $15.00, no exceptions. Then there would be no impetus to hire illegals, right?



Where is 15 bucks an hour a living wage?  Our founders didn't create the federal government to dictate what companies should pay employees.  



JoeB131 said:


> Naw, man, taking responsibility is learning new jobs skills, which is what I've done throughout my career. So I don't have to do the things i did 30 years ago that i'm really not physically capable of at my age today.



Yeah, you've learned so many job skills you sit home and write resumes.  I like what I do for a living.  I like working outside weather conditions be damned.  If that big-eared commie clown didn't ruin things for me and millions of other Americans, my job would still be great.  If his commie followers didn't have so many surrender-first whites in the party, we wouldn't have foreigners taking our jobs and that would increase our pay scale.


----------



## JoeB131

protectionist said:


> So you would oppose having an ID law requiring proof of citizenship ? To keep aliens from voting ? Sure you would.  Forget the word "because". We all know your game.



I'd have no problem with a National ID system, compete with biometrics. 

It's the right that keeps opposing a national ID system. For reasons. 

Voter ID isn't about that. It's about making it harder for people of color who are entitled to vote to do so.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Nope, those restrictions only apply to wealthy people; you know, the people you say we should tax all the time? Well now that we are, you're still complaining like the rest of your leftist friends.



No, they actually don't.  The State Income and Property Tax is no longer deductable on schedule A of the tax form for those us who itemize. My tax guy says he is no longer going to even bother filling out schedule A for most of his clients because they won't qualify anymore. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Where do you think Commie Care was getting a good share if it's money from? That's right, young healthy people. Now that they don't have to have insurance, they will drop out if they already haven't and it will become unaffordable to everybody instead of just us working middle-class



That sounds like a good argument Medicare for All... but you'd never go for that.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Where is 15 bucks an hour a living wage? Our founders didn't create the federal government to dictate what companies should pay employees.



Then don't whine when companies hire undocumented workers to do the shit jobs that don't pay anything. See how that works, buddy? 

either you want the government to umpire the game or you don't. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yeah, you've learned so many job skills you sit home and write resumes.



Yup... And my knowledge of industries allows me to write them effectively, that's the point.  The fact I was able to launch a successful business from nothing says a lot... a business i only started because after Bush fucked up the economy, I had to work my way out of the hole he dug us all into. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> I like what I do for a living.



I'm sure you do... but a young kid can do it better for less, that's the point.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> If that big-eared commie clown didn't ruin things for me and millions of other Americans, my job would still be great.



Um, yeah, the fact you work for a bottom feeder company that can't offer health insurance says a lot right there. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> If his commie followers didn't have so many surrender-first whites in the party, we wouldn't have foreigners taking our jobs and that would increase our pay scale.



Guy, the fact is, your job requires no skills, so no, someone else would take your job in a heartbeat... that's the thing.  Most of them will take it for just a little while while they study to do something else.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all can stop pretending Trump is only against illegal immigration. Fuck him and his greedy, corrupt, elitist administration.
> 
> Proposed Trump rule change could put millions of legal immigrants at risk of deportation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.
> 
> Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.
> 
> A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.
> 
> Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).*_
> 
> Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children
> 
> _*A key part of the Affordable Care Act is Medicaid expansion for those with low incomes.1 A new analysis of government data by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under age 18) have been among the primary beneficiaries of Medicaid growth.2 The data show that immigrants and their children accounted for 42 percent of the growth in Medicaid enrollment from 2011 to 2013. Immigrants benefited more from Medicaid expansion than natives because a much larger share of immigrants are poor and uninsured. It seems almost certain that immigrants and their children will continue to benefit disproportionately from Obamacare, as they remain much more likely than natives to be uninsured or poor.3 The available evidence indicates that Medicaid growth associated with immigrants is largely among those legally in the country.*_
> 
> Immigrant Families Benefit  Significantly from Obamacare
> 
> So these people come here with no education, nothing to offer the US, and end up on are already exhausted social programs.  You're mad because Trump is trying to do something about it?
Click to expand...

*You're guessing again.
In 2016, 30 percent (11.5 million) of the 38.2 million immigrants ages 25 and older had a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 32 percent of U.S.-born adults. Notably, the share of college-educated immigrants was much higher—47 percent—among those who entered the country in the previous five years (between 2012 and 2016). 

And when we look at professions that have been judged critical to the future of the nation, we find 23% of our math and engineer workers are foreign born, 39% of all software engineers 25% of all computer systems analysis, 23% of our physical scientists, and 16% of our health care professionals are all foreign born over twice what it was 25 years ago.
Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States*

Foreign-born STEM Workers in the United States


----------



## Kondor3

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all can stop pretending Trump is only against illegal immigration. Fuck him and his greedy, corrupt, elitist administration.
> 
> Proposed Trump rule change could put millions of legal immigrants at risk of deportation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.
> 
> Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.
> 
> A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.
> 
> Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).*_
> 
> Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children
> 
> _*A key part of the Affordable Care Act is Medicaid expansion for those with low incomes.1 A new analysis of government data by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under age 18) have been among the primary beneficiaries of Medicaid growth.2 The data show that immigrants and their children accounted for 42 percent of the growth in Medicaid enrollment from 2011 to 2013. Immigrants benefited more from Medicaid expansion than natives because a much larger share of immigrants are poor and uninsured. It seems almost certain that immigrants and their children will continue to benefit disproportionately from Obamacare, as they remain much more likely than natives to be uninsured or poor.3 The available evidence indicates that Medicaid growth associated with immigrants is largely among those legally in the country.*_
> 
> Immigrant Families Benefit  Significantly from Obamacare
> 
> So these people come here with no education, nothing to offer the US, and end up on are already exhausted social programs.  You're mad because Trump is trying to do something about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You're guessing again.
> In 2016, 30 percent (11.5 million) of the 38.2 million immigrants ages 25 and older had a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 32 percent of U.S.-born adults. Notably, the share of college-educated immigrants was much higher—47 percent—among those who entered the country in the previous five years (between 2012 and 2016).
> 
> And when we look at professions that have been judged critical to the future of the nation, we find 23% of our math and engineer workers are foreign born, 39% of all software engineers 25% of all computer systems analysis, 23% of our physical scientists, and 16% of our health care professionals are all foreign born over twice what it was 25 years ago.
> Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States*
> 
> Foreign-born STEM Workers in the United States
Click to expand...

It doesn't make any difference.

Our country.

Our rules.

We can set whatever immigration policy we like.

Given that we are now a nation of 330,000,0000...

The era of large-scale immigration to America has come to an end, as must all good things...

From now-on, we're going to be a lot pickier about whom we let in...

Fun-time's over.


----------



## Flopper

Kondor3 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all can stop pretending Trump is only against illegal immigration. Fuck him and his greedy, corrupt, elitist administration.
> 
> Proposed Trump rule change could put millions of legal immigrants at risk of deportation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.
> 
> Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.
> 
> A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.
> 
> Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).*_
> 
> Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children
> 
> _*A key part of the Affordable Care Act is Medicaid expansion for those with low incomes.1 A new analysis of government data by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under age 18) have been among the primary beneficiaries of Medicaid growth.2 The data show that immigrants and their children accounted for 42 percent of the growth in Medicaid enrollment from 2011 to 2013. Immigrants benefited more from Medicaid expansion than natives because a much larger share of immigrants are poor and uninsured. It seems almost certain that immigrants and their children will continue to benefit disproportionately from Obamacare, as they remain much more likely than natives to be uninsured or poor.3 The available evidence indicates that Medicaid growth associated with immigrants is largely among those legally in the country.*_
> 
> Immigrant Families Benefit  Significantly from Obamacare
> 
> So these people come here with no education, nothing to offer the US, and end up on are already exhausted social programs.  You're mad because Trump is trying to do something about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You're guessing again.
> In 2016, 30 percent (11.5 million) of the 38.2 million immigrants ages 25 and older had a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 32 percent of U.S.-born adults. Notably, the share of college-educated immigrants was much higher—47 percent—among those who entered the country in the previous five years (between 2012 and 2016).
> 
> And when we look at professions that have been judged critical to the future of the nation, we find 23% of our math and engineer workers are foreign born, 39% of all software engineers 25% of all computer systems analysis, 23% of our physical scientists, and 16% of our health care professionals are all foreign born over twice what it was 25 years ago.
> Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States*
> 
> Foreign-born STEM Workers in the United States
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't make any difference.
> 
> Our country.
> 
> Our rules.
> 
> We can set whatever immigration policy we like.
> 
> Given that we are now a nation of 330,000,0000...
> 
> The era of large-scale immigration to America has come to an end, as must all good things...
> 
> From now-on, we're going to be a lot pickier about whom we let in...
> 
> Fun-time's over.
Click to expand...

*That seems very unlikely with the number vacant jobs, now about 6 million estimated to grow to 36 million by 2024.  The only way to get those people is through immigration.  If we don't we're going see a lot of business moving oversea. 

What we need to do is change some of the criteria we use in selecting who get's admitted.  For starters, family in the US should not be a guarantee of a work permit, but only a consideration as it is Canada.  America immigration is seen abroad as, we don't need you, we don't want you, so don't come.  We need to actively encourage professional workers in Science, Math, Engineering, and Healthcare to come to the US.  We need to keep the 1 million person/yr quota but we need to issue more temporary work permits and less permanent work permits. We should allow changing temporary permits for permanent permits after 5 years of satisfactory work history.     *


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> America immigration is seen abroad as, we don't need you, we don't want you, so don't come.



About time.  Think they'd get the hint already.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all can stop pretending Trump is only against illegal immigration. Fuck him and his greedy, corrupt, elitist administration.
> 
> Proposed Trump rule change could put millions of legal immigrants at risk of deportation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.
> 
> Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.
> 
> A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.
> 
> Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).*_
> 
> Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children
> 
> _*A key part of the Affordable Care Act is Medicaid expansion for those with low incomes.1 A new analysis of government data by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under age 18) have been among the primary beneficiaries of Medicaid growth.2 The data show that immigrants and their children accounted for 42 percent of the growth in Medicaid enrollment from 2011 to 2013. Immigrants benefited more from Medicaid expansion than natives because a much larger share of immigrants are poor and uninsured. It seems almost certain that immigrants and their children will continue to benefit disproportionately from Obamacare, as they remain much more likely than natives to be uninsured or poor.3 The available evidence indicates that Medicaid growth associated with immigrants is largely among those legally in the country.*_
> 
> Immigrant Families Benefit  Significantly from Obamacare
> 
> So these people come here with no education, nothing to offer the US, and end up on are already exhausted social programs.  You're mad because Trump is trying to do something about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You're guessing again.
> In 2016, 30 percent (11.5 million) of the 38.2 million immigrants ages 25 and older had a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 32 percent of U.S.-born adults. Notably, the share of college-educated immigrants was much higher—47 percent—among those who entered the country in the previous five years (between 2012 and 2016).
> 
> And when we look at professions that have been judged critical to the future of the nation, we find 23% of our math and engineer workers are foreign born, 39% of all software engineers 25% of all computer systems analysis, 23% of our physical scientists, and 16% of our health care professionals are all foreign born over twice what it was 25 years ago.
> Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States*
> 
> Foreign-born STEM Workers in the United States
Click to expand...


So what?  All this tells me is that foreigners are coming here to lower the wages of professionals as well.  That's supposed to be encouraging?


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all can stop pretending Trump is only against illegal immigration. Fuck him and his greedy, corrupt, elitist administration.
> 
> Proposed Trump rule change could put millions of legal immigrants at risk of deportation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.
> 
> Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.
> 
> A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.
> 
> Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).*_
> 
> Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children
> 
> _*A key part of the Affordable Care Act is Medicaid expansion for those with low incomes.1 A new analysis of government data by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under age 18) have been among the primary beneficiaries of Medicaid growth.2 The data show that immigrants and their children accounted for 42 percent of the growth in Medicaid enrollment from 2011 to 2013. Immigrants benefited more from Medicaid expansion than natives because a much larger share of immigrants are poor and uninsured. It seems almost certain that immigrants and their children will continue to benefit disproportionately from Obamacare, as they remain much more likely than natives to be uninsured or poor.3 The available evidence indicates that Medicaid growth associated with immigrants is largely among those legally in the country.*_
> 
> Immigrant Families Benefit  Significantly from Obamacare
> 
> So these people come here with no education, nothing to offer the US, and end up on are already exhausted social programs.  You're mad because Trump is trying to do something about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You're guessing again.
> In 2016, 30 percent (11.5 million) of the 38.2 million immigrants ages 25 and older had a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 32 percent of U.S.-born adults. Notably, the share of college-educated immigrants was much higher—47 percent—among those who entered the country in the previous five years (between 2012 and 2016).
> 
> And when we look at professions that have been judged critical to the future of the nation, we find 23% of our math and engineer workers are foreign born, 39% of all software engineers 25% of all computer systems analysis, 23% of our physical scientists, and 16% of our health care professionals are all foreign born over twice what it was 25 years ago.
> Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States*
> 
> Foreign-born STEM Workers in the United States
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?  All this tells me is that foreigners are coming here to lower the wages of professionals as well.  That's supposed to be encouraging?
Click to expand...

There is no evidence they do.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> No, they actually don't. The State Income and Property Tax is no longer deductable on schedule A of the tax form for those us who itemize. My tax guy says he is no longer going to even bother filling out schedule A for most of his clients because they won't qualify anymore.



Property and state taxes exceeding $10,000.  However if you are paying let's say $13,000, you can still write-off the first $10,000, so it's not that big of a deal.  Secondly, mortgage write-offs are for homes purchased or valued at over 800K.  Again, if you are paying for a home that's worth more, you can still write-off the interest that applies to the first 800K.  



JoeB131 said:


> That sounds like a good argument Medicare for All... but you'd never go for that.



It was estimated that Medicare for all (Sander's plan) would cost 32 trillion for ten years.  That's 3.2 trillion per year,  and our current budget is a little over 4 trillion and we are still running a deficit.  So what you're talking about is doubling our deficit,  so of course I would never go for that.  Plus it gives government the right to control our lives: what we eat, how much we weigh, what kind of medical treatment we are allowed to receive, what kind of medication we are allowed to take, what kind of body fat we are allowed to have, just a litany of things we don't need government controlling.  




JoeB131 said:


> Then don't whine when companies hire undocumented workers to do the shit jobs that don't pay anything. See how that works, buddy?
> 
> either you want the government to umpire the game or you don't.



I want governement to do the job our founders created for it which is to protect Americans.  Stopping scum buckets from entering our country to take our jobs and lower our pay is protecting our country.  Telling employers what they must pay their workers is not the job of the federal government. 



JoeB131 said:


> I'm sure you do... but a young kid can do it better for less, that's the point.



And what are you going to do when they start doing the same to you?  Any idiot can learn how to write a resume by watching a few YouTube videos.  



JoeB131 said:


> Um, yeah, the fact you work for a bottom feeder company that can't offer health insurance says a lot right there.



So does not getting psychiatric help for serious mental problems.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all can stop pretending Trump is only against illegal immigration. Fuck him and his greedy, corrupt, elitist administration.
> 
> Proposed Trump rule change could put millions of legal immigrants at risk of deportation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.
> 
> Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.
> 
> A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.
> 
> Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).*_
> 
> Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children
> 
> _*A key part of the Affordable Care Act is Medicaid expansion for those with low incomes.1 A new analysis of government data by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under age 18) have been among the primary beneficiaries of Medicaid growth.2 The data show that immigrants and their children accounted for 42 percent of the growth in Medicaid enrollment from 2011 to 2013. Immigrants benefited more from Medicaid expansion than natives because a much larger share of immigrants are poor and uninsured. It seems almost certain that immigrants and their children will continue to benefit disproportionately from Obamacare, as they remain much more likely than natives to be uninsured or poor.3 The available evidence indicates that Medicaid growth associated with immigrants is largely among those legally in the country.*_
> 
> Immigrant Families Benefit  Significantly from Obamacare
> 
> So these people come here with no education, nothing to offer the US, and end up on are already exhausted social programs.  You're mad because Trump is trying to do something about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You're guessing again.
> In 2016, 30 percent (11.5 million) of the 38.2 million immigrants ages 25 and older had a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 32 percent of U.S.-born adults. Notably, the share of college-educated immigrants was much higher—47 percent—among those who entered the country in the previous five years (between 2012 and 2016).
> 
> And when we look at professions that have been judged critical to the future of the nation, we find 23% of our math and engineer workers are foreign born, 39% of all software engineers 25% of all computer systems analysis, 23% of our physical scientists, and 16% of our health care professionals are all foreign born over twice what it was 25 years ago.
> Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States*
> 
> Foreign-born STEM Workers in the United States
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?  All this tells me is that foreigners are coming here to lower the wages of professionals as well.  That's supposed to be encouraging?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no evidence they do.
Click to expand...


Absolutely none: 

Insourcing: American Lose Jobs to H-1B Visa Workers | HuffPost


----------



## dblack

They main thing is, we have to stop the invasion. They are crossing the borders in hordes, hell bent on mowing our lawns and picking our fruit for cheap. We need a wall that we can cower behind.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all can stop pretending Trump is only against illegal immigration. Fuck him and his greedy, corrupt, elitist administration.
> 
> Proposed Trump rule change could put millions of legal immigrants at risk of deportation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.
> 
> Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.
> 
> A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.
> 
> Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).*_
> 
> Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children
> 
> _*A key part of the Affordable Care Act is Medicaid expansion for those with low incomes.1 A new analysis of government data by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under age 18) have been among the primary beneficiaries of Medicaid growth.2 The data show that immigrants and their children accounted for 42 percent of the growth in Medicaid enrollment from 2011 to 2013. Immigrants benefited more from Medicaid expansion than natives because a much larger share of immigrants are poor and uninsured. It seems almost certain that immigrants and their children will continue to benefit disproportionately from Obamacare, as they remain much more likely than natives to be uninsured or poor.3 The available evidence indicates that Medicaid growth associated with immigrants is largely among those legally in the country.*_
> 
> Immigrant Families Benefit  Significantly from Obamacare
> 
> So these people come here with no education, nothing to offer the US, and end up on are already exhausted social programs.  You're mad because Trump is trying to do something about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You're guessing again.
> In 2016, 30 percent (11.5 million) of the 38.2 million immigrants ages 25 and older had a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 32 percent of U.S.-born adults. Notably, the share of college-educated immigrants was much higher—47 percent—among those who entered the country in the previous five years (between 2012 and 2016).
> 
> And when we look at professions that have been judged critical to the future of the nation, we find 23% of our math and engineer workers are foreign born, 39% of all software engineers 25% of all computer systems analysis, 23% of our physical scientists, and 16% of our health care professionals are all foreign born over twice what it was 25 years ago.
> Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States*
> 
> Foreign-born STEM Workers in the United States
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?  All this tells me is that foreigners are coming here to lower the wages of professionals as well.  That's supposed to be encouraging?
Click to expand...

*Between now and 2024 we would have a maximum of 6 million additional workers to fill 24 million new jobs. With the labor shortage, there should be no worry about lower wages.   What workers in the US should be worried about is the lack of critical skill workers sending businesses and all their jobs overseas.  *


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all can stop pretending Trump is only against illegal immigration. Fuck him and his greedy, corrupt, elitist administration.
> 
> Proposed Trump rule change could put millions of legal immigrants at risk of deportation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.
> 
> Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.
> 
> A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.
> 
> Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).*_
> 
> Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children
> 
> _*A key part of the Affordable Care Act is Medicaid expansion for those with low incomes.1 A new analysis of government data by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under age 18) have been among the primary beneficiaries of Medicaid growth.2 The data show that immigrants and their children accounted for 42 percent of the growth in Medicaid enrollment from 2011 to 2013. Immigrants benefited more from Medicaid expansion than natives because a much larger share of immigrants are poor and uninsured. It seems almost certain that immigrants and their children will continue to benefit disproportionately from Obamacare, as they remain much more likely than natives to be uninsured or poor.3 The available evidence indicates that Medicaid growth associated with immigrants is largely among those legally in the country.*_
> 
> Immigrant Families Benefit  Significantly from Obamacare
> 
> So these people come here with no education, nothing to offer the US, and end up on are already exhausted social programs.  You're mad because Trump is trying to do something about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You're guessing again.
> In 2016, 30 percent (11.5 million) of the 38.2 million immigrants ages 25 and older had a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 32 percent of U.S.-born adults. Notably, the share of college-educated immigrants was much higher—47 percent—among those who entered the country in the previous five years (between 2012 and 2016).
> 
> And when we look at professions that have been judged critical to the future of the nation, we find 23% of our math and engineer workers are foreign born, 39% of all software engineers 25% of all computer systems analysis, 23% of our physical scientists, and 16% of our health care professionals are all foreign born over twice what it was 25 years ago.
> Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States*
> 
> Foreign-born STEM Workers in the United States
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?  All this tells me is that foreigners are coming here to lower the wages of professionals as well.  That's supposed to be encouraging?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Between now and 2024 we would have a maximum of 6 million additional workers to fill 24 million new jobs. With the labor shortage, there should be no worry about lower wages.   What workers in the US should be worried about is the lack of critical skill workers sending businesses and all their jobs overseas.  *
Click to expand...


So tell me, how many times since you were alive have you seen a booming economy for over several years?  This boom may last another two months, two years, who knows? 

So many things can put a damper on our economy.  A major terrorist attack similar to 911.  A breakout of war with another country.  A communications attack on the US via computers.  A bankruptcy by a major bank or company like Verizon.

Any good economy is fragile to negative news.  We don't know how many workers we will need next year yet alone in six years.  It's just a cheap excuse to try and change the minds of anti-invasion Americans.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all can stop pretending Trump is only against illegal immigration. Fuck him and his greedy, corrupt, elitist administration.
> 
> Proposed Trump rule change could put millions of legal immigrants at risk of deportation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.
> 
> Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.
> 
> A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.
> 
> Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).*_
> 
> Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children
> 
> _*A key part of the Affordable Care Act is Medicaid expansion for those with low incomes.1 A new analysis of government data by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under age 18) have been among the primary beneficiaries of Medicaid growth.2 The data show that immigrants and their children accounted for 42 percent of the growth in Medicaid enrollment from 2011 to 2013. Immigrants benefited more from Medicaid expansion than natives because a much larger share of immigrants are poor and uninsured. It seems almost certain that immigrants and their children will continue to benefit disproportionately from Obamacare, as they remain much more likely than natives to be uninsured or poor.3 The available evidence indicates that Medicaid growth associated with immigrants is largely among those legally in the country.*_
> 
> Immigrant Families Benefit  Significantly from Obamacare
> 
> So these people come here with no education, nothing to offer the US, and end up on are already exhausted social programs.  You're mad because Trump is trying to do something about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You're guessing again.
> In 2016, 30 percent (11.5 million) of the 38.2 million immigrants ages 25 and older had a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 32 percent of U.S.-born adults. Notably, the share of college-educated immigrants was much higher—47 percent—among those who entered the country in the previous five years (between 2012 and 2016).
> 
> And when we look at professions that have been judged critical to the future of the nation, we find 23% of our math and engineer workers are foreign born, 39% of all software engineers 25% of all computer systems analysis, 23% of our physical scientists, and 16% of our health care professionals are all foreign born over twice what it was 25 years ago.
> Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States*
> 
> Foreign-born STEM Workers in the United States
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?  All this tells me is that foreigners are coming here to lower the wages of professionals as well.  That's supposed to be encouraging?
Click to expand...

*Between now and 2024 we would have a maximum of 6 million additional workers to fill 24 million new jobs. With the labor shortage, there should be no worry about lower wages.   What workers in the US should be worried about is the lack of critical skill workers sending businesses and all their jobs overseas. *


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all can stop pretending Trump is only against illegal immigration. Fuck him and his greedy, corrupt, elitist administration.
> 
> Proposed Trump rule change could put millions of legal immigrants at risk of deportation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.
> 
> Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.
> 
> A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.
> 
> Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).*_
> 
> Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children
> 
> _*A key part of the Affordable Care Act is Medicaid expansion for those with low incomes.1 A new analysis of government data by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under age 18) have been among the primary beneficiaries of Medicaid growth.2 The data show that immigrants and their children accounted for 42 percent of the growth in Medicaid enrollment from 2011 to 2013. Immigrants benefited more from Medicaid expansion than natives because a much larger share of immigrants are poor and uninsured. It seems almost certain that immigrants and their children will continue to benefit disproportionately from Obamacare, as they remain much more likely than natives to be uninsured or poor.3 The available evidence indicates that Medicaid growth associated with immigrants is largely among those legally in the country.*_
> 
> Immigrant Families Benefit  Significantly from Obamacare
> 
> So these people come here with no education, nothing to offer the US, and end up on are already exhausted social programs.  You're mad because Trump is trying to do something about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You're guessing again.
> In 2016, 30 percent (11.5 million) of the 38.2 million immigrants ages 25 and older had a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 32 percent of U.S.-born adults. Notably, the share of college-educated immigrants was much higher—47 percent—among those who entered the country in the previous five years (between 2012 and 2016).
> 
> And when we look at professions that have been judged critical to the future of the nation, we find 23% of our math and engineer workers are foreign born, 39% of all software engineers 25% of all computer systems analysis, 23% of our physical scientists, and 16% of our health care professionals are all foreign born over twice what it was 25 years ago.
> Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States*
> 
> Foreign-born STEM Workers in the United States
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?  All this tells me is that foreigners are coming here to lower the wages of professionals as well.  That's supposed to be encouraging?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Between now and 2024 we would have a maximum of 6 million additional workers to fill 24 million new jobs. With the labor shortage, there should be no worry about lower wages.   What workers in the US should be worried about is the lack of critical skill workers sending businesses and all their jobs overseas.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell me, how many times since you were alive have you seen a booming economy for over several years?  This boom may last another two months, two years, who knows?
> 
> So many things can put a damper on our economy.  A major terrorist attack similar to 911.  A breakout of war with another country.  A communications attack on the US via computers.  A bankruptcy by a major bank or company like Verizon.
> 
> Any good economy is fragile to negative news.  We don't know how many workers we will need next year yet alone in six years.  It's just a cheap excuse to try and change the minds of anti-invasion Americans.
Click to expand...

*The longest economic expansion I have seen was
Mar 1991–Mar 2001 - 120 months.
We are currently 108 months into the current expansion.  The slow recovery indicates it may well have a serveral years of expansion.

Even if the economy is interrupted by a recession which the average length is about 14 months, there is every reason to expect the 24 million figure will be reached because we are going to get 18 million job openings from boomer retirements even it there is no growth. If current job growth continues at the current level, we would have 13 million jobs from growth.  No matter how you cut it the probability is pretty high that we will have far more jobs than we can possibly fill.

Keep in mind the immigration quotas are targets, the president can lower those numbers if needed.*


----------



## BrokeLoser

dblack said:


> They main thing is, we have to stop the invasion. They are crossing the borders in hordes, hell bent on mowing our lawns and picking our fruit for cheap. We need a wall that we can cower behind.



Or is it....
They are crossing the borders in hordes, hell bent on looting taxpayers, dropping dependent, criminal anchor babies and destroying EVERY community the descend upon.


----------



## dblack

BrokeLoser said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> They main thing is, we have to stop the invasion. They are crossing the borders in hordes, hell bent on mowing our lawns and picking our fruit for cheap. We need a wall that we can cower behind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or is it....
> They are crossing the borders in hordes, hell bent on looting taxpayers, dropping dependent, criminal anchor babies and destroying EVERY community the descend upon.
Click to expand...


Yeah. Those are the bullet points on the recruitment pamphlets. They come over here and work shitty jobs to destroy America. They're tricky devils. You think they're just mowing your lawn for twenty bucks. In reality, they're the forward ranks of the alien invasion.

Plus, they want our women!


----------



## BrokeLoser

dblack said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> They main thing is, we have to stop the invasion. They are crossing the borders in hordes, hell bent on mowing our lawns and picking our fruit for cheap. We need a wall that we can cower behind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or is it....
> They are crossing the borders in hordes, hell bent on looting taxpayers, dropping dependent, criminal anchor babies and destroying EVERY community the descend upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. Those are the bullet points on the recruitment pamphlets. They come over here and work shitty jobs to destroy America. They're tricky devils. You think they're just mowing your lawn for twenty bucks. In reality, they're the forward ranks of the alien invasion.
> 
> Plus, they want our women!
Click to expand...


No, no, no...they come here to work shitty jobs knowing full well they can’t make it without the anchors linking them to the welfare dollars they need. They destroy American communities because they have litters of children, they throw shitty diapers and Modello cans on our roadways and beaches...that’s the shit shameless, indecent, low iQ thirdworlders do...ever been to Mexico? I’m betting you were born there?
Further, I don’t know a single REAL American woman who’s into broke, 5’ tall, 110lb silver tooth’s whom smell like a cross between ass and Bud Light


----------



## dblack

BrokeLoser said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> They main thing is, we have to stop the invasion. They are crossing the borders in hordes, hell bent on mowing our lawns and picking our fruit for cheap. We need a wall that we can cower behind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or is it....
> They are crossing the borders in hordes, hell bent on looting taxpayers, dropping dependent, criminal anchor babies and destroying EVERY community the descend upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. Those are the bullet points on the recruitment pamphlets. They come over here and work shitty jobs to destroy America. They're tricky devils. You think they're just mowing your lawn for twenty bucks. In reality, they're the forward ranks of the alien invasion.
> 
> Plus, they want our women!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, no, no...they come here to work shitty jobs knowing full well they can’t make it without the anchors linking them to the welfare dollars they need. They destroy American communities because they have litters of children, they throw shitty diapers and Modello cans on our roadways and beaches...that’s the shit shameless, indecent, low iQ thirdworlders do...ever been to Mexico? I’m betting you were born there?
> Further, I don’t know a single REAL American woman who’s into broke, 5’ tall, 110lb silver tooth’s whom smell like a cross between ass and Bud Light
Click to expand...


True that. REAL women go for insecure bigots.


----------



## JoeB131

Kondor3 said:


> It doesn't make any difference.
> 
> Our country.
> 
> Our rules.
> 
> We can set whatever immigration policy we like.
> 
> Given that we are now a nation of 330,000,0000...
> 
> The era of large-scale immigration to America has come to an end, as must all good things...
> 
> From now-on, we're going to be a lot pickier about whom we let in...
> 
> Fun-time's over.



Okay, you keep telling that to yourself... 


Maybe you should tell it to the rich white people who keep hiring undocumented workers because you white trash types are too lazy and want too much money.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Property and state taxes exceeding $10,000. However if you are paying let's say $13,000, you can still write-off the first $10,000, so it's not that big of a deal. Secondly, mortgage write-offs are for homes purchased or valued at over 800K. Again, if you are paying for a home that's worth more, you can still write-off the interest that applies to the first 800K.



Again, you might as well take the standard deduction, then...  

But keep pretending Trump didn't screw working people to help the rich. I know you really need to believe that. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> It was estimated that Medicare for all (Sander's plan) would cost 32 trillion for ten years. That's 3.2 trillion per year, and our current budget is a little over 4 trillion and we are still running a deficit.



Okay... We currently spend 19% of GDP on health care. Our GDP is 20 Trillion.  So we are currently spending about 4 Trillion on health care. We just saved 0.8 Trillion.  Of course, it means poor people will get the same access to health care you get, so I'm sure that horrifies you. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> I want governement to do the job our founders created for it which is to protect Americans. Stopping scum buckets from entering our country to take our jobs and lower our pay is protecting our country. Telling employers what they must pay their workers is not the job of the federal government.



The Founders didn't want to keep people out. They totally wanted more people to come in for the rich to exploit. In fact, our whole history is based on exploiting immigrant labor.  (This has been cleverly hidden from you in things called "books".) 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> And what are you going to do when they start doing the same to you? Any idiot can learn how to write a resume by watching a few YouTube videos.



Yeah, given what I see on a daily basis, that's not going to happen any time soon.  If anything, what I see is that these colleges put out kids and they usually have no idea how to write well.  

I mean, I can find a video that will show me how to play the guitar, but I'm not going to become David Gilmour or Eric Clapton.  And a video isn't going to teach a kid how to become me. 

But driving in a straight line, anyone can figure that one out. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> So does not getting psychiatric help for serious mental problems.



It's not a serious problem to point out that most of you dumb white people who keep voting Republican and keep getting screwed by the One percenters is really kind of dumb.


----------



## protectionist

JoeB131 said:


> I'd have no problem with a National ID system, compete with biometrics.
> 
> It's the right that keeps opposing a national ID system. For reasons.
> 
> Voter ID isn't about that. It's about making it harder for people of color who are entitled to vote to do so.


That's what your lefty media tells you. And like a good leftist soldier, you repeat it to us. Ho hum. Now for  the reality.  Its the lefy that keeps opposing all voter ID.  (not just the citizenship part)

And a _"National ID system, compete with biometrics"_ wasn't the question. So once again >>   Would you oppose having an ID law requiring proof of citizenship ?  To keep aliens from voting ?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.
> 
> Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.
> 
> A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.
> 
> Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).*_
> 
> Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children
> 
> _*A key part of the Affordable Care Act is Medicaid expansion for those with low incomes.1 A new analysis of government data by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under age 18) have been among the primary beneficiaries of Medicaid growth.2 The data show that immigrants and their children accounted for 42 percent of the growth in Medicaid enrollment from 2011 to 2013. Immigrants benefited more from Medicaid expansion than natives because a much larger share of immigrants are poor and uninsured. It seems almost certain that immigrants and their children will continue to benefit disproportionately from Obamacare, as they remain much more likely than natives to be uninsured or poor.3 The available evidence indicates that Medicaid growth associated with immigrants is largely among those legally in the country.*_
> 
> Immigrant Families Benefit  Significantly from Obamacare
> 
> So these people come here with no education, nothing to offer the US, and end up on are already exhausted social programs.  You're mad because Trump is trying to do something about it?
> 
> 
> 
> *You're guessing again.
> In 2016, 30 percent (11.5 million) of the 38.2 million immigrants ages 25 and older had a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 32 percent of U.S.-born adults. Notably, the share of college-educated immigrants was much higher—47 percent—among those who entered the country in the previous five years (between 2012 and 2016).
> 
> And when we look at professions that have been judged critical to the future of the nation, we find 23% of our math and engineer workers are foreign born, 39% of all software engineers 25% of all computer systems analysis, 23% of our physical scientists, and 16% of our health care professionals are all foreign born over twice what it was 25 years ago.
> Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States*
> 
> Foreign-born STEM Workers in the United States
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?  All this tells me is that foreigners are coming here to lower the wages of professionals as well.  That's supposed to be encouraging?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Between now and 2024 we would have a maximum of 6 million additional workers to fill 24 million new jobs. With the labor shortage, there should be no worry about lower wages.   What workers in the US should be worried about is the lack of critical skill workers sending businesses and all their jobs overseas.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell me, how many times since you were alive have you seen a booming economy for over several years?  This boom may last another two months, two years, who knows?
> 
> So many things can put a damper on our economy.  A major terrorist attack similar to 911.  A breakout of war with another country.  A communications attack on the US via computers.  A bankruptcy by a major bank or company like Verizon.
> 
> Any good economy is fragile to negative news.  We don't know how many workers we will need next year yet alone in six years.  It's just a cheap excuse to try and change the minds of anti-invasion Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The longest economic expansion I have seen was
> Mar 1991–Mar 2001 - 120 months.
> We are currently 108 months into the current expansion.  The slow recovery indicates it may well have a serveral years of expansion.
> 
> Even if the economy is interrupted by a recession which the average length is about 14 months, there is every reason to expect the 24 million figure will be reached because we are going to get 18 million job openings from boomer retirements even it there is no growth. If current job growth continues at the current level, we would have 13 million jobs from growth.  No matter how you cut it the probability is pretty high that we will have far more jobs than we can possibly fill.
> 
> Keep in mind the immigration quotas are targets, the president can lower those numbers if needed.*
Click to expand...


No, I said booming economy, not steady or interrupted by a recession.   


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all can stop pretending Trump is only against illegal immigration. Fuck him and his greedy, corrupt, elitist administration.
> 
> Proposed Trump rule change could put millions of legal immigrants at risk of deportation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.
> 
> Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.
> 
> A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.
> 
> Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).*_
> 
> Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children
> 
> _*A key part of the Affordable Care Act is Medicaid expansion for those with low incomes.1 A new analysis of government data by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under age 18) have been among the primary beneficiaries of Medicaid growth.2 The data show that immigrants and their children accounted for 42 percent of the growth in Medicaid enrollment from 2011 to 2013. Immigrants benefited more from Medicaid expansion than natives because a much larger share of immigrants are poor and uninsured. It seems almost certain that immigrants and their children will continue to benefit disproportionately from Obamacare, as they remain much more likely than natives to be uninsured or poor.3 The available evidence indicates that Medicaid growth associated with immigrants is largely among those legally in the country.*_
> 
> Immigrant Families Benefit  Significantly from Obamacare
> 
> So these people come here with no education, nothing to offer the US, and end up on are already exhausted social programs.  You're mad because Trump is trying to do something about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You're guessing again.
> In 2016, 30 percent (11.5 million) of the 38.2 million immigrants ages 25 and older had a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 32 percent of U.S.-born adults. Notably, the share of college-educated immigrants was much higher—47 percent—among those who entered the country in the previous five years (between 2012 and 2016).
> 
> And when we look at professions that have been judged critical to the future of the nation, we find 23% of our math and engineer workers are foreign born, 39% of all software engineers 25% of all computer systems analysis, 23% of our physical scientists, and 16% of our health care professionals are all foreign born over twice what it was 25 years ago.
> Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States*
> 
> Foreign-born STEM Workers in the United States
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?  All this tells me is that foreigners are coming here to lower the wages of professionals as well.  That's supposed to be encouraging?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Between now and 2024 we would have a maximum of 6 million additional workers to fill 24 million new jobs. With the labor shortage, there should be no worry about lower wages.   What workers in the US should be worried about is the lack of critical skill workers sending businesses and all their jobs overseas. *
Click to expand...


We haven’t had this good of an economy in a long time.  Unlike last good economies, it’s not built on a bubble like tech or housing.  Yes, our labor participation rate increased a little, but not nearly enough.  So maybe instead of looking to bring in people that will destroy this country, look at our social programs that are keeping people from taking these jobs.  That’s where the problem is.  


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You're guessing again.
> In 2016, 30 percent (11.5 million) of the 38.2 million immigrants ages 25 and older had a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 32 percent of U.S.-born adults. Notably, the share of college-educated immigrants was much higher—47 percent—among those who entered the country in the previous five years (between 2012 and 2016).
> 
> And when we look at professions that have been judged critical to the future of the nation, we find 23% of our math and engineer workers are foreign born, 39% of all software engineers 25% of all computer systems analysis, 23% of our physical scientists, and 16% of our health care professionals are all foreign born over twice what it was 25 years ago.
> Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States*
> 
> Foreign-born STEM Workers in the United States
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  All this tells me is that foreigners are coming here to lower the wages of professionals as well.  That's supposed to be encouraging?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Between now and 2024 we would have a maximum of 6 million additional workers to fill 24 million new jobs. With the labor shortage, there should be no worry about lower wages.   What workers in the US should be worried about is the lack of critical skill workers sending businesses and all their jobs overseas.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell me, how many times since you were alive have you seen a booming economy for over several years?  This boom may last another two months, two years, who knows?
> 
> So many things can put a damper on our economy.  A major terrorist attack similar to 911.  A breakout of war with another country.  A communications attack on the US via computers.  A bankruptcy by a major bank or company like Verizon.
> 
> Any good economy is fragile to negative news.  We don't know how many workers we will need next year yet alone in six years.  It's just a cheap excuse to try and change the minds of anti-invasion Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The longest economic expansion I have seen was
> Mar 1991–Mar 2001 - 120 months.
> We are currently 108 months into the current expansion.  The slow recovery indicates it may well have a serveral years of expansion.
> 
> Even if the economy is interrupted by a recession which the average length is about 14 months, there is every reason to expect the 24 million figure will be reached because we are going to get 18 million job openings from boomer retirements even it there is no growth. If current job growth continues at the current level, we would have 13 million jobs from growth.  No matter how you cut it the probability is pretty high that we will have far more jobs than we can possibly fill.
> 
> Keep in mind the immigration quotas are targets, the president can lower those numbers if needed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I said booming economy, not steady or interrupted by a recession.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...

*Economically, the 1990's were not only the longest period of economic expansions in history but one the strongest with steady job creation averaging 250,000/mo,  low inflation, rising productivity, and a surging stock market.  *


----------



## Indeependent

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  All this tells me is that foreigners are coming here to lower the wages of professionals as well.  That's supposed to be encouraging?
> 
> 
> 
> *Between now and 2024 we would have a maximum of 6 million additional workers to fill 24 million new jobs. With the labor shortage, there should be no worry about lower wages.   What workers in the US should be worried about is the lack of critical skill workers sending businesses and all their jobs overseas.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell me, how many times since you were alive have you seen a booming economy for over several years?  This boom may last another two months, two years, who knows?
> 
> So many things can put a damper on our economy.  A major terrorist attack similar to 911.  A breakout of war with another country.  A communications attack on the US via computers.  A bankruptcy by a major bank or company like Verizon.
> 
> Any good economy is fragile to negative news.  We don't know how many workers we will need next year yet alone in six years.  It's just a cheap excuse to try and change the minds of anti-invasion Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The longest economic expansion I have seen was
> Mar 1991–Mar 2001 - 120 months.
> We are currently 108 months into the current expansion.  The slow recovery indicates it may well have a serveral years of expansion.
> 
> Even if the economy is interrupted by a recession which the average length is about 14 months, there is every reason to expect the 24 million figure will be reached because we are going to get 18 million job openings from boomer retirements even it there is no growth. If current job growth continues at the current level, we would have 13 million jobs from growth.  No matter how you cut it the probability is pretty high that we will have far more jobs than we can possibly fill.
> 
> Keep in mind the immigration quotas are targets, the president can lower those numbers if needed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I said booming economy, not steady or interrupted by a recession.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Economically, the 1990's were not only the longest period of economic expansions in history but one the strongest with steady job creation averaging 250,000/mo,  low inflation, rising productivity, and a surging stock market.  *
Click to expand...

Are you retarded?


----------



## AZGAL

The citizens of the United States are just recently waking up to the terrible cost of illegal immigration as it destroys the citizens children and families, earnings, safety, culture, well being and future.


----------



## Indeependent

AZGAL said:


> The citizens of the United States are just recently waking up to the terrible cost of illegal immigration as it destroys the citizens families, earnings, safety, culture, well being and future.


Only Trump could accomplish the awakening.


----------



## danielpalos

AZGAL said:


> The citizens of the United States are just recently waking up to the terrible cost of illegal immigration as it destroys the citizens children and families, earnings, safety, culture, well being and future.


Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policies.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  All this tells me is that foreigners are coming here to lower the wages of professionals as well.  That's supposed to be encouraging?
> 
> 
> 
> *Between now and 2024 we would have a maximum of 6 million additional workers to fill 24 million new jobs. With the labor shortage, there should be no worry about lower wages.   What workers in the US should be worried about is the lack of critical skill workers sending businesses and all their jobs overseas.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell me, how many times since you were alive have you seen a booming economy for over several years?  This boom may last another two months, two years, who knows?
> 
> So many things can put a damper on our economy.  A major terrorist attack similar to 911.  A breakout of war with another country.  A communications attack on the US via computers.  A bankruptcy by a major bank or company like Verizon.
> 
> Any good economy is fragile to negative news.  We don't know how many workers we will need next year yet alone in six years.  It's just a cheap excuse to try and change the minds of anti-invasion Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The longest economic expansion I have seen was
> Mar 1991–Mar 2001 - 120 months.
> We are currently 108 months into the current expansion.  The slow recovery indicates it may well have a serveral years of expansion.
> 
> Even if the economy is interrupted by a recession which the average length is about 14 months, there is every reason to expect the 24 million figure will be reached because we are going to get 18 million job openings from boomer retirements even it there is no growth. If current job growth continues at the current level, we would have 13 million jobs from growth.  No matter how you cut it the probability is pretty high that we will have far more jobs than we can possibly fill.
> 
> Keep in mind the immigration quotas are targets, the president can lower those numbers if needed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I said booming economy, not steady or interrupted by a recession.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Economically, the 1990's were not only the longest period of economic expansions in history but one the strongest with steady job creation averaging 250,000/mo,  low inflation, rising productivity, and a surging stock market.  *
Click to expand...


I'm not going to debate that.  What I will debate is that we will run out of people to do the work in this country.  There is something wrong when you live in a country where there is more work than people, and 40 million people are still collecting food stamps.  

Something is wrong, and it's not that we don't have enough people to do the work.


----------



## danielpalos

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage!

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Again, you might as well take the standard deduction, then...
> 
> But keep pretending Trump didn't screw working people to help the rich. I know you really need to believe that.



Why should I not?  I'm a working person and I'm doing much better under Trump than DumBama.  I don't have to worry about stupid penalties, I will have more in my income tax return, and who  knows, maybe I'll find a better job since there are more jobs out there and the economy is booming.  

You people who live in these liberal states or cities that are always crying for higher taxes are sure speaking out now when they lose a deduction or two.  You've allowed your cost of living to soar along with taxation, and now you don't get to write those high costs off. 



JoeB131 said:


> Okay... We currently spend 19% of GDP on health care. Our GDP is 20 Trillion. So we are currently spending about 4 Trillion on health care. We just saved 0.8 Trillion. Of course, it means poor people will get the same access to health care you get, so I'm sure that horrifies you.



We don't pay our healthcare bills out of the GDP.  GDP is only used to make comparisons.  If we fell for Socialized medicine, that will be paid by tax dollars.  



JoeB131 said:


> The Founders didn't want to keep people out. They totally wanted more people to come in for the rich to exploit. In fact, our whole history is based on exploiting immigrant labor. (This has been cleverly hidden from you in things called "books".)



I'm sure at the time, they wanted more horse breeders and carriage makers too.  But guess what?  We don't need horses and carriages anymore just like we don't need immigrants anymore.  Yes, immigrants were good for this country at one time.  Now they are nothing but a problem.  



JoeB131 said:


> Yeah, given what I see on a daily basis, that's not going to happen any time soon. If anything, what I see is that these colleges put out kids and they usually have no idea how to write well.
> 
> I mean, I can find a video that will show me how to play the guitar, but I'm not going to become David Gilmour or Eric Clapton. And a video isn't going to teach a kid how to become me.
> 
> But driving in a straight line, anyone can figure that one out.



Anybody can figure it out and that's why we need over 30,000 drivers right now that we can't find.  Most serious accidents happen driving in a straight line.  It's not figuring it out, it's doing the job proficiently and maintaining an excellent driving record which many can't do.  Too many points and nobody will insure you.  DUI?  You need about five years to clear that off your record and even then, some employers will not hire you. 

Learning a musical instrument and writing something down on a piece of paper is an awful comparison.  When I was teaching, my worst students were those who tried to learn themselves.  You have to undo everything they did and start all over again.  

Nobody needs to look over your shoulder when writing a resume.  You need a music teacher to watch the several necessary things to alert you of your mistakes while playing: holding your neck properly, missing notes, tapping your foot, not looking back at your neck while reading; just a bunch of things.  

However after a few years of lessons, a person is then capable of learning things off of videos because they already have the basics mastered.  



JoeB131 said:


> It's not a serious problem to point out that most of you dumb white people who keep voting Republican and keep getting screwed by the One percenters is really kind of dumb.



I got screwed several times under DumBama; not once under Trump.  You were saying????


----------



## AZGAL

*SOROS open societies encourages Immigration lawyers to teach ILLEGALS all the dirty tricks of how to play a victim, how to extend your time, how to commit immigration fraud, etc.*
*from a MN law firm blog:*
How long is the wait? Wilson Law Group is tracking the U visa approvals obtained by our clients for the current fiscal year. The approved U visas received by our office so far were filed with the VSC between May and August, 2013. More than a two year wait. In some cases two and a half years.

Waitlisted applicants are not completely without benefit. They are eligible for employment authorization for the duration of their time in limbo. However, time on the U visa waitlist does not count toward the 3 years “in U visa status” that applicants need in order to apply for permanent residence. Waitlisted applicants cannot lawfully travel outside of the U.S. Many U visa applicants have not had the ability to see family and friends in their home countries for prolonged periods of time. Every year spent on the waitlist delays the acquisition of permanent, stable status in the U.S.   

Jan22
*Alternatives to Temporary Protected Status *
In the past few months the current administration has announced the ending of Temporary Protective Status (TPS) for multiple countries including El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Sudan. If you are losing your TPS, there may be another way for you to obtain status in the United States. A few of these pathways are listed below.

If you entered the U.S. lawfully and have a spouse, parent , or child over 21 who is a United States citizen or permanent resident, you may be able to apply for residency. Individuals with family members meeting these categories may apply for residency within the...


----------



## danielpalos

AZGAL said:


> *SOROS open societies encourages Immigration lawyers to teach ILLEGALS all the dirty tricks of how to play a victim, how to extend your time, how to commit immigration fraud, etc.*
> *from a MN law firm blog:*
> How long is the wait? Wilson Law Group is tracking the U visa approvals obtained by our clients for the current fiscal year. The approved U visas received by our office so far were filed with the VSC between May and August, 2013. More than a two year wait. In some cases two and a half years.
> 
> Waitlisted applicants are not completely without benefit. They are eligible for employment authorization for the duration of their time in limbo. However, time on the U visa waitlist does not count toward the 3 years “in U visa status” that applicants need in order to apply for permanent residence. Waitlisted applicants cannot lawfully travel outside of the U.S. Many U visa applicants have not had the ability to see family and friends in their home countries for prolonged periods of time. Every year spent on the waitlist delays the acquisition of permanent, stable status in the U.S.
> 
> Jan22
> *Alternatives to Temporary Protected Status *
> In the past few months the current administration has announced the ending of Temporary Protective Status (TPS) for multiple countries including El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Sudan. If you are losing your TPS, there may be another way for you to obtain status in the United States. A few of these pathways are listed below.
> 
> If you entered the U.S. lawfully and have a spouse, parent , or child over 21 who is a United States citizen or permanent resident, you may be able to apply for residency. Individuals with family members meeting these categories may apply for residency within the...


end our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror to stop creating refugees.


----------



## AZGAL

Still the "children in cages" bullshit !! Here is some serious Trump Derangement Syndrome"!:

*Secret Agent Number Six*‏ @*DesignationSix* Aug 8

If @*McDonalds* sponsors Fox "News" and @*FoxNews* advocates for separating families and putting children in cages, then McDonald's is not a kid friendly or a family restaurant. I have @*McDonalds* tagged here so they will get notifications every time you LIKE,RETWEET or COMMENT

4:25 PM - 8 Aug 2018


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Between now and 2024 we would have a maximum of 6 million additional workers to fill 24 million new jobs. With the labor shortage, there should be no worry about lower wages.   What workers in the US should be worried about is the lack of critical skill workers sending businesses and all their jobs overseas.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me, how many times since you were alive have you seen a booming economy for over several years?  This boom may last another two months, two years, who knows?
> 
> So many things can put a damper on our economy.  A major terrorist attack similar to 911.  A breakout of war with another country.  A communications attack on the US via computers.  A bankruptcy by a major bank or company like Verizon.
> 
> Any good economy is fragile to negative news.  We don't know how many workers we will need next year yet alone in six years.  It's just a cheap excuse to try and change the minds of anti-invasion Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The longest economic expansion I have seen was
> Mar 1991–Mar 2001 - 120 months.
> We are currently 108 months into the current expansion.  The slow recovery indicates it may well have a serveral years of expansion.
> 
> Even if the economy is interrupted by a recession which the average length is about 14 months, there is every reason to expect the 24 million figure will be reached because we are going to get 18 million job openings from boomer retirements even it there is no growth. If current job growth continues at the current level, we would have 13 million jobs from growth.  No matter how you cut it the probability is pretty high that we will have far more jobs than we can possibly fill.
> 
> Keep in mind the immigration quotas are targets, the president can lower those numbers if needed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I said booming economy, not steady or interrupted by a recession.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Economically, the 1990's were not only the longest period of economic expansions in history but one the strongest with steady job creation averaging 250,000/mo,  low inflation, rising productivity, and a surging stock market.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going to debate that.  What I will debate is that we will run out of people to do the work in this country.  There is something wrong when you live in a country where there is more work than people, and 40 million people are still collecting food stamps.
> 
> Something is wrong, and it's not that we don't have enough people to do the work.
Click to expand...

*No, there is nothing wrong because when Welfare was reformed, social services were gradually reduced as family income increased. The idea was there would be no sharp cutoffs of benefits to encourage families to turn down work to keep benefits.  So instead of a family of 4 losing all food stamps benefits when family income reached say $28,000, benefits started decreasing from $500 a month as income increased.  When income reached say $36,000, food stamp benefits had gradually reduced to $30/mo.  So we have millions of people on SNAP getting very little in benefits.

We could probably cut 10 million people off of SNAP rolls and no one would go hunger.  However, we would have a sharp cut off so if you make a dollar more than cutoff, you lost all benefits.  *


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me, how many times since you were alive have you seen a booming economy for over several years?  This boom may last another two months, two years, who knows?
> 
> So many things can put a damper on our economy.  A major terrorist attack similar to 911.  A breakout of war with another country.  A communications attack on the US via computers.  A bankruptcy by a major bank or company like Verizon.
> 
> Any good economy is fragile to negative news.  We don't know how many workers we will need next year yet alone in six years.  It's just a cheap excuse to try and change the minds of anti-invasion Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> *The longest economic expansion I have seen was
> Mar 1991–Mar 2001 - 120 months.
> We are currently 108 months into the current expansion.  The slow recovery indicates it may well have a serveral years of expansion.
> 
> Even if the economy is interrupted by a recession which the average length is about 14 months, there is every reason to expect the 24 million figure will be reached because we are going to get 18 million job openings from boomer retirements even it there is no growth. If current job growth continues at the current level, we would have 13 million jobs from growth.  No matter how you cut it the probability is pretty high that we will have far more jobs than we can possibly fill.
> 
> Keep in mind the immigration quotas are targets, the president can lower those numbers if needed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I said booming economy, not steady or interrupted by a recession.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Economically, the 1990's were not only the longest period of economic expansions in history but one the strongest with steady job creation averaging 250,000/mo,  low inflation, rising productivity, and a surging stock market.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going to debate that.  What I will debate is that we will run out of people to do the work in this country.  There is something wrong when you live in a country where there is more work than people, and 40 million people are still collecting food stamps.
> 
> Something is wrong, and it's not that we don't have enough people to do the work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, there is nothing wrong because when Welfare was reformed, social services were gradually reduced as family income increased. The idea was there would be no sharp cutoffs of benefits to encourage families to turn down work to keep benefits.  So instead of a family of 4 losing all food stamps benefits when family income reached say $28,000, benefits started decreasing from $500 a month as income increased.  When income reached say $36,000, food stamp benefits had gradually reduced to $30/mo.  So we have millions of people on SNAP getting very little in benefits.
> 
> We could probably cut 10 million people off of SNAP rolls and no one would go hunger.  However, we would have a sharp cut off so if you make a dollar more than cutoff, you lost all benefits.  *
Click to expand...


So in other words, what you are saying is that our social programs encourage people to not create income of their own.  I couldn't agree more. 

So then the concept switches from needing more people to do the work to redoing our social programs so that social programs do encourage people to work. Again, I agree with that.

In other words, you stated that in the near future, we are going to need 6 million more workers than we have now  so we must allow immigration.  What's wrong with taking those 6 million collecting food stamps today from our food stamp and welfare pool?  It would still leave 34 million on the dole! 

Now.....doing the calculations, those 6 million foreigners would still be here to fill in the gap since we bring in over a million people a year into this country plus work Visa's and permits. 

We don't need anymore immigration than what we have now.  That's the point.


----------



## JoeB131

protectionist said:


> That's what your lefty media tells you. And like a good leftist soldier, you repeat it to us. Ho hum. Now for the reality. Its the lefy that keeps opposing all voter ID. (not just the citizenship part)
> 
> And a _"National ID system, compete with biometrics"_ wasn't the question. So once again >> Would you oppose having an ID law requiring proof of citizenship ? To keep aliens from voting ?



Since that isn't happening, I'm not that concerned with it.  You guys have been looking for the elusive illegal alien voter since 2000 and haven't found him yet. 

It's the right that opposes a national ID system, not the left.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> We haven’t had this good of an economy in a long time. Unlike last good economies, it’s not built on a bubble like tech or housing. Yes, our labor participation rate increased a little, but not nearly enough. So maybe instead of looking to bring in people that will destroy this country, look at our social programs that are keeping people from taking these jobs. That’s where the problem is.



Yeah, those Darkies need to take starvation wages and be happy with it! 

Says the guy who can't get health insurance and won't find a better job. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> In other words, you stated that in the near future, we are going to need 6 million more workers than we have now so we must allow immigration. What's wrong with taking those 6 million collecting food stamps today from our food stamp and welfare pool? It would still leave 34 million on the dole!



Look, you stupid shit, the thing is, able bodies working adults aren't the ones on food stamps.   The few who are already have jobs, working for companies that don't pay enough. 

this has been explained to you a bunch of times.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I'm not going to debate that. What I will debate is that we will run out of people to do the work in this country. There is something wrong when you live in a country where there is more work than people, and 40 million people are still collecting food stamps.
> 
> Something is wrong, and it's not that we don't have enough people to do the work.



Most of those 40 million people are elderly, disabled or children and can't work.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Why should I not? I'm a working person and I'm doing much better under Trump than DumBama. I don't have to worry about stupid penalties, I will have more in my income tax return, and who knows, maybe I'll find a better job since there are more jobs out there and the economy is booming.



That would require you to get off your ass and stop whining... 

But I guess if having a white guy in the White HOuse makes you feel better for one year before the next recession hits, have at it. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> You people who live in these liberal states or cities that are always crying for higher taxes are sure speaking out now when they lose a deduction or two. You've allowed your cost of living to soar along with taxation, and now you don't get to write those high costs off.



State income tax in IL-  4.95%
State income tax in OH- 4.997%









Ray From Cleveland said:


> Anybody can figure it out and that's why we need over 30,000 drivers right now that we can't find. Most serious accidents happen driving in a straight line. It's not figuring it out, it's doing the job proficiently and maintaining an excellent driving record which many can't do. Too many points and nobody will insure you. DUI? You need about five years to clear that off your record and even then, some employers will not hire you.



And yet you can't find a job that offers health insurance with all that. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Nobody needs to look over your shoulder when writing a resume. You need a music teacher to watch the several necessary things to alert you of your mistakes while playing: holding your neck properly, missing notes, tapping your foot, not looking back at your neck while reading; just a bunch of things.



Um, actually, you do. Because you write stuff down, you know exactly what you are talking about... but most other people won't. Most people suck at writing resumes because they can't be objective about their own jobs.  Trust me, I've managed to make up a whole list of mistakes people commonly make writing resumes... 

My personal favorite is people who take their job description from HR and plop it into their resume... usually complete with "Responsible for" and third person verb tenses like nobody is going to notice.  I would say 40% of resumes I see, people try to get away with that.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I got screwed several times under DumBama; not once under Trump. You were saying????



The only screwing you got was the inadequacy you felt when a black man accomplished more than you ever will.... that's kind of on you.


----------



## protectionist

JoeB131 said:


> Since that isn't happening, I'm not that concerned with it.  You guys have been looking for the elusive illegal alien voter since 2000 and haven't found him yet.
> 
> It's the right that opposes a national ID system, not the left.


So your answer is yes, you would oppose having an ID law requiring proof of citizenship ? To keep aliens from voting.  Well sure, because that would keep your illegal alien friends from voting, and helping to get Democrats elected.

And deflecting to how many illegals are voting or not, is a DODGE.  Simply enacting a citizenship requirement isn't a big deal. It's inexpensive both with time and money, it's easy, and should be done, regardless of anybody's estimate of the illegality taking place.

And for the illegal alien voter, there's nothing "elusive" about him to me.  I've talked to them all across the country, in voting halls, on construction sites, in office buildings doing janitorial work, around my apartment complex doing landscaping, etc. And they're always willing to brag about how many laws they break (voting no exception)

Whatever gave you the idea we hadn't found them ? Let me guess >> CNN, MSNBC, look no further.


----------



## danielpalos

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me, how many times since you were alive have you seen a booming economy for over several years?  This boom may last another two months, two years, who knows?
> 
> So many things can put a damper on our economy.  A major terrorist attack similar to 911.  A breakout of war with another country.  A communications attack on the US via computers.  A bankruptcy by a major bank or company like Verizon.
> 
> Any good economy is fragile to negative news.  We don't know how many workers we will need next year yet alone in six years.  It's just a cheap excuse to try and change the minds of anti-invasion Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> *The longest economic expansion I have seen was
> Mar 1991–Mar 2001 - 120 months.
> We are currently 108 months into the current expansion.  The slow recovery indicates it may well have a serveral years of expansion.
> 
> Even if the economy is interrupted by a recession which the average length is about 14 months, there is every reason to expect the 24 million figure will be reached because we are going to get 18 million job openings from boomer retirements even it there is no growth. If current job growth continues at the current level, we would have 13 million jobs from growth.  No matter how you cut it the probability is pretty high that we will have far more jobs than we can possibly fill.
> 
> Keep in mind the immigration quotas are targets, the president can lower those numbers if needed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I said booming economy, not steady or interrupted by a recession.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Economically, the 1990's were not only the longest period of economic expansions in history but one the strongest with steady job creation averaging 250,000/mo,  low inflation, rising productivity, and a surging stock market.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going to debate that.  What I will debate is that we will run out of people to do the work in this country.  There is something wrong when you live in a country where there is more work than people, and 40 million people are still collecting food stamps.
> 
> Something is wrong, and it's not that we don't have enough people to do the work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, there is nothing wrong because when Welfare was reformed, social services were gradually reduced as family income increased. The idea was there would be no sharp cutoffs of benefits to encourage families to turn down work to keep benefits.  So instead of a family of 4 losing all food stamps benefits when family income reached say $28,000, benefits started decreasing from $500 a month as income increased.  When income reached say $36,000, food stamp benefits had gradually reduced to $30/mo.  So we have millions of people on SNAP getting very little in benefits.
> 
> We could probably cut 10 million people off of SNAP rolls and no one would go hunger.  However, we would have a sharp cut off so if you make a dollar more than cutoff, you lost all benefits.  *
Click to expand...

the poor need a tax credit for an accountant.


----------



## RealDave

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
Click to expand...

Of course  you. being a chickenshit, would punish the children.


----------



## RealDave

protectionist said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since that isn't happening, I'm not that concerned with it.  You guys have been looking for the elusive illegal alien voter since 2000 and haven't found him yet.
> 
> It's the right that opposes a national ID system, not the left.
> 
> 
> 
> So your answer is yes, you would oppose having an ID law requiring proof of citizenship ? To keep aliens from voting.  Well sure, because that would keep your illegal alien friends from voting, and helping to get Democrats elected.
> 
> And deflecting to how many illegals are voting or not, is a DODGE.  Simply enacting a citizenship requirement isn't a big deal. It's inexpensive both with time and money, it's easy, and should be done, regardless of anybody's estimate of the illegality taking place.
> 
> And for the illegal alien voter, there's nothing "elusive" about him to me.  I've talked to them all across the country, in voting halls, on construction sites, in office buildings doing janitorial work, around my apartment complex doing landscaping, etc. And they're always willing to brag about how many laws they break (voting no exception)
> 
> Whatever gave you the idea we hadn't found them ? Let me guess >> CNN, MSNBC, look no further.
Click to expand...

  Illegals are not voting.  

Why would a person hiding from the law walk into a government run facility where they may be asked to show ID?


----------



## protectionist

RealDave said:


> Illegals are not voting.
> 
> Why would a person hiding from the law walk into a government run facility where they may be asked to show ID?


1. You make a statement. you present no evidence.

2.  They are *NOT asked to show CITIZENSHIP ID*.  Showing ordinary personal ID is something anyone can do, and has nothing to do with citizenship, or being an illegal alien (or legal alien)  People in voting places have no idea if anyone is a citizen or not.


----------



## JoeB131

protectionist said:


> So your answer is yes, you would oppose having an ID law requiring proof of citizenship ? To keep aliens from voting. Well sure, because that would keep your illegal alien friends from voting, and helping to get Democrats elected.



You have yet to prove that they are voting, and these laws are being used to keep citizens of color from voting because they can't afford an ID. 



protectionist said:


> And deflecting to how many illegals are voting or not, is a DODGE. Simply enacting a citizenship requirement isn't a big deal. It's inexpensive both with time and money, it's easy, and should be done, regardless of anybody's estimate of the illegality taking place.



Well, guy, I'm only for finding solutions to problems that ACTUALLY EXIST.  If so few illegals are voting that it won't really effect the outcome of an election, then this really isn't a problem. 

THere are good reasons to have a national ID Card. Employment verification being the obvious one.  But the Right doesn't want to give that kind of power to the Federal Government.  



protectionist said:


> And for the illegal alien voter, there's nothing "elusive" about him to me. I've talked to them all across the country, in voting halls, on construction sites, in office buildings doing janitorial work, around my apartment complex doing landscaping, etc. And they're always willing to brag about how many laws they break (voting no exception)



Really, buddy you talk to the janitor?   doesn't seem likely.  

And then they totally admit that they are breaking laws... that doesn't seem very smart.  



protectionist said:


> 1. You make a statement. you present no evidence.
> 
> 2. They are *NOT asked to show CITIZENSHIP ID*. Showing ordinary personal ID is something anyone can do, and has nothing to do with citizenship, or being an illegal alien (or legal alien) People in voting places have no idea if anyone is a citizen or not.



NO, what happens is that when I go to vote, I am asked to sign my card, and it is compared to the signature they have on file for me.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> You have yet to prove that they are voting, and these laws are being used to keep citizens of color from voting because they can't afford an ID.



No, because the state offers it for free for those who can't afford it. 



JoeB131 said:


> NO, what happens is that when I go to vote, I am asked to sign my card, and it is compared to the signature they have on file for me.



Yep, and that 85 year old guy sitting behind a table is a handwriting expert too!


----------



## AZGAL

JoeB131 said:


> Really, buddy you talk to the janitor? doesn't seem likely.


 Wow JoeB, not only are you ignorant about geography, you are also ignorant about society as well. Many people are janitors, talk to janitors, and hire janitors.  All the time buddy.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

RealDave said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since that isn't happening, I'm not that concerned with it.  You guys have been looking for the elusive illegal alien voter since 2000 and haven't found him yet.
> 
> It's the right that opposes a national ID system, not the left.
> 
> 
> 
> So your answer is yes, you would oppose having an ID law requiring proof of citizenship ? To keep aliens from voting.  Well sure, because that would keep your illegal alien friends from voting, and helping to get Democrats elected.
> 
> And deflecting to how many illegals are voting or not, is a DODGE.  Simply enacting a citizenship requirement isn't a big deal. It's inexpensive both with time and money, it's easy, and should be done, regardless of anybody's estimate of the illegality taking place.
> 
> And for the illegal alien voter, there's nothing "elusive" about him to me.  I've talked to them all across the country, in voting halls, on construction sites, in office buildings doing janitorial work, around my apartment complex doing landscaping, etc. And they're always willing to brag about how many laws they break (voting no exception)
> 
> Whatever gave you the idea we hadn't found them ? Let me guess >> CNN, MSNBC, look no further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illegals are not voting.
> 
> Why would a person hiding from the law walk into a government run facility where they may be asked to show ID?
Click to expand...


Why would a person cross our borders illegally or overstay their Visa illegally?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

RealDave said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  I think I know of a solution though:  If you have children, STF away from our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course  you. being a chickenshit, would punish the children.
Click to expand...


Yes, it's always about the children with leftists; never to push their political agenda.  All heart you people on the left are.

But I'll tell you, if these people south of our border were renown to vote Republican, the Democrat would have hogtied those people and their children and toss them back over to the Mexican side in two seconds; and a wall would have been built years ago.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got screwed several times under DumBama; not once under Trump. You were saying????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only screwing you got was the inadequacy you felt when a black man accomplished more than you ever will.... that's kind of on you.
Click to expand...


And Trump accomplished ten times more than Ears. But that's kind of on you.


----------



## danielpalos

The Only acceptable Cost for Good capitalists is a profit on border policy!


----------



## AZGAL

(eagle1462010 said: ↑
.California leads the nation in illegals..............have 25% of the illegal farmers there for the entire nation.............when the laws provide a legal path..............)
AZGAL says:
You can see me rant , raise hell, and post facts about the unacceptable situation that is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION all over the board, yet I must DEFEND the FARM WORKERS! There is a slight nuance difference in the condition of the foreign farm workers. Hard working agricultural workers MUST BE RESPECTED! The farm workers SHOULD GET VISAS, legal worker visas QUICKLY as we need them and must appreciate them. GIVE assistance and RESPECT to the farm workers as they are hard working industrious people HERE for a good and honest activity. Please RIP AWAY DACA, take away overburdened "crime victim" U visas for the most part due to high levels of fraud, BOUNCE back the hordes of "asylum" seekers and have the USA help at the point of within their countries, YET HONOR the farm workers. These farm workers should be at the front of the line for the visas. VISAS#1 for FARM WORKERS. Perhaps some of the asylum seekers can option into farm workers. *** CANADA decides what specialty workers it needs from outside and so can the USA.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> That would require you to get off your ass and stop whining...
> 
> But I guess if having a white guy in the White HOuse makes you feel better for one year before the next recession hits, have at it.



Yes, that next recession that was supposed to start the day after Trump took office and the market crashed.  That recession?  Oh wait!  Our economy is doing great!  Our unemployment at the lowest levels since early 2000!  More people leaving food stamps, more people back in the labor participation group.  



JoeB131 said:


> State income tax in IL- 4.95%
> State income tax in OH- 4.997%



That's just income taxes.  There is property tax, sales tax, cost of living which is much higher, just a ton of things. 



JoeB131 said:


> And yet you can't find a job that offers health insurance with all that.



No, I can't, not with the multiple government restrictions on me I can't.  



JoeB131 said:


> Um, actually, you do. Because you write stuff down, you know exactly what you are talking about... but most other people won't. Most people suck at writing resumes because they can't be objective about their own jobs. Trust me, I've managed to make up a whole list of mistakes people commonly make writing resumes...
> 
> My personal favorite is people who take their job description from HR and plop it into their resume... usually complete with "Responsible for" and third person verb tenses like nobody is going to notice. I would say 40% of resumes I see, people try to get away with that.



And you can't learn that off of a video.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Yeah, those Darkies need to take starvation wages and be happy with it!
> 
> Says the guy who can't get health insurance and won't find a better job.



Says the guy who's obsession is so great it's ruining his life because he refuses to seek professional help. 



JoeB131 said:


> Look, you stupid shit, the thing is, able bodies working adults aren't the ones on food stamps. The few who are already have jobs, working for companies that don't pay enough.
> 
> this has been explained to you a bunch of times.



Yes, in fact I have a bunch of those people right next door in the HUD house.  But how can one get a job when they don't wake up until noon everyday and weigh about 200 lbs more than an average person of their height? 

They are just the warmup act.  The people at my grocery store are the ones that take the cake; and I mean literally take the cake.


----------



## AZGAL

from: Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents via @nbcnews"Hernandez, though, was lucky. She was caught before the new zero-tolerance policy fully went into effect, and so she was released May 10 with an electronic bracelet clamped to her ankle and her children at her side."
Time to buy stock in an ankle bracelet company. This is the way of the future to monitor illegals. I am sure the Democrats will be horrified and write crazy stories about these devices. US citizens on supervised incarceration and release are given these all the time. NO MORE family separations, just MONITORING!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Since that isn't happening, I'm not that concerned with it. You guys have been looking for the elusive illegal alien voter since 2000 and haven't found him yet.



Maybe we did and you don't know about it because you refuse to read the news: 

Lawsuit: 100,000 noncitizens registered to vote in Pennsylvania

Hundreds Vote Illegally in North Carolina after Court Bans Election Integrity Law - Judicial Watch

Non-American citizen arrested for voting in Texas -- FIVE times - faces up to 20 years

Massive Non-Citizen Voting Uncovered in Maryland

Need more stories, let me know.  I have an entire folder of them.


----------



## AZGAL

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes, in fact I have a bunch of those people right next door in the HUD house. But how can one get a job when they don't wake up until noon everyday and weigh about 200 lbs more than an average person of their height?


 No, sorry, this is a narrow stereotype.


----------



## danielpalos

Why whine about Taxes, right wingers, when it is merely lousy capital management.


----------



## AZGAL

*Study supports Trump: 5.7 million noncitizens may have cast illegal votes*
By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times - Monday, June 19, 2017
A research group in New Jersey has taken a fresh look at postelection polling data and concluded that the number of noncitizens voting illegally in U.S. elections is likely far greater than previous estimates.

As many as 5.7 million noncitizens may have voted in the 2008 election, which put Barack Obama in the White House.
The research organization Just Facts, a widely cited, independent think tank led by self-described conservatives and libertarians, revealed its number-crunching in a report on national immigration.
Just Facts President James D. Agresti and his team looked at data from an extensive Harvard/YouGov study that every two years questions a sample size of tens of thousands of voters. Some acknowledge they are noncitizens and are thus ineligible to vote.


----------



## danielpalos

AZGAL said:


> *Study supports Trump: 5.7 million noncitizens may have cast illegal votes*
> By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times - Monday, June 19, 2017
> A research group in New Jersey has taken a fresh look at postelection polling data and concluded that the number of noncitizens voting illegally in U.S. elections is likely far greater than previous estimates.
> 
> As many as 5.7 million noncitizens may have voted in the 2008 election, which put Barack Obama in the White House.
> The research organization Just Facts, a widely cited, independent think tank led by self-described conservatives and libertarians, revealed its number-crunching in a report on national immigration.
> Just Facts President James D. Agresti and his team looked at data from an extensive Harvard/YouGov study that every two years questions a sample size of tens of thousands of voters. Some acknowledge they are noncitizens and are thus ineligible to vote.


the right wing expects us to believe, they All voted Blue and not Red.


----------



## AZGAL

*************************************************************************************************

*Texas judge hears arguments on DACA challenge*

By Tal Kopan and Jason Morris, CNN

Updated 5:15 PM ET, Wed August 8, 2018

District Judge Andrew Hanen, a George W. Bush appointee, heard arguments from 10 states that say DACA, a program that protects from deportation young undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children, is unconstitutional. Their arguments rely heavily on a previous court ruling from Hanen that blocked an expansion of the program and the creation of a similar program for immigrant parents in 2014 from going into effect.
Hanen did not rule Wednesday and said he would hold off ruling on the constitutionality of DACA for now and consider only the request to immediately stop it.

DACA was created by executive action during the Obama administration, but opponents of President Donald Trump's decision to end it have convinced multiple federal judges this year that doing so violates the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that dictates how the government can create or change regulations. Hanen asked for responses from both sides by Monday on whether DACA itself also runs afoul of the act.

The Trump administration decided to end DACA last September, in part due to a threat from Texas and other states to sue if it didn't. But in the months since, three federal judges around the country have ruled that decision was not adequately justified, and have ordered the program to remain.
Texas sued, in the end, to argue that the original program was unconstitutional so it could be wiped off the books. The administration has decided to not defend DACA in Hanen's court, so pro-immigrant groups and New Jersey stepped in to defend the program instead.

The Trump administration has argued to Hanen that if he decides to issue an immediate stoppage of the program, he should limit any ruling to recipients in the states that have sued and should delay his order's effectiveness to give the administration time to appeal. A Justice Department attorney reiterated that position Wednesday in court.

Attorneys for the immigration advocacy group MALDEF argued that a key issue facing Hanen is whether Texas and other states can legally bring the case to begin with and are suffering irreparable harm from DACA, which has existed for five years.
"In addition to the legality of DACA, one of the more important topics of today's hearing was whether Texas was suffering any kind of injury whatsoever from having DACA recipients living and working in the state," said MALDEF attorney Nina Perales. "Texas was not able to point to evidence that DACA recipients are costing the state anything."

*Multiple cases*
The Trump administration is already preparing to appeal a different order from a Washington, DC, district judge, which would require it to reopen the program to new applications and restore it in full. Previous courts had merely ordered the government to continue renewing permits. That judge postponed the implementation of his decision 20 days to allow for the appeal. Other cases are pending before appellate courts in California and New York.

Hanen is widely seen as unfriendly to DACA, given his previous ruling on its sister program, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents.
"Issues in front of the court are issues that have already been decided," the lead attorney for the states challenging DACA, Todd Disher, said in court Wednesday. "This is not a close case."
Obama's move was a "direct defiance" of the law, Disher added.

If Hanen were to rule DACA should be ended, that would conflict with the court rulings that the program should be reopened -- likely setting the stage for a fast track to the Supreme Court by this fall.


----------



## AZGAL

*Donald J. Trump*‏Verified account @*realDonaldTrump* Aug 6


Democrats want Open Borders and they want to abolish ICE, the brave men and women that are protecting our Country from some of the most vicious and dangerous people on earth! Sorry, we can’t let that happen! Also, change the rules in the Senate and approve STRONG Border Security!


----------



## danielpalos

Why are we Losing money on border policy and not Making money on border policy, like Good capitalists should?


----------



## protectionist

JoeB131 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your answer is yes, you would oppose having an ID law requiring proof of citizenship ? To keep aliens from voting. Well sure, because that would keep your illegal alien friends from voting, and helping to get Democrats elected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to prove that they are voting, and these laws are being used to keep citizens of color from voting because they can't afford an ID.
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> And deflecting to how many illegals are voting or not, is a DODGE. Simply enacting a citizenship requirement isn't a big deal. It's inexpensive both with time and money, it's easy, and should be done, regardless of anybody's estimate of the illegality taking place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, guy, I'm only for finding solutions to problems that ACTUALLY EXIST.  If so few illegals are voting that it won't really effect the outcome of an election, then this really isn't a problem.
> 
> THere are good reasons to have a national ID Card. Employment verification being the obvious one.  But the Right doesn't want to give that kind of power to the Federal Government.
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> And for the illegal alien voter, there's nothing "elusive" about him to me. I've talked to them all across the country, in voting halls, on construction sites, in office buildings doing janitorial work, around my apartment complex doing landscaping, etc. And they're always willing to brag about how many laws they break (voting no exception)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, buddy you talk to the janitor?   doesn't seem likely.
> 
> And then they totally admit that they are breaking laws... that doesn't seem very smart.
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You make a statement. you present no evidence.
> 
> 2. They are *NOT asked to show CITIZENSHIP ID*. Showing ordinary personal ID is something anyone can do, and has nothing to do with citizenship, or being an illegal alien (or legal alien) People in voting places have no idea if anyone is a citizen or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, what happens is that when I go to vote, I am asked to sign my card, and it is compared to the signature they have on file for me.
Click to expand...

You're just talking like an idiot saying "You have yet to prove that they are voting"  Don't be an ass. It's that kind of dumbass talk that got Hillary Clinton thrown into the garbage. The "citizens of color" BS is just as dopey - more votes lost for Democrats. People don't appreciate being conned. And all the phony attacks on Trump RAISE his popularity. You still don't get it.  Trump will win again.

Only citizenship ID is needed. The right wants that.  You try to change reality. The folks aren't buying it.

I talked to janitors (in Spanish) for HOURS, when I used to work as a security guard at night in office buildings.  One time 11 illegal aliens from Ecuador showed up, looking for a place to stay for the night. Mexican janitor invited them in. I got rid of them.

HA HA. Doesn't seem likely, huh?  Sounds like you never talked to an illegal alien. I have HUNDREDS of times, for 40 years. You shouldn't even be in this discussion. You have no idea what you're talking about.  Nobody is more talkative (in Spanish) than illegal aliens from Mexico, after they've had a couple of beers (which they drink even while working).  You can trust me on that.  This is what frequently happens when you talk to liberals. You say things you've known all your life, and they act like it's a question.  Pheeeew! (high-pitched whistle) I feel like I'm talking to somebody who just arrived here from another planet, and doesn't know Anything.

Oh, so you are asked to sign a card, and it is compared to the signature they have on file for you, huh ?  Well, that's nice.  Problem is, at no point are you required to present CITIZENSHIP ID, thereby allowing non-citizens to vote.  Get it ?


----------



## AZGAL

IDIOTIC:
https://www.maldef.org/assets/pdf/Census_Complaint.pdf

CORRECT:
Title 13 of the United States Code - Wikipedia


----------



## protectionist

AZGAL said:


> IDIOTIC:
> https://www.maldef.org/assets/pdf/Census_Complaint.pdf
> 
> CORRECT:
> Title 13 of the United States Code - Wikipedia


MALDEF is just a legal version of La Raza.  Pro- Mexican.  Anti-American.  You could expect to see their people on US streets waving Mexican flags.


----------



## AZGAL

AZGAL said:


> CORRECT:
> Title 13 of the United States Code - Wikipedia


 OUR federal government is responsible for issues involving the census, borders, immigration, visas, etc...................NOT activists judges... sanctuary cities and abolish ICE are treason.


----------



## MaryL

Shouldn't the question be rather : What is the  human cost of not controlling immigration? Americans losing jobs , for starters. Americans losing homes, for the other.These are not rich white intellectuals, these are  hard working lower income not so intellectual Americans of all stripes that did blue collar jobs  jobs 25 years ago we so eagerly hand over to wetbacks. Why is that OK all of a sudden? Want to be humanitarian? For starters, stop legitimizing hiring illegal aliens, because that is plainly about exploitation and profit, stop pretending cynically it's about "humanitarianism". Far from it. Humanitarianism is the last thing about illegal aliens that is the issue.


----------



## AZGAL

AZGAL said:


> *************************************************************************************************
> 
> *Texas judge hears arguments on DACA challenge*
> 
> By Tal Kopan and Jason Morris, CNN
> 
> Updated 5:15 PM ET, Wed August 8, 2018
> 
> District Judge Andrew Hanen, a George W. Bush appointee, heard arguments from 10 states that say DACA, a program that protects from deportation young undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children, is unconstitutional. Their arguments rely heavily on a previous court ruling from Hanen that blocked an expansion of the program and the creation of a similar program for immigrant parents in 2014 from going into effect.
> Hanen did not rule Wednesday and said he would hold off ruling on the constitutionality of DACA for now and consider only the request to immediately stop it.
> 
> DACA was created by executive action during the Obama administration, but opponents of President Donald Trump's decision to end it have convinced multiple federal judges this year that doing so violates the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that dictates how the government can create or change regulations. Hanen asked for responses from both sides by Monday on whether DACA itself also runs afoul of the act.
> 
> The Trump administration decided to end DACA last September, in part due to a threat from Texas and other states to sue if it didn't. But in the months since, three federal judges around the country have ruled that decision was not adequately justified, and have ordered the program to remain.
> Texas sued, in the end, to argue that the original program was unconstitutional so it could be wiped off the books. The administration has decided to not defend DACA in Hanen's court, so pro-immigrant groups and New Jersey stepped in to defend the program instead.
> 
> The Trump administration has argued to Hanen that if he decides to issue an immediate stoppage of the program, he should limit any ruling to recipients in the states that have sued and should delay his order's effectiveness to give the administration time to appeal. A Justice Department attorney reiterated that position Wednesday in court.
> 
> Attorneys for the immigration advocacy group MALDEF argued that a key issue facing Hanen is whether Texas and other states can legally bring the case to begin with and are suffering irreparable harm from DACA, which has existed for five years.
> "In addition to the legality of DACA, one of the more important topics of today's hearing was whether Texas was suffering any kind of injury whatsoever from having DACA recipients living and working in the state," said MALDEF attorney Nina Perales. "Texas was not able to point to evidence that DACA recipients are costing the state anything."
> 
> *Multiple cases*
> The Trump administration is already preparing to appeal a different order from a Washington, DC, district judge, which would require it to reopen the program to new applications and restore it in full. Previous courts had merely ordered the government to continue renewing permits. That judge postponed the implementation of his decision 20 days to allow for the appeal. Other cases are pending before appellate courts in California and New York.
> 
> Hanen is widely seen as unfriendly to DACA, given his previous ruling on its sister program, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents.
> "Issues in front of the court are issues that have already been decided," the lead attorney for the states challenging DACA, Todd Disher, said in court Wednesday. "This is not a close case."
> Obama's move was a "direct defiance" of the law, Disher added.
> 
> If Hanen were to rule DACA should be ended, that would conflict with the court rulings that the program should be reopened -- likely setting the stage for a fast track to the Supreme Court by this fall.


Texas judge hears arguments on DACA challenge @CNNPolitics Texas judge hears arguments on DACA challenge - CNNPolitics


----------



## protectionist

MaryL said:


> Shouldn't the question be rather : What is the  human cost of not controlling immigration? Americans losing jobs , for starters. Americans losing homes, for the other.These are not rich white intellectuals, these are  hard working lower income not so intellectual Americans of all stripes that did blue collar jobs  jobs 25 years ago we so eagerly hand over to wetbacks. Why is that OK all of a sudden? Want to be humanitarian? For starters, stop legitimizing hiring illegal aliens, because that is plainly about exploitation and profit, stop pretending cynically it's about "humanitarianism". Far from it. Humanitarianism is the last thing about illegal aliens that is the issue.


*Harms* of Immigration

1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).

2. Wage reduction.

3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).

4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($138 Billion/year).

5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.

6. Increased crime.

7. Increased traffic congestion.

8. Increased pollution.

9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.

10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.

11. Overcrowding in government offices.

12. Overcrowding in schools.

13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.

14. Cultural erosion.

15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)

16. Introduction of foreign diseases

17. Influx of terrorists.

18.  Litter.

19.  Forest fires.


----------



## protectionist

AZGAL said:


> Texas judge hears arguments on DACA challenge @CNNPolitics Texas judge hears arguments on DACA challenge - CNNPolitics


Quite amazing the audacity of MALDEF attorney Nina Perales, to say >> _"Texas was not able to point to evidence that DACA recipients are costing the state anything." 
_
Oh no, Nina ?  Maybe Nina should read Post # 5064 in this thread.


----------



## MaryL

Mexican culture, some idolize it. The animal torture for fun (bull cock or dog fighting) aspect.
there's that. Undeniable.  Even Hispanics have to admit, just how  sadistic, misogynistic  and male dominated Mexican culture Is. And the homophobic aspect. Everything liberals oppose, why do  they support by allowing illegal aliens from Mexico? And the fact they  are dispossessing poor Americans, that's the icing on the cake. And the cake is NOT a lie.


----------



## danielpalos

protectionist said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't the question be rather : What is the  human cost of not controlling immigration? Americans losing jobs , for starters. Americans losing homes, for the other.These are not rich white intellectuals, these are  hard working lower income not so intellectual Americans of all stripes that did blue collar jobs  jobs 25 years ago we so eagerly hand over to wetbacks. Why is that OK all of a sudden? Want to be humanitarian? For starters, stop legitimizing hiring illegal aliens, because that is plainly about exploitation and profit, stop pretending cynically it's about "humanitarianism". Far from it. Humanitarianism is the last thing about illegal aliens that is the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> *Harms* of Immigration
> 
> 1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).
> 
> 2. Wage reduction.
> 
> 3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).
> 
> 4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($138 Billion/year).
> 
> 5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.
> 
> 6. Increased crime.
> 
> 7. Increased traffic congestion.
> 
> 8. Increased pollution.
> 
> 9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.
> 
> 10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.
> 
> 11. Overcrowding in government offices.
> 
> 12. Overcrowding in schools.
> 
> 13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.
> 
> 14. Cultural erosion.
> 
> 15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)
> 
> 16. Introduction of foreign diseases
> 
> 17. Influx of terrorists.
> 
> 18.  Litter.
> 
> 19.  Forest fires.
Click to expand...

lousy public policy, right wingers.  we should be Making capital not Losing capital on border policies.  only capitalists with lousy capital intuition, do that.


----------



## MaryL

Well, when it comes to capitalism, rich intellectual liberals know how to "capitalize" on them. Ever so subtly and cynically.  Those poor witto Mexicans make great neo-slaves. And American workers are just trash because they want better lives...Yeah, like that.


----------



## danielpalos

MaryL said:


> Well, when it comes to capitalism, rich intellectual liberals know how to "capitalize" on them. Ever so subtly and cynically.  Those poor witto Mexicans make great neo-slaves. And American workers are just trash because they want better... Yeah, like that.


it is you right wingers who prefer helping the rich get richer, at the expense of the poor.


----------



## MaryL

danielpalos said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when it comes to capitalism, rich intellectual liberals know how to "capitalize" on them. Ever so subtly and cynically.  Those poor witto Mexicans make great neo-slaves. And American workers are just trash because they want better... Yeah, like that.
> 
> 
> 
> it is you right wingers who prefer helping the rich get richer, at the expense of the poor.
Click to expand...

Not a right winger. I am a poor American. Funny how people jump to conclusions, that doesn't burn off  too many calories, buck a roo.


----------



## danielpalos

MaryL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when it comes to capitalism, rich intellectual liberals know how to "capitalize" on them. Ever so subtly and cynically.  Those poor witto Mexicans make great neo-slaves. And American workers are just trash because they want better... Yeah, like that.
> 
> 
> 
> it is you right wingers who prefer helping the rich get richer, at the expense of the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a right winger. I am a poor American. Funny how people jump to conclusions, that doesn't burn off  too many calories, buck a roo.
Click to expand...

lol.  You Only seem to know right wing propaganda, down pat.


----------



## MaryL

Why is it poor  Americans are forgettable  trash...just trying to preserve  culture, or lower class jobs. that is characterized as "bad"?  But Mexican illegal aliens can violate immigration law everyone else  follows,  suddenly   Mexicans  are  poor victims  and god's gift to mankind above immigration laws. How did that happen? Mexican culture is above all reproach because, well, because people that hire them say so. Well, do tell! We never noticed. Nobody else in American history  has ever gotten  this level of special treatment or entire cities given to "Sanctuary". Just Mexicans. Explain that to me. Please, do.


----------



## MaryL

Explain this to me, HOW did Mexican illegals earn sanctuary cities? I have known plenty of real immigrants over  50 years, they ALL had to follow immigration laws. They all got visas, and so on. Why are  people over valuing Mexican immigrants, and why  can't they follow the same  immigration laws everyone has in the last 100 years? What makes them so extra special?


----------



## danielpalos

Do you believe our federal Constitution, covers the concept of natural rights?


----------



## danielpalos

Only lousy capitalists whine about their own, lousy capital management skills.

Why are we Losing money on border policy instead of Making money, like good capitalists should?


----------



## AZGAL

New Jersey Real-Time News
*ICE targets 75 N.J. businesses suspected of hiring unauthorized immigrants or other violations*

By Kelly Heyboer
NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

Immigration officials have notified 75 New Jersey businesses that their hiring records will be audited to determine if they are employing unauthorized immigrants or violating other labor laws, federal officials said.
The New Jersey businesses targeted for inspections were among 2,738 flagged for audits last week during a four-day nationwide operation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency said.


----------



## AZGAL

Big Minnesota pork producer 'surprised' by immigration raids


----------



## danielpalos

All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.


----------



## AZGAL

Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare


----------



## MaryL

How did sanctuary cities just for Mexicans become an issue? Whilst poor Americans are being pushed out, losing their jobs and living in squalor in tents. We have to help those poor witto  illegal alien Mexicans, let's be humanitarian. And in the meantime screw  American poor. They are trash and don't deserve special considerations. Nope, just Mexican illegals are human beings that want a better life, yep, Mexicans have a corner on the  humanitarian market. Just Mexicans, nobody else. Yep, they are the only ones. And, apparently, they can do whatever  they want to get  that "better life".  Beg barrow or steal.No matter. All the other millions of immigrants  that followed  the laws over the past 150 years? No sanctuary for THEM. Just  Mexicans. Isn't that amazing?


----------



## danielpalos

We should be making money not losing money on border policy.

The amusement park model can make money and use capitalism to help cover costs.

entry visa fees can include catastrophic health coverage and contribute to an unemployment compensation fund.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The longest economic expansion I have seen was
> Mar 1991–Mar 2001 - 120 months.
> We are currently 108 months into the current expansion.  The slow recovery indicates it may well have a serveral years of expansion.
> 
> Even if the economy is interrupted by a recession which the average length is about 14 months, there is every reason to expect the 24 million figure will be reached because we are going to get 18 million job openings from boomer retirements even it there is no growth. If current job growth continues at the current level, we would have 13 million jobs from growth.  No matter how you cut it the probability is pretty high that we will have far more jobs than we can possibly fill.
> 
> Keep in mind the immigration quotas are targets, the president can lower those numbers if needed.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said booming economy, not steady or interrupted by a recession.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Economically, the 1990's were not only the longest period of economic expansions in history but one the strongest with steady job creation averaging 250,000/mo,  low inflation, rising productivity, and a surging stock market.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going to debate that.  What I will debate is that we will run out of people to do the work in this country.  There is something wrong when you live in a country where there is more work than people, and 40 million people are still collecting food stamps.
> 
> Something is wrong, and it's not that we don't have enough people to do the work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, there is nothing wrong because when Welfare was reformed, social services were gradually reduced as family income increased. The idea was there would be no sharp cutoffs of benefits to encourage families to turn down work to keep benefits.  So instead of a family of 4 losing all food stamps benefits when family income reached say $28,000, benefits started decreasing from $500 a month as income increased.  When income reached say $36,000, food stamp benefits had gradually reduced to $30/mo.  So we have millions of people on SNAP getting very little in benefits.
> 
> We could probably cut 10 million people off of SNAP rolls and no one would go hunger.  However, we would have a sharp cut off so if you make a dollar more than cutoff, you lost all benefits.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in other words, what you are saying is that our social programs encourage people to not create income of their own.  I couldn't agree more.
> 
> So then the concept switches from needing more people to do the work to redoing our social programs so that social programs do encourage people to work. Again, I agree with that.
> 
> In other words, you stated that in the near future, we are going to need 6 million more workers than we have now  so we must allow immigration.  What's wrong with taking those 6 million collecting food stamps today from our food stamp and welfare pool?  It would still leave 34 million on the dole!
> 
> Now.....doing the calculations, those 6 million foreigners would still be here to fill in the gap since we bring in over a million people a year into this country plus work Visa's and permits.
> 
> We don't need anymore immigration than what we have now.  That's the point.
Click to expand...

*Unfilled job positions at the end of June was 6.7 million. The problem with forcing the people on foods stamps to fill those jobs is most of the adults are already working, 44% of those on food stamps are children, 9% are elderly, and 11% are disabled, and God knows how many are unemployable because of drugs, alcohol, and criminal convictions.

Having 6 million job openings is not a problem. The problem is the baby boomer retirements at the rate of 10,000 a day which will continue for nearly 10 years. Add that to normal job growth of 150,000 to 200,000 a month and that is a really big problem unless we discover a way to start clowning people.  Even if we continue with immigration of 1 million a year, that will not come close to meeting our needs.     

All social programs provide a reason not to work.  Whether it actually encourages someone not to work depends on the person and circumstance.  For a person who is physically incapable of working, any encouragement not to work is totally irrelevant. The same would hold truth for people that can earn substantial more working than they receive from welfare programs or a person that  is between jobs, etc..

By gradually reducing benefits as income increases there is much reason to turn work down.  With SNAP there are millions of people that are getting benefits as low as $15/mo per family.

SNAP like a number of other social programs do not pay for everything.  SNAP stands for Supplemental Nourishment, Assistance program.  Even if you qualify for full benefits, it will still be supplement and will not provide you with soap, toilet paper, sanitary napkins, toothpaste, pet food, vitamins, medicines,  alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, hot food, any food sold for on-premises consumption, soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, ice cream seafood, steaks, bakery cakes, etc.  In other words, a family has to have income from somewhere else to meet all their needs because SNAP won't.*


----------



## Flopper

danielpalos said:


> We should be making money not losing money on border policy.
> 
> The amusement park model can make money and use capitalism to help cover costs.
> 
> entry visa fees can include catastrophic health coverage and contribute to an unemployment compensation fund.


*The people that can afford to pay those fees won't need the coverage and the people that need the coverage won't be able to pay them.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said booming economy, not steady or interrupted by a recession.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> 
> 
> *Economically, the 1990's were not only the longest period of economic expansions in history but one the strongest with steady job creation averaging 250,000/mo,  low inflation, rising productivity, and a surging stock market.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going to debate that.  What I will debate is that we will run out of people to do the work in this country.  There is something wrong when you live in a country where there is more work than people, and 40 million people are still collecting food stamps.
> 
> Something is wrong, and it's not that we don't have enough people to do the work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, there is nothing wrong because when Welfare was reformed, social services were gradually reduced as family income increased. The idea was there would be no sharp cutoffs of benefits to encourage families to turn down work to keep benefits.  So instead of a family of 4 losing all food stamps benefits when family income reached say $28,000, benefits started decreasing from $500 a month as income increased.  When income reached say $36,000, food stamp benefits had gradually reduced to $30/mo.  So we have millions of people on SNAP getting very little in benefits.
> 
> We could probably cut 10 million people off of SNAP rolls and no one would go hunger.  However, we would have a sharp cut off so if you make a dollar more than cutoff, you lost all benefits.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in other words, what you are saying is that our social programs encourage people to not create income of their own.  I couldn't agree more.
> 
> So then the concept switches from needing more people to do the work to redoing our social programs so that social programs do encourage people to work. Again, I agree with that.
> 
> In other words, you stated that in the near future, we are going to need 6 million more workers than we have now  so we must allow immigration.  What's wrong with taking those 6 million collecting food stamps today from our food stamp and welfare pool?  It would still leave 34 million on the dole!
> 
> Now.....doing the calculations, those 6 million foreigners would still be here to fill in the gap since we bring in over a million people a year into this country plus work Visa's and permits.
> 
> We don't need anymore immigration than what we have now.  That's the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Unfilled job positions at the end of June was 6.7 million. The problem with forcing the people on foods stamps to fill those jobs is most of the adults are already working, 44% of those on food stamps are children, 9% are elderly, and 11% are disabled, and God knows how many are unemployable because of drugs, alcohol, and criminal convictions.
> 
> Having 6 million job openings is not a problem. The problem is the baby boomer retirements at the rate of 10,000 a day which will continue for nearly 10 years. Add that to normal job growth of 150,000 to 200,000 a month and that is a really big problem unless we discover a way to start clowning people.  Even if we continue with immigration of 1 million a year, that will not come close to meeting our needs.
> 
> All social programs provide a reason not to work.  Whether it actually encourages someone not to work depends on the person and circumstance.  For a person who is physically incapable of working, any encouragement not to work is totally irrelevant. The same would hold truth for people that can earn substantial more working than they receive from welfare programs or a person that  is between jobs, etc..
> 
> By gradually reducing benefits as income increases there is much reason to turn work down.  With SNAP there are millions of people that are getting benefits as low as $15/mo per family.
> 
> SNAP like a number of other social programs do not pay for everything.  SNAP stands for Supplemental Nourishment, Assistance program.  Even if you qualify for full benefits, it will still be supplement and will not provide you with soap, toilet paper, sanitary napkins, toothpaste, pet food, vitamins, medicines,  alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, hot food, any food sold for on-premises consumption, soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, ice cream seafood, steaks, bakery cakes, etc.  In other words, a family has to have income from somewhere else to meet all their needs because SNAP won't.*
Click to expand...


Oh trust me I know.  I see it at my local grocery store all the time.  They load the belt with their SNAP items, and then whip out a wad of cash for their cigarettes, wine or beer, greeting cards, perfume, huge bags of dog food, cat litter, and then they push that cart to their late model SUV.

The newest scam is they ask people in line if they could use their food stamps to buy your items.  Then at the end of the checkout, they will sell you your items back for five dollars less.  You get the discount, they get the cash for their food stamps.

Wages in this country is almost a perfect system with supply and demand.  When supply is plentiful, wages go down.  When supply is limited, wages go up.   Like I said, almost a perfect system unless you throw monkey wrenches into it like unions or immigrants.  When you start doing that, you defeat the whole supply and demand concept.  Forcing employers to pay more than they have to for labor increases costs to the consumer.  Bringing in low level workers keeps pay scales down because the supply part is easily met.


----------



## danielpalos

Flopper said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should be making money not losing money on border policy.
> 
> The amusement park model can make money and use capitalism to help cover costs.
> 
> entry visa fees can include catastrophic health coverage and contribute to an unemployment compensation fund.
> 
> 
> 
> *The people that can afford to pay those fees won't need the coverage and the people that need the coverage won't be able to pay them.*
Click to expand...

Black marketeers make at least that much.


----------



## MaryL

I have the envied and coveted 509th post here. I am nobody. Illegal aliens, Mexicans whatever they are, they get this "Sanctuary". I got nothing here. Literally, our own so called  local government  pays more attention to the welfare of illegals from Mexico than our own poor  for Christ sake already They live in tents near the Platte river. Mexicans get houses and free housing. Yeah. Poor Americans, nobody  sees them. I do, but none the less. But poor itty bitty illegal aliens from Mexico, THEY are the center of the moral universe. Explain that to me, the 509th poster in line. 'Cause something doesn't seem right here.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since that isn't happening, I'm not that concerned with it.  You guys have been looking for the elusive illegal alien voter since 2000 and haven't found him yet.
> 
> It's the right that opposes a national ID system, not the left.
> 
> 
> 
> So your answer is yes, you would oppose having an ID law requiring proof of citizenship ? To keep aliens from voting.  Well sure, because that would keep your illegal alien friends from voting, and helping to get Democrats elected.
> 
> And deflecting to how many illegals are voting or not, is a DODGE.  Simply enacting a citizenship requirement isn't a big deal. It's inexpensive both with time and money, it's easy, and should be done, regardless of anybody's estimate of the illegality taking place.
> 
> And for the illegal alien voter, there's nothing "elusive" about him to me.  I've talked to them all across the country, in voting halls, on construction sites, in office buildings doing janitorial work, around my apartment complex doing landscaping, etc. And they're always willing to brag about how many laws they break (voting no exception)
> 
> Whatever gave you the idea we hadn't found them ? Let me guess >> CNN, MSNBC, look no further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illegals are not voting.
> 
> Why would a person hiding from the law walk into a government run facility where they may be asked to show ID?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would a person cross our borders illegally or overstay their Visa illegally?
Click to expand...

*People that sneak into the country have about as much interest in our elections as we have in theirs. Any foreigner who would risk deportation and jail time to vote would have to be nuts since the chance of their vote making any difference is about 1 in million.*


----------



## danielpalos

MaryL said:


> I have the envied and coveted 509th post here. I am nobody. Illegal aliens, Mexicans whatever they are, they get this "Sanctuary". I got nothing here. Literally, our own so called  local government  pays more attention to the welfare of illegals from Mexico than our own poor  for Christ sake already They live in tents near the Platte river. Mexicans get houses and free housing. Yeah. Poor Americans, nobody  sees them. I do, but none the less. But poor itty bitty illegal aliens from Mexico, THEY are the center of the moral universe. Explain that to me, the 509th poster in line. 'Cause something doesn't seem right here.


too late; the rich already got richer with your right wing, tax cut economics.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Economically, the 1990's were not only the longest period of economic expansions in history but one the strongest with steady job creation averaging 250,000/mo,  low inflation, rising productivity, and a surging stock market.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to debate that.  What I will debate is that we will run out of people to do the work in this country.  There is something wrong when you live in a country where there is more work than people, and 40 million people are still collecting food stamps.
> 
> Something is wrong, and it's not that we don't have enough people to do the work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No, there is nothing wrong because when Welfare was reformed, social services were gradually reduced as family income increased. The idea was there would be no sharp cutoffs of benefits to encourage families to turn down work to keep benefits.  So instead of a family of 4 losing all food stamps benefits when family income reached say $28,000, benefits started decreasing from $500 a month as income increased.  When income reached say $36,000, food stamp benefits had gradually reduced to $30/mo.  So we have millions of people on SNAP getting very little in benefits.
> 
> We could probably cut 10 million people off of SNAP rolls and no one would go hunger.  However, we would have a sharp cut off so if you make a dollar more than cutoff, you lost all benefits.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in other words, what you are saying is that our social programs encourage people to not create income of their own.  I couldn't agree more.
> 
> So then the concept switches from needing more people to do the work to redoing our social programs so that social programs do encourage people to work. Again, I agree with that.
> 
> In other words, you stated that in the near future, we are going to need 6 million more workers than we have now  so we must allow immigration.  What's wrong with taking those 6 million collecting food stamps today from our food stamp and welfare pool?  It would still leave 34 million on the dole!
> 
> Now.....doing the calculations, those 6 million foreigners would still be here to fill in the gap since we bring in over a million people a year into this country plus work Visa's and permits.
> 
> We don't need anymore immigration than what we have now.  That's the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Unfilled job positions at the end of June was 6.7 million. The problem with forcing the people on foods stamps to fill those jobs is most of the adults are already working, 44% of those on food stamps are children, 9% are elderly, and 11% are disabled, and God knows how many are unemployable because of drugs, alcohol, and criminal convictions.
> 
> Having 6 million job openings is not a problem. The problem is the baby boomer retirements at the rate of 10,000 a day which will continue for nearly 10 years. Add that to normal job growth of 150,000 to 200,000 a month and that is a really big problem unless we discover a way to start clowning people.  Even if we continue with immigration of 1 million a year, that will not come close to meeting our needs.
> 
> All social programs provide a reason not to work.  Whether it actually encourages someone not to work depends on the person and circumstance.  For a person who is physically incapable of working, any encouragement not to work is totally irrelevant. The same would hold truth for people that can earn substantial more working than they receive from welfare programs or a person that  is between jobs, etc..
> 
> By gradually reducing benefits as income increases there is much reason to turn work down.  With SNAP there are millions of people that are getting benefits as low as $15/mo per family.
> 
> SNAP like a number of other social programs do not pay for everything.  SNAP stands for Supplemental Nourishment, Assistance program.  Even if you qualify for full benefits, it will still be supplement and will not provide you with soap, toilet paper, sanitary napkins, toothpaste, pet food, vitamins, medicines,  alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, hot food, any food sold for on-premises consumption, soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, ice cream seafood, steaks, bakery cakes, etc.  In other words, a family has to have income from somewhere else to meet all their needs because SNAP won't.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh trust me I know.  I see it at my local grocery store all the time.  They load the belt with their SNAP items, and then whip out a wad of cash for their cigarettes, wine or beer, greeting cards, perfume, huge bags of dog food, cat litter, and then they push that cart to their late model SUV.
> 
> The newest scam is they ask people in line if they could use their food stamps to buy your items.  Then at the end of the checkout, they will sell you your items back for five dollars less.  You get the discount, they get the cash for their food stamps.
> 
> Wages in this country is almost a perfect system with supply and demand.  When supply is plentiful, wages go down.  When supply is limited, wages go up.   Like I said, almost a perfect system unless you throw monkey wrenches into it like unions or immigrants.  When you start doing that, you defeat the whole supply and demand concept.  Forcing employers to pay more than they have to for labor increases costs to the consumer.  Bringing in low level workers keeps pay scales down because the supply part is easily met.
Click to expand...

*I guess you see what you want to see.  How do you know people are using SNAP?  They put their groceries on the checkout counter, the clerk rings them up and the customer slides their EBT card just like a credit card.  Sometimes people separate groceries and use two cards, maybe an EBT and a credit card or maybe just two separate credit cards. Anyway, I go to the grocery twice a week and I have never seen any of the things you see. 

The biggest misconception about social programs is that the people that receive benefits are lazy bums and don't work when the truth is they do work and earn enough to pay a big part of the family expenses and their benefits are just a supplement.  

I have a friend who manages our local Safeway Store.  He told me that almost half of his employee's families have EBT cards and most of them get at least part of their healthcare coverage from Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program.

*


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> I have the envied and coveted 509th post here. I am nobody. Illegal aliens, Mexicans whatever they are, they get this "Sanctuary". I got nothing here. Literally, our own so called  local government  pays more attention to the welfare of illegals from Mexico than our own poor  for Christ sake already They live in tents near the Platte river. Mexicans get houses and free housing. Yeah. Poor Americans, nobody  sees them. I do, but none the less. But poor itty bitty illegal aliens from Mexico, THEY are the center of the moral universe. Explain that to me, the 509th poster in line. 'Cause something doesn't seem right here.




You have posted the same thing 11,000 times.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

#getout


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac




----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to debate that.  What I will debate is that we will run out of people to do the work in this country.  There is something wrong when you live in a country where there is more work than people, and 40 million people are still collecting food stamps.
> 
> Something is wrong, and it's not that we don't have enough people to do the work.
> 
> 
> 
> *No, there is nothing wrong because when Welfare was reformed, social services were gradually reduced as family income increased. The idea was there would be no sharp cutoffs of benefits to encourage families to turn down work to keep benefits.  So instead of a family of 4 losing all food stamps benefits when family income reached say $28,000, benefits started decreasing from $500 a month as income increased.  When income reached say $36,000, food stamp benefits had gradually reduced to $30/mo.  So we have millions of people on SNAP getting very little in benefits.
> 
> We could probably cut 10 million people off of SNAP rolls and no one would go hunger.  However, we would have a sharp cut off so if you make a dollar more than cutoff, you lost all benefits.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in other words, what you are saying is that our social programs encourage people to not create income of their own.  I couldn't agree more.
> 
> So then the concept switches from needing more people to do the work to redoing our social programs so that social programs do encourage people to work. Again, I agree with that.
> 
> In other words, you stated that in the near future, we are going to need 6 million more workers than we have now  so we must allow immigration.  What's wrong with taking those 6 million collecting food stamps today from our food stamp and welfare pool?  It would still leave 34 million on the dole!
> 
> Now.....doing the calculations, those 6 million foreigners would still be here to fill in the gap since we bring in over a million people a year into this country plus work Visa's and permits.
> 
> We don't need anymore immigration than what we have now.  That's the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Unfilled job positions at the end of June was 6.7 million. The problem with forcing the people on foods stamps to fill those jobs is most of the adults are already working, 44% of those on food stamps are children, 9% are elderly, and 11% are disabled, and God knows how many are unemployable because of drugs, alcohol, and criminal convictions.
> 
> Having 6 million job openings is not a problem. The problem is the baby boomer retirements at the rate of 10,000 a day which will continue for nearly 10 years. Add that to normal job growth of 150,000 to 200,000 a month and that is a really big problem unless we discover a way to start clowning people.  Even if we continue with immigration of 1 million a year, that will not come close to meeting our needs.
> 
> All social programs provide a reason not to work.  Whether it actually encourages someone not to work depends on the person and circumstance.  For a person who is physically incapable of working, any encouragement not to work is totally irrelevant. The same would hold truth for people that can earn substantial more working than they receive from welfare programs or a person that  is between jobs, etc..
> 
> By gradually reducing benefits as income increases there is much reason to turn work down.  With SNAP there are millions of people that are getting benefits as low as $15/mo per family.
> 
> SNAP like a number of other social programs do not pay for everything.  SNAP stands for Supplemental Nourishment, Assistance program.  Even if you qualify for full benefits, it will still be supplement and will not provide you with soap, toilet paper, sanitary napkins, toothpaste, pet food, vitamins, medicines,  alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, hot food, any food sold for on-premises consumption, soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, ice cream seafood, steaks, bakery cakes, etc.  In other words, a family has to have income from somewhere else to meet all their needs because SNAP won't.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh trust me I know.  I see it at my local grocery store all the time.  They load the belt with their SNAP items, and then whip out a wad of cash for their cigarettes, wine or beer, greeting cards, perfume, huge bags of dog food, cat litter, and then they push that cart to their late model SUV.
> 
> The newest scam is they ask people in line if they could use their food stamps to buy your items.  Then at the end of the checkout, they will sell you your items back for five dollars less.  You get the discount, they get the cash for their food stamps.
> 
> Wages in this country is almost a perfect system with supply and demand.  When supply is plentiful, wages go down.  When supply is limited, wages go up.   Like I said, almost a perfect system unless you throw monkey wrenches into it like unions or immigrants.  When you start doing that, you defeat the whole supply and demand concept.  Forcing employers to pay more than they have to for labor increases costs to the consumer.  Bringing in low level workers keeps pay scales down because the supply part is easily met.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I guess you see what you want to see.  How do you know people are using SNAP?  They put their groceries on the checkout counter, the clerk rings them up and the customer slides their EBT card just like a credit card.  Sometimes people separate groceries and use two cards, maybe an EBT and a credit card or maybe just two separate credit cards. Anyway, I go to the grocery twice a week and I have never seen any of the things you see.
> 
> The biggest misconception about social programs is that the people that receive benefits are lazy bums and don't work when the truth is they do work and earn enough to pay a big part of the family expenses and their benefits are just a supplement.
> 
> I have a friend who manages our local Safeway Store.  He told me that almost half of his employee's families have EBT cards and most of them get at least part of their healthcare coverage from Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program.
> *
Click to expand...


At least in our state the snaps cards have huge letters saying SNAP'S .  But besides that, if somebody is going to use a debit or credit card, they will put all their purchases on that card, not just some of them.  

There is no logical reason to use a card and cash unless it's because of a government program.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since that isn't happening, I'm not that concerned with it.  You guys have been looking for the elusive illegal alien voter since 2000 and haven't found him yet.
> 
> It's the right that opposes a national ID system, not the left.
> 
> 
> 
> So your answer is yes, you would oppose having an ID law requiring proof of citizenship ? To keep aliens from voting.  Well sure, because that would keep your illegal alien friends from voting, and helping to get Democrats elected.
> 
> And deflecting to how many illegals are voting or not, is a DODGE.  Simply enacting a citizenship requirement isn't a big deal. It's inexpensive both with time and money, it's easy, and should be done, regardless of anybody's estimate of the illegality taking place.
> 
> And for the illegal alien voter, there's nothing "elusive" about him to me.  I've talked to them all across the country, in voting halls, on construction sites, in office buildings doing janitorial work, around my apartment complex doing landscaping, etc. And they're always willing to brag about how many laws they break (voting no exception)
> 
> Whatever gave you the idea we hadn't found them ? Let me guess >> CNN, MSNBC, look no further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illegals are not voting.
> 
> Why would a person hiding from the law walk into a government run facility where they may be asked to show ID?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would a person cross our borders illegally or overstay their Visa illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *People that sneak into the country have about as much interest in our elections as we have in theirs. Any foreigner who would risk deportation and jail time to vote would have to be nuts since the chance of their vote making any difference is about 1 in million.*
Click to expand...


I have a list of links if you care to read them about just that.  So what happens if an illegal is caught trying to vote? They tell him or her they can't vote.  Nobody calls the cops, nobody informs ICE; especially in sanctuary cities, nobody is hauled away.  They just get turned down at the polls.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No, there is nothing wrong because when Welfare was reformed, social services were gradually reduced as family income increased. The idea was there would be no sharp cutoffs of benefits to encourage families to turn down work to keep benefits.  So instead of a family of 4 losing all food stamps benefits when family income reached say $28,000, benefits started decreasing from $500 a month as income increased.  When income reached say $36,000, food stamp benefits had gradually reduced to $30/mo.  So we have millions of people on SNAP getting very little in benefits.
> 
> We could probably cut 10 million people off of SNAP rolls and no one would go hunger.  However, we would have a sharp cut off so if you make a dollar more than cutoff, you lost all benefits.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in other words, what you are saying is that our social programs encourage people to not create income of their own.  I couldn't agree more.
> 
> So then the concept switches from needing more people to do the work to redoing our social programs so that social programs do encourage people to work. Again, I agree with that.
> 
> In other words, you stated that in the near future, we are going to need 6 million more workers than we have now  so we must allow immigration.  What's wrong with taking those 6 million collecting food stamps today from our food stamp and welfare pool?  It would still leave 34 million on the dole!
> 
> Now.....doing the calculations, those 6 million foreigners would still be here to fill in the gap since we bring in over a million people a year into this country plus work Visa's and permits.
> 
> We don't need anymore immigration than what we have now.  That's the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Unfilled job positions at the end of June was 6.7 million. The problem with forcing the people on foods stamps to fill those jobs is most of the adults are already working, 44% of those on food stamps are children, 9% are elderly, and 11% are disabled, and God knows how many are unemployable because of drugs, alcohol, and criminal convictions.
> 
> Having 6 million job openings is not a problem. The problem is the baby boomer retirements at the rate of 10,000 a day which will continue for nearly 10 years. Add that to normal job growth of 150,000 to 200,000 a month and that is a really big problem unless we discover a way to start clowning people.  Even if we continue with immigration of 1 million a year, that will not come close to meeting our needs.
> 
> All social programs provide a reason not to work.  Whether it actually encourages someone not to work depends on the person and circumstance.  For a person who is physically incapable of working, any encouragement not to work is totally irrelevant. The same would hold truth for people that can earn substantial more working than they receive from welfare programs or a person that  is between jobs, etc..
> 
> By gradually reducing benefits as income increases there is much reason to turn work down.  With SNAP there are millions of people that are getting benefits as low as $15/mo per family.
> 
> SNAP like a number of other social programs do not pay for everything.  SNAP stands for Supplemental Nourishment, Assistance program.  Even if you qualify for full benefits, it will still be supplement and will not provide you with soap, toilet paper, sanitary napkins, toothpaste, pet food, vitamins, medicines,  alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, hot food, any food sold for on-premises consumption, soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, ice cream seafood, steaks, bakery cakes, etc.  In other words, a family has to have income from somewhere else to meet all their needs because SNAP won't.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh trust me I know.  I see it at my local grocery store all the time.  They load the belt with their SNAP items, and then whip out a wad of cash for their cigarettes, wine or beer, greeting cards, perfume, huge bags of dog food, cat litter, and then they push that cart to their late model SUV.
> 
> The newest scam is they ask people in line if they could use their food stamps to buy your items.  Then at the end of the checkout, they will sell you your items back for five dollars less.  You get the discount, they get the cash for their food stamps.
> 
> Wages in this country is almost a perfect system with supply and demand.  When supply is plentiful, wages go down.  When supply is limited, wages go up.   Like I said, almost a perfect system unless you throw monkey wrenches into it like unions or immigrants.  When you start doing that, you defeat the whole supply and demand concept.  Forcing employers to pay more than they have to for labor increases costs to the consumer.  Bringing in low level workers keeps pay scales down because the supply part is easily met.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I guess you see what you want to see.  How do you know people are using SNAP?  They put their groceries on the checkout counter, the clerk rings them up and the customer slides their EBT card just like a credit card.  Sometimes people separate groceries and use two cards, maybe an EBT and a credit card or maybe just two separate credit cards. Anyway, I go to the grocery twice a week and I have never seen any of the things you see.
> 
> The biggest misconception about social programs is that the people that receive benefits are lazy bums and don't work when the truth is they do work and earn enough to pay a big part of the family expenses and their benefits are just a supplement.
> 
> I have a friend who manages our local Safeway Store.  He told me that almost half of his employee's families have EBT cards and most of them get at least part of their healthcare coverage from Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least in our state the snaps cards have huge letters saying SNAP'S .  But besides that, if somebody is going to use a debit or credit card, they will put all their purchases on that card, not just some of them.
> 
> There is no logical reason to use a card and cash unless it's because of a government program.
Click to expand...

*That's nonsense.  I go to the grocery a couple of times a week and buy stuff for neighbors and my daughter with cards and cash.  I almost always have two piles of stuff on the counter, and I don't have an EBT card.  The grocery stores I go to, the customer puts their credit, debt, or EBT card in the machine and it would be really hard to tell what kind of cards they have. *


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *People that sneak into the country have about as much interest in our elections as we have in theirs. Any foreigner who would risk deportation and jail time to vote would have to be nuts since the chance of their vote making any difference is about 1 in million.*


Their risk with voting is ZERO.  No one has any way of knowing their citizenship (or voting eligibility) status.


----------



## protectionist

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I have a list of links if you care to read them about just that.  So what happens if an illegal is caught trying to vote? They tell him or her they can't vote.  Nobody calls the cops, nobody informs ICE; especially in sanctuary cities, nobody is hauled away.  They just get turned down at the polls.


They don't get turned down at the polls, because nobody knows they're aliens. There's nothing to show it.


----------



## MaryL

I have to ASK, at what price do we allow legal immigration? All the jobs lost to illegals,  and then, say, all the American families broken up or lost for the sake of catering to  Mexican illegals? How many millions of dollars and how many Americans have suffered as  a consequence? And why  do  illegal aliens get such special treatment?  Illegal aliens cost us our  dignity, our collective  soul and our culture  Isn't that enough? What else can I say?


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yep, and that 85 year old guy sitting behind a table is a handwriting expert too!



Funny, I've been voting at my location for the last 15 years, and no one has ever tried to steal my identity and cast my ballot.  

How is that, with voter fraud being so rampant? 

Look, I realize that you live in mortal fear of the Darkies voting and getting some of your stuff, but really, it's the other white folks you need to watch out for.


----------



## JoeB131

AZGAL said:


> Wow JoeB, not only are you ignorant about geography, you are also ignorant about society as well. Many people are janitors, talk to janitors, and hire janitors. All the time buddy.



Again, doesn't pass the laugh test that  bigot like you would have regular conversations with an undocumented worker about his status. You'd probably report him to _La Migra_ five minutes later and he knows it. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Maybe we did and you don't know about it because you refuse to read the news:



When you start off with The Moonie Times as a "news source", there's no taking you seriously. You also have Judicial Watch and the PJ Media. I'm surprised you didn't try to pass off something from the Daily Stormer.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Need more stories, let me know. I have an entire folder of them.



Do you have any from a credible source where people actually have degrees in journalism and don't work for the Moonie Church?


----------



## RealDave

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since that isn't happening, I'm not that concerned with it.  You guys have been looking for the elusive illegal alien voter since 2000 and haven't found him yet.
> 
> It's the right that opposes a national ID system, not the left.
> 
> 
> 
> So your answer is yes, you would oppose having an ID law requiring proof of citizenship ? To keep aliens from voting.  Well sure, because that would keep your illegal alien friends from voting, and helping to get Democrats elected.
> 
> And deflecting to how many illegals are voting or not, is a DODGE.  Simply enacting a citizenship requirement isn't a big deal. It's inexpensive both with time and money, it's easy, and should be done, regardless of anybody's estimate of the illegality taking place.
> 
> And for the illegal alien voter, there's nothing "elusive" about him to me.  I've talked to them all across the country, in voting halls, on construction sites, in office buildings doing janitorial work, around my apartment complex doing landscaping, etc. And they're always willing to brag about how many laws they break (voting no exception)
> 
> Whatever gave you the idea we hadn't found them ? Let me guess >> CNN, MSNBC, look no further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illegals are not voting.
> 
> Why would a person hiding from the law walk into a government run facility where they may be asked to show ID?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would a person cross our borders illegally or overstay their Visa illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *People that sneak into the country have about as much interest in our elections as we have in theirs. Any foreigner who would risk deportation and jail time to vote would have to be nuts since the chance of their vote making any difference is about 1 in million.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a list of links if you care to read them about just that.  So what happens if an illegal is caught trying to vote? They tell him or her they can't vote.  Nobody calls the cops, nobody informs ICE; especially in sanctuary cities, nobody is hauled away.  They just get turned down at the polls.
Click to expand...


ILLEGALS ARE NOT TRYING TO VOTE.  You fucking ignorant lying POS.


----------



## AZGAL

JoeB131 said:


> doesn't pass the laugh test that bigot like you would have regular conversations with an undocumented worker


 So funny JoeBullshit that you think someone in Arizona does not meet janitors, landscapers, farm workers, etc. who are illegals working off the books. You are up north. This IS THE BORDER and HERE at the borders (CA, AZ, TX, etc...)...well just saying YOU are an IGNORANT ass to think otherwise...HERE at the BORDER we live the cultures and the issues, unlike you northern city dweller. You are a gigantic jackass in all your BS posts. I see and talk to immigrants all the time, and I leave the reporting to the PROS and to ICE ICE baby because that's their job, not mine.


----------



## RealDave

protectionist said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a list of links if you care to read them about just that.  So what happens if an illegal is caught trying to vote? They tell him or her they can't vote.  Nobody calls the cops, nobody informs ICE; especially in sanctuary cities, nobody is hauled away.  They just get turned down at the polls.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't get turned down at the polls, because nobody knows they're aliens. There's nothing to show it.
Click to expand...

  You have to be a registered voter to vote.  There is an application that is reviewed & confirmed.


----------



## Sahba

America was set up from its inception as a special club, an enclave from the rest of the world with the unique guiding rudiments of the Bill Of Rights and an unparalleled Constitutional system. The requisite membership criteria was by birthright or by invitation - ONLY. As a special club, there is NO global rite to membership or visitation! The 'invitation' to outsider membership can be enforced, by Our whimsy, as it fits & correlates to our perceived interests. Membership can be suspended by the unitary executive at any time, if it deleteriously impacts the safety or prosperity of its citizenry... Why the hell do you think that Trump got elected~ !


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

RealDave said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your answer is yes, you would oppose having an ID law requiring proof of citizenship ? To keep aliens from voting.  Well sure, because that would keep your illegal alien friends from voting, and helping to get Democrats elected.
> 
> And deflecting to how many illegals are voting or not, is a DODGE.  Simply enacting a citizenship requirement isn't a big deal. It's inexpensive both with time and money, it's easy, and should be done, regardless of anybody's estimate of the illegality taking place.
> 
> And for the illegal alien voter, there's nothing "elusive" about him to me.  I've talked to them all across the country, in voting halls, on construction sites, in office buildings doing janitorial work, around my apartment complex doing landscaping, etc. And they're always willing to brag about how many laws they break (voting no exception)
> 
> Whatever gave you the idea we hadn't found them ? Let me guess >> CNN, MSNBC, look no further.
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals are not voting.
> 
> Why would a person hiding from the law walk into a government run facility where they may be asked to show ID?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would a person cross our borders illegally or overstay their Visa illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *People that sneak into the country have about as much interest in our elections as we have in theirs. Any foreigner who would risk deportation and jail time to vote would have to be nuts since the chance of their vote making any difference is about 1 in million.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a list of links if you care to read them about just that.  So what happens if an illegal is caught trying to vote? They tell him or her they can't vote.  Nobody calls the cops, nobody informs ICE; especially in sanctuary cities, nobody is hauled away.  They just get turned down at the polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ILLEGALS ARE NOT TRYING TO VOTE.  You fucking ignorant lying POS.
Click to expand...


They aren't?  Glad you straightened that out for me:

What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> When you start off with The Moonie Times as a "news source", there's no taking you seriously. You also have Judicial Watch and the PJ Media. I'm surprised you didn't try to pass off something from the Daily Stormer.



Oh, okay,  then I anxiously await for you to prove them wrong.  



JoeB131 said:


> Do you have any from a credible source where people actually have degrees in journalism and don't work for the Moonie Church?



I bet you didn't read one paragraph of one post I pasted.  You just look at the source like all liberals do instead of facing the truth.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and that 85 year old guy sitting behind a table is a handwriting expert too!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I've been voting at my location for the last 15 years, and no one has ever tried to steal my identity and cast my ballot.
> 
> How is that, with voter fraud being so rampant?
> 
> Look, I realize that you live in mortal fear of the Darkies voting and getting some of your stuff, but really, it's the other white folks you need to watch out for.
Click to expand...


So who said it was rampant?  All I said is that yes, it's out there.  But the problem with bad votes is that it's difficult to prove until you actually catch somebody or some people.  It's like watching people speeding down the highway. They are breaking the law, but unless a cop laser's a car and pulls that person over, you don't have any proof people are speeding.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in other words, what you are saying is that our social programs encourage people to not create income of their own.  I couldn't agree more.
> 
> So then the concept switches from needing more people to do the work to redoing our social programs so that social programs do encourage people to work. Again, I agree with that.
> 
> In other words, you stated that in the near future, we are going to need 6 million more workers than we have now  so we must allow immigration.  What's wrong with taking those 6 million collecting food stamps today from our food stamp and welfare pool?  It would still leave 34 million on the dole!
> 
> Now.....doing the calculations, those 6 million foreigners would still be here to fill in the gap since we bring in over a million people a year into this country plus work Visa's and permits.
> 
> We don't need anymore immigration than what we have now.  That's the point.
> 
> 
> 
> *Unfilled job positions at the end of June was 6.7 million. The problem with forcing the people on foods stamps to fill those jobs is most of the adults are already working, 44% of those on food stamps are children, 9% are elderly, and 11% are disabled, and God knows how many are unemployable because of drugs, alcohol, and criminal convictions.
> 
> Having 6 million job openings is not a problem. The problem is the baby boomer retirements at the rate of 10,000 a day which will continue for nearly 10 years. Add that to normal job growth of 150,000 to 200,000 a month and that is a really big problem unless we discover a way to start clowning people.  Even if we continue with immigration of 1 million a year, that will not come close to meeting our needs.
> 
> All social programs provide a reason not to work.  Whether it actually encourages someone not to work depends on the person and circumstance.  For a person who is physically incapable of working, any encouragement not to work is totally irrelevant. The same would hold truth for people that can earn substantial more working than they receive from welfare programs or a person that  is between jobs, etc..
> 
> By gradually reducing benefits as income increases there is much reason to turn work down.  With SNAP there are millions of people that are getting benefits as low as $15/mo per family.
> 
> SNAP like a number of other social programs do not pay for everything.  SNAP stands for Supplemental Nourishment, Assistance program.  Even if you qualify for full benefits, it will still be supplement and will not provide you with soap, toilet paper, sanitary napkins, toothpaste, pet food, vitamins, medicines,  alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, hot food, any food sold for on-premises consumption, soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, ice cream seafood, steaks, bakery cakes, etc.  In other words, a family has to have income from somewhere else to meet all their needs because SNAP won't.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh trust me I know.  I see it at my local grocery store all the time.  They load the belt with their SNAP items, and then whip out a wad of cash for their cigarettes, wine or beer, greeting cards, perfume, huge bags of dog food, cat litter, and then they push that cart to their late model SUV.
> 
> The newest scam is they ask people in line if they could use their food stamps to buy your items.  Then at the end of the checkout, they will sell you your items back for five dollars less.  You get the discount, they get the cash for their food stamps.
> 
> Wages in this country is almost a perfect system with supply and demand.  When supply is plentiful, wages go down.  When supply is limited, wages go up.   Like I said, almost a perfect system unless you throw monkey wrenches into it like unions or immigrants.  When you start doing that, you defeat the whole supply and demand concept.  Forcing employers to pay more than they have to for labor increases costs to the consumer.  Bringing in low level workers keeps pay scales down because the supply part is easily met.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I guess you see what you want to see.  How do you know people are using SNAP?  They put their groceries on the checkout counter, the clerk rings them up and the customer slides their EBT card just like a credit card.  Sometimes people separate groceries and use two cards, maybe an EBT and a credit card or maybe just two separate credit cards. Anyway, I go to the grocery twice a week and I have never seen any of the things you see.
> 
> The biggest misconception about social programs is that the people that receive benefits are lazy bums and don't work when the truth is they do work and earn enough to pay a big part of the family expenses and their benefits are just a supplement.
> 
> I have a friend who manages our local Safeway Store.  He told me that almost half of his employee's families have EBT cards and most of them get at least part of their healthcare coverage from Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least in our state the snaps cards have huge letters saying SNAP'S .  But besides that, if somebody is going to use a debit or credit card, they will put all their purchases on that card, not just some of them.
> 
> There is no logical reason to use a card and cash unless it's because of a government program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That's nonsense.  I go to the grocery a couple of times a week and buy stuff for neighbors and my daughter with cards and cash.  I almost always have two piles of stuff on the counter, and I don't have an EBT card.  The grocery stores I go to, the customer puts their credit, debt, or EBT card in the machine and it would be really hard to tell what kind of cards they have. *
Click to expand...


Ours are pretty obvious:


----------



## JoeB131

AZGAL said:


> *Study supports Trump: 5.7 million noncitizens may have cast illegal votes*
> By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times



Okay... So you are citing the Moonie Times as a source? 

Do you think the Reverend Moon was the reincarnation of Jesus?  Because they do.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So who said it was rampant? All I said is that yes, it's out there. But the problem with bad votes is that it's difficult to prove until you actually catch somebody or some people. It's like watching people speeding down the highway. They are breaking the law, but unless a cop laser's a car and pulls that person over, you don't have any proof people are speeding.



Yawn, guy, you are comparing it to "speeding"?  Really?  



protectionist said:


> You're just talking like an idiot saying "You have yet to prove that they are voting" Don't be an ass. It's that kind of dumbass talk that got Hillary Clinton thrown into the garbage. The "citizens of color" BS is just as dopey - more votes lost for Democrats. People don't appreciate being conned. And all the phony attacks on Trump RAISE his popularity. You still don't get it. Trump will win again.



Trump is going to be a one term president, if he doesn't get impeached or removed for being a crazy person, first.  

But there was no illegals voting... sorry, just didn't happen. Hillary won by 3 million votes, but our awful system let a guy everyone knows is crazy take the job after the people said "No". 



protectionist said:


> HA HA. Doesn't seem likely, huh? Sounds like you never talked to an illegal alien. I have HUNDREDS of times, for 40 years. You shouldn't even be in this discussion. You have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody is more talkative (in Spanish) than illegal aliens from Mexico, after they've had a couple of beers (which they drink even while working). You can trust me on that. This is what frequently happens when you talk to liberals. You say things you've known all your life, and they act like it's a question. Pheeeew! (high-pitched whistle) I feel like I'm talking to somebody who just arrived here from another planet, and doesn't know Anything.



I lived next door to an illegal alien for 10 years, and had no idea he was undocumented until he got deported. His wife and kids are still struggling to get by.  

We talked a whole bunch of times, he never mentioned it once.


----------



## OODA_Loop

RealDave said:


> ILLEGALS ARE NOT TRYING TO VOTE. .



How would you know....?


----------



## AZGAL

Ha ha Joe you fall for the bait...It takes a Moonie to wake you up. YES dear ILLEGALS do vote.


----------



## JoeB131

protectionist said:


> *Harms* of Immigration
> 
> 1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).



Only the dumb white trash, and honestly, fuck those guys. 



protectionist said:


> 10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.



Funny, I go to recreational facilities all the time and they aren't "crowded". 



protectionist said:


> 14. Cultural erosion.



Not to worry, bud, your Trailer Park is still safe for your "Culture".


----------



## JoeB131

MaryL said:


> Why is it poor Americans are forgettable trash...just trying to preserve culture, or lower class jobs. that is characterized as "bad"? But Mexican illegal aliens can violate immigration law everyone else follows, suddenly Mexicans are poor victims and god's gift to mankind above immigration laws. How did that happen? Mexican culture is above all reproach because, well, because people that hire them say so. Well, do tell! We never noticed. Nobody else in American history has ever gotten this level of special treatment or entire cities given to "Sanctuary". Just Mexicans. Explain that to me. Please, do.



I could explain it to you and you still wouldn't understand it.  

Okay, 150 years ago, they said the same thing about the Irish.
100 years ago, they said the same thing about the Germans.
50 years ago, they said the same thing about the Poles


----------



## JoeB131

MaryL said:


> Explain this to me, HOW did Mexican illegals earn sanctuary cities? I have known plenty of real immigrants over 50 years, they ALL had to follow immigration laws. They all got visas, and so on. Why are people over valuing Mexican immigrants, and why can't they follow the same immigration laws everyone has in the last 100 years? What makes them so extra special?



That our immigration laws are unworkable, and cities have to work within the reality of their populations.  

That means that if your city services are seen as doing the work of ICE, people aren't going to report crimes, aren't going to be witnesses at trial, aren't going to report the guy who is selling drugs or stealing hubcaps.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Yawn, guy, you are comparing it to "speeding"? Really?



A little slow today Joe?  Point being (since you obviously ignored it) is that voter fraud can be gong on all the time undetected.  We simply don't know.  That's why Republicans introduced Voter-ID, so that we know who is and who is not voting.


----------



## AZGAL

JoeB131 said:


> Only the dumb white trash, and honestly, fuck those guys.


*F -U  Joe Low...You are one of those trash guys.*


----------



## AZGAL

The "children in cages" hour is over...Time to let the world know the real news...(from ameangal):
************************************************************************************************

Texas judge hears arguments on DACA challenge*

By Tal Kopan and Jason Morris, CNN

Updated 5:15 PM ET, Wed August 8, 2018

District Judge Andrew Hanen, a George W. Bush appointee, heard arguments from 10 states that say DACA, a program that protects from deportation young undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children, is unconstitutional. Their arguments rely heavily on a previous court ruling from Hanen that blocked an expansion of the program and the creation of a similar program for immigrant parents in 2014 from going into effect.
Hanen did not rule Wednesday and said he would hold off ruling on the constitutionality of DACA for now and consider only the request to immediately stop it.

DACA was created by executive action during the Obama administration, but opponents of President Donald Trump's decision to end it have convinced multiple federal judges this year that doing so violates the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that dictates how the government can create or change regulations. Hanen asked for responses from both sides by Monday on whether DACA itself also runs afoul of the act.

The Trump administration decided to end DACA last September, in part due to a threat from Texas and other states to sue if it didn't. But in the months since, three federal judges around the country have ruled that decision was not adequately justified, and have ordered the program to remain.
Texas sued, in the end, to argue that the original program was unconstitutional so it could be wiped off the books. The administration has decided to not defend DACA in Hanen's court, so pro-immigrant groups and New Jersey stepped in to defend the program instead.

The Trump administration has argued to Hanen that if he decides to issue an immediate stoppage of the program, he should limit any ruling to recipients in the states that have sued and should delay his order's effectiveness to give the administration time to appeal. A Justice Department attorney reiterated that position Wednesday in court.

Attorneys for the immigration advocacy group MALDEF argued that a key issue facing Hanen is whether Texas and other states can legally bring the case to begin with and are suffering irreparable harm from DACA, which has existed for five years.
"In addition to the legality of DACA, one of the more important topics of today's hearing was whether Texas was suffering any kind of injury whatsoever from having DACA recipients living and working in the state," said MALDEF attorney Nina Perales. "Texas was not able to point to evidence that DACA recipients are costing the state anything."

*Multiple cases*
The Trump administration is already preparing to appeal a different order from a Washington, DC, district judge, which would require it to reopen the program to new applications and restore it in full. Previous courts had merely ordered the government to continue renewing permits. That judge postponed the implementation of his decision 20 days to allow for the appeal. Other cases are pending before appellate courts in California and New York.

Hanen is widely seen as unfriendly to DACA, given his previous ruling on its sister program, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents.
"Issues in front of the court are issues that have already been decided," the lead attorney for the states challenging DACA, Todd Disher, said in court Wednesday. "This is not a close case."
Obama's move was a "direct defiance" of the law, Disher added.


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> I have to ASK, at what price do we allow legal immigration? All the jobs lost to illegals,  and then, say, all the American families broken up or lost for the sake of catering to  Mexican illegals? How many millions of dollars and how many Americans have suffered as  a consequence? And why  do  illegal aliens get such special treatment?  Illegal aliens cost us our  dignity, our collective  soul and our culture  Isn't that enough? What else can I say?




Holy histrionics, Batman! "our  dignity, our collective  soul and our culture"? Is this comedy hour now? The government has a responsibility to control our borders, and they have never done a sufficient job of it, but this swooning, overwrought drama bullshit is nothing but self-indulgent blather. Spamming the board with this same old silly shit over and over and over again improves nothing. 

The very serious issues associated with illegal immigration are obscured when time and attention is wasted by hysterical fools pretending that no one ever spoke Spanish in America until about 20 years ago, that private conversations in a language you don't understand are any of your fucking business, or that every dish washed or fruit picked has a line of 100 Americans waiting for the chance and stomping their feet at the lost opportunity. 

Illegal immigrants should not be here because our government should do its duty in preventing illegal crossing/staying. If someone here illegally commits a crime, it is a double outrage, and government officials should be held accountable. However, most illegal immigrants are human beings, not monsters. They are people with the same hopes and fears and love of family that any American has despite the fact that they should not be here illegally. Those who insist on referring to all such people with blanket terms of racism and ethnic hatred are clearly afraid of a situation they feel powerless over. Real adults conduct themselves with more thoughtfulness and "dignity."


----------



## AZGAL

AZGAL said:


> *Brown Taps Big Law Pipeline for Latest Trial Court Picks*
> *Gov. Brown's appointments include partners from Jones Day; Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe; Irell & Manella; Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani; and Perkins Coie.*
> By *Cheryl Miller* | UPDATEDFeb 28, 2018 at 06:51 PM


and it's a legal fight in Texas as in California...
*Judge considers Texas bid to end DACA, focusing on his prior rulings ...*
https://www.chron.com/.../Judge-considers-Texas-bid-to-end-DACA-focusing-131425...
_*Lawyers*_ for the _*Mexican*_ American _*Legal*_ Defense and _*Educational*_ Fund, an advocacy group representing 22 _*DACA*_ recipients in Texas, ...


----------



## AZGAL

AZGAL said:


> (eagle1462010 said: ↑
> .California leads the nation in illegals..............have 25% of the illegal farmers there for the entire nation.............when the laws provide a legal path..............)
> AZGAL says:
> You can see me rant , raise hell, and post facts about the unacceptable situation that is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION all over the board, yet I must DEFEND the FARM WORKERS! There is a slight nuance difference in the condition of the foreign farm workers. Hard working agricultural workers MUST BE RESPECTED! The farm workers SHOULD GET VISAS, legal worker visas QUICKLY as we need them and must appreciate them. GIVE assistance and RESPECT to the farm workers as they are hard working industrious people HERE for a good and honest activity. Please RIP AWAY DACA, take away overburdened "crime victim" U visas for the most part due to high levels of fraud, BOUNCE back the hordes of "asylum" seekers and have the USA help at the point of within their countries, YET HONOR the farm workers. These farm workers should be at the front of the line for the visas. VISAS#1 for FARM WORKERS. Perhaps some of the asylum seekers can option into farm workers. *** CANADA decides what specialty workers it needs from outside and so can the USA.


*WE must treat the FARM WORKERS with respect! #1 good VISAS for farm workers!


August 10, 2018

DOL Clamps Down On 'Inhumane' Housing Of Farm Workers

A Florida-based produce company has agreed to provide its migrant farm workers with safe living conditions and unpaid back wages, after the U.S. Department of Labor found the company withheld wages and packed its Missouri workers into “inhumane” living environments, including housing them in a former jail.*


----------



## AZGAL

AZGAL said:


> _*Lawyers*_ for the _*Mexican*_ American _*Legal*_ Defense and _*Educational*_ Fund, an advocacy group representing 22 _*DACA*_ recipients in Texas, ...





AZGAL said:


> By "Mexicrats" do you mean California?





BrokeLoser said:


> 21st century Democrats = Mexicrats
> Everything they do, every policy they push, every platform they run on...their primary beneficiary must be illegal aliens.


 If illegals in California really want to be citizens they should have to limit how much money they send back to Mexico.


----------



## protectionist

RealDave said:


> ILLEGALS ARE NOT TRYING TO VOTE.  You fucking ignorant lying POS.


That's right. They don't "TRY" to vote - they just do it.  And let's see anybody try to show that they don't.

And with most of the country saying that they do vote, it's imperative to enact proof of citizenship requirements in all states, easy, inexpensive, no reason not to.


----------



## protectionist

JoeB131 said:


> Trump is going to be a one term president, if he doesn't get impeached or removed for being a crazy person, first.
> 
> But there was no illegals voting... sorry, just didn't happen. Hillary won by 3 million votes, but our awful system let a guy everyone knows is crazy take the job after the people said "No".
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> HA HA. Doesn't seem likely, huh? Sounds like you never talked to an illegal alien. I have HUNDREDS of times, for 40 years. You shouldn't even be in this discussion. You have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody is more talkative (in Spanish) than illegal aliens from Mexico, after they've had a couple of beers (which they drink even while working). You can trust me on that. This is what frequently happens when you talk to liberals. You say things you've known all your life, and they act like it's a question. Pheeeew! (high-pitched whistle) I feel like I'm talking to somebody who just arrived here from another planet, and doesn't know Anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I lived next door to an illegal alien for 10 years, and had no idea he was undocumented until he got deported. His wife and kids are still struggling to get by.
> 
> We talked a whole bunch of times, he never mentioned it once.
Click to expand...

Trump will be re-elected with ease. The Democratic Party is dead.  Democrats have been forced to IMPORT people to vote for them.  Those same people are now being deported in droves.

Soon the 2 party system will be far-right Republicans and moderate Republicans.  Democrats will be a third party irrelvance, similar to the Socialist Workers' Party, or Green Party of Jill Stein.  As for "crazy," Democrats are the crazy people in America, and Trump is the cure for that craziness, now cleaning up the mess of the past 8 Obama years.

Neither you or anyone else has a shred of evidence that "there were no illegals voting...", so stop making statements you  can't back up.  Hillary lost the AMERICAN popular vote by 10 million votes, and her disappearing party relies on foreign IMPORTS to survive, but our awful system (ie, without citizenship requirements) allowed her to appear to have won the popular vote.

I doubt that your neighbor was "undocumented".  Everybody (including illegal foreign invaders) has documents.  Company photo ID card, library card, CCW card, bank cards, club cards, etc.

So stop referring to illegal aliens as undocumented. That is a false reference.

To call an illegal alien an_ "undocumented immigrant"_, is about equivalent to calling a bank robber an _"informal withdrawl agent."  





_


----------



## protectionist

JoeB131 said:


> Okay... So you are citing the Moonie Times as a source?
> 
> Do you think the Reverend Moon was the reincarnation of Jesus?  Because they do.


Washington Times is 1000 times more credible than than the laughingstock NEW YORK Times.  National Enquirer proved that, quite a while ago.


----------



## protectionist

JoeB131 said:


> When you start off with The Moonie Times as a "news source", there's no taking you seriously. You also have Judicial Watch and the PJ Media. I'm surprised you didn't try to pass off something from the Daily Stormer.



INVALIDATION is hard-wired into liberals.  

(and then they expect us to accept laughingstocks like the New York Times, Southern Poverty Laughingstock Center, CNN, MSNBC, etc)


----------



## protectionist

JoeB131 said:


> Funny, I've been voting at my location for the last 15 years, and no one has ever tried to steal my identity and cast my ballot.
> 
> How is that, with voter fraud being so rampant?
> 
> Look, I realize that you live in mortal fear of the Darkies voting and getting some of your stuff, but really, it's the other white folks you need to watch out for.


No it's not. It's Millions of foreigners (mostly Mexicans) voting illegally, making our elections partially under the control of another country. Simple, inexpensive solution ?  Proof of CITIZENSHIP requirements.


----------



## danielpalos

All foreign nationals should have a federal id not a State id.


----------



## protectionist

danielpalos said:


> All foreign nationals should have a federal id not a State id.


But they cannot have a US Citizenship ID, proof of which should be made mandatory for US voting.


----------



## danielpalos

protectionist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All foreign nationals should have a federal id not a State id.
> 
> 
> 
> But they cannot have a US Citizenship ID, proof of which should be made mandatory for US voting.
Click to expand...

we should be Making money not Losing money on border policy.


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *People that sneak into the country have about as much interest in our elections as we have in theirs. Any foreigner who would risk deportation and jail time to vote would have to be nuts since the chance of their vote making any difference is about 1 in million.*
> 
> 
> 
> Their risk with voting is ZERO.  No one has any way of knowing their citizenship (or voting eligibility) status.
Click to expand...

*That's the way you see it but for someone illegally in the country who has nothing to gain by voting, any risk is too great.*


----------



## Mike473

I was reading about the protests today. They were chanting “No border, no wall, no USA at all!” I imagine some mid term ads might use that slogan.


----------



## JoeB131

AZGAL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the dumb white trash, and honestly, fuck those guys.
> 
> 
> 
> *F -U  Joe Low...You are one of those trash guys.*
Click to expand...


Um, no I'm educated and cosmopolitan, unlike Cleetus and Billy-bob whose family trees don't fork.


----------



## JoeB131

protectionist said:


> Trump will be re-elected with ease. The Democratic Party is dead. Democrats have been forced to IMPORT people to vote for them. Those same people are now being deported in droves.



Actually, none of those people voted and deportations are actually down. 



protectionist said:


> Washington Times is 1000 times more credible than than the laughingstock NEW YORK Times. National Enquirer proved that, quite a while ago.



Oh, wait, you think the Enquirer is credible, Cleetus?


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and that 85 year old guy sitting behind a table is a handwriting expert too!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I've been voting at my location for the last 15 years, and no one has ever tried to steal my identity and cast my ballot.
> 
> How is that, with voter fraud being so rampant?
> 
> Look, I realize that you live in mortal fear of the Darkies voting and getting some of your stuff, but really, it's the other white folks you need to watch out for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who said it was rampant?  All I said is that yes, it's out there.  But the problem with bad votes is that it's difficult to prove until you actually catch somebody or some people.  It's like watching people speeding down the highway. They are breaking the law, but unless a cop laser's a car and pulls that person over, you don't have any proof people are speeding.
Click to expand...

*Why do you think people vote or a better question why should anyone take any risk whatsoever by illegally voting?  

Voting is a supremely irrational act, because the probability that your vote will make a difference in the outcome is very small and for national elections it's infinitesimally small.   One person’s vote is never going to make any difference in a large national election.  If your favorite candidate is going to win, he’s going to win even if you don’t vote.

So back to the question, why do people waste their time voting? One reason that people often give for voting is “But what if everybody thought that way?”  The reasoning goes that, if everybody thought that voting was irrational and a waste of time, nobody would vote and democracy would collapse.  This is known as magical thinking, and it is a very common fallacy.  People often believe that what they do or how they think influences other people and others will think and behave like they do.  So, in this manifestation of magical thinking, people believe that, if they bother to vote, everybody else in the country will also vote, and the American democracy will thrive, but if they don’t bother to vote, then everybody else in the country will think like them, nobody will vote, and the American democracy will collapse.  Of course, this is a fallacy.  Your decision to vote or not will not affect whether or not other people will vote (unless you are a highly influential person and you announce your voting intention to the world in advance of the election). 

The other reason people vote is it's their civic duty. It’s not about trying to affect the electoral outcome; it’s about doing your duty as a democratic citizen by voting in elections.   

Since a person not qualified to vote will surely agree that their vote is very unlikely to have any impact on the outcome of the election and of course they have no civil duty to waste their time voting, why would any body risk going to prison by doing such such a totally irrational act?

Why Do People Vote?  I *


----------



## protectionist

danielpalos said:


> But they cannot have a US Citizenship ID, proof of which should be made mandatory for US voting.


we should be Making money not Losing money on border policy.[/QUOTE]
We are losing $138 Billion/year in remittances$$ + tens of Billions more in welfare to foreigners + Billions more in criminal justice costs + Billions in EMTALA reimbursements, and this is just a partial list.


----------



## danielpalos

protectionist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they cannot have a US Citizenship ID, proof of which should be made mandatory for US voting.
> 
> 
> 
> ['
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we should be Making money not Losing money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are losing $138 Billion/year in remittances$$ + tens of Billions more in welfare to foreigners + Billions more in criminal justice costs + Billions in EMTALA reimbursements, and this is just a partial list.
Click to expand...

they have Home Depot in Mexico now; should we insist they buy American ladders?


----------



## JoeB131

protectionist said:


> We are losing $138 Billion/year in remittances$$ + tens of Billions more in welfare to foreigners + Billions more in criminal justice costs + Billions in EMTALA reimbursements, and this is just a partial list.



No, we aren't.  We are sending $138BB to Mexico for services rendered, and they are buying 236 BB in American goods and services.


----------



## protectionist

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, none of those people voted and deportations are actually down.
> 
> Oh, wait, you think the Enquirer is credible, Cleetus?


You talk without knowing what you're talking about >>

1.  As I said _"Those same people are now being deported in droves."_  Deportations are actually UP,* and up A LOT. * ICE made 143,470 arrests, an increase of 25 percent from 114,434 a year earlier. After Trump took office, ICE arrests surged 40 percent from the same period a year earlier.  Part of the reason for the increase in deportation is >>  In February, then-Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly scrapped Obama's instructions to limit deportations to public safety threats, convicted criminals and recent border crossers, effectively making anyone in the country illegally, vulnerable.  You're getting an education.

Federal government numbers show that immigrant arrests are up while border arrests are down

2.  Yes, I think the National Enquirer is credible, and a lot more so than the New York Times. Aren't you aware of the infamous battle between those two which established the Times as the joke that they are ? Don't you know about when the Times went after the Enquirer, calling them a sleazy tabloid ?  The Enquirer responding by handing the Times their asses in the oil shortage episode.

Perhaps you're too young to remember, but right after the Times ridiculed the Enquirer, they referred to this quote in the Times  >>_"the oil shortage is a hoax", according to an unnamed spokesman",_ as being the kind of real journalism that the Enquirer does not produce.
The Enquirer a few days earlier, before the Times quote, was published, published their own version of that quote.  It stated >>_ "the oil shortage is a hoax, according to Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH), head of the Senate Energy Committee"._
When the Times discovered what fools they had made of themselves, they half-heartedly apologized, but the egg remained on their face for decades. They never quite lived it down.  In subsequent years, the Times has made more stupid mistakes like that, some of them against the Enquirer concerning medical reports, which the Enquirer (and some other tabloids) do a quite fine job of reporting on.

If you weren't a typical information-deprived liberal, attached to liberal OMISSION media, you probably would have known all this.  You guys don't know how much you don't know. Wanna take my Islamization Quiz ?


----------



## protectionist

JoeB131 said:


> No, we aren't.  We are sending $138BB to Mexico for services rendered, and they are buying 236 BB in American goods and services.


Again you show your foolish, impetuous rush to post what you don't know.

Dummy, the $138 billion is remittance loss to ALL countries. Mexico's share of that is only $28 Billion, not the whole thing. LOL.

And we don't have any services rendered to us from Mexico. quite the contrary, from Mexico we get the OPPOSITE of services, We get HARMS >>

*Harms* of Immigration

1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).

2. Wage reduction.

3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).

4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($133 Billion/year).

5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.

6. Increased crime.

7. Increased traffic congestion.

8. Increased pollution.

9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.

10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.

11. Overcrowding in government offices.

12. Overcrowding in schools.

13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.

14. Cultural erosion.

15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)

16. Introduction of foreign diseases

17. Influx of terrorists.

18.  Litter

19.  Forest fires.

And as far as Mexico buying from us, we don't need Mexico, or China, or Europe. They need us.  They have millions of poor people unable to buy things.  We have the largest MARKET of wealthy consumers in the world.

PS - BBs are little round pellets one shoots from a toy gun.


----------



## protectionist

danielpalos said:


> they have Home Depot in Mexico now; should we insist they buy American ladders?


We don't need to them to buy anything from us. We have the largest/wealthiest MARKET in the world. They need us. We don't need them.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *Why do you think people vote or a better question why should anyone take any risk whatsoever by illegally voting?
> 
> Voting is a supremely irrational act, because the probability that your vote will make a difference in the outcome is very small and for national elections it's infinitesimally small.   One person’s vote is never going to make any difference in a large national election.  If your favorite candidate is going to win, he’s going to win even if you don’t vote.
> 
> So back to the question, why do people waste their time voting? One reason that people often give for voting is “But what if everybody thought that way?”  The reasoning goes that, if everybody thought that voting was irrational and a waste of time, nobody would vote and democracy would collapse.  This is known as magical thinking, and it is a very common fallacy.  People often believe that what they do or how they think influences other people and others will think and behave like they do.  So, in this manifestation of magical thinking, people believe that, if they bother to vote, everybody else in the country will also vote, and the American democracy will thrive, but if they don’t bother to vote, then everybody else in the country will think like them, nobody will vote, and the American democracy will collapse.  Of course, this is a fallacy.  Your decision to vote or not will not affect whether or not other people will vote (unless you are a highly influential person and you announce your voting intention to the world in advance of the election).
> 
> The other reason people vote is it's their civic duty. It’s not about trying to affect the electoral outcome; it’s about doing your duty as a democratic citizen by voting in elections.
> 
> Since a person not qualified to vote will surely agree that their vote is very unlikely to have any impact on the outcome of the election and of course they have no civil duty to waste their time voting, why would any body risk going to prison by doing such such a totally irrational act?
> 
> Why Do People Vote?  I *


There is NO RISK to illegal aliens for voting in US elections. NONE.


----------



## danielpalos

protectionist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> they have Home Depot in Mexico now; should we insist they buy American ladders?
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need to them to buy anything from us. We have the largest/wealthiest MARKET in the world. They need us. We don't need them.
Click to expand...

why whine about remittances.


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they cannot have a US Citizenship ID, proof of which should be made mandatory for US voting.
> 
> 
> 
> we should be Making money not Losing money on border policy.
Click to expand...

We are losing $138 Billion/year in remittances$$ + tens of Billions more in welfare to foreigners + Billions more in criminal justice costs + Billions in EMTALA reimbursements, and this is just a partial list.[/QUOTE]
*I think you add 0 to that figure every time you post it.

Let's do a little math.  We have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants plus 37 million legal immigrants for a total of 49 million.  The mean family gross income is $56,000 a year and family size of 3.8  That means the average immigrant family with income $56,000 is sending home $10,702/yr nearly 20% of their gross income.  I say that is bull shit. A family of 4 with a $56K income is doing good to make ends meet and surely not going burn $10k a year.*


----------



## danielpalos

Flopper said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they cannot have a US Citizenship ID, proof of which should be made mandatory for US voting.
> 
> 
> 
> we should be Making money not Losing money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are losing $138 Billion/year in remittances$$ + tens of Billions more in welfare to foreigners + Billions more in criminal justice costs + Billions in EMTALA reimbursements, and this is just a partial list.
Click to expand...

*



			I think you add 0 to that figure every time you post it.

Let's do a little math.  We have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants plus 37 million legal immigrants for a total of 49 million.  The mean family gross income is $56,000 a year and family size of 3.8  That means the average immigrant family with income $56,000 is sending home $10,702/yr nearly 20% of their gross income.  I say that is bull shit. A family of 4 with a $56K income is doing good to make ends meet and surely not going burn $10k a year.
		
Click to expand...

*We don't need to them to buy anything from us. We have the largest/wealthiest MARKET in the world. They need us. We don't need them.


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, none of those people voted and deportations are actually down.
> 
> Oh, wait, you think the Enquirer is credible, Cleetus?
> 
> 
> 
> You talk without knowing what you're talking about >>
> 
> 1.  As I said _"Those same people are now being deported in droves."_  Deportations are actually UP,* and up A LOT. * ICE made 143,470 arrests, an increase of 25 percent from 114,434 a year earlier. After Trump took office, ICE arrests surged 40 percent from the same period a year earlier.  Part of the reason for the increase in deportation is >>  In February, then-Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly scrapped Obama's instructions to limit deportations to public safety threats, convicted criminals and recent border crossers, effectively making anyone in the country illegally, vulnerable.  You're getting an education.
> 
> Federal government numbers show that immigrant arrests are up while border arrests are down
> 
> 2.  Yes, I think the National Enquirer is credible, and a lot more so than the New York Times. Aren't you aware of the infamous battle between those two which established the Times as the joke that they are ? Don't you know about when the Times went after the Enquirer, calling them a sleazy tabloid ?  The Enquirer responding by handing the Times their asses in the oil shortage episode.
> 
> Perhaps you're too young to remember, but right after the Times ridiculed the Enquirer, they referred to this quote in the Times  >>_"the oil shortage is a hoax", according to an unnamed spokesman",_ as being the kind of real journalism that the Enquirer does not produce.
> The Enquirer a few days earlier, before the Times quote, was published, published their own version of that quote.  It stated >>_ "the oil shortage is a hoax, according to Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH), head of the Senate Energy Committee"._
> When the Times discovered what fools they had made of themselves, they half-heartedly apologized, but the egg remained on their face for decades. They never quite lived it down.  In subsequent years, the Times has made more stupid mistakes like that, some of them against the Enquirer concerning medical reports, which the Enquirer (and some other tabloids) do a quite fine job of reporting on.
> 
> If you weren't a typical information-deprived liberal, attached to liberal OMISSION media, you probably would have known all this.  You guys don't know how much you don't know. Wanna take my Islamization Quiz ?
Click to expand...

*Deportation are not the same as arrest by any means. The border patrol arrests and detains just about anyone who they think might be illegal and lacks proper documentation.  I don't remember the exact percentage but it's about 10% that are able to produce work permits, visas, or proof of citizenship with in a few days. Some petition for asylum and few are granted.  Others get stays and still others are wanted in connection with other crimes and get transferred. 

I think you omitted this, "The Border Patrol made 310,531 arrests during the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, a decline of 25 percent from 415,816 a year earlier and the lowest level since 1971. *


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and that 85 year old guy sitting behind a table is a handwriting expert too!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I've been voting at my location for the last 15 years, and no one has ever tried to steal my identity and cast my ballot.
> 
> How is that, with voter fraud being so rampant?
> 
> Look, I realize that you live in mortal fear of the Darkies voting and getting some of your stuff, but really, it's the other white folks you need to watch out for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who said it was rampant?  All I said is that yes, it's out there.  But the problem with bad votes is that it's difficult to prove until you actually catch somebody or some people.  It's like watching people speeding down the highway. They are breaking the law, but unless a cop laser's a car and pulls that person over, you don't have any proof people are speeding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Why do you think people vote or a better question why should anyone take any risk whatsoever by illegally voting?
> 
> Voting is a supremely irrational act, because the probability that your vote will make a difference in the outcome is very small and for national elections it's infinitesimally small.   One person’s vote is never going to make any difference in a large national election.  If your favorite candidate is going to win, he’s going to win even if you don’t vote.
> 
> So back to the question, why do people waste their time voting? One reason that people often give for voting is “But what if everybody thought that way?”  The reasoning goes that, if everybody thought that voting was irrational and a waste of time, nobody would vote and democracy would collapse.  This is known as magical thinking, and it is a very common fallacy.  People often believe that what they do or how they think influences other people and others will think and behave like they do.  So, in this manifestation of magical thinking, people believe that, if they bother to vote, everybody else in the country will also vote, and the American democracy will thrive, but if they don’t bother to vote, then everybody else in the country will think like them, nobody will vote, and the American democracy will collapse.  Of course, this is a fallacy.  Your decision to vote or not will not affect whether or not other people will vote (unless you are a highly influential person and you announce your voting intention to the world in advance of the election).
> 
> The other reason people vote is it's their civic duty. It’s not about trying to affect the electoral outcome; it’s about doing your duty as a democratic citizen by voting in elections.
> 
> Since a person not qualified to vote will surely agree that their vote is very unlikely to have any impact on the outcome of the election and of course they have no civil duty to waste their time voting, why would any body risk going to prison by doing such such a totally irrational act?
> 
> Why Do People Vote?  I *
Click to expand...


How can you even think that given the last Presidential election?  Are you that young where you don't remember the Bush/ Gore race?  

Of course every vote counts.  And while on the subject, do you vote at all?  If so, why? 

You're  going to try and convince me (or others) that votes don't count so we should just stay home.  That little trick isn't going to work.  Next election I don't care if I have to tromp through a foot of snow to get to the polls, I'm going and so are many Republicans. 

So if you want to spread that message voting doesn't count, please do so in liberal blogs and discussion group.  Nothing would make us happier.  And I would be willing to bet you're going to be the first one in line at the voting booth come midterms.


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why do you think people vote or a better question why should anyone take any risk whatsoever by illegally voting?
> 
> Voting is a supremely irrational act, because the probability that your vote will make a difference in the outcome is very small and for national elections it's infinitesimally small.   One person’s vote is never going to make any difference in a large national election.  If your favorite candidate is going to win, he’s going to win even if you don’t vote.
> 
> So back to the question, why do people waste their time voting? One reason that people often give for voting is “But what if everybody thought that way?”  The reasoning goes that, if everybody thought that voting was irrational and a waste of time, nobody would vote and democracy would collapse.  This is known as magical thinking, and it is a very common fallacy.  People often believe that what they do or how they think influences other people and others will think and behave like they do.  So, in this manifestation of magical thinking, people believe that, if they bother to vote, everybody else in the country will also vote, and the American democracy will thrive, but if they don’t bother to vote, then everybody else in the country will think like them, nobody will vote, and the American democracy will collapse.  Of course, this is a fallacy.  Your decision to vote or not will not affect whether or not other people will vote (unless you are a highly influential person and you announce your voting intention to the world in advance of the election).
> 
> The other reason people vote is it's their civic duty. It’s not about trying to affect the electoral outcome; it’s about doing your duty as a democratic citizen by voting in elections.
> 
> Since a person not qualified to vote will surely agree that their vote is very unlikely to have any impact on the outcome of the election and of course they have no civil duty to waste their time voting, why would any body risk going to prison by doing such such a totally irrational act?
> 
> Why Do People Vote?  I *
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO RISK to illegal aliens for voting in US elections. NONE.
Click to expand...

*A person that votes illegal in a US election can certainly be arrested so yes, there is a risk. I would say the probability of being caught is probably about the same as his vote determine the election outcome.  That's why so few people bother to vote illegal; it's irrational and there is nothing to be gained.

I can understand why election workers would monkey around with vote totals are try to rig voting machines. That actually could make a difference in an election.  But to break the law just to cast your vote, that makes no sense at all which explains why it's so rare.     *


----------



## danielpalos

Profit, not Loss!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why do you think people vote or a better question why should anyone take any risk whatsoever by illegally voting?
> 
> Voting is a supremely irrational act, because the probability that your vote will make a difference in the outcome is very small and for national elections it's infinitesimally small.   One person’s vote is never going to make any difference in a large national election.  If your favorite candidate is going to win, he’s going to win even if you don’t vote.
> 
> So back to the question, why do people waste their time voting? One reason that people often give for voting is “But what if everybody thought that way?”  The reasoning goes that, if everybody thought that voting was irrational and a waste of time, nobody would vote and democracy would collapse.  This is known as magical thinking, and it is a very common fallacy.  People often believe that what they do or how they think influences other people and others will think and behave like they do.  So, in this manifestation of magical thinking, people believe that, if they bother to vote, everybody else in the country will also vote, and the American democracy will thrive, but if they don’t bother to vote, then everybody else in the country will think like them, nobody will vote, and the American democracy will collapse.  Of course, this is a fallacy.  Your decision to vote or not will not affect whether or not other people will vote (unless you are a highly influential person and you announce your voting intention to the world in advance of the election).
> 
> The other reason people vote is it's their civic duty. It’s not about trying to affect the electoral outcome; it’s about doing your duty as a democratic citizen by voting in elections.
> 
> Since a person not qualified to vote will surely agree that their vote is very unlikely to have any impact on the outcome of the election and of course they have no civil duty to waste their time voting, why would any body risk going to prison by doing such such a totally irrational act?
> 
> Why Do People Vote?  I *
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO RISK to illegal aliens for voting in US elections. NONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A person that votes illegal in a US election can certainly be arrested so yes, there is a risk. I would say the probability of being caught is probably about the same as his vote determine the election outcome.  That's why so few people bother to vote illegal; it's irrational and there is nothing to be gained.
> 
> I can understand why election workers would monkey around with vote totals are try to rig voting machines. That actually could make a difference in an election.  But to break the law just to cast your vote, that makes no sense at all which explains why it's so rare.     *
Click to expand...


It works like this: you go to vote and if you get questioned or asked for documentation, you are simply denied being allowed to vote.  If they let you vote, then you're in virtually undetected.  

Unfortunately in my state, all you need is a utility bill to vote. However I can work magic with my printer by deleting my name and address and putting in somebody else's and printing it out.  

Vote by mail, another scam because anybody can go into your mailbox, pull out the ballot and vote.  They all pretty much come at the same time, and unless that person who you stole the ballot from goes to vote in person, you will never be detected.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and that 85 year old guy sitting behind a table is a handwriting expert too!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I've been voting at my location for the last 15 years, and no one has ever tried to steal my identity and cast my ballot.
> 
> How is that, with voter fraud being so rampant?
> 
> Look, I realize that you live in mortal fear of the Darkies voting and getting some of your stuff, but really, it's the other white folks you need to watch out for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who said it was rampant?  All I said is that yes, it's out there.  But the problem with bad votes is that it's difficult to prove until you actually catch somebody or some people.  It's like watching people speeding down the highway. They are breaking the law, but unless a cop laser's a car and pulls that person over, you don't have any proof people are speeding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Why do you think people vote or a better question why should anyone take any risk whatsoever by illegally voting?
> 
> Voting is a supremely irrational act, because the probability that your vote will make a difference in the outcome is very small and for national elections it's infinitesimally small.   One person’s vote is never going to make any difference in a large national election.  If your favorite candidate is going to win, he’s going to win even if you don’t vote.
> 
> So back to the question, why do people waste their time voting? One reason that people often give for voting is “But what if everybody thought that way?”  The reasoning goes that, if everybody thought that voting was irrational and a waste of time, nobody would vote and democracy would collapse.  This is known as magical thinking, and it is a very common fallacy.  People often believe that what they do or how they think influences other people and others will think and behave like they do.  So, in this manifestation of magical thinking, people believe that, if they bother to vote, everybody else in the country will also vote, and the American democracy will thrive, but if they don’t bother to vote, then everybody else in the country will think like them, nobody will vote, and the American democracy will collapse.  Of course, this is a fallacy.  Your decision to vote or not will not affect whether or not other people will vote (unless you are a highly influential person and you announce your voting intention to the world in advance of the election).
> 
> The other reason people vote is it's their civic duty. It’s not about trying to affect the electoral outcome; it’s about doing your duty as a democratic citizen by voting in elections.
> 
> Since a person not qualified to vote will surely agree that their vote is very unlikely to have any impact on the outcome of the election and of course they have no civil duty to waste their time voting, why would any body risk going to prison by doing such such a totally irrational act?
> 
> Why Do People Vote?  I *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you even think that given the last Presidential election?  Are you that young where you don't remember the Bush/ Gore race?
> 
> Of course every vote counts.  And while on the subject, do you vote at all?  If so, why?
> 
> You're  going to try and convince me (or others) that votes don't count so we should just stay home.  That little trick isn't going to work.  Next election I don't care if I have to tromp through a foot of snow to get to the polls, I'm going and so are many Republicans.
> 
> So if you want to spread that message voting doesn't count, please do so in liberal blogs and discussion group.  Nothing would make us happier.  And I would be willing to bet you're going to be the first one in line at the voting booth come midterms.
Click to expand...

*In 2000, the Florida vote count that determined the election result was only a difference of 537. So as a Florida voter you could say your vote with 537 other votes would determine the presidency.  However this was a national election.  If you voted in any of the other 49 states, your vote would have made no difference at all. So I will stick with my statement that voting in a national election in order to affect the outcome is completely irrational because the chances of that happening is incredibly small, however there are certainly others reasons for an American to vote.  

My point in this post is a person illegally in the country is not going to be voting for the reason you or I might vote, civic responsibility, love of country, or support for the American political philosophies of our party because this is not their country, they have no responsibility to vote, and no political party to support.  There only reason for voting, which certain carries risks would be to affect the outcome of the vote which is very unlikely.  It simply does not make sense for foreigners to take the risks of being caught because there is so little reason for them to vote. 

You bet I'll be voting in the midterms as I have in every election for the last 50 years, not because I think my vote will make any difference in the outcome but because I feel it is my responsibility as a citizen to do so plus I like feeling I am a part of the American politician process, something I think very few foreigners would have any interest in.*


----------



## protectionist

danielpalos said:


> why whine about remittances.


Oh a little IMPERIALISM of one country upon another.  Heck, just some blood loss to fleas. leaches, or other parasites....no big deal.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *I think you add 0 to that figure every time you post it.
> 
> Let's do a little math.  We have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants plus 37 million legal immigrants for a total of 49 million.  The mean family gross income is $56,000 a year and family size of 3.8  That means the average immigrant family with income $56,000 is sending home $10,702/yr nearly 20% of their gross income.  I say that is bull shit. A family of 4 with a $56K income is doing good to make ends meet and surely not going burn $10k a year.*


Ilegal aliens send FAR MORE than 20% of their incomes.  They bundle up 10 or 15 to a house (paying just one rent).  7 or 8 to a pickup truck (paying for just one truck).  Not unusual for them to send 2/3 of their income.

And plenty of American families of 4 are getting by on a lot less than $46K a year.

Also, we have about 30 million illegals, not 12.


----------



## protectionist

danielpalos said:


> We don't need to them to buy anything from us. We have the largest/wealthiest MARKET in the world. They need us. We don't need them.


Stop stealing my posts.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *
> I think you omitted this, "The Border Patrol made 310,531 arrests during the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, a decline of 25 percent from 415,816 a year earlier and the lowest level since 1971. *


This is the title of the article that I posted the link >>ICE* deportation arrests soar* under Trump administration, *drop in border arrests*

Federal government numbers show that immigrant arrests are up while border arrests are down

From this same article (of nbc news) >>  "ICE said "interior removals" —* people deported *after being arrested away from the border — jumped 25 percent to 81,603 from 65,332 the previous year. They rose 37 percent since Trump's inauguration compared to the same period a year earlier.

And you are wrong. I omitted nothing. here's part of the link I posted in Post # 5139, and again now >>  "...immigrant arrests are up while* border arrests are down*"

And I could have also included this part too.  >>  "Reasons for the precipitous drop in border arrests are unclear but Trump's election may have deterred people from trying."

And this >>  "CBP also said inspectors at land crossings, airports and seaports denied entry 216,370 times during the fiscal year, a decline of 24 percent from 2016."

These are good things.  It shows Trump is deterring people from coming here.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *A person that votes illegal in a US election can certainly be arrested so yes, there is a risk. I would say the probability of being caught is probably about the same as his vote determine the election outcome.  That's why so few people bother to vote illegal; it's irrational and there is nothing to be gained.
> 
> I can understand why election workers would monkey around with vote totals are try to rig voting machines. That actually could make a difference in an election.  But to break the law just to cast your vote, that makes no sense at all which explains why it's so rare.     *


There is NO _"probability of being caught", _because there is no way to catch them.  And the value of voting to illegal aliens, is enormous.  If they could swing an election to Democrats, they could reverse the policy of them being deported.  They could get amnesty.

This is why such an enormous number of them (perhaps 10 million) do vote. And why it is so important to establish citizenship proof as a requirement for voting.


----------



## protectionist

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Vote by mail, another scam because anybody can go into your mailbox, pull out the ballot and vote.  They all pretty much come at the same time, and unless that person who you stole the ballot from goes to vote in person, you will never be detected.



Even illegal aliens, already deported, and sitting at home in south Mexico, hundreds of miles from the US, could vote in US elections. All they have to do is send a ballot to a friend in the US.  That person in turn, sends the ballot in.  Election officials have no way to know where it originally came from.

Mail ballot voting is an abomination, and should be abolished.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and that 85 year old guy sitting behind a table is a handwriting expert too!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I've been voting at my location for the last 15 years, and no one has ever tried to steal my identity and cast my ballot.
> 
> How is that, with voter fraud being so rampant?
> 
> Look, I realize that you live in mortal fear of the Darkies voting and getting some of your stuff, but really, it's the other white folks you need to watch out for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who said it was rampant?  All I said is that yes, it's out there.  But the problem with bad votes is that it's difficult to prove until you actually catch somebody or some people.  It's like watching people speeding down the highway. They are breaking the law, but unless a cop laser's a car and pulls that person over, you don't have any proof people are speeding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Why do you think people vote or a better question why should anyone take any risk whatsoever by illegally voting?
> 
> Voting is a supremely irrational act, because the probability that your vote will make a difference in the outcome is very small and for national elections it's infinitesimally small.   One person’s vote is never going to make any difference in a large national election.  If your favorite candidate is going to win, he’s going to win even if you don’t vote.
> 
> So back to the question, why do people waste their time voting? One reason that people often give for voting is “But what if everybody thought that way?”  The reasoning goes that, if everybody thought that voting was irrational and a waste of time, nobody would vote and democracy would collapse.  This is known as magical thinking, and it is a very common fallacy.  People often believe that what they do or how they think influences other people and others will think and behave like they do.  So, in this manifestation of magical thinking, people believe that, if they bother to vote, everybody else in the country will also vote, and the American democracy will thrive, but if they don’t bother to vote, then everybody else in the country will think like them, nobody will vote, and the American democracy will collapse.  Of course, this is a fallacy.  Your decision to vote or not will not affect whether or not other people will vote (unless you are a highly influential person and you announce your voting intention to the world in advance of the election).
> 
> The other reason people vote is it's their civic duty. It’s not about trying to affect the electoral outcome; it’s about doing your duty as a democratic citizen by voting in elections.
> 
> Since a person not qualified to vote will surely agree that their vote is very unlikely to have any impact on the outcome of the election and of course they have no civil duty to waste their time voting, why would any body risk going to prison by doing such such a totally irrational act?
> 
> Why Do People Vote?  I *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you even think that given the last Presidential election?  Are you that young where you don't remember the Bush/ Gore race?
> 
> Of course every vote counts.  And while on the subject, do you vote at all?  If so, why?
> 
> You're  going to try and convince me (or others) that votes don't count so we should just stay home.  That little trick isn't going to work.  Next election I don't care if I have to tromp through a foot of snow to get to the polls, I'm going and so are many Republicans.
> 
> So if you want to spread that message voting doesn't count, please do so in liberal blogs and discussion group.  Nothing would make us happier.  And I would be willing to bet you're going to be the first one in line at the voting booth come midterms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In 2000, the Florida vote count that determined the election result was only a difference of 537. So as a Florida voter you could say your vote with 537 other votes would determine the presidency.  However this was a national election.  If you voted in any of the other 49 states, your vote would have made no difference at all. So I will stick with my statement that voting in a national election in order to affect the outcome is completely irrational because the chances of that happening is incredibly small, however there are certainly others reasons for an American to vote.
> 
> My point in this post is a person illegally in the country is not going to be voting for the reason you or I might vote, civic responsibility, love of country, or support for the American political philosophies of our party because this is not their country, they have no responsibility to vote, and no political party to support.  There only reason for voting, which certain carries risks would be to affect the outcome of the vote which is very unlikely.  It simply does not make sense for foreigners to take the risks of being caught because there is so little reason for them to vote.
> 
> You bet I'll be voting in the midterms as I have in every election for the last 50 years, not because I think my vote will make any difference in the outcome but because I feel it is my responsibility as a citizen to do so plus I like feeling I am a part of the American politician process, something I think very few foreigners would have any interest in.*
Click to expand...


Foreigners do have a dog in the race because Democrats are for foreigners being in this country legal or illegal.  

By having Democrats in leadership, foreigners have a better chance at not being deported, a better chance at having their family sneak in, having a better chance at their children going to school, popping out anchor babies, securing sanctuary cities, no worries about a wall. 

Most of all, they understand that if Democrats ever get full control of our federal government again, they stand a pretty good chance at becoming citizens through blanket amnesty and citizenship. 

So don't tell me they have no reason to vote.  They have more of a reason to vote than we Americans do.


----------



## JoeB131

protectionist said:


> 1. As I said _"Those same people are now being deported in droves."_ Deportations are actually UP,* and up A LOT. * ICE made 143,470 arrests, an increase of 25 percent from 114,434 a year earlier.



Guy, that's a drop in the bucket... that's less than 1% of all undocumented people in the country..   

At that rate, you might get them all in 100 years, assuming no more get in... Oh, they will. 




protectionist said:


> Dummy, the $138 billion is remittance loss to ALL countries. Mexico's share of that is only $28 Billion, not the whole thing. LOL.



So every last one of those countries ALSO buys stuff from the US.  



protectionist said:


> 1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).



Again, if you are such a loser White trash person that an illegal can ace you out of the only unskilled labor you qualify for, you did your life wrong.  

The rest is your tired laundry list of non issues. Undocumented workers are a benefit to the economy, as they take care of labor the rest of us don't want to do.


----------



## protectionist

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, that's a drop in the bucket... that's less than 1% of all undocumented people in the country..   At that rate, you might get them all in 100 years, assuming no more get in... Oh, they will.


 Yeah ?  So that means we need to step up our deportations, by adding 100 times as many ICE agents as we have now. Same with CBO and build the wall.  Thanks for the tip.















JoeB131 said:


> So every last one of those countries ALSO buys stuff from the US.


 Nah, they buy homemade stuff in their own countries.



JoeB131 said:


> Again, if you are such a loser White trash person that an illegal can ace you out of the only unskilled labor you qualify for, you did your life wrong.


 You actually think it has something to do with qualifications ?  No, you know damn well, it's just racial discrimination against whites, and you're for it, you racist traitor.



JoeB131 said:


> The rest is your tired laundry list of non issues.


That's a LIE!



JoeB131 said:


> Undocumented workers are a benefit to the economy, as they take care of labor the rest of us don't want to do.


Oh yeah. everybody knows that illegal aliens ripping $138 Billion/yr out of the US economy, is just wonderful for the US economy.  US Business owners just love being deprived of $138 Billion in sales so much that they throw parties to celebrate it.  Where's that doctor in the house ?

As for " labor the rest of us don't want to do" it's not the labor it's the wage rate.  So you support those sub-minimum wage rates for American workers then ?  AND it's Americans who are doing the toughest, dirtiest, and most dangerous jobs in America, not illegal aliens.


----------



## danielpalos

protectionist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why whine about remittances.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh a little IMPERIALISM of one country upon another.  Heck, just some blood loss to fleas. leaches, or other parasites....no big deal.
Click to expand...

let's end our alleged "imperialist" drug and terror wars.


----------



## danielpalos

protectionist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need to them to buy anything from us. We have the largest/wealthiest MARKET in the world. They need us. We don't need them.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop stealing my posts.
Click to expand...

Your guys don't agree with you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

RealDave said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your answer is yes, you would oppose having an ID law requiring proof of citizenship ? To keep aliens from voting.  Well sure, because that would keep your illegal alien friends from voting, and helping to get Democrats elected.
> 
> And deflecting to how many illegals are voting or not, is a DODGE.  Simply enacting a citizenship requirement isn't a big deal. It's inexpensive both with time and money, it's easy, and should be done, regardless of anybody's estimate of the illegality taking place.
> 
> And for the illegal alien voter, there's nothing "elusive" about him to me.  I've talked to them all across the country, in voting halls, on construction sites, in office buildings doing janitorial work, around my apartment complex doing landscaping, etc. And they're always willing to brag about how many laws they break (voting no exception)
> 
> Whatever gave you the idea we hadn't found them ? Let me guess >> CNN, MSNBC, look no further.
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals are not voting.
> 
> Why would a person hiding from the law walk into a government run facility where they may be asked to show ID?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would a person cross our borders illegally or overstay their Visa illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *People that sneak into the country have about as much interest in our elections as we have in theirs. Any foreigner who would risk deportation and jail time to vote would have to be nuts since the chance of their vote making any difference is about 1 in million.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a list of links if you care to read them about just that.  So what happens if an illegal is caught trying to vote? They tell him or her they can't vote.  Nobody calls the cops, nobody informs ICE; especially in sanctuary cities, nobody is hauled away.  They just get turned down at the polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ILLEGALS ARE NOT TRYING TO VOTE.  You fucking ignorant lying POS.
Click to expand...


Illegal Voting Gets Texas Woman 8 Years in Prison, and Certain Deportation

Uh huh.  There's no illegal voting going on.  Suuuuuure there isn't.  20 million illegals in this country, not to mention people who aren't here illegally but are not allowed to vote, and NO ONE is even considering using them to monkey around with elections.  Goodness, no.


----------



## Cecilie1200

RealDave said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a list of links if you care to read them about just that.  So what happens if an illegal is caught trying to vote? They tell him or her they can't vote.  Nobody calls the cops, nobody informs ICE; especially in sanctuary cities, nobody is hauled away.  They just get turned down at the polls.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't get turned down at the polls, because nobody knows they're aliens. There's nothing to show it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to be a registered voter to vote.  There is an application that is reviewed & confirmed.
Click to expand...


Never mind that some states, like California, Virginia, and New York, are so slipshod about voter verification that they practically have an extra line at the polling places just for people who shouldn't be there.

And let us not forget that Chicago has been famous for voter fraud for generations.


----------



## danielpalos

we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and giga-recycling factories to help with social costs.


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A person that votes illegal in a US election can certainly be arrested so yes, there is a risk. I would say the probability of being caught is probably about the same as his vote determine the election outcome.  That's why so few people bother to vote illegal; it's irrational and there is nothing to be gained.
> 
> I can understand why election workers would monkey around with vote totals are try to rig voting machines. That actually could make a difference in an election.  But to break the law just to cast your vote, that makes no sense at all which explains why it's so rare.     *
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO _"probability of being caught", _because there is no way to catch them.  And the value of voting to illegal aliens, is enormous.  If they could swing an election to Democrats, they could reverse the policy of them being deported.  They could get amnesty.
> 
> This is why such an enormous number of them (perhaps 10 million) do vote. And why it is so important to establish citizenship proof as a requirement for voting.
Click to expand...

*If there was no probability of being caught there would be no one caught and that is not true.  Yes, it's very rare but it does happen.   

However, there is no evidence of widespread non-citizen voting in national elections.  Multiple nationwide studies have uncovered only a handful of incidents of non-citizens voting.  Based on state prosecution records, votes by non-citizens account for between 0.0003 percent and 0.001 percent of all votes cast. Election Officials agree that there is no serious problem of non-citizen voting in our elections. The National Association of Secretaries of State, whose Republican-majority membership includes the chief elections officers of 40 states, said they “are not aware of any evidence that supports the voter fraud claims made by President Trump.”

Massive voting by non-citizens in national elections exists only in the minds of the Alt-Right and conspiracy theorist such as Trump.
*


----------



## danielpalos

market friendly border policy should generate revenue and defray social costs.

One thousand a year for an entry visa to our legal markets, can be reasonable.


----------



## Flopper

Cecilie1200 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a list of links if you care to read them about just that.  So what happens if an illegal is caught trying to vote? They tell him or her they can't vote.  Nobody calls the cops, nobody informs ICE; especially in sanctuary cities, nobody is hauled away.  They just get turned down at the polls.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't get turned down at the polls, because nobody knows they're aliens. There's nothing to show it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to be a registered voter to vote.  There is an application that is reviewed & confirmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never mind that some states, like California, Virginia, and New York, are so slipshod about voter verification that they practically have an extra line at the polling places just for people who shouldn't be there.
> 
> And let us not forget that Chicago has been famous for voter fraud for generations.
Click to expand...

*Have you considered that where there is little indication of voter fraud, there is little need for extensive verification.  A majority of states require identification at the polls.  Also, states use other methods of validating the vote such as signing an affidavit, having a poll worker vouch for voter, having election officials verify a voter's identity after the vote is cast, or having the voter return an inquiry mailed to their reported address.

For most people, voting is a pain in the ass, reading through all the explanations of ballot proposals, qualifications of candidates, re-registering to vote every time you move, taking off work to vote, standing in lines at polls, learning voting procedures, and enduring robocalls day an night.  Adding more verification and voter id requirements just makes it more difficult and more costly.  If it's really needed fine but we need more evidence that there is a real problem, not fears in the minds the alt right.*


----------



## danielpalos

one thousand times how many millions, can we generate revenue from to help pay for;

Giga-recycling "factories" that reclaim and repurpose material that would otherwise litter our environment.


----------



## danielpalos

Good Capitalists Make money not Lose money, whenever possible, even with public policies!


----------



## Flopper

Flopper said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A person that votes illegal in a US election can certainly be arrested so yes, there is a risk. I would say the probability of being caught is probably about the same as his vote determine the election outcome.  That's why so few people bother to vote illegal; it's irrational and there is nothing to be gained.
> 
> I can understand why election workers would monkey around with vote totals are try to rig voting machines. That actually could make a difference in an election.  But to break the law just to cast your vote, that makes no sense at all which explains why it's so rare.     *
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO _"probability of being caught", _because there is no way to catch them.  And the value of voting to illegal aliens, is enormous.  If they could swing an election to Democrats, they could reverse the policy of them being deported.  They could get amnesty.
> 
> This is why such an enormous number of them (perhaps 10 million) do vote. And why it is so important to establish citizenship proof as a requirement for voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If there was no probability of being caught there would be no one caught and that is not true.  Yes, it's very rare but it does happen.
> 
> However, there is no evidence of widespread non-citizen voting in national elections.  Multiple nationwide studies have uncovered only a handful of incidents of non-citizens voting.  Based on state prosecution records, votes by non-citizens account for between 0.0003 percent and 0.001 percent of all votes cast. Election Officials agree that there is no serious problem of non-citizen voting in our elections. The National Association of Secretaries of State, whose Republican-majority membership includes the chief elections officers of 40 states, said they “are not aware of any evidence that supports the voter fraud claims made by President Trump.”
> 
> Massive voting by non-citizens in national elections exists only in the minds of the Alt-Right and conspiracy theorist such as Trump.*
Click to expand...

*Of course there is illegal voting, about .0003 percent of total votes cast.  In the last presidential election that would be 390 votes out of 130 million, which would not have been enough to change the vote outcome in any presidential election in history, not even if they had all been voting for the same candidate.*


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a list of links if you care to read them about just that.  So what happens if an illegal is caught trying to vote? They tell him or her they can't vote.  Nobody calls the cops, nobody informs ICE; especially in sanctuary cities, nobody is hauled away.  They just get turned down at the polls.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't get turned down at the polls, because nobody knows they're aliens. There's nothing to show it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to be a registered voter to vote.  There is an application that is reviewed & confirmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never mind that some states, like California, Virginia, and New York, are so slipshod about voter verification that they practically have an extra line at the polling places just for people who shouldn't be there.
> 
> And let us not forget that Chicago has been famous for voter fraud for generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Have you considered that where there is little indication of voter fraud, there is little need for extensive verification.  A majority of states require identification at the polls.  Also, states use other methods of validating the vote such as signing an affidavit, having a poll worker vouch for voter, having election officials verify a voter's identity after the vote is cast, or having the voter return an inquiry mailed to their reported address.
> 
> For most people, voting is a pain in the ass, reading through all the explanations of ballot proposals, qualifications of candidates, re-registering to vote every time you move, taking off work to vote, standing in lines at polls, learning voting procedures, and enduring robocalls day an night.  Adding more verification and voter id requirements just makes it more difficult and more costly.  If it's really needed fine but we need more evidence that there is a real problem, not fears in the minds the alt right.*
Click to expand...


731 Pennsylvania voters may have cast 2 ballots or voted elsewhere, secretary of state says

Colorado voter fraud revealed: Slew of ballots cast by the dead spark investigation

Investigation launched after dead people are registered to vote in Harrisonburg

http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/le...ets/2012/pewupgradingvoterregistrationpdf.pdf

No, voter fraud isn’t a myth: 10 cases where it’s all too real

I'm very sorry to hear that you consider exercising your rights and responsibilities as a citizen to thoughtfully vote for elected leaders too much of a "pain in the ass" for you, and I'd like to cordially invite you to PLEASE sit the next election out and not befoul it with your grudging, ignorant input.


----------



## Flopper

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a list of links if you care to read them about just that.  So what happens if an illegal is caught trying to vote? They tell him or her they can't vote.  Nobody calls the cops, nobody informs ICE; especially in sanctuary cities, nobody is hauled away.  They just get turned down at the polls.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't get turned down at the polls, because nobody knows they're aliens. There's nothing to show it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to be a registered voter to vote.  There is an application that is reviewed & confirmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never mind that some states, like California, Virginia, and New York, are so slipshod about voter verification that they practically have an extra line at the polling places just for people who shouldn't be there.
> 
> And let us not forget that Chicago has been famous for voter fraud for generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Have you considered that where there is little indication of voter fraud, there is little need for extensive verification.  A majority of states require identification at the polls.  Also, states use other methods of validating the vote such as signing an affidavit, having a poll worker vouch for voter, having election officials verify a voter's identity after the vote is cast, or having the voter return an inquiry mailed to their reported address.
> 
> For most people, voting is a pain in the ass, reading through all the explanations of ballot proposals, qualifications of candidates, re-registering to vote every time you move, taking off work to vote, standing in lines at polls, learning voting procedures, and enduring robocalls day an night.  Adding more verification and voter id requirements just makes it more difficult and more costly.  If it's really needed fine but we need more evidence that there is a real problem, not fears in the minds the alt right.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 731 Pennsylvania voters may have cast 2 ballots or voted elsewhere, secretary of state says
> 
> Colorado voter fraud revealed: Slew of ballots cast by the dead spark investigation
> 
> Investigation launched after dead people are registered to vote in Harrisonburg
> 
> http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/le...ets/2012/pewupgradingvoterregistrationpdf.pdf
> 
> No, voter fraud isn’t a myth: 10 cases where it’s all too real
> 
> I'm very sorry to hear that you consider exercising your rights and responsibilities as a citizen to thoughtfully vote for elected leaders too much of a "pain in the ass" for you, and I'd like to cordially invite you to PLEASE sit the next election out and not befoul it with your grudging, ignorant input.
Click to expand...

*I didn't say, "I thought voting was a pain in the ass."  I said most voters do.  I don't know anyone I've worked with that thought of voting as anything other than an obligation and a pain.

Did you actually read your links, 731 Pennsylvanians might have cast their vote twice.  In the article it says the potential was there. From the article it also said, experts said double voting is rare.  In this case, they would have to vote in two state, not necessarily adjoining states on election day.  So we're saying a person might vote in Pennsylvanian and on that day drive or fly to another state so they could vote a second time in hopes that their second vote would be the deciding vote in a national election with a probability of about a zillion to one. That's just a bit insane.

And the 10 cases of voter impersonation fraud nationwide from 2000-2012,  nearly all allegations turned out to be clerical errors or mistakes, not fraud.

Most of of the studies of voter fraud is done by examine voter rolls which are filled with inaccuracies and always out of date. So some one finds that John Smith voted but John Smith was purged from roles as being deceased.  Upon investigation it's not the same John Smith.  In fact, the states do investigations all the time and use results to clean up voter rolls.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Multiple nationwide studies have uncovered only a handful of incidents of non-citizens voting. Based on state prosecution records, votes by non-citizens account for between 0.0003 percent and 0.001 percent of all votes cast. Election Officials agree that there is no serious problem of non-citizen voting in our elections.




Hmm, you know, when we talk about Voter-ID and a Democrat brings up an anomaly like a voter with no ID because they came from a country that didn't provide birth certificates, the left told us that every single vote is precious; every single vote should count.  But for some reason, when it comes to voter fraud "Oh don't worry, it's not enough to change anything."  

The only real way of knowing who or how many vote fraudulently is when they get caught.


----------



## protectionist

danielpalos said:


> let's end our alleged "imperialist" drug and terror wars.


Yes, let's do that. we could start by building the wall on the Mexican border, and by enforcing the 226 year unenforced ban on Islam in America.


----------



## protectionist

danielpalos said:


> Your guys don't agree with you.


Not that I care, but Yes they do.


----------



## protectionist

Cecilie1200 said:


> Illegal Voting Gets Texas Woman 8 Years in Prison, and Certain Deportation
> 
> Uh huh.  There's no illegal voting going on.  Suuuuuure there isn't.  20 million illegals in this country, not to mention people who aren't here illegally but are not allowed to vote, and NO ONE is even considering using them to monkey around with elections.  Goodness, no.


There is no end to how ludicrous liberals think, and then expect us to think the same ludicrous thing.


----------



## protectionist

danielpalos said:


> we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and giga-recycling factories to help with social costs.


And would you give all these goodies to illegal aliens ?


----------



## danielpalos

protectionist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> let's end our alleged "imperialist" drug and terror wars.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, let's do that. we could start by building the wall on the Mexican border, and by enforcing the 226 year unenforced ban on Islam in America.
Click to expand...

want to pay "wall building Tax Rates, for it"?


----------



## danielpalos

protectionist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and giga-recycling factories to help with social costs.
> 
> 
> 
> And would you give all these goodies to illegal aliens ?
Click to expand...

Solving our illegal problem means we won't have illegals.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *If there was no probability of being caught there would be no one caught and that is not true.  Yes, it's very rare but it does happen.
> 
> However, there is no evidence of widespread non-citizen voting in national elections.  Multiple nationwide studies have uncovered only a handful of incidents of non-citizens voting.  Based on state prosecution records, votes by non-citizens account for between 0.0003 percent and 0.001 percent of all votes cast. Election Officials agree that there is no serious problem of non-citizen voting in our elections. The National Association of Secretaries of State, whose Republican-majority membership includes the chief elections officers of 40 states, said they “are not aware of any evidence that supports the voter fraud claims made by President Trump.”
> 
> Massive voting by non-citizens in national elections exists only in the minds of the Alt-Right and conspiracy theorist such as Trump.*


Typical liberal mindset.

EARTH TO FLOPPER:  "Studies" are not how you assess illegal voting.  You don't get it from "associations" either.  As long as you let CNN, PBS, etc box into that, you'll never know what's going on. Listening to illegals talk (in Spanish of course) is how you do it. They openly brag about it. (especially after  couple of beers) You don't know ?

Another way is just by seeing them at the voting booths, voting. You wanna show me a "study" that proves that fish can swim ?  You got one ? Guess how you determine that. You look in the water and SEE THEM.


----------



## protectionist

danielpalos said:


> Solving our illegal problem means we won't have illegals.


As it should be.


----------



## protectionist

danielpalos said:


> want to pay "wall building Tax Rates, for it"?


Mexico will reimburse whatever the cost shows up to be.  They can't avoid that.


----------



## danielpalos

protectionist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> want to pay "wall building Tax Rates, for it"?
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico will reimburse whatever the cost shows up to be.  They can't avoid that.
Click to expand...

nothing but excuses, right wingers.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *Have you considered that where there is little indication of voter fraud, there is little need for extensive verification.  A majority of states require identification at the polls.  Also, states use other methods of validating the vote such as signing an affidavit, having a poll worker vouch for voter, having election officials verify a voter's identity after the vote is cast, or having the voter return an inquiry mailed to their reported address.
> 
> For most people, voting is a pain in the ass, reading through all the explanations of ballot proposals, qualifications of candidates, re-registering to vote every time you move, taking off work to vote, standing in lines at polls, learning voting procedures, and enduring robocalls day an night.  Adding more verification and voter id requirements just makes it more difficult and more costly.  If it's really needed fine but we need more evidence that there is a real problem, not fears in the minds the alt right.*


1.  There is indication of voter fraud by illegal aliens EVERYWHERE, in all 50 states (some have more than others). All depends on one's definition of the word "indication".

2.  There is no "verification" of voting eligibility (ie, CITIZENSHIP) anywhere in America.

3.  "Evidence" of illegal voting is everywhere, and easy to see, as long as one does not blind himself to the problem.


----------



## protectionist

danielpalos said:


> nothing but excuses, right wingers.


How is Mexico's reimbursment an "excuse" ?

Excuses are things that left wingers give, for NOT building the wall.


----------



## protectionist

danielpalos said:


> market friendly border policy should generate revenue and defray social costs.
> 
> One thousand a year for an entry visa to our legal markets, can be reasonable.


That One thousand a year will be erased in one week by remittance lo$$,

($138 Billion/year) >>  Remittance Flows Worldwide in 2016


----------



## danielpalos

protectionist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but excuses, right wingers.
> 
> 
> 
> How is Mexico's reimbursment an "excuse" ?
> 
> Excuses are things that left wingers give, for NOT building the wall.
Click to expand...

a wall is worthless.

we should be generating one thousand per person.


----------



## danielpalos

protectionist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> market friendly border policy should generate revenue and defray social costs.
> 
> One thousand a year for an entry visa to our legal markets, can be reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> That One thousand a year will be erased in one week by remittance lo$$,
> 
> ($138 Billion/year) >>  Remittance Flows Worldwide in 2016
Click to expand...

They will all be legal.  And, they have Home Depot in Mexico now; should we insist they buy American ladders?


----------



## protectionist

danielpalos said:


> a wall is worthless.
> 
> we should be generating one thousand per person.


Refuted in previous post. (5187)


----------



## protectionist

danielpalos said:


> They will all be legal.  And, they have Home Depot in Mexico now; should we insist they buy American ladders?


"legal" doesn't stop remittances. Much of the $138 Billion/year of sales US businesses are losing, comes from legal aliens.


----------



## danielpalos

protectionist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a wall is worthless.
> 
> we should be generating one thousand per person.
> 
> 
> 
> Refuted in previous post. (5187)
Click to expand...

remittances aren't lost income with our third largest trading partner.  they have Home Depot in Mexico now; we should insist, they buy, American ladders.


----------



## danielpalos

protectionist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will all be legal.  And, they have Home Depot in Mexico now; should we insist they buy American ladders?
> 
> 
> 
> "legal" doesn't stop remittances. Much of the $138 Billion/year of sales US businesses are losing, comes from legal aliens.
Click to expand...

liquidity; who needs it, right, right wingers.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple nationwide studies have uncovered only a handful of incidents of non-citizens voting. Based on state prosecution records, votes by non-citizens account for between 0.0003 percent and 0.001 percent of all votes cast. Election Officials agree that there is no serious problem of non-citizen voting in our elections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, you know, when we talk about Voter-ID and a Democrat brings up an anomaly like a voter with no ID because they came from a country that didn't provide birth certificates, the left told us that every single vote is precious; every single vote should count.  But for some reason, when it comes to voter fraud "Oh don't worry, it's not enough to change anything."
> 
> The only real way of knowing who or how many vote fraudulently is when they get caught.
Click to expand...


*The reality today is votes are precious, not a vote.  In the first presidential election there 43,000 votes.  In 2016, there were 130 million votes.  Just recently, LA county said 118,000 voters were accidentally left all voter rosters, about 3 times the total number of votes in our first presidential election.  It is not unusually that thousands of ballots out of millions in a state will be misplaced or tabulated incorrectly.  Sometimes they are found and sometimes not.  As long as the ballots that are disqualified or mis-tabulated will not make a difference in the outcome, they are largely ignored.  

In every presidential election there are thousands of votes that are not counted and many times that number that are not allowed to vote because of various purging rules of voting rosters. 

So we are supposed be alarmed over fraudulently voting when it's discovered that 10 people voted fraudulently over a 6 year period in national elections, one women is sent to jail, 733 people could have voted twice because they were on the rolls for more one state and at the same time tens of thousands of valid voters are purged from the rolls and over hundred thousand legal register voters are simple lost. 

The whole controversy about more validation of the votes and voter ids is based on the unproven claim that large number of non-citizens are voting in national elections.  Also the presumption that adding voter ids will reduce the number of democratic votes is unproven.   In other words, it's much ado about nothing. *


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple nationwide studies have uncovered only a handful of incidents of non-citizens voting. Based on state prosecution records, votes by non-citizens account for between 0.0003 percent and 0.001 percent of all votes cast. Election Officials agree that there is no serious problem of non-citizen voting in our elections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, you know, when we talk about Voter-ID and a Democrat brings up an anomaly like a voter with no ID because they came from a country that didn't provide birth certificates, the left told us that every single vote is precious; every single vote should count.  But for some reason, when it comes to voter fraud "Oh don't worry, it's not enough to change anything."
> 
> The only real way of knowing who or how many vote fraudulently is when they get caught.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The reality today is votes are precious, not a vote.  In the first presidential election there 43,000 votes.  In 2016, there were 130 million votes.  Just recently, LA county said 118,000 voters were accidentally left all voter rosters, about 3 times the total number of votes in our first presidential election.  It is not unusually that thousands of ballots out of millions in a state will be misplaced or tabulated incorrectly.  Sometimes they are found and sometimes not.  As long as the ballots that are disqualified or mis-tabulated will not make a difference in the outcome, they are largely ignored.
> 
> In every presidential election there are thousands of votes that are not counted and many times that number that are not allowed to vote because of various purging rules of voting rosters.
> 
> So we are supposed be alarmed over fraudulently voting when it's discovered that 10 people voted fraudulently over a 6 year period in national elections, one women is sent to jail, 733 people could have voted twice because they were on the rolls for more one state and at the same time tens of thousands of valid voters are purged from the rolls and over hundred thousand legal register voters are simple lost.
> 
> The whole controversy about more validation of the votes and voter ids is based on the unproven claim that large number of non-citizens are voting in national elections.  Also the presumption that adding voter ids will reduce the number of democratic votes is unproven.   In other words, it's much ado about nothing. *
Click to expand...


According to Democrats Voter-ID is racist and does affect Democrat voters only. 

There are F-ups in every election.   To count the amount of votes cast is a daunting task.  It takes electronics to assist to get the results as quickly as we get them.  But because of that, mistakes are made.  Those mistakes only come up when a Democrat loses.  

The only time ballots that are misplaced are ignored is when it wouldn't make a difference in the outcome.  If a congressional candidate wins by 15,000 votes, and 15,000 votes are found afterwards, it won't make a difference because it's likely not every one of those votes likely didn't go to that candidate.  However, if they found 15,000 votes and a candidate lost by let's say 2,000, you can bet anything they will be counted and counted under a microscope.


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If there was no probability of being caught there would be no one caught and that is not true.  Yes, it's very rare but it does happen.
> 
> However, there is no evidence of widespread non-citizen voting in national elections.  Multiple nationwide studies have uncovered only a handful of incidents of non-citizens voting.  Based on state prosecution records, votes by non-citizens account for between 0.0003 percent and 0.001 percent of all votes cast. Election Officials agree that there is no serious problem of non-citizen voting in our elections. The National Association of Secretaries of State, whose Republican-majority membership includes the chief elections officers of 40 states, said they “are not aware of any evidence that supports the voter fraud claims made by President Trump.”
> 
> Massive voting by non-citizens in national elections exists only in the minds of the Alt-Right and conspiracy theorist such as Trump.*
> 
> 
> 
> Typical liberal mindset.
> 
> EARTH TO FLOPPER:  "Studies" are not how you assess illegal voting.  You don't get it from "associations" either.  As long as you let CNN, PBS, etc box into that, you'll never know what's going on. Listening to illegals talk (in Spanish of course) is how you do it. They openly brag about it. (especially after  couple of beers) You don't know ?
> 
> Another way is just by seeing them at the voting booths, voting. You wanna show me a "study" that proves that fish can swim ?  You got one ? Guess how you determine that. You look in the water and SEE THEM.
Click to expand...

*According to you we have an (unknown) number of people speaking Spanish (presumed to be illegal) bragging about illegal voting after they have been drinking.  So this is how conservatives collect data to formulate policy. *


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple nationwide studies have uncovered only a handful of incidents of non-citizens voting. Based on state prosecution records, votes by non-citizens account for between 0.0003 percent and 0.001 percent of all votes cast. Election Officials agree that there is no serious problem of non-citizen voting in our elections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, you know, when we talk about Voter-ID and a Democrat brings up an anomaly like a voter with no ID because they came from a country that didn't provide birth certificates, the left told us that every single vote is precious; every single vote should count.  But for some reason, when it comes to voter fraud "Oh don't worry, it's not enough to change anything."
> 
> The only real way of knowing who or how many vote fraudulently is when they get caught.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The reality today is votes are precious, not a vote.  In the first presidential election there 43,000 votes.  In 2016, there were 130 million votes.  Just recently, LA county said 118,000 voters were accidentally left all voter rosters, about 3 times the total number of votes in our first presidential election.  It is not unusually that thousands of ballots out of millions in a state will be misplaced or tabulated incorrectly.  Sometimes they are found and sometimes not.  As long as the ballots that are disqualified or mis-tabulated will not make a difference in the outcome, they are largely ignored.
> 
> In every presidential election there are thousands of votes that are not counted and many times that number that are not allowed to vote because of various purging rules of voting rosters.
> 
> So we are supposed be alarmed over fraudulently voting when it's discovered that 10 people voted fraudulently over a 6 year period in national elections, one women is sent to jail, 733 people could have voted twice because they were on the rolls for more one state and at the same time tens of thousands of valid voters are purged from the rolls and over hundred thousand legal register voters are simple lost.
> 
> The whole controversy about more validation of the votes and voter ids is based on the unproven claim that large number of non-citizens are voting in national elections.  Also the presumption that adding voter ids will reduce the number of democratic votes is unproven.   In other words, it's much ado about nothing. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Democrats Voter-ID is racist and does affect Democrat voters only.
> 
> There are F-ups in every election.   To count the amount of votes cast is a daunting task.  It takes electronics to assist to get the results as quickly as we get them.  But because of that, mistakes are made.  Those mistakes only come up when a Democrat loses.
> 
> The only time ballots that are misplaced are ignored is when it wouldn't make a difference in the outcome.  If a congressional candidate wins by 15,000 votes, and 15,000 votes are found afterwards, it won't make a difference because it's likely not every one of those votes likely didn't go to that candidate.  However, if they found 15,000 votes and a candidate lost by let's say 2,000, you can bet anything they will be counted and counted under a microscope.
Click to expand...

*Neither democrats nor republicans know how voter id's will effect outcomes.  One source is saying voter ids were responsible for 200,000 less turnout in 2016.  However, any reduction in turnout seems to be about the same for both parties.

Are voter id's racist? Maybe.  The idea is based on the believe that blacks will not go to the trouble of voting if they have to remember to bring their id to the polls.  I guess people think they are too stupid or lazy.  That idea seems pretty racist to me.  IMHO, voter ids do reduce turnout but they are just about as likely to effect republican votes as democrat vote.  However, the issues at stake and the candidates are a far bigger determinate than having to remember to carry your id to the poll.  *


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Holy Shit!!!!
I cant believe this thread is still on going!!!!
 I'm gonna say for my final comment that all the beaner/wetback lives that need to be ended to stop the invasion are necessary.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple nationwide studies have uncovered only a handful of incidents of non-citizens voting. Based on state prosecution records, votes by non-citizens account for between 0.0003 percent and 0.001 percent of all votes cast. Election Officials agree that there is no serious problem of non-citizen voting in our elections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, you know, when we talk about Voter-ID and a Democrat brings up an anomaly like a voter with no ID because they came from a country that didn't provide birth certificates, the left told us that every single vote is precious; every single vote should count.  But for some reason, when it comes to voter fraud "Oh don't worry, it's not enough to change anything."
> 
> The only real way of knowing who or how many vote fraudulently is when they get caught.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The reality today is votes are precious, not a vote.  In the first presidential election there 43,000 votes.  In 2016, there were 130 million votes.  Just recently, LA county said 118,000 voters were accidentally left all voter rosters, about 3 times the total number of votes in our first presidential election.  It is not unusually that thousands of ballots out of millions in a state will be misplaced or tabulated incorrectly.  Sometimes they are found and sometimes not.  As long as the ballots that are disqualified or mis-tabulated will not make a difference in the outcome, they are largely ignored.
> 
> In every presidential election there are thousands of votes that are not counted and many times that number that are not allowed to vote because of various purging rules of voting rosters.
> 
> So we are supposed be alarmed over fraudulently voting when it's discovered that 10 people voted fraudulently over a 6 year period in national elections, one women is sent to jail, 733 people could have voted twice because they were on the rolls for more one state and at the same time tens of thousands of valid voters are purged from the rolls and over hundred thousand legal register voters are simple lost.
> 
> The whole controversy about more validation of the votes and voter ids is based on the unproven claim that large number of non-citizens are voting in national elections.  Also the presumption that adding voter ids will reduce the number of democratic votes is unproven.   In other words, it's much ado about nothing. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Democrats Voter-ID is racist and does affect Democrat voters only.
> 
> There are F-ups in every election.   To count the amount of votes cast is a daunting task.  It takes electronics to assist to get the results as quickly as we get them.  But because of that, mistakes are made.  Those mistakes only come up when a Democrat loses.
> 
> The only time ballots that are misplaced are ignored is when it wouldn't make a difference in the outcome.  If a congressional candidate wins by 15,000 votes, and 15,000 votes are found afterwards, it won't make a difference because it's likely not every one of those votes likely didn't go to that candidate.  However, if they found 15,000 votes and a candidate lost by let's say 2,000, you can bet anything they will be counted and counted under a microscope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Neither democrats nor republicans know how voter id's will effect outcomes.  One source is saying voter ids were responsible for 200,000 less turnout in 2016.  However, any reduction in turnout seems to be about the same for both parties.
> 
> Are voter id's racist? Maybe.  The idea is based on the believe that blacks will not go to the trouble of voting if they have to remember to bring their id to the polls.  I guess people think they are too stupid or lazy.  That idea seems pretty racist to me.  IMHO, voter ids do reduce turnout but they are just about as likely to effect republican votes as democrat vote.  However, the issues at stake and the candidates are a far bigger determinate than having to remember to carry your id to the poll.  *
Click to expand...


Voter ID will discourage Democrat voters because yes, many of them are lower income people who won't take the time to get an ID and the Democrats know this. 

But of course they can't say it that way, so they make up this race thing instead.  

Republican voters will crawl though a mound of snow to get to the polls.  Many Democrat voters will only vote if it's convenient enough: multiple day voting; late hour voting; busses to take them to the polls; vote my mail. 

We Republicans will wait in line for hours if necessary because voting is important to us. It's not as important to many Democrat voters; especially in the inner-city.  

However race has absolutely nothing to do with it.


----------



## JoeB131

protectionist said:


> Yeah ? So that means we need to step up our deportations, by adding 100 times as many ICE agents as we have now. Same with CBO and build the wall. Thanks for the tip.



Oh, dummy, you see, the thing is, they'll just find more ways to get in.  and then Trump will get voted out and we'll tear down the walls and have real immigration reform. 

Too sad for you bigots. 



protectionist said:


> You actually think it has something to do with qualifications ? No, you know damn well, it's just racial discrimination against whites, and you're for it, you racist traitor.



I'm all for dumping on the dumb white trash that keep voting Republican and wonder why they still live in trailer parks.  

Hey, want to really stick up for people? Have every place unionized and have a mandetory living wage.  Then there won't be an incentive to hire undocumented labor. 



protectionist said:


> As for " labor the rest of us don't want to do" it's not the labor it's the wage rate. So you support those sub-minimum wage rates for American workers then ? AND it's Americans who are doing the toughest, dirtiest, and most dangerous jobs in America, not illegal aliens.



Guy, we went over this. Those tough jobs are done by unionized workers paid by the government, the kind of socialism your sort decries.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Hey, want to really stick up for people? Have every place unionized and have a mandetory living wage. Then there won't be an incentive to hire undocumented labor.



There won't be any incentive for a business to remain in the country either.  Don't you remember what happened last time unions and overbearing government challenged industry?


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> There won't be any incentive for a business to remain in the country either. Don't you remember what happened last time unions and overbearing government challenged industry?



Yes, I do. 

I remember that well.  We had a middle class, guys like my dad could work a union job and have a middle class lifestyle in a nice neighborhood.  That's what I remember.  

That's what I remember.


----------



## protectionist

danielpalos said:


> remittances aren't lost income with our third largest trading partner.  they have Home Depot in Mexico now; we should insist, they buy, American ladders.


Of course they're lost income. They are money lost from our economy. The are sales lost to US businesses, who, if Americans were in the jobs aliens are in, the Americans would spend that same $138 Billion in US stores (aka the economy), instead of it going out of the US, and being spent in foreign countries' stores.

US businesses being deprive of $138 Billion/year is sales.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *According to you we have an (unknown) number of people speaking Spanish (presumed to be illegal) bragging about illegal voting after they have been drinking.  So this is how conservatives collect data to formulate policy. *


YES, absolutely yes. LOL  It cerainly is one of the ways, and having  lot more credibility than some goofy liberal "study" based on liberal skewed "information".  How interesting to see information-deprived, programmed liberals react when they suddenly discover what they've been programmed to, isn't how great after all.

Talking to people, seeing, listening, experiencing, living life, all across the country, by millions of people - but you in your liberal programming would cast that aside, in deference to a goofball "study", done by some liberal think tank, university or media outlet, totally biased skewed and a joke.  If I had a $10 bill for ever study that has come up as less than credible, I could buy a house with that money.

Wanna hear about one of those ? The Stephens-Davidowitz racism study that the New York Times touted so highly, an how it was refuted to be the joke that it was ?

The trouble with collecting data is there's too may faulty ways of collecting it, that too many people shortsidedly miss.  Like all those who still think there are 11 million illegal aliens in America, when actually there are about 3 times that many.


----------



## danielpalos

protectionist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> remittances aren't lost income with our third largest trading partner.  they have Home Depot in Mexico now; we should insist, they buy, American ladders.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're lost income. They are money lost from our economy. The are sales lost to US businesses, who, if Americans were in the jobs aliens are in, the Americans would spend that same $138 Billion in US stores (aka the economy), instead of it going out of the US, and being spent in foreign countries' stores.
> 
> US businesses being deprive of $138 Billion/year is sales.
Click to expand...

nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics; they have their right wing religious dogma.


----------



## protectionist

JoeB131 said:


> Oh, dummy, you see, the thing is, they'll just find more ways to get in.  and then Trump will get voted out and we'll tear down the walls and have real immigration reform. Too sad for you bigots.
> 
> I'm all for dumping on the dumb white trash that keep voting Republican and wonder why they still live in trailer parks.
> 
> Hey, want to really stick up for people? Have every place unionized and have a mandetory living wage.  Then there won't be an incentive to hire undocumented labor.
> 
> Guy, we went over this. Those tough jobs are done by unionized workers paid by the government, the kind of socialism your sort decries.



JOEY!!!!   

1.  with every new way they find to get in, we'll close up those ways until they run out of new ways to get in.  Ho hum.  Trump of course will be re-elected (or proclaimed KING)

2.   I'm all for dumping on all the people who stupidly vote Democrat, thereby allowing their country to turn into a 3rd world hellhole.  Oh wait.  That's right. They don't HAVE a country. They're open border, communist, internationalist, GLOBALISTS, bigoted affirmative action supporting racists.

3.  I've always been for a living wage. Still am.

4.  Unionized or not, firefighters, coal miners, military troops, are AMERICANS doing the toughest dirtiest, most dangerous jobs in America, that illegal aliens won't do.


----------



## protectionist

Since March 23 of this year Trump has hit China with $699 Billion in tariffs.  China has "retaliated" (LOL) with $213 Billion of their own. (as of August 8) Guess whose winning the trade war.


----------



## danielpalos

one thousand per person!


----------



## protectionist

danielpalos said:


> nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics; they have their right wing religious dogma.


Nobody on the left that is, but who cares ? US left is in free fall.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *  The idea is based on the believe that blacks will not go to the trouble of voting if they have to remember to bring their id to the polls.   *


No, that is the "idea" that liberal propaganda is drumming into your heads.  The real "idea" of voter ID, is CiTIZENSHIP ID, necessary to stop millions of illegal aliens fro voting (90% for Democrats)

All the talk about blacks voting, or not voting, is a concoction/deflection.


----------



## danielpalos

protectionist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics; they have their right wing religious dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody on the left that is, but who cares ? US left is in free fall.
Click to expand...

anybody can gossip, right wingers.
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> There won't be any incentive for a business to remain in the country either. Don't you remember what happened last time unions and overbearing government challenged industry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do.
> 
> I remember that well.  We had a middle class, guys like my dad could work a union job and have a middle class lifestyle in a nice neighborhood.  That's what I remember.
> 
> That's what I remember.
Click to expand...


So you have no recollection of businesses leaving because it cost too much to product products in the US thanks to unions, taxes and regulations?


----------



## JoeB131

protectionist said:


> 1. with every new way they find to get in, we'll close up those ways until they run out of new ways to get in. Ho hum. Trump of course will be re-elected (or proclaimed KING)



Trump won't finish his first term. and no, man, as long as there are shitty jobs American WHite Trash would rather collect welfare than take, we will need undocumented labor.  



protectionist said:


> 2. I'm all for dumping on all the people who stupidly vote Democrat, thereby allowing their country to turn into a 3rd world hellhole. Oh wait. That's right. They don't HAVE a country. They're open border, communist, internationalist, GLOBALISTS, bigoted affirmative action supporting racists.



Guy, we live in a global world now, DEAL WITH IT.  

If your dumb white trash ass can't compete with international workers, you are doing it wrong. 



protectionist said:


> 4. Unionized or not, firefighters, coal miners, military troops, are AMERICANS doing the toughest dirtiest, most dangerous jobs in America, that illegal aliens won't do.



And they are well paid for it, and have protections and rights... that's the point. 

Not that being a firefighter is all that tough. They spend most of their time sitting on their asses waiting for a call that usually doesn't demand they bring out all six fire engines because they are bored.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So you have no recollection of businesses leaving because it cost too much to product products in the US thanks to unions, taxes and regulations?



Naw, man.  

What I recall is that the company I worked at had no unions, no real regulations and got a shit load of tax breaks, and most of our employees were immigrant ladies, and they STILL moved the manufacturing lines to Malaysia.


----------



## protectionist

JoeB131 said:


> Trump won't finish his first term. and no, man, as long as there are shitty jobs American WHite Trash would rather collect welfare than take, we will need undocumented labor.



No, we didn't need illegal alien in the past, and don't need it now or in the future.
Only the VESTED INTERESTS need illegal aliens, not the American people.

List of US Vested Interests for Immigration

1. Businesses wanting cheap labor to boost their profits.

2. Churches wanting parishoners to fill their empty pews.

3. Unions wanting members to replace their declining memberships.

4. Spanish media NEEDING Spanish-only speakers.

5. Ethnocentrist organizations wanting immigrants to multiply their race, for racist reasons (ex. La Raza- "the race")

6. Democrats seek VOTES (and get them).

7. Terrorists come in to enact terrorism (ex. the 9-11 hijackers came in on visas)

8. Anchor baby parents who become LEGALLY entitled to welfare benefits by having the pregnant woman give birth on the American side of the border. And then help themselves to a lifetime of benefits (more immigrants are receiving welfare benefits than native-born Americans).

9. Mexico - remittances$$$ from the USA are their second largest source of income (second only to their oil exports) Mexico also benefits immensely by dumping their poor people on the US, as we then stupidly pay their poverty bill for them. Other countries also benefit from remittances and poverty dumping.

10. Mexico's reconquista of the American southwest. I take the Mexican govt at it's word when it says that is exactly its plan.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Trump won't finish his first term. and no, man, as long as there are shitty jobs American WHite Trash would rather collect welfare than take, we will need undocumented labor.



Then the solution is to reduce welfare benefits--not bring in other people to do the work. 



JoeB131 said:


> Guy, we live in a global world now, DEAL WITH IT.
> 
> If your dumb white trash ass can't compete with international workers, you are doing it wrong.



Yes, we are doing it wrong, we voted Democrat in the past.  The best thing we can do right now to protect this country and our jobs is to keep Democrats out of power.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no recollection of businesses leaving because it cost too much to product products in the US thanks to unions, taxes and regulations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, man.
> 
> What I recall is that the company I worked at had no unions, no real regulations and got a shit load of tax breaks, and most of our employees were immigrant ladies, and they STILL moved the manufacturing lines to Malaysia.
Click to expand...


Oh, you recall one company, huh?  No wonder you're so knowledgable about the economy and jobs.


----------



## protectionist

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, we live in a global world now, DEAL WITH IT.
> 
> If your dumb white trash ass can't compete with international workers, you are doing it wrong.


Oh, but we ARE dealing with it. With tariffs, with nationalist speeches, with leaving TPP, with tightening our border, with deportations, and with Donald Trump. 

We don't NEED to compete with international workers. We just need to keep them out of the USA.


----------



## protectionist

JoeB131 said:


> And they are well paid for it, and have protections and rights... that's the point.
> 
> Not that being a firefighter is all that tough. They spend most of their time sitting on their asses waiting for a call that usually doesn't demand they bring out all six fire engines because they are bored.



"The" point ?  LOL. Not MY point. My point was that Americans will do any job, as long as they're not being underpaid.  We gave up on slavery quite some time ago.  You agree with that, right Mr Living Wage ?

As for the firefighters, maybe some firefighters in this forum will set your ass straight on that.


----------



## JoeB131

protectionist said:


> No, we didn't need illegal alien in the past, and don't need it now or in the future.
> Only the VESTED INTERESTS need illegal aliens, not the American people.



We've always needed immigrant labor. It was just in the past, they came in for the seasonal work and went home when it was done.  But because bigots like you freaked out, they found it more practical to just come here with the whole family and stay rather than trying to sneak across the border a couple of times a year. 



protectionist said:


> 10. Mexico's reconquista of the American southwest. I take the Mexican govt at it's word when it says that is exactly its plan.



Ah, yes, your fantasies about reconquista...


----------



## JoeB131

protectionist said:


> "The" point ? LOL. Not MY point. My point was that Americans will do any job, as long as they're not being underpaid. We gave up on slavery quite some time ago. You agree with that, right Mr Living Wage ?
> 
> As for the firefighters, maybe some firefighters in this forum will set your ass straight on that.



You mean while they are waiting for a call to get a cat out of a tree?


----------



## JoeB131

protectionist said:


> Oh, but we ARE dealing with it. With tariffs, with nationalist speeches, with leaving TPP, with deportations, and with Donald Trump.
> 
> We don't NEED to compete with international workers. We just need to keep them out of the USA.



And then you'll take your dumb ass to Walmart and buy Chinese made shit... and wonder why you still don't have a good job.


----------



## protectionist

JoeB131 said:


> You mean while they are waiting for a call to get a cat out of a tree?


No, while they're attending a funeral for some fellow firefighters, crushed by a burning building falling on them.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes, we are doing it wrong, we voted Democrat in the past. The best thing we can do right now to protect this country and our jobs is to keep Democrats out of power.



Again- Nine of the last ten recessions where people lost jobs and took pay cuts started when Republicans were in charge.

It's not a bug, buddy, it's a design feature.  The one thing the One Percent hates is having to share the wealth with the wage slaves, so we'll have another recession soon enough.


----------



## protectionist

JoeB131 said:


> And then you'll take your dumb ass to Walmart and buy Chinese made shit... and wonder why you still don't have a good job.


You buy whatever is available to be bought. And often, there is no choice but to buy Chinese.  But we have hope. Trump is changing that, and as time goes by, less and less stuff in WalMart will be Chinese made, and more and more American made.

  Sounds like you've got the makings to be a good Trump supporter.

As for _"a good job",_ US unemployment went down to 3.8% this year , lowest in 18 years.  Lowest ever for blacks and Hispanics.  Rejoice.​


----------



## JoeB131

protectionist said:


> You buy whatever is available to be bought. And often, there is no choice but to buy Chinese. But we have hope. Trump is changing that, and as time goes by, less and less stuff in WalMart will be Chinese made, and more and more American made.



Actually, long before that, his trade wars will spark a recession and he'll be gone... and we'll all be better off for it. 

Nobody ever "won" a trade war. 



protectionist said:


> Sounds like you've got the makings to be a good Trump supporter.
> 
> As for _"a good job",_ US unemployment went down to 3.8% this year , lowest in 18 years. Lowest ever for blacks and Hispanics. Rejoice.



Yes, I thank President Obama for fixing the economy ten years ago... too bad Trump is working very hard to fuck it all up.


----------



## protectionist

JoeB131 said:


> we'll have another recession soon enough.


No we won't, but go ahead and talk about the future, since you and all Democrats have been obliterated by the past 19 months, and the present.  Yeah, that future talk...I guess you still can wiggle that around.


----------



## JoeB131

protectionist said:


> No we won't, but go ahead and talk about the future, since you and all Democrats have been obliterated by the past 19 months, and the present. Yeah, that future talk...I guess you still can wiggle that around.



Actually, we are already seeing the slowdown... Late 2019 or early 2020.  But it's okay, when the Dems take the House, you can claim it's Pelosi's fault.


----------



## protectionist

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, I thank President Obama for fixing the economy ten years ago... too bad Trump is working very hard to fuck it all up.


Unfortunately for you (and the Democrats)  the numbers aren't with you.

All Obama did NINE years ago, was sit back and let the economy naturally RECOIL from an unusual dip. That continued as a normal progression upward for about 6 years. Then in Obama last 2 years, he was on his own, and his performance stunk.  Here's the comparison of him (his failure) and Trump (his success) >>


----------



## protectionist

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, we are already seeing the slowdown... Late 2019 or early 2020.  But it's okay, when the Dems take the House, you can claim it's Pelosi's fault.


Oh the slowdown is it now ?  You mean the 4.1% GDP growth just announced this month.  HA HA.

Hey, maybe you could take up chess or video games, Joey.  You think ?


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> There won't be any incentive for a business to remain in the country either. Don't you remember what happened last time unions and overbearing government challenged industry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do.
> 
> I remember that well.  We had a middle class, guys like my dad could work a union job and have a middle class lifestyle in a nice neighborhood.  That's what I remember.
> 
> That's what I remember.
Click to expand...


And if you compare the life of the average American then to now, we are so much richer and our lives are so much easier.

This is just your Marxist political philosophy.  Better to be equally poor than unequally rich


----------



## kaz

protectionist said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we are already seeing the slowdown... Late 2019 or early 2020.  But it's okay, when the Dems take the House, you can claim it's Pelosi's fault.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the slowdown is it now ?  You mean the 4.1% GDP growth just announced this month.  HA HA.
> 
> Hey, maybe you could take up chess or video games, Joey.  You think ?
Click to expand...


Joe said we already see the political slowdown that he says will happen in the future ...   

He's quite the clairvoyant.  Remember his last major Nostradamus prediction that Hillary would rock the house?  How'd that turn out?


Oh, maybe that wasn't the best example ...


----------



## kaz

RealDave said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your answer is yes, you would oppose having an ID law requiring proof of citizenship ? To keep aliens from voting.  Well sure, because that would keep your illegal alien friends from voting, and helping to get Democrats elected.
> 
> And deflecting to how many illegals are voting or not, is a DODGE.  Simply enacting a citizenship requirement isn't a big deal. It's inexpensive both with time and money, it's easy, and should be done, regardless of anybody's estimate of the illegality taking place.
> 
> And for the illegal alien voter, there's nothing "elusive" about him to me.  I've talked to them all across the country, in voting halls, on construction sites, in office buildings doing janitorial work, around my apartment complex doing landscaping, etc. And they're always willing to brag about how many laws they break (voting no exception)
> 
> Whatever gave you the idea we hadn't found them ? Let me guess >> CNN, MSNBC, look no further.
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals are not voting.
> 
> Why would a person hiding from the law walk into a government run facility where they may be asked to show ID?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would a person cross our borders illegally or overstay their Visa illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *People that sneak into the country have about as much interest in our elections as we have in theirs. Any foreigner who would risk deportation and jail time to vote would have to be nuts since the chance of their vote making any difference is about 1 in million.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a list of links if you care to read them about just that.  So what happens if an illegal is caught trying to vote? They tell him or her they can't vote.  Nobody calls the cops, nobody informs ICE; especially in sanctuary cities, nobody is hauled away.  They just get turned down at the polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ILLEGALS ARE NOT TRYING TO VOTE.  You fucking ignorant lying POS.
Click to expand...


That's just a lie.  They had hundreds of illegal voters in Virginia.  The only reason they knew about them was all they did was ask them, nothing else.  Not even ID.  Imagine if hundreds admit they are not citizens how many are actually voting.

And you know States like California are actively encouraging illegal voters, you're just another leftist fake news pwned liar


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *People that sneak into the country have about as much interest in our elections as we have in theirs. Any foreigner who would risk deportation and jail time to vote would have to be nuts since the chance of their vote making any difference is about 1 in million.*
> 
> 
> 
> Their risk with voting is ZERO.  No one has any way of knowing their citizenship (or voting eligibility) status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That's the way you see it but for someone illegally in the country who has nothing to gain by voting, any risk is too great.*
Click to expand...


What risk?  We do nothing to prevent it, liar


----------



## kaz

Flopper said:


> *Are voter id's racist? Maybe.  The idea is based on the believe that blacks will not go to the trouble of voting if they have to remember to bring their id to the polls.  I guess people think they are too stupid or lazy.  That idea seems pretty racist to me*



You're the one fighting checking voter ID, moron.  You're the one who is worried about that.

So is airline security based on the idea that terrorists are too lazy to bring their ID?  Is checking ID for cashing a check based on that bank customers are too lazy to bring their ID?  Or are those based on validating people are who they say they are.

If you weren't such a racist race baiter, like checking the ID of travellers and banks, people lie about who they are.  Best way to check they aren't doing that is to ... wait for it ... check their ID


----------



## RealDave

kaz said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals are not voting.
> 
> Why would a person hiding from the law walk into a government run facility where they may be asked to show ID?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a person cross our borders illegally or overstay their Visa illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *People that sneak into the country have about as much interest in our elections as we have in theirs. Any foreigner who would risk deportation and jail time to vote would have to be nuts since the chance of their vote making any difference is about 1 in million.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a list of links if you care to read them about just that.  So what happens if an illegal is caught trying to vote? They tell him or her they can't vote.  Nobody calls the cops, nobody informs ICE; especially in sanctuary cities, nobody is hauled away.  They just get turned down at the polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ILLEGALS ARE NOT TRYING TO VOTE.  You fucking ignorant lying POS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just a lie.  They had hundreds of illegal voters in Virginia.  The only reason they knew about them was all they did was ask them, nothing else.  Not even ID.  Imagine if hundreds admit they are not citizens how many are actually voting.
> 
> And you know States like California are actively encouraging illegal voters, you're just another leftist fake news pwned liar
Click to expand...



There is no end to how fucking stupid you are,.

Illegal Aliens is different than illegal votes.

The bulk of illegal votes come from absentee ballots.  Next are LEGAL  ( In case you were too fucking stupid to read that, it said LEGAL) resident non-citizens.  NOT illegal aliens,.  

Trump supporters are the dumbest people on the planet.  OMG OMG OMG  an illegal might vote while welcoming Russian help.


----------



## RealDave

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Are voter id's racist? Maybe.  The idea is based on the believe that blacks will not go to the trouble of voting if they have to remember to bring their id to the polls.  I guess people think they are too stupid or lazy.  That idea seems pretty racist to me*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one fighting checking voter ID, moron.  You're the one who is worried about that.
> 
> So is airline security based on the idea that terrorists are too lazy to bring their ID?  Is checking ID for cashing a check based on that bank customers are too lazy to bring their ID?  Or are those based on validating people are who they say they are.
> 
> If you weren't such a racist race baiter, like checking the ID of travellers and banks, people lie about who they are.  Best way to check they aren't doing that is to ... wait for it ... check their ID
Click to expand...


I am NOT fighting voter ID, I am fighting photo voter ID requirements that your America hating party try to use to suppress the vote., 

As for race?  The photo Voter ID requirements target poorer people that are disproportionately minority.  So yes, it has to do with race.


----------



## kaz

RealDave said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a person cross our borders illegally or overstay their Visa illegally?
> 
> 
> 
> *People that sneak into the country have about as much interest in our elections as we have in theirs. Any foreigner who would risk deportation and jail time to vote would have to be nuts since the chance of their vote making any difference is about 1 in million.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a list of links if you care to read them about just that.  So what happens if an illegal is caught trying to vote? They tell him or her they can't vote.  Nobody calls the cops, nobody informs ICE; especially in sanctuary cities, nobody is hauled away.  They just get turned down at the polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ILLEGALS ARE NOT TRYING TO VOTE.  You fucking ignorant lying POS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just a lie.  They had hundreds of illegal voters in Virginia.  The only reason they knew about them was all they did was ask them, nothing else.  Not even ID.  Imagine if hundreds admit they are not citizens how many are actually voting.
> 
> And you know States like California are actively encouraging illegal voters, you're just another leftist fake news pwned liar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no end to how fucking stupid you are,.
> 
> Illegal Aliens is different than illegal votes.
> 
> The bulk of illegal votes come from absentee ballots.  Next are LEGAL  ( In case you were too fucking stupid to read that, it said LEGAL) resident non-citizens.  NOT illegal aliens,.
> 
> Trump supporters are the dumbest people on the planet.  OMG OMG OMG  an illegal might vote while welcoming Russian help.
Click to expand...


It's both and it's wrong both ways. Dildo


----------



## kaz

RealDave said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Are voter id's racist? Maybe.  The idea is based on the believe that blacks will not go to the trouble of voting if they have to remember to bring their id to the polls.  I guess people think they are too stupid or lazy.  That idea seems pretty racist to me*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one fighting checking voter ID, moron.  You're the one who is worried about that.
> 
> So is airline security based on the idea that terrorists are too lazy to bring their ID?  Is checking ID for cashing a check based on that bank customers are too lazy to bring their ID?  Or are those based on validating people are who they say they are.
> 
> If you weren't such a racist race baiter, like checking the ID of travellers and banks, people lie about who they are.  Best way to check they aren't doing that is to ... wait for it ... check their ID
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am NOT fighting voter ID, I am fighting photo voter ID requirements that your America hating party try to use to suppress the vote.,
> 
> As for race?  The photo Voter ID requirements target poorer people that are disproportionately minority.  So yes, it has to do with race.
Click to expand...


Yes, racistdave, you think blacks are too stupid and lazy to get and use an id.  Sure, granddragon


----------



## AZGAL

US budget deficit totals $76.9 billion in July

Another reason to* STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Can undocumented immigrants collect public benefits? Here are 5 answers Can undocumented immigrants collect public benefits? Here are 5 answers*


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *People that sneak into the country have about as much interest in our elections as we have in theirs. Any foreigner who would risk deportation and jail time to vote would have to be nuts since the chance of their vote making any difference is about 1 in million.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a list of links if you care to read them about just that.  So what happens if an illegal is caught trying to vote? They tell him or her they can't vote.  Nobody calls the cops, nobody informs ICE; especially in sanctuary cities, nobody is hauled away.  They just get turned down at the polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ILLEGALS ARE NOT TRYING TO VOTE.  You fucking ignorant lying POS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just a lie.  They had hundreds of illegal voters in Virginia.  The only reason they knew about them was all they did was ask them, nothing else.  Not even ID.  Imagine if hundreds admit they are not citizens how many are actually voting.
> 
> And you know States like California are actively encouraging illegal voters, you're just another leftist fake news pwned liar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no end to how fucking stupid you are,.
> 
> Illegal Aliens is different than illegal votes.
> 
> The bulk of illegal votes come from absentee ballots.  Next are LEGAL  ( In case you were too fucking stupid to read that, it said LEGAL) resident non-citizens.  NOT illegal aliens,.
> 
> Trump supporters are the dumbest people on the planet.  OMG OMG OMG  an illegal might vote while welcoming Russian help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's both and it's wrong both ways. Dildo
Click to expand...

Guys need results not excuses; and invented the double headed dildo.  so there.


----------



## danielpalos

We should be making money not losing money.  Only lousy capitalists, do that.


----------



## protectionist

JoeB131 said:


> his trade wars will spark a recession and he'll be gone... and we'll all be better off for it.
> 
> Nobody ever "won" a trade war.


The trade war started when Bush 41 took over and moronically gave China unrestricted access to our massive, rich market.  The trade war has existed since then, and won by China, Mexico, et al.  Only now have we shifted the balance back at least to equal (almost).  Wonder why it took so long.


----------



## RealDave

kaz said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Are voter id's racist? Maybe.  The idea is based on the believe that blacks will not go to the trouble of voting if they have to remember to bring their id to the polls.  I guess people think they are too stupid or lazy.  That idea seems pretty racist to me*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one fighting checking voter ID, moron.  You're the one who is worried about that.
> 
> So is airline security based on the idea that terrorists are too lazy to bring their ID?  Is checking ID for cashing a check based on that bank customers are too lazy to bring their ID?  Or are those based on validating people are who they say they are.
> 
> If you weren't such a racist race baiter, like checking the ID of travellers and banks, people lie about who they are.  Best way to check they aren't doing that is to ... wait for it ... check their ID
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am NOT fighting voter ID, I am fighting photo voter ID requirements that your America hating party try to use to suppress the vote.,
> 
> As for race?  The photo Voter ID requirements target poorer people that are disproportionately minority.  So yes, it has to do with race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, racistdave, you think blacks are too stupid and lazy to get and use an id.  Sure, granddragon
Click to expand...


Look you fucking racist asshole, 10-12% of eligible voters do not have a photo ID.  These are disproportionately minority.

So I would assume that even a stipid fuck racist like you would see how YOUR party is targeting these people to keed them from voting.  Making them get this ID when most Republicans already have them.

Here in PA, most counties have one location to get this idea.  Most communities don't have public transportation.  These are people that do not drive.

But hey, You & your orange butt buddy keep calling black people stupid.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

RealDave said:


> Look you fucking racist asshole, 10-12% of eligible voters do not have a photo ID. These are disproportionately minority.
> 
> So I would assume that even a stipid fuck racist like you would see how YOUR party is targeting these people to keed them from voting. Making them get this ID when most Republicans already have them.
> 
> Here in PA, most counties have one location to get this idea. Most communities don't have public transportation. These are people that do not drive.
> 
> But hey, You & your orange butt buddy keep calling black people stupid.


Wow!!!! what argument did you lose?


----------



## protectionist

RealDave said:


> There is no end to how fucking stupid you are,.
> 
> Illegal Aliens is different than illegal votes.
> 
> The bulk of illegal votes come from absentee ballots.  Next are LEGAL  ( In case you were too fucking stupid to read that, it said LEGAL) resident non-citizens.  NOT illegal aliens,.
> 
> Trump supporters are the dumbest people on the planet.  OMG OMG OMG  an illegal might vote while welcoming Russian help.


The most obvious thing in this forum is you blabbering pure about that which you have no clue whatsoever.


----------



## protectionist

RealDave said:


> Look you fucking racist asshole, 10-12% of eligible voters do not have a photo ID.  These are disproportionately minority.
> 
> So I would assume that even a stipid fuck racist like you would see how YOUR party is targeting these people to keed them from voting.  Making them get this ID when most Republicans already have them.
> 
> Here in PA, most counties have one location to get this idea.  Most communities don't have public transportation.  These are people that do not drive.
> 
> But hey, You & your orange butt buddy keep calling black people stupid.


They're not stupid. YOU are.


----------



## kaz

RealDave said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Are voter id's racist? Maybe.  The idea is based on the believe that blacks will not go to the trouble of voting if they have to remember to bring their id to the polls.  I guess people think they are too stupid or lazy.  That idea seems pretty racist to me*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one fighting checking voter ID, moron.  You're the one who is worried about that.
> 
> So is airline security based on the idea that terrorists are too lazy to bring their ID?  Is checking ID for cashing a check based on that bank customers are too lazy to bring their ID?  Or are those based on validating people are who they say they are.
> 
> If you weren't such a racist race baiter, like checking the ID of travellers and banks, people lie about who they are.  Best way to check they aren't doing that is to ... wait for it ... check their ID
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am NOT fighting voter ID, I am fighting photo voter ID requirements that your America hating party try to use to suppress the vote.,
> 
> As for race?  The photo Voter ID requirements target poorer people that are disproportionately minority.  So yes, it has to do with race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, racistdave, you think blacks are too stupid and lazy to get and use an id.  Sure, granddragon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look you fucking racist asshole, 10-12% of eligible voters do not have a photo ID.  These are disproportionately minority.
> 
> So I would assume that even a stipid fuck racist like you would see how YOUR party is targeting these people to keed them from voting.  Making them get this ID when most Republicans already have them.
> 
> Here in PA, most counties have one location to get this idea.  Most communities don't have public transportation.  These are people that do not drive.
> 
> But hey, You & your orange butt buddy keep calling black people stupid.
Click to expand...

What a racist piece of shit trump voter you are.  Blacks cant get and use an id?  No wonder you look through orange colored glasses, trumpanzee


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

RealDave said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Are voter id's racist? Maybe.  The idea is based on the believe that blacks will not go to the trouble of voting if they have to remember to bring their id to the polls.  I guess people think they are too stupid or lazy.  That idea seems pretty racist to me*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one fighting checking voter ID, moron.  You're the one who is worried about that.
> 
> So is airline security based on the idea that terrorists are too lazy to bring their ID?  Is checking ID for cashing a check based on that bank customers are too lazy to bring their ID?  Or are those based on validating people are who they say they are.
> 
> If you weren't such a racist race baiter, like checking the ID of travellers and banks, people lie about who they are.  Best way to check they aren't doing that is to ... wait for it ... check their ID
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am NOT fighting voter ID, I am fighting photo voter ID requirements that your America hating party try to use to suppress the vote.,
> 
> As for race?  The photo Voter ID requirements target poorer people that are disproportionately minority.  So yes, it has to do with race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, racistdave, you think blacks are too stupid and lazy to get and use an id.  Sure, granddragon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look you fucking racist asshole, 10-12% of eligible voters do not have a photo ID.  These are disproportionately minority.
> 
> So I would assume that even a stipid fuck racist like you would see how YOUR party is targeting these people to keed them from voting.  Making them get this ID when most Republicans already have them.
> 
> Here in PA, most counties have one location to get this idea.  Most communities don't have public transportation.  These are people that do not drive.
> 
> But hey, You & your orange butt buddy keep calling black people stupid.
Click to expand...


You don't even have Voter ID in PA any longer.

10 to 12% of voters have no ID whatsoever?  You're telling me that this 10 to 12% don't purchase alcohol, tobacco products, have no bank account, never applied for a home loan, never left the country where a passport was required, never boarded a plane, never cashed a check at the grocery store, never drove a car in their lives, never got hired for a job, never questioned by police for anything? 

Oh yes, anybody can believe that.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

RealDave said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Are voter id's racist? Maybe.  The idea is based on the believe that blacks will not go to the trouble of voting if they have to remember to bring their id to the polls.  I guess people think they are too stupid or lazy.  That idea seems pretty racist to me*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one fighting checking voter ID, moron.  You're the one who is worried about that.
> 
> So is airline security based on the idea that terrorists are too lazy to bring their ID?  Is checking ID for cashing a check based on that bank customers are too lazy to bring their ID?  Or are those based on validating people are who they say they are.
> 
> If you weren't such a racist race baiter, like checking the ID of travellers and banks, people lie about who they are.  Best way to check they aren't doing that is to ... wait for it ... check their ID
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am NOT fighting voter ID, I am fighting photo voter ID requirements that your America hating party try to use to suppress the vote.,
> 
> As for race?  The photo Voter ID requirements target poorer people that are disproportionately minority.  So yes, it has to do with race.
Click to expand...


Yes and no. 

Yes because Democrats understand that most lowlifes vote for them.  They are lazy, on welfare, and could give a F about voting in the first place.  Sure, they will vote if it's convenient enough, but to put a little effort into voting, forget about it.  

Of course they can't tell you that.  Giving you the truth could be harmful.  So they make up this BS race thing to try and convince the sheep that it has something to do with race.  It has nothing to do with race, it has to do with a lazy non-caring constituency.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> No we won't, but go ahead and talk about the future, since you and all Democrats have been obliterated by the past 19 months, and the present. Yeah, that future talk...I guess you still can wiggle that around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we are already seeing the slowdown... Late 2019 or early 2020.  But it's okay, when the Dems take the House, you can claim it's Pelosi's fault.
Click to expand...


Hmmm.  Who led Congress when the economy went to hell?  Who owned Congress when things started to get better?  

Don't you believe that a President is entirely responsible for either.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, long before that, his trade wars will spark a recession and he'll be gone... and we'll all be better off for it.
> 
> Nobody ever "won" a trade war.



Did you hold the same belief when DumBama put a tariff on Chinese tires? 

Sure there will be a recession.  It happens all the time.  What goes up must come down.  But it will have nothing to do with anything Trump did.  It's just a natural cycle of the American economy. 



JoeB131 said:


> Yes, I thank President Obama for fixing the economy ten years ago... too bad Trump is working very hard to fuck it all up.



He is?  It only got much better during the last less than 2 years.  If Trump was fucking it up, we would be seeing results of that, wouldn't you think?  Instead, it's doing the exact opposite.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

protectionist said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And then you'll take your dumb ass to Walmart and buy Chinese made shit... and wonder why you still don't have a good job.
> 
> 
> 
> You buy whatever is available to be bought. And often, there is no choice but to buy Chinese.  But we have hope. Trump is changing that, and as time goes by, less and less stuff in WalMart will be Chinese made, and more and more American made.
> 
> Sounds like you've got the makings to be a good Trump supporter.
> 
> As for _"a good job",_ US unemployment went down to 3.8% this year , lowest in 18 years.  Lowest ever for blacks and Hispanics.  Rejoice.
> ​
Click to expand...


One of our customers supplies products to Walmart, and I haven't seen them this busy in the last five years of DumBama.  They have 54 docks, and I can always tell how busy they are not just by how much work they give us, but how many other trucks are in the docs waiting to get unloaded.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we are doing it wrong, we voted Democrat in the past. The best thing we can do right now to protect this country and our jobs is to keep Democrats out of power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again- Nine of the last ten recessions where people lost jobs and took pay cuts started when Republicans were in charge.
> 
> It's not a bug, buddy, it's a design feature.  The one thing the One Percent hates is having to share the wealth with the wage slaves, so we'll have another recession soon enough.
Click to expand...


Wishful thinking.  Share their wealth?  Why should they share their wealth with anybody? 

This might be news to you, but a President has very limited power unless he has a Congress of the same party as a majority.

_*"How much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"*_
Thomas Sowell.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> We've always needed immigrant labor. It was just in the past, they came in for the seasonal work and went home when it was done. But because bigots like you freaked out, they found it more practical to just come here with the whole family and stay rather than trying to sneak across the border a couple of times a year.



So who stopped green cards?  Who stopped work Visa's?  They are still in play today.


----------



## JoeB131

protectionist said:


> Unfortunately for you (and the Democrats) the numbers aren't with you.
> 
> All Obama did NINE years ago, was sit back and let the economy naturally RECOIL from an unusual dip. That continued as a normal progression upward for about 6 years. Then in Obama last 2 years, he was on his own, and his performance stunk. Here's the comparison of him (his failure) and Trump (his success) >>



Actually, Trump's growth is still pretty tepid...  kind of where we've been for the last six years... about 3% average.  One good quarter doesn't really mean that much.  

Trump's Trade war is already hurting the economy.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So who stopped green cards? Who stopped work Visa's? They are still in play today.



Yes, we have a system that is broken, and has been broken for a long time... but the bigots won't let us fix it.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> And if you compare the life of the average American then to now, we are so much richer and our lives are so much easier.



No, we aren't.  

My dad was able to buy a vacation property on a middle class salary back in the 1950's...  No College. Just a HS Diploma, he was able to get a union card and support five kids on his salary.  

Speaking of college, when I went to school, you could get a pretty decent college degree for $1500 a year.  Not today.  

Now this is where I'm a little bit sympathetic the the poor dumb white trash that supports Trump. They see they have less than their parents have, and they look for someone to blame.  But they don't understand WHY they've lost it.  

They just look for someone to blame, and Trump gives them the Mexicans.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who stopped green cards? Who stopped work Visa's? They are still in play today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we have a system that is broken, and has been broken for a long time... but the bigots won't let us fix it.
Click to expand...


It is broken.  We shouldn't be letting anybody in based on a lottery.  We shouldn't be letting anybody in because they have family here.  We shouldn't' allow any immigrant to collect on our social programs.  

These are the things Democrats don't want to fix.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> Joe said we already see the political slowdown that he says will happen in the future ...
> 
> He's quite the clairvoyant. Remember his last major Nostradamus prediction that Hillary would rock the house? How'd that turn out?



She won by 3 million votes...that's how that turned out.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Hmmm. Who led Congress when the economy went to hell? Who owned Congress when things started to get better?
> 
> Don't you believe that a President is entirely responsible for either.



The president regulates the banks, wall street, the agencies that were supposed to make sure that they didn't do EXACTLY what they did.  

Every recession that happens has happened when the GOP gets exactly what it wants... lax regulation on the financial industry.   

"The problem with capitalism is capitalists... they're too damned greedy"- Herbert Hoover.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you compare the life of the average American then to now, we are so much richer and our lives are so much easier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we aren't.
> 
> My dad was able to buy a vacation property on a middle class salary back in the 1950's...  No College. Just a HS Diploma, he was able to get a union card and support five kids on his salary.
> 
> Speaking of college, when I went to school, you could get a pretty decent college degree for $1500 a year.  Not today.
> 
> Now this is where I'm a little bit sympathetic the the poor dumb white trash that supports Trump. They see they have less than their parents have, and they look for someone to blame.  But they don't understand WHY they've lost it.
> 
> They just look for someone to blame, and Trump gives them the Mexicans.
Click to expand...


The poor horse shoe makers are not working anymore.  Neither are the ice men that bring huge cubes of ice to your ice box.  

Before machines and robots took over manual labor jobs, there was a lot of manual labor needed.  Those days are long gone and they're not coming back.  Yes, we still have some manual labor jobs, but they will never pay what they paid in years before.  

You want to wave a magic wand and make everything go backwards.  Well when you find that wand, let us know.  Until that time, we have to deal with the present and accept the fact that low skilled jobs will never pay great money anymore.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wishful thinking. Share their wealth? Why should they share their wealth with anybody?



self preservation? 

Hey, let's play an association game.  Name countries where there were just a lot of very poor people and a bloated wealthy class. 

Um. 

France 1787
Russia 1917
Cuba 1959
Iran 1979

Seeing a pattern here, buddy?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm. Who led Congress when the economy went to hell? Who owned Congress when things started to get better?
> 
> Don't you believe that a President is entirely responsible for either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The president regulates the banks, wall street, the agencies that were supposed to make sure that they didn't do EXACTLY what they did.
> 
> Every recession that happens has happened when the GOP gets exactly what it wants... lax regulation on the financial industry.
> 
> "The problem with capitalism is capitalists... they're too damned greedy"- Herbert Hoover.
Click to expand...


Well Trump reduced taxes and removed a lot of regulations on businesses.  Look what's happened since.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Well Trump reduced taxes and removed a lot of regulations on businesses. Look what's happened since.



Yup, there'll be another recession, but i'm sure you'll blame the darkies.. 

because you always do.


----------



## Kondor3

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wishful thinking. Share their wealth? Why should they share their wealth with anybody?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> self preservation?
> 
> Hey, let's play an association game.  Name countries where there were just a lot of very poor people and a bloated wealthy class.
> 
> Um.
> 
> France 1787
> Russia 1917
> Cuba 1959
> Iran 1979
> 
> Seeing a pattern here, buddy?
Click to expand...

The implication being that there are sufficient poor in the US to foster revolution-from-within?

Once one rules-out the Democrat-controlled Inner City $hithole denizens who were poor 100 years ago and who will still be poor 100 years from now...

The rest of America is doing quite nicely by comparison and is in no danger of revolting in the foreseeable future...


----------



## JoeB131

Kondor3 said:


> The implication being that there are sufficient poor in the US to foster revolution-from-within?
> 
> Once one rules-out the Democrat-controlled Inner City $hithole denizens who were poor 100 years ago and who will still be poor 100 years from now...
> 
> The rest of America is doing quite nicely by comparison and is in no danger of revolting in the foreseeable future...



Buddy, if you look at the states Trump carried, they are states like Mississippi, West Virginia and Michigan... poor as shit states. 

The states Hillary carried are the wealthy and affluent ones. 

And the hating on brown people will only carry you poor dumb white trash so far.


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> No we won't, but go ahead and talk about the future, since you and all Democrats have been obliterated by the past 19 months, and the present. Yeah, that future talk...I guess you still can wiggle that around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we are already seeing the slowdown... Late 2019 or early 2020.  But it's okay, when the Dems take the House, you can claim it's Pelosi's fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  Who led Congress when the economy went to hell?  Who owned Congress when things started to get better?
> 
> Don't you believe that a President is entirely responsible for either.
Click to expand...


Well, he did blame W and credit Obama because of who was in office.  It only works one way ...


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you compare the life of the average American then to now, we are so much richer and our lives are so much easier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we aren't.
> 
> My dad was able to buy a vacation property on a middle class salary back in the 1950's...  No College. Just a HS Diploma, he was able to get a union card and support five kids on his salary.
> 
> Speaking of college, when I went to school, you could get a pretty decent college degree for $1500 a year.  Not today.
> 
> Now this is where I'm a little bit sympathetic the the poor dumb white trash that supports Trump. They see they have less than their parents have, and they look for someone to blame.  But they don't understand WHY they've lost it.
> 
> They just look for someone to blame, and Trump gives them the Mexicans.
Click to expand...


I was referring to our lifestyles, moron.  Not whether or not we would buy a vacation home.  Yes, government has made buying property prohibitively expensive with taxes and regulations


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe said we already see the political slowdown that he says will happen in the future ...
> 
> He's quite the clairvoyant. Remember his last major Nostradamus prediction that Hillary would rock the house? How'd that turn out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She won by 3 million votes...that's how that turned out.
Click to expand...


Wow, Hillary's President?   I thought it was Trump.  Thanks for clearing that up, Speed Racer


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wishful thinking. Share their wealth? Why should they share their wealth with anybody?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> self preservation?
> 
> Hey, let's play an association game.  Name countries where there were just a lot of very poor people and a bloated wealthy class.
> 
> Um.
> 
> France 1787
> Russia 1917
> Cuba 1959
> Iran 1979
> 
> Seeing a pattern here, buddy?
Click to expand...


Here's some more:

Russia
China
Cuba post 1960
North Korea
Eastern Europe 1945-1980

Seeing a pattern here, Speed Racer?


----------



## Kondor3

JoeB131 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The implication being that there are sufficient poor in the US to foster revolution-from-within?
> 
> Once one rules-out the Democrat-controlled Inner City $hithole denizens who were poor 100 years ago and who will still be poor 100 years from now...
> 
> The rest of America is doing quite nicely by comparison and is in no danger of revolting in the foreseeable future...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buddy, if you look at the states Trump carried, they are states like Mississippi, West Virginia and Michigan... *poor as shit* states.
> 
> The states Hillary carried are the *wealthy and affluent* ones.
> 
> And the hating on brown people will only carry you poor dumb white trash so far.
Click to expand...

Democrats, hyping the "_wealthy and affluent_", and denigrating the "_poor as shit_" .

My, my, my... how the political landscape has changed.

This (*D*)isdain for the poor is a changed state of affairs that Americans are only recently coming to understand in any appreciable numbers.


----------



## danielpalos

we should be generating a thousand dollars per foreign national, per year. 

a fee for an entry visa into the Union, could help cover


basic services for those foreign nationals


basic preventive health care and unemployment insurance should be included to defray the cost of Government.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Kondor3 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The implication being that there are sufficient poor in the US to foster revolution-from-within?
> 
> Once one rules-out the Democrat-controlled Inner City $hithole denizens who were poor 100 years ago and who will still be poor 100 years from now...
> 
> The rest of America is doing quite nicely by comparison and is in no danger of revolting in the foreseeable future...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buddy, if you look at the states Trump carried, they are states like Mississippi, West Virginia and Michigan... *poor as shit* states.
> 
> The states Hillary carried are the *wealthy and affluent* ones.
> 
> And the hating on brown people will only carry you poor dumb white trash so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats, hyping the "_wealthy and affluent_", and denigrating the "_poor as shit_" .
> 
> My, my, my... how the political landscape has changed.
> 
> This (*D*)isdain for the poor is a changed state of affairs that Americans are only recently coming to understand in any appreciable numbers.
Click to expand...






Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## protectionist

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, Trump's growth is still pretty tepid...  kind of where we've been for the last six years... about 3% average.  One good quarter doesn't really mean that much.
> 
> Trump's Trade war is already hurting the economy.


It's not just one quarter. Look at the bar graph. On the right side of it (2017-2018) the bars are high. On the left side 2015-2016, they're low.  Duh!  You can't win elections on lies. American people are smarter than you think.


----------



## protectionist

JoeB131 said:


> She won by 3 million votes...that's how that turned out.


_"Votes"_ ? LOL..That shouldn't matter. Only thing that should matter is AMERICAN votes. Of those ,Trump won in a landslide. And from our booming economy + less illegal alien voters, he will again in 2020.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Trump reduced taxes and removed a lot of regulations on businesses. Look what's happened since.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, there'll be another recession, but i'm sure you'll blame the darkies..
> 
> because you always do.
Click to expand...


Oh, just like you always blame the whites?  

Like I said,recessions come and go.  But if it’s one thing I’ve always said about liberals, it’s that they never think they’re wrong.  It’s always somebody else’s fault.  


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## danielpalos

only lousy capitalists lose money on public policy, whine about taxes, and cut social services for the poor.


----------



## protectionist

JoeB131 said:


> No, we aren't. My dad was able to buy a vacation property on a middle class salary back in the 1950's...  No College. Just a HS Diploma, he was able to get a union card and support five kids on his salary.
> 
> Speaking of college, when I went to school, you could get a pretty decent college degree for $1500 a year.  Not today.
> 
> Now this is where I'm a little bit sympathetic the the poor dumb white trash that supports Trump. They see they have less than their parents have, and they look for someone to blame.  But they don't understand WHY they've lost it.
> 
> They just look for someone to blame, and Trump gives them the Mexicans.


With $28 Billion/year sales lost to US businesses. $28 Billion/yr lost from the US economy. Tens of Billions$$ more lost from US tax treasuries, due to the welfare anchor baby racket, false documentation, and a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment.

8 million jobs lost to illegal aliens AND >>>>>>

*Harms* of Immigration

1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).

2. Wage reduction.

3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).

4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($133 Billion/year).

5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.

6. Increased crime.

7. Increased traffic congestion.

8. Increased pollution.

9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.

10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.

11. Overcrowding in government offices.

12. Overcrowding in schools.

13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.

14. Cultural erosion.

15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)

16. Introduction of foreign diseases

17. Influx of terrorists.

18.  Litter.

19.  Forest Fires.


----------



## danielpalos

protectionist said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we aren't. My dad was able to buy a vacation property on a middle class salary back in the 1950's...  No College. Just a HS Diploma, he was able to get a union card and support five kids on his salary.
> 
> Speaking of college, when I went to school, you could get a pretty decent college degree for $1500 a year.  Not today.
> 
> Now this is where I'm a little bit sympathetic the the poor dumb white trash that supports Trump. They see they have less than their parents have, and they look for someone to blame.  But they don't understand WHY they've lost it.
> 
> They just look for someone to blame, and Trump gives them the Mexicans.
> 
> 
> 
> With $28 Billion/year sales lost to US businesses. $28 Billion/yr lost from the US economy. Tens of Billions$$ more lost from US tax treasuries, due to the welfare anchor baby racket, false documentation, and a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment.
> 
> 8 million jobs lost to illegal aliens AND >>>>>>
> 
> *Harms* of Immigration
> 
> 1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).
> 
> 2. Wage reduction.
> 
> 3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).
> 
> 4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($133 Billion/year).
> 
> 5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.
> 
> 6. Increased crime.
> 
> 7. Increased traffic congestion.
> 
> 8. Increased pollution.
> 
> 9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.
> 
> 10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.
> 
> 11. Overcrowding in government offices.
> 
> 12. Overcrowding in schools.
> 
> 13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.
> 
> 14. Cultural erosion.
> 
> 15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)
> 
> 16. Introduction of foreign diseases
> 
> 17. Influx of terrorists.
> 
> 18.  Litter.
> 
> 19.  Forest Fires.
Click to expand...

We should be generating one thousand dollars per foreign national; to help cover social costs via capital programs.


----------



## protectionist

danielpalos said:


> we should be generating a thousand dollars per foreign national, per year.
> 
> a fee for an entry visa into the Union, could help cover
> 
> 
> basic services for those foreign nationals
> 
> 
> basic preventive health care and unemployment insurance should be included to defray the cost of Government.


Only_ "foreign nationals"_ who should be coming into the US are >>

1.  those bringing large amounts of capital, with which to open businesses and create jobs (for AMERICANS), and

2.  Those bringing special skills or talents that would enrich us (great scientists, great violinist, etc)  These would likely be rare and small in number.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no recollection of businesses leaving because it cost too much to product products in the US thanks to unions, taxes and regulations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, man.
> 
> What I recall is that the company I worked at had no unions, no real regulations and got a shit load of tax breaks, and most of our employees were immigrant ladies, and they STILL moved the manufacturing lines to Malaysia.
Click to expand...


Dude, you resold boxes.  What the hell did you offshore?


----------



## danielpalos

protectionist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we should be generating a thousand dollars per foreign national, per year.
> 
> a fee for an entry visa into the Union, could help cover
> 
> 
> basic services for those foreign nationals
> 
> 
> basic preventive health care and unemployment insurance should be included to defray the cost of Government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only_ "foreign nationals"_ who should be coming into the US are >>
> 
> 1.  those bringing large amounts of capital, with which to open businesses and create jobs (for AMERICANS), and
> 
> 2.  Those bringing special skills or talents that would enrich us (great scientists, great violinist, etc)  These would likely be rare and small in number.
Click to expand...

don't believe in natural rights?

right wing fantasy doesn't work, in the ordinary world.


----------



## protectionist

danielpalos said:


> don't believe in natural rights?
> 
> right wing fantasy doesn't work, in the ordinary world.


if you're talking about "rights" to come to the USA, no, I most certainly do NOT believe in that as a right.  Nobody has a "right" to set foot in this country from outside of it, unless that right is granted by the American people/govt, and that, only with the utmost of care and inspection.


----------



## danielpalos

protectionist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't believe in natural rights?
> 
> right wing fantasy doesn't work, in the ordinary world.
> 
> 
> 
> if you're talking about "rights" to come to the USA, no, I most certainly do NOT believe in that as a right.  Nobody has a "right" to set foot in this country from outside of it, unless that right is granted by the American people/govt, and that, only with the utmost of care and inspection.
Click to expand...

You have no capital solutions, only social costs.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple nationwide studies have uncovered only a handful of incidents of non-citizens voting. Based on state prosecution records, votes by non-citizens account for between 0.0003 percent and 0.001 percent of all votes cast. Election Officials agree that there is no serious problem of non-citizen voting in our elections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, you know, when we talk about Voter-ID and a Democrat brings up an anomaly like a voter with no ID because they came from a country that didn't provide birth certificates, the left told us that every single vote is precious; every single vote should count.  But for some reason, when it comes to voter fraud "Oh don't worry, it's not enough to change anything."
> 
> The only real way of knowing who or how many vote fraudulently is when they get caught.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The reality today is votes are precious, not a vote.  In the first presidential election there 43,000 votes.  In 2016, there were 130 million votes.  Just recently, LA county said 118,000 voters were accidentally left all voter rosters, about 3 times the total number of votes in our first presidential election.  It is not unusually that thousands of ballots out of millions in a state will be misplaced or tabulated incorrectly.  Sometimes they are found and sometimes not.  As long as the ballots that are disqualified or mis-tabulated will not make a difference in the outcome, they are largely ignored.
> 
> In every presidential election there are thousands of votes that are not counted and many times that number that are not allowed to vote because of various purging rules of voting rosters.
> 
> So we are supposed be alarmed over fraudulently voting when it's discovered that 10 people voted fraudulently over a 6 year period in national elections, one women is sent to jail, 733 people could have voted twice because they were on the rolls for more one state and at the same time tens of thousands of valid voters are purged from the rolls and over hundred thousand legal register voters are simple lost.
> 
> The whole controversy about more validation of the votes and voter ids is based on the unproven claim that large number of non-citizens are voting in national elections.  Also the presumption that adding voter ids will reduce the number of democratic votes is unproven.   In other words, it's much ado about nothing. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Democrats Voter-ID is racist and does affect Democrat voters only.
> 
> There are F-ups in every election.   To count the amount of votes cast is a daunting task.  It takes electronics to assist to get the results as quickly as we get them.  But because of that, mistakes are made.  Those mistakes only come up when a Democrat loses.
> 
> The only time ballots that are misplaced are ignored is when it wouldn't make a difference in the outcome.  If a congressional candidate wins by 15,000 votes, and 15,000 votes are found afterwards, it won't make a difference because it's likely not every one of those votes likely didn't go to that candidate.  However, if they found 15,000 votes and a candidate lost by let's say 2,000, you can bet anything they will be counted and counted under a microscope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Neither democrats nor republicans know how voter id's will effect outcomes.  One source is saying voter ids were responsible for 200,000 less turnout in 2016.  However, any reduction in turnout seems to be about the same for both parties.
> 
> Are voter id's racist? Maybe.  The idea is based on the believe that blacks will not go to the trouble of voting if they have to remember to bring their id to the polls.  I guess people think they are too stupid or lazy.  That idea seems pretty racist to me.  IMHO, voter ids do reduce turnout but they are just about as likely to effect republican votes as democrat vote.  However, the issues at stake and the candidates are a far bigger determinate than having to remember to carry your id to the poll.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Voter ID will discourage Democrat voters because yes, many of them are lower income people who won't take the time to get an ID and the Democrats know this.
> 
> But of course they can't say it that way, so they make up this race thing instead.
> 
> Republican voters will crawl though a mound of snow to get to the polls.  Many Democrat voters will only vote if it's convenient enough: multiple day voting; late hour voting; busses to take them to the polls; vote my mail.
> 
> We Republicans will wait in line for hours if necessary because voting is important to us. It's not as important to many Democrat voters; especially in the inner-city.
> 
> However race has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

*Your're falling for democrat propaganda hook, line, and sinker.  In order to combat the republican drive to require  photo ids at the polls to vote, democrats have come up with this preposterous idea that requiring photo ids will have a big impact on minority voter turnout.  Republicans might think that's a great idea and so they push even harder and democrats are fighting back harder.

However, it's all bull shit.  87% of blacks have valid ids, 90% of Hispanics, and 95% of Whites.  I know, you're clapping your hands in glee, since 13% of Black and 10% Hispanics won't be voting if photo ids were required.  But don't start celebrating yet, because in almost all states, a valid id must be shown to register to vote and those without ids don't vote now regardless of race. So voter photo ids would have little effect on voter turnout since the 10% of Hispanics and 13% of Blacks aren't voting now.

http://www.projectvote.org/wp-conte...WITH-PHOTO-ID-Research-Memo-February-2015.pdf
*


----------



## protectionist

danielpalos said:


> You have no capital solutions, only social costs.


Sure I do. One "solution" I mentioned is immigration based on MERIT.  Accepting immigrants who will contribute "capital", to open businesses and create jobs for AMERICANS, and not accept those who represent nothing but more "social costs"


----------



## danielpalos

protectionist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no capital solutions, only social costs.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I do. One "solution" I mentioned is immigration based on MERIT.  Accepting immigrants who will contribute "capital", to open businesses and create jobs for AMERICANS, and not accept those who represent nothing but more "social costs"
Click to expand...

We should be generating one thousand dollars per foreign national.  

Tourism is the first, second, or third largest employer in twenty-nine States.


----------



## protectionist

danielpalos said:


> We should be generating one thousand dollars per foreign national.
> 
> Tourism is the first, second, or third largest employer in twenty-nine States.


"Tourism" ? I would hardly refer to 30 million invaders/occupiers/pillagers, as "tourists."


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no capital solutions, only social costs.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I do. One "solution" I mentioned is immigration based on MERIT.  Accepting immigrants who will contribute "capital", to open businesses and create jobs for AMERICANS, and not accept those who represent nothing but more "social costs"
Click to expand...

*We have no problem creating jobs or raising capital.  We are creating a hundred to two hundred thousand jobs a month in addition to 10,000 a day that are being vacated by baby boomers.  What the country needs is skilled workers, scientists, engineers, mathematicians, medical specialists, and skilled technicians.  America's labor shortage is approaching epidemic proportions in many fields. Employers want to hire 44% more workers in 2018, if they can find them.  The days of hiring people just to fill positions is long gone.  If America can't provide the workers, those jobs are going elsewhere along with the revenue they generate.*


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *We have no problem creating jobs or raising capital.  We are creating a hundred to two hundred thousand jobs a month in addition to 10,000 a day that are being vacated by baby boomers.  What the country needs is skilled workers, scientists, engineers, mathematicians, medical specialists, and skilled technicians.  America's labor shortage is approaching epidemic proportions in many fields. Employers want to hire 44% more workers in 2018, if they can find them.  The days of hiring people just to fill positions is long gone.  If America can't provide the workers, those jobs are going elsewhere along with the revenue they generate.*


Maybe you're not reading the thread.  in the post you quoted, yes, I mentioned " _Accepting immigrants who will contribute "capital", to open businesses and create jobs for AMERICANS"_,, 

And before that in Post # 5281, I said >>  _" Those bringing special skills or talents that would enrich us (great scientists, great violinist, etc) These would likely be rare and small in number_. "


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no capital solutions, only social costs.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I do. One "solution" I mentioned is immigration based on MERIT.  Accepting immigrants who will contribute "capital", to open businesses and create jobs for AMERICANS, and not accept those who represent nothing but more "social costs"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *We have no problem creating jobs or raising capital.  We are creating a hundred to two hundred thousand jobs a month in addition to 10,000 a day that are being vacated by baby boomers.  What the country needs is skilled workers, scientists, engineers, mathematicians, medical specialists, and skilled technicians.  America's labor shortage is approaching epidemic proportions in many fields. Employers want to hire 44% more workers in 2018, if they can find them.  The days of hiring people just to fill positions is long gone.  If America can't provide the workers, those jobs are going elsewhere along with the revenue they generate.*
Click to expand...


No, those jobs will eventually offer more money to attract workers.

You know.......I'm on the road all day long.  What I find amazing is how many cars are on the highway every single day.  I always said I wish I could set up a booth to stop cars; not to collect tolls, but just to ask these hundreds of thousands of people driving around during normal work hours WTF they do for a living that gives them the ability to be driving around instead of working? 

The only time I'm on the highway is when I'm working.  Understandable, there are kids out of school, stay at home moms, salesmen, retired people and so forth, but when you see how many cars are driving on the highway, you have to question how it is they are able to do so? 

I don't think our problem is not having enough workers, I believe our problem is our safety nets discourage people from working.  The solution isn't bringing in more foreigners, the solution is reducing our welfare benefits so that people have to work to make a living.  Only those who cannot work should be getting benefits.


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We have no problem creating jobs or raising capital.  We are creating a hundred to two hundred thousand jobs a month in addition to 10,000 a day that are being vacated by baby boomers.  What the country needs is skilled workers, scientists, engineers, mathematicians, medical specialists, and skilled technicians.  America's labor shortage is approaching epidemic proportions in many fields. Employers want to hire 44% more workers in 2018, if they can find them.  The days of hiring people just to fill positions is long gone.  If America can't provide the workers, those jobs are going elsewhere along with the revenue they generate.*
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you're not reading the thread.  in the post you quoted, yes, I mentioned " _Accepting immigrants who will contribute "capital", to open businesses and create jobs for AMERICANS"_,,
> 
> And before that in Post # 5281, I said >>  _" Those bringing special skills or talents that would enrich us (great scientists, great violinist, etc) These would likely be rare and small in number_. "
Click to expand...

*I just read the one I was replying to.  If if turns out that Americans won't pick the crops and dozens of other backbreaking jobs, we can always increase the number of temporary workers.   Realistically, I don't see congress changing the 1 million immigrants a year figure. *


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> *I just read the one I was replying to.  If if turns out that Americans won't pick the crops and dozens of other backbreaking jobs, we can always increase the number of temporary workers.   Realistically, I don't see congress changing the 1 million immigrants a year figure. *


Americans do much tougher jobs than illegal aliens do.  It is illegal aliens who won't do those tough jobs that AMERICANS are doing.

_"Backbreaking"_ ?  No kidding.  Americans are doing LIFEbreaking jobs.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> Well, he did blame W and credit Obama because of who was in office. It only works one way ...



Um, no, I blame Bush because he was in office for EIGHT YEARS before the recession broke out, and it's proximate causes were the usual Republican bullshit of lax regulation of Wall Street.  

Now, it might be more of a stretch to credit Bush with the 2001 recession, but the 2008 recession, that was all him.  



kaz said:


> I was referring to our lifestyles, moron. Not whether or not we would buy a vacation home. Yes, government has made buying property prohibitively expensive with taxes and regulations



Guy, by any objective measure, we are less well of than our parents were in the 1960's, (for white folks anyway).  That's a lot of the animus driving people like Ray and others here.  The days when you could graduate high school and get a good union job are gone.  

Now what you have to look forward to is going to college, racking up a mountain of debt, and maybe getting a mediocre job where you might dig your way out of that debt if you really like Ramen Noodles.  

It's where people have to wait until their late 20's early 30's to start having kids.  (Kind of one of the contributing factors in the decline of white folks that Ray is constantly whining about.)


----------



## JoeB131

protectionist said:


> Americans do much tougher jobs than illegal aliens do. It is illegal aliens who won't do those tough jobs that AMERICANS are doing.
> 
> _"Backbreaking"_ ? No kidding. Americans are doing LIFEbreaking jobs.



I'm not sure why you keep pulling up that picture from the 1930's of coal miners. 

but let's look at it.. 

Firefighter- Civil Servants, belong to a union, have really good benefits and get lifetime pensions when they retire at an early age. (You don't see a lot of 60 year old firefighters.) 

Coal Miners- Well, not a lot of them left, because Coal is dead technology. And the work is mostly automated now, not guys in a mine with a pick ax.  Of course, they belong to a union and  get really good benefits, the few that are left.  

Soldiers- Well, they get pretty good pay, they get lifetime benefits for being a Veteran, they get educational benefits, housing benefits, health care benefits...  

Now, here's the thing, none of those guys are going to go off and take jobs cleaning toilets or picking lettuce or doing any of the drudge work undocumented immigrants do... that's the point.  I guess we COULD raise those pay rates to what a firefighter gets.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> Here's some more:
> 
> Russia
> China
> Cuba post 1960
> North Korea
> Eastern Europe 1945-1980
> 
> Seeing a pattern here, Speed Racer?



That some of those countries tried Communism? Um yeah, what's your point, buddy?  

It's WHY they thought Communism might be a good idea... because capitalism was a shit sandwich for them.


----------



## JoeB131

protectionist said:


> It's not just one quarter. Look at the bar graph. On the right side of it (2017-2018) the bars are high. On the left side 2015-2016, they're low. Duh! You can't win elections on lies. American people are smarter than you think.



Actually, they are pretty dumb... but most of them are just smart enough to see Trump is a crazy person and he needs keepers.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> Dude, you resold boxes. What the hell did you offshore?



That was only one job I had at one company.  Another company I worked for made antennas, worked their for 7 years between stints at two packaging companies...  

I know, I know, man, I didn't detail every aspect of my life, so obviously i must be lying... it's hard for you to imagine that in a 35 year career I've done a lot of different stuff.  

But here's the progression. 

2002- 2008- Worked for the evil packaging company that fucked me over because I had a medical issue. 

2008- 2015- Worked for the electronics company, that offshored most of it's work while I was there... one of many commodities I purchased there was- wait for it- packaging. 

It was also during this time period that I started the resume business..because they didn't pay as well as packaging companies did. 

2015- 2017- Worked for an even more evil packaging because they offered me a lot of money. Then they reminded me why I hated the packaging industry so much... because they are all fucking evil. So after that, I took my Resume Business full time and am a lot happier now. 

(Actually, I have talked about the electronics company in other posts, but never mind... Kaz has his fantasies and sticks to it.)


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I don't think our problem is not having enough workers, I believe our problem is our safety nets discourage people from working. The solution isn't bringing in more foreigners, the solution is reducing our welfare benefits so that people have to work to make a living. Only those who cannot work should be getting benefits.



Uh, guy, most of the people in the "Safety Net" are retired people, disabled people and children... 

There are very few able bodied people collecting welfare benefits.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's some more:
> 
> Russia
> China
> Cuba post 1960
> North Korea
> Eastern Europe 1945-1980
> 
> Seeing a pattern here, Speed Racer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That some of those countries tried Communism? Um yeah, what's your point, buddy?
> 
> It's WHY they thought Communism might be a good idea... because capitalism was a shit sandwich for them.
Click to expand...


You asked for countries with extreme wealth classes and everyone else is in poverty and cut that from the quote, dipshit.  That is the goal you're fighting for.  You're OK with it happening now.  Your Gods like Hillary and Obama become massively wealthy and you don't even care when they take bribes, steal and give nothing to charity.  That while the rest of us end up in endlessly slow economic and wage growth.

You're fighting FOR a system of a massive wealth class and the rest of us in poverty.  You're just not very smart, you buy the Marxist rhetoric their populations fell for absolutely


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think our problem is not having enough workers, I believe our problem is our safety nets discourage people from working. The solution isn't bringing in more foreigners, the solution is reducing our welfare benefits so that people have to work to make a living. Only those who cannot work should be getting benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, guy, most of the people in the "Safety Net" are retired people, disabled people and children...
> 
> There are very few able bodied people collecting welfare benefits.
Click to expand...


That's just a lie.  You're drowning in fake news and Marxist propaganda


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think our problem is not having enough workers, I believe our problem is our safety nets discourage people from working. The solution isn't bringing in more foreigners, the solution is reducing our welfare benefits so that people have to work to make a living. Only those who cannot work should be getting benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, guy, most of the people in the "Safety Net" are retired people, disabled people and children...
> 
> There are very few able bodied people collecting welfare benefits.
Click to expand...


I guess you’re correct Joe, I’m the only one that ever sees them. 

Several years ago I was with a trainee and we were in a lower income neighborhood.  We passed by a dozen guys who were standing around a fire out of a 55 galling drum; dancing, one was singing, the others were drinking “something” out of paper bags.  

The other guy asked WTF were they doing?  I told him they were having a discussion about their job interviews.  

Want to see healthy young people on welfare?  Come here and I’ll show you thousands of them. But you have to leave your mothers basement and step out into the real world for a change.  





Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## danielpalos

protectionist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should be generating one thousand dollars per foreign national.
> 
> Tourism is the first, second, or third largest employer in twenty-nine States.
> 
> 
> 
> "Tourism" ? I would hardly refer to 30 million invaders/occupiers/pillagers, as "tourists."
Click to expand...

lol.  Only lousy Capitalists lose money on public policies.


----------



## danielpalos

The market friendly, Entry into the Union visa fee should include, all immunizations.


----------



## Votto

Coyote said:


> Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
> _"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
> 
> Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed._​
> 
> Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
> _The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns* about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.*
> 
> "There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law._​
> 
> I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL.  You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable.  I hope they rot in hell for this.  700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system.  I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
> 
> _When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, *often without parents being told exactly where they are*, immigration advocates said.
> 
> It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
> 
> In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children._​



What human cost is acceptable to allow continued illegal immigration?

How many crying families who have loved ones murdered by illegals does it take?

How many drug overdoses does it take from foreign drug smugglers?

How many crimes in general does it take?

How many billions of tax dollar funds does it take, etc.?


----------



## protectionist

JoeB131 said:


> I'm not sure why you keep pulling up that picture from the 1930's of coal miners.
> 
> but let's look at it..
> 
> Firefighter- Civil Servants, belong to a union, have really good benefits and get lifetime pensions when they retire at an early age. (You don't see a lot of 60 year old firefighters.)
> 
> Coal Miners- Well, not a lot of them left, because Coal is dead technology. And the work is mostly automated now, not guys in a mine with a pick ax.  Of course, they belong to a union and  get really good benefits, the few that are left.
> 
> Soldiers- Well, they get pretty good pay, they get lifetime benefits for being a Veteran, they get educational benefits, housing benefits, health care benefits...
> 
> Now, here's the thing, none of those guys are going to go off and take jobs cleaning toilets or picking lettuce or doing any of the drudge work undocumented immigrants do... that's the point.  I guess we COULD raise those pay rates to what a firefighter gets.


NO, Mr Change the Subject.  The SUBJECT was the difficulty of doing the job. That is irregardless of unions, benefits, etc. 

You said the same stupid things to me 2 months ago, and I refuted your BS about coal mining.  Oh didn't get the message ? Then I'll have to give it to you again, all over again >>

Americans are* doing* much worse, much tougher jobs than the aliens, and doing it every day, NOW, in 2018.

I once was one of them. A combat Construction Specialist in the Army Corps of Engineers. I wonder if these fruit pickers could last one hour on an M4T6 bridge (all constructed BY HAND) like they do in the Corp.
.
As for coal, it remains an important factor in the 25 states in which it is mined. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), in 2015 Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, Illinois, and Pennsylvania produced about 639 millions of short tons (MST) representing 71% of total U.S. coal production in the United States. 

Coal may be in decline but 50,000 AMERICANS (not illegal aliens) still work as coal miners, and however they mine coal, is beside my point. It is still tough, dirty, and extremely DANGEROUS. Mine disasters have still occurred in recent years in the US,[57] 

Examples include the Sago Mine disaster of 2006, and the 2007 mine accident in Utah's Crandall Canyon Mine, where nine miners were killed and six entombed.[58] In the decade 2005-2014, US coal mining fatalities averaged 28 per year.[59] The most fatalities during the 2005-2014 decade were 48 in 2010, the year of the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster in West Virginia, which killed 29 miners.[60]

Which states produce the most coal? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Coal mining in the United States - Wikipedia
PS - if you want to go around making quantity statements then >> 

The pictures of coal miners can be 1930 or 2018.  The job is just as tough now as then.  Just as dirty and just as dangerous, As for drudge work, how stupid can you be ? The reason I showed coal miners, firefighters and the troops in Afghanistan is because the their jobs are 100 times harder, dirtier, and more dangerous than any picking lettuce.

It is the illegal aliens who won't do the tough and dangerous work of the coal miners, the firefighters and the US troops, which jobs are being done by Americans.  In comparison to those Americans' jobs, picking fruit and lettuce is like watching a movie and eating popcorn.


----------



## protectionist

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, they are pretty dumb... but most of them are just smart enough to see Trump is a crazy person and he needs keepers.


What they see is the economy booming, and another 4 Years of  a Trump presidency. Maybe YOU are the "dumb" one.


----------



## protectionist

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, most of the people in the "Safety Net" are retired people, disabled people and children...
> 
> There are very few able bodied people collecting welfare benefits.


Upon what do you base that statement ?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

protectionist said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, guy, most of the people in the "Safety Net" are retired people, disabled people and children...
> 
> There are very few able bodied people collecting welfare benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> Upon what do you base that statement ?
Click to expand...


Not that I'm siding with Joe, but I think he's pretty close.  But then the question is why are these children so poor?  Who had children they couldn't afford in the first place?  

Why do adults who had their entire lives to prepare for retirement now find themselves on some sort of social program(s) after they retired?  Who's fault is that????? 

Why do we keep allowing more immigrants in when over half of the ones that are here go on social programs?  Even the illegal ones get on our social programs for their kids.


----------



## Votto

protectionist said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they are pretty dumb... but most of them are just smart enough to see Trump is a crazy person and he needs keepers.
> 
> 
> 
> What they see is the economy booming, and another 4 Years of  a Trump presidency. Maybe YOU are the "dumb" one.
Click to expand...


You have it all wrong.  Trump is just enjoying the great Obama generated after 8 years in office, then when the next Dim gets in there they are going to have to somehow cope with the failing economy that Trump caused.

Then with the next Republican President, wash, rinse, repeat.


----------



## danielpalos

A positive multiplier not a negative multiplier, only lousy Capitalists, do that!


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> You asked for countries with extreme wealth classes and everyone else is in poverty and cut that from the quote, dipshit. That is the goal you're fighting for. You're OK with it happening now.



No, what I'm pointing out to you is that when most people don't benefit from a system, they are okay with burning it down, which is what happened in all those countries I listed.  Whether or not the people who took over later were worse (almost all of them were, BTW) was not relevant to the point you missed. 

40% of the country has less than 1% of the wealth.  1% of the population has 43% of the wealth...  That's a recipe for disaster.  



kaz said:


> Your Gods like Hillary and Obama become massively wealthy and you don't even care when they take bribes, steal and give nothing to charity. That while the rest of us end up in endlessly slow economic and wage growth.



Actually, not the least bit relevant to the argument I was making. And you guys have been trying to prove Hillary took Bribes for 30 years. How is that going?  I mean she must be a fucking criminal mastermind if she's been doing it for 30 years and has never been caught with millions spent investigating her.  



kaz said:


> You're fighting FOR a system of a massive wealth class and the rest of us in poverty. You're just not very smart, you buy the Marxist rhetoric their populations fell for absolutely



I think you are a bit deluded here... I don't advocate Marxism.  

What I'd like to see. What America had in the 1950's and 1960's. The rich paid confiscatory taxes, working people belonged to unions. The wealth was fairly distributed.  It worked really well until Republicans fucked it up, like they always do.


----------



## JoeB131

protectionist said:


> What they see is the economy booming, and another 4 Years of a Trump presidency. Maybe YOU are the "dumb" one



Anyone who sees that is deluded.  Talk to any economist, they'll tell you the warning lights for the next recession are already there.  



protectionist said:


> NO, Mr Change the Subject. The SUBJECT was the difficulty of doing the job. That is irregardless of unions, benefits, etc.



No, it's not.  It's the benefits of the job. 

Picking lettuce and cleaning toilers are not glamorous jobs. Nobody says as a five year old, "I want to pick lettuce when I grow up."  Kids want to be firemen and soldiers when they grow up.  And some of them do, but they make darned sure they are well compensated for it.  

We need illegals because NOBODY ELSE WANTS THOSE JOBS.  Not even the dumbest piece of white trash in the trailer park. Those jobs are beneath them.  

Heck, I don't see white kids in fast food places these days.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Not that I'm siding with Joe, but I think he's pretty close. But then the question is why are these children so poor? Who had children they couldn't afford in the first place?
> 
> Why do adults who had their entire lives to prepare for retirement now find themselves on some sort of social program(s) after they retired? Who's fault is that?????



The One Percent for not taking care of people, and screwing them at every opportunity. 

How many people on the cusp of retirement lost everything when the One Percenters crashed the market in 2008?  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Why do we keep allowing more immigrants in when over half of the ones that are here go on social programs? Even the illegal ones get on our social programs for their kids.



Actually, most  undocumented adults don't get on programs... they can't. 

But never mind.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> The One Percent for not taking care of people, and screwing them at every opportunity.
> 
> How many people on the cusp of retirement lost everything when the One Percenters crashed the market in 2008?



The one percent?  I thought it was Bush's fault according to you. 

Or maybe the reason is they weren't responsible enough to prepare for the future.  



JoeB131 said:


> Actually, most undocumented adults don't get on programs... they can't.
> 
> But never mind.



Still working on those comprehension problems I see.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, not the least bit relevant to the argument I was making. And you guys have been trying to prove Hillary took Bribes for 30 years. How is that going? I mean she must be a fucking criminal mastermind if she's been doing it for 30 years and has never been caught with millions spent investigating her.



Professional criminals are pretty good at that.  That's why money was exchanged for "speaking fees' instead of passed from one another in a dark alley.  Or do you really believe that anybody would pay Hil-Liar or Billy boy a half million dollars for a 30 minute speech?  



JoeB131 said:


> I think you are a bit deluded here... I don't advocate Marxism.
> 
> What I'd like to see. What America had in the 1950's and 1960's. The rich paid confiscatory taxes, working people belonged to unions. The wealth was fairly distributed. It worked really well until Republicans fucked it up, like they always do.



No, the Republicans had nothing to do with it.  Companies moved out of the country to get away from government and unions.  Consumers refused to purchase their over priced products any longer.  In other words, the people said enough is enough.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Votto said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they are pretty dumb... but most of them are just smart enough to see Trump is a crazy person and he needs keepers.
> 
> 
> 
> What they see is the economy booming, and another 4 Years of  a Trump presidency. Maybe YOU are the "dumb" one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it all wrong.  Trump is just enjoying the great Obama generated after 8 years in office, then when the next Dim gets in there they are going to have to somehow cope with the failing economy that Trump caused.
> 
> Then with the next Republican President, wash, rinse, repeat.
Click to expand...


Democrat rule 127:  When bad things happen under a Republican President, blame the President because he is in charge.  When bad things happen under a Democrat President, blame the last Republican President because he's not in charge.


----------



## danielpalos

One thousand per illegal is what we should be generating simply Because, only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The one percent? I thought it was Bush's fault according to you.
> 
> Or maybe the reason is they weren't responsible enough to prepare for the future.



Quite the contrary... they did everything they were supposed to do... and got screwed anyway. 

as I said, in 2008 I looked at my busted 401K and my underwater mortgage, and watched the Government bail out the One percenters.. 

Funny how that works. 

But make sure you keep hating the darkies, stupid.  that's what they want you to do.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Democrat rule 127: When bad things happen under a Republican President, blame the President because he is in charge. When bad things happen under a Democrat President, blame the last Republican President because he's not in charge.



Or we just pinpoint WHEN THE BAD THING HAPPENED. 

The bad thing HAPPENED in 2008. When Bush was in charge. 

That's when the bad thing happened.  

The same with 2001, 1990, 1982.  Republicans were in charge, and their policies caused recessions.


----------



## danielpalos

Where is the right wing on Applied Capitalism?  Not enough Socialism on a National basis for the Right Wing.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one percent? I thought it was Bush's fault according to you.
> 
> Or maybe the reason is they weren't responsible enough to prepare for the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the contrary... they did everything they were supposed to do... and got screwed anyway.
> 
> as I said, in 2008 I looked at my busted 401K and my underwater mortgage, and watched the Government bail out the One percenters..
> 
> Funny how that works.
> 
> But make sure you keep hating the darkies, stupid.  that's what they want you to do.
Click to expand...


You mean it wasn't a darkie who did some of that bailing out to keep the union vote?  

I'd be willing to bet most Americans that were of retirement age in 2008 never had any retirement plan.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrat rule 127: When bad things happen under a Republican President, blame the President because he is in charge. When bad things happen under a Democrat President, blame the last Republican President because he's not in charge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or we just pinpoint WHEN THE BAD THING HAPPENED.
> 
> The bad thing HAPPENED in 2008. When Bush was in charge.
> 
> That's when the bad thing happened.
> 
> The same with 2001, 1990, 1982.  Republicans were in charge, and their policies caused recessions.
Click to expand...


You forget, all the bad things that happened in DumBama's two terms were blamed on Bush.  You only gave credit to DumBama when the one or two good things happened while he was stinking up the white house.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for countries with extreme wealth classes and everyone else is in poverty and cut that from the quote, dipshit. That is the goal you're fighting for. You're OK with it happening now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what I'm pointing out to you is that when most people don't benefit from a system, they are okay with burning it down, which is what happened in all those countries I listed.  Whether or not the people who took over later were worse (almost all of them were, BTW) was not relevant to the point you missed.
> 
> 40% of the country has less than 1% of the wealth.  1% of the population has 43% of the wealth...  That's a recipe for disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Gods like Hillary and Obama become massively wealthy and you don't even care when they take bribes, steal and give nothing to charity. That while the rest of us end up in endlessly slow economic and wage growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, not the least bit relevant to the argument I was making. And you guys have been trying to prove Hillary took Bribes for 30 years. How is that going?  I mean she must be a fucking criminal mastermind if she's been doing it for 30 years and has never been caught with millions spent investigating her.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're fighting FOR a system of a massive wealth class and the rest of us in poverty. You're just not very smart, you buy the Marxist rhetoric their populations fell for absolutely
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are a bit deluded here... I don't advocate Marxism.
> 
> What I'd like to see. What America had in the 1950's and 1960's. The rich paid confiscatory taxes, working people belonged to unions. The wealth was fairly distributed.  It worked really well until Republicans fucked it up, like they always do.
Click to expand...




Marxism is the system of a massively wealthy class and everyone else in poverty you say you oppose, yet you support Democrat leaders having that system now.  You're fine with your politicians cheating, stealing, lying and committing crimes to become wealthy as long as they give you socialism and equal to all poverty.  That you support the system you say you oppose is not irrelevant to your point, it's the heart of your point.  How stupid are you?


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You mean it wasn't a darkie who did some of that bailing out to keep the union vote?
> 
> I'd be willing to bet most Americans that were of retirement age in 2008 never had any retirement plan.



Oh, I'm sure a lot of them did, but it involved cashing intheir 401K's which were worthless at that point.  

The Big Banks and Wall Street did fine.  Working folks got screwed... which is how Republican Governance worked. 


And of course, when Obama made sure the Autoworkers were taken care of before the vultures who wanted to pick the corpse of GM clean, this was the worst thing ever to you, being a battered housewife Republican who just loves to take his beating from the One Percent.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You forget, all the bad things that happened in DumBama's two terms were blamed on Bush. You only gave credit to DumBama when the one or two good things happened while he was stinking up the white house.



All the bad stuff that happened in Obama's term WERE Bush's fault.  Bush handed Obama the worst recession in 80 years and two completely pointless wars...  



kaz said:


> Marxism is the system of a massively wealthy class and everyone else in poverty you say you oppose,



Um.. no, it isn't... you fail basic political science.  



kaz said:


> You're fine with your politicians cheating, stealing, lying and committing crimes to become wealthy as long as they give you socialism and equal to all poverty.



I'm not fine with that... but again, you have spent, how much money investigating the Clintons for Crimes... and you found out that after spending 70 million dollars that he lied about a blow job and she used the wrong email.  OH MY GOD, MASTER CRIMINALS!!!

Here's the thing... I would LOVE to get the economy from the 1990's back (not this shit we have now and call prosperity, because it isn't), and I really don't care how many blow jobs he lies about or what kind off email server she uses.  



kaz said:


> That you support the system you say you oppose is not irrelevant to your point, it's the heart of your point. How stupid are you?



Smart enough to pay attention to the conversation and call things by their right names.  

Again- What I want is what my Dad had. A good paying union job where the union had his back, even if he got sick (which he did.) If you want to call that "Marxism", have at it... I'd call it common decency.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forget, all the bad things that happened in DumBama's two terms were blamed on Bush. You only gave credit to DumBama when the one or two good things happened while he was stinking up the white house.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the bad stuff that happened in Obama's term WERE Bush's fault.  Bush handed Obama the worst recession in 80 years and two completely pointless wars...
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marxism is the system of a massively wealthy class and everyone else in poverty you say you oppose,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um.. no, it isn't... you fail basic political science.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're fine with your politicians cheating, stealing, lying and committing crimes to become wealthy as long as they give you socialism and equal to all poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not fine with that... but again, you have spent, how much money investigating the Clintons for Crimes... and you found out that after spending 70 million dollars that he lied about a blow job and she used the wrong email.  OH MY GOD, MASTER CRIMINALS!!!
> 
> Here's the thing... I would LOVE to get the economy from the 1990's back (not this shit we have now and call prosperity, because it isn't), and I really don't care how many blow jobs he lies about or what kind off email server she uses.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you support the system you say you oppose is not irrelevant to your point, it's the heart of your point. How stupid are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Smart enough to pay attention to the conversation and call things by their right names.
> 
> Again- What I want is what my Dad had. A good paying union job where the union had his back, even if he got sick (which he did.) If you want to call that "Marxism", have at it... I'd call it common decency.
Click to expand...


You need to stop believing the Marxism marketing materials and look at the reality.  There's a long history of Marxist history, Joe.  That you think after everyone else who tried it failed yet it will succeed here is the empty headed socialist that you are


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> You need to stop believing the Marxism marketing materials and look at the reality. There's a long history of Marxist history, Joe. That you think after everyone else who tried it failed yet it will succeed here is the empty headed socialist that you are



Guy, you think that Social Security is "Marxist", but it works just fine.  

What we have is a long history of awful people doing awful things under all sorts of systems, and spectacular economic failures.

But since no one here was arguing for Marxism, what is your point?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> All the bad stuff that happened in Obama's term WERE Bush's fault.



Thank you for proving my point.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to stop believing the Marxism marketing materials and look at the reality. There's a long history of Marxist history, Joe. That you think after everyone else who tried it failed yet it will succeed here is the empty headed socialist that you are
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you think that Social Security is "Marxist", but it works just fine.
> 
> What we have is a long history of awful people doing awful things under all sorts of systems, and spectacular economic failures.
> 
> But since no one here was arguing for Marxism, what is your point?
Click to expand...


Marxists never admit what you are.  But as I've pointed out, you not only support socialism, but you support one party rule, including allowing your Gods who lead your party to become the wealthy and rich ruling class you say you oppose by lying, cheating and stealing the money while you just don't give a shit because they promise the rest of us will all have nothing, which makes us equal!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean it wasn't a darkie who did some of that bailing out to keep the union vote?
> 
> I'd be willing to bet most Americans that were of retirement age in 2008 never had any retirement plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sure a lot of them did, but it involved cashing intheir 401K's which were worthless at that point.
> 
> The Big Banks and Wall Street did fine.  Working folks got screwed... which is how Republican Governance worked.
> 
> 
> And of course, when Obama made sure the Autoworkers were taken care of before the vultures who wanted to pick the corpse of GM clean, this was the worst thing ever to you, being a battered housewife Republican who just loves to take his beating from the One Percent.
Click to expand...


You have no idea WTF you're talking about.  If government didn't get involved, GM would have went to bankruptcy court and settled matters that way.   They've done it before.  So don't act like government came to the rescue.  The only reason we got involved is because of all those union workers to keep votes coming in.


----------



## danielpalos

Nothing but repeal or simple rejection really really is worthless in the non-porn sector, right wingers.

Why allege y'all are for Capitalism, when you prefer socialism on a national basis?

We should be making one thousand dollars times the number of foreign nationals who want to tour our political-economy.

Only lousy capitalists lose money on public policies.

don't spam us with your usual whinery, right wingers; we want better solutions at lower cost from the right wing.


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean it wasn't a darkie who did some of that bailing out to keep the union vote?
> 
> I'd be willing to bet most Americans that were of retirement age in 2008 never had any retirement plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sure a lot of them did, but it involved cashing intheir 401K's which were worthless at that point.
> 
> The Big Banks and Wall Street did fine.  Working folks got screwed... which is how Republican Governance worked.
> 
> 
> And of course, when Obama made sure the Autoworkers were taken care of before the vultures who wanted to pick the corpse of GM clean, this was the worst thing ever to you, being a battered housewife Republican who just loves to take his beating from the One Percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea WTF you're talking about.  If government didn't get involved, GM would have went to bankruptcy court and settled matters that way.   They've done it before.  So don't act like government came to the rescue.  The only reason we got involved is because of all those union workers to keep votes coming in.
Click to expand...


Yep, that's exactly why they did it.  GM would have been able to break union contracts in bankruptcy court.  Government sure the fuck didn't do it to help GM, they screwed GM, they're still stuck with those bad contracts


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean it wasn't a darkie who did some of that bailing out to keep the union vote?
> 
> I'd be willing to bet most Americans that were of retirement age in 2008 never had any retirement plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sure a lot of them did, but it involved cashing intheir 401K's which were worthless at that point.
> 
> The Big Banks and Wall Street did fine.  Working folks got screwed... which is how Republican Governance worked.
> 
> 
> And of course, when Obama made sure the Autoworkers were taken care of before the vultures who wanted to pick the corpse of GM clean, this was the worst thing ever to you, being a battered housewife Republican who just loves to take his beating from the One Percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea WTF you're talking about.  If government didn't get involved, GM would have went to bankruptcy court and settled matters that way.   They've done it before.  So don't act like government came to the rescue.  The only reason we got involved is because of all those union workers to keep votes coming in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, that's exactly why they did it.  GM would have been able to break union contracts in bankruptcy court.  Government sure the fuck didn't do it to help GM, they screwed GM, they're still stuck with those bad contracts
Click to expand...


Sure, because a judge gets to make the decision on what the company has to do in order to rectify the problem.  And you are correct, it probably would have involved the union in one way or another.


----------

